projects that you’ve already almost completed (hiding the fact that they’re almost completed, so that you can use the funding for completely new projects), or
new projects that you haven’t really started yet (for which you might just have some preliminary data)?
Do you think 1) is unethical? Do you think 1) is necessary? Do you think 1) has the highest chances of funding? Please comment :)
Attempting to write a grant was a major contributing factor in convincing me that I wasn't really cut out to be an academic. However I don't think using #ChatGPT would have saved me from eventually leaving academia. The narcissistic research director I was working for would have used the existence of #generativeAI as an excuse to pile even more pressure on his postdoc staff https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03238-5 #GrantWriting#science
ChatGPT use shows that the grant-application system is broken
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03238-5
>The fact that artificial intelligence can do much of the work makes a mockery of the process. It’s time to make it easier for scientists to ask for research funding.
It's always frustrating when reviewers miss an important thing, especially if it's about an investigator (i.e., ME) that seems obvious.
One time I had a comment that the research team should have someone with experience doing language (which I think I've been doing since 2000).
I recently had a comment that the PI (me) did not have experience with fNIRS (I've been doing optical brain imaging since 2012).
BUT, as frustrating as these are, it's also a good reminder that quite often the things we think are obvious to reviewers based on our biosketch or whatever are often not. And it's on us to try to fix that in our grant application, because reviewers will always be over-worked and over-tired etc.
(Also sometimes a reviewer is just an idiot but that's hard to defend against so I try to assume the best and figure out what I can do on my end.)