[nick486]

I had the same view until I went to do a small internship in a research lab. There, I realized that my research group's boss was spending most of his time submitting grant requests, that in my view distilled to 'Give use money and we will find X'. Which was absolutely antithetical to what I thought research was like(wait, aren't we supposed to not know what we will find ?). Then came the publishing part where you get reviews saying your paper isn't good enough because it didn't cite ${completely not relevant to the topic} paper (which sort of narrows down who the "anonymous reviewer" was). Then there's the quasi-feudal approach of putting the lab head in the authors. I mean, come on, I'm not sure the guy even knows the paper exists...

It just wasn't my thing.

[Fomite]

Two notes:

- Not all labs run this way. Mine doesn't.

- Very few successful grants, in my experience, are "Give money and we'll find X". Rather, they tend to be "We're reasonably sure X is over here for $reasons, but we'd need money to actually confirm that."

[nick486]

I'm open to the idea that i somehow caught an outlier. then again, its a lab integrated to the general eu funding schemes, so it can't be that much of an outlier.

your summary of a grant request doesn't really sound all that different from mine tbh, just more charitable. Its just that i naively came in with the expectation that it would be something like "we need X$ to explore domain $Y" "sure. here you go", then 2 years later "we found x y and z, see $papers, now we'd like $x2 to explore $y2". and back to square 1/2.

a full broadcast over all available and unavailable channels of "please, master grant officer, just a few coins to explore $X a bit further, we'll very certainly find $Y", i was not ready for.

Im overdoing the tone a bit to highlight that it had to be tuned to the grant officer, way more than it had to be tuned to reality. to promise to find whatever was popular in the field at the time. regardless of the practical facts of the field. because the people evaluating the proposal didnt know shit about the field.

so when you were in the trench every day, it just sounded like absolute parody of what we were actually doing, explained to a kindergartener.

i realize this comes off as a knock on my boss way more than I'd like. i absolutely don't mean to. he did what had to be done, so that his team can keep working, within the system he had to work with to move our field forward. and the money we got was well spent, no doubt here.

but my view was : if I work my ass off for 10 years, I can be this guy. Do I want this? and the answer was a resounding, definitive "hell no".

all the paper publishing shenanigans were just extra irritants that sealed my decision.

[Fomite]

I have a "We need X to explore domain Y" grant, and it's lovely. It's also pretty rare, but at the moment, most of my funding is from those types of mechanisms. That is, admittedly, somewhat unusual.

I will say that "the people evaluating the proposal didnt know shit about the field." isn't true in the U.S. For grants from the NIH, NSF, or CDC, they're almost all peer-reviewed. While some hot topics get a bit of needless shine to them, I've also seen grants ripped apart for "They just tacked LLMs onto this for no reason", etc.

I do definitely get not wanting that. There are people I know and respect immensely as scientists who went "I don't want to be a PI" and that's legit.

I will say, and this is not about your post, that Hacker News both often laments the paucity of staff scientist positions, and also likes to attack the PI who does nothing but write grants, but you can't actually have it both ways. Almost all of my grant writing is driven by keeping my people employed.

[77pt77]

> Then there's the quasi-feudal approach of putting the lab head in the authors

Changes from field to field but yes, very common.

And many times, like you wrote, they have no idea about what was even done.

Then you have the gigantic collaborations, where everyone gets a citation and it counts as much as a paper with one or two authors.

And of course, everyone will cite it because there's no real alternative.