This will seem like a grouse, and it is, in a way.
Today I got a letter about a grant that I did not
receive. I applied for it over 6 months
ago, and indeed had long ago decided that our chances for success were trivial
at best. I was already back on the road
looking for other funds. It was kind of
a side-issue decision on my part to even bother applying, since expectations
were low. But for those interested in
studies in medicine related Quality, the opportunities for funding are few and
far between. If you are dependent upon
grant funding for Quality studies you should probably think about changing your
field of interest. Fortunately I have access
to other resources.
This fund had enough money for 8 mini-grants, each a small
amount of money, barely enough to support a graduate student for a year. It was for a grant I planned to use to cover
some of the expenses for a new graduate student starting in September. Unfortunately we were not successful, but
then nor were 90 percent of the other applicants. There were over 80 submissions with enough
funding for 8 successful applicants.
That is not a grant submission, it is more like buying a lottery ticket.
In a field where 90 percent plus lose, one can not
particularly expect to have any real expectation of success, unless there is an
inside track. Frankly, and this is not
intended as a total slur, I doubt that with those kinds of odds, the reality of
bias and loss of objectivity among the judges comes into play; perhaps not overtly, but bias nonetheless.
The process in many ways is similar to my time on the
medical student admissions committee. Looking
at grant applications is like looking at admissions applications. Basically the best you can do is split the
group into 3 subgroups, the definite yeses, the maybes, and the definite
nos. Then the politics would begin with
each committee person and subgroup pushing to promote their individual and
collective favorites. By the time the smoked
had cleared the winners were defined along with the waiting list group and the
rejections. People would move from subgroup
to subgroup until the final decisions were made. Not uncommonly some of the “best by the
numbers-definite yeses” would end up on the waiting list, and sometime would
get displaced all the way to the “maybe next year” list.
I’m not saying that is what happened here, but it would be
hard to work through a large pile of applications any other way.
To make it clear, I am not particularly upset here; every
competition has its winners and losers, and the amount of money at stake here
was not very big. And I will have enough
to cover the expenses. even without the grant.
My thoughts go to a different set of issues. Medical funding has for the longest period of
time fallen along traditional tracks of basic research usually within certain
subsets based on traditional subjects including sub-specialties. There is little room within this funding
model to address new advances in innovation in Quality. While there are smaller pools of privately
endowed moneys, this too goes primarily to heart disease or cancer or childhood
diseases in recognition of donors’ family members. For Quality research to grow, the pool of
research funding dollars dedicated to Innovation and Quality will have to grow,
beyond what exists today.
On the positive side, this current pool of money was chased
by a veritable herd of interested folks wanting to be involved in Quality
Management focused research. It is
encouraging to know that our little group is getting larger and more
active.
With
increasing numbers comes influence and perhaps the ability to develop more
financial support. And if not support,
then perhaps the opportunity for a
little inside support.
So congratulations to the winners. Maybe it will be my turn next.
Proper and adequate medical documentation is essential for quality of medical care and health care services throughout the industry, from receiving proper and correct treatment to receiving payment benefits from your health insurance provider. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
hcg1234