tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4614630254118207343.post7683874623887636758..comments2024-03-11T16:06:44.924+00:00Comments on This site has been archived: Grands Projets: J'accusePhil Wardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14234350977737238744noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4614630254118207343.post-56785476458430588732013-07-23T10:06:47.136+01:002013-07-23T10:06:47.136+01:00Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that there needs...Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that there needs to be a range of schemes. The point of my post is that provision at the moment is dangerously unbalanced in favour of large grants, and that research has been undertaken that undermines the rationale behind this. As to bureaucracy: yes, I agree, less is definitely more. I think funders can be neurotic about the need to monitor and check Phil Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234350977737238744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4614630254118207343.post-71145463108022767522013-07-22T20:19:26.366+01:002013-07-22T20:19:26.366+01:00With respect, I fundermentally disagree. There is ...With respect, I fundermentally disagree. There is a need for both small and large. There are many projects that just can't get done in a single lab or by one or two scientific disciplines. One of the stunning problems of larger projects that damages their effectiveness is the cumulative bureaucracy - not of running the science, but of meeting the needs of the funding agency. I swear that on DWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189921023227117054noreply@blogger.com