title: Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Grant review panels of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.
  
  
  METHODS
  Panel members' scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009.
  
  
  METHODS
  The proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes, and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from differences in panel members' scores, and the cost effectiveness of different size assessment panels.
  
  
  RESULTS
  59% of 620 funded grants were sometimes not funded when random variability was taken into account. Only 9% (n = 255) of grant proposals were always funded, 61% (n = 1662) never funded, and 29% (n=788) sometimes funded. The extra cost per grant effectively funded from the most effective system was $A18,541 (£11,848; €13,482; $19,343).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Allocating funding for scientific research in health and medicine is costly and somewhat random. There are many useful research questions to be addressed that could improve current processes.
authors.affiliation: School of Public Health and Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Qld 4059, Australia. n.graves@qut.edu.au
authors.forename: Nicholas
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Graves
authors.forename: Adrian G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Barnett
authors.forename: Philip
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Clarke
mesh_terms: D001315:Australia; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D005381:Financing, Organized / Q000191:economics*; D012109:Research Support as Topic; D012189:Retrospective Studies