The grant announcement is for a research field somewhat outside of my core expertise, so I needed second opinion from an expert in the field. I enjoyed the discussion, and the time (about 70 minutes) was well worth it.
We scientists have particular ways of understanding and doing science. Depending on the research fields, the way of doing science and the "norm" can vary. What we value and be particular about may not be well-recognized by researchers from other fields, and vice versa. That is why we feel compelled to ask second opinion from someone who has been in the field when we attempt to expand our research.
Of course lacking "common sense" can lead to a big discovery. Novelties are often brought by the young, by the outsiders, and by the "fools" who are not bound by traditions, which may or may not be the best approach. But in academia, schooling is important and is emphasized. The main reason for the emphasis is to break down the wall of ignorance and be able to get on the shoulders of giants. We should know what is known and what is not known. We cannot wait for average guys to rediscover double helix structure of DNA. Cut the process short with education. So we can start from where previous people ended. That way we have much better chance to expand the boundary of human knowledge.
Above may be a little bit romantic view of science. There are business aspects in science, too.
To remind myself,... much of grant writing is for convincing the grant review group that (i) we are well qualified group, knowledgeable and capable of what we are proposing to do, that (ii) what we are proposing is scientifically sound and is significant and novel, that (iii) we will produce useful results from the standpoint of the granting agency, and that (iv) their investment (funding) will yield return. The (tax) money is well spent and the results will justify the research expense. This is also a very real aspect of contemporary medical science.
Sometimes I wonder what happens if we can just perform all the experiments with limitless resources. Much of analytical components can be outsourced nowadays. Outsource expensive but informative -omics or mass-sequencing without prohibited by cost, and some part of science would advance much faster than how it is now. This may be a very effective way to decentralize science.
I digress. I summarized his comments to 8-9 actionable points. Most of them can be addressed in the writing level, but one or two may require some time to address. That would affect current schedule. Tomorrow I'll be discussing with the director of our research center about how we proceed.
If you are not interested in this kind of work, that is fine. But I find it interesting and actually am having so much fun out of this. It is good to work on something you enjoy, even if it does not appeal to everybody. Reversely, there are many works I am not interested, and the fact that I do not have to do something I am not interested is a blessing for me.
