The last entry in my blog was about "give before you get." This applies to my own business, which is medical science.
A majority of science projects are supported by grant money. A scientist needs to write a grant application and be chosen as a winner to get the money and to continue his research . At least in many research universities, this is the way it works.
The reviewing and judging of the application is also done by scientists with similar specialties. It's called a peer review system. Then, let's say I am reviewing the grants and choosing the winner. Who would get the grant?
In many cases, we tend to choose established high achievers. "I am unproven but I have a good idea, so give me the money" people cannot win over "I have done this and that, and with my background I can do this proposed project, too" people, unless the grant is specialized for the former.
When I watch "Shark Tank", a TV show about small business owners trying to obtain an investment from established business owners/investors, I am amused by the fact that the same process is going on in the show.
We tend to be cautious because the money is usually a public taxpayer's money, and we do not want to send it to someone unproven. Someone who may or may not get the job done. An established format for Science is "Show and Tell", not "Tell and Show", after all. An established brand name has an advantage of perceived dependability.
This psychology and tendency in the selection process will lead to a few winners and many losers. "The winner takes it all" is a likely outcome.
This trend of course comes with a setback. Science projects are somewhat like species in nature. Diversity and variety will ascertain the overall ability to adapt to and survive in different environments. And, generally we cannot predict what's coming in the future. A line of research that establishes a good niche has a better chance for survival, but it depends on the environment.
There is the grantsmanship factor, too. How the grant is written is important. Scientists have specialties. I am knowledgeable in my core specialty, but frankly not as much in some other research fields. Since the grant review committee is made up of scientists with similar specialties but different disciplines, writing a grant with somewhat plainer language is important for communicating better. It will be beneficial if they can write a grant in a way that makes it easier for readers/reviewers to evaluate and recommend.
We can think about a lot of things. But like many other business, the eventual judgement maker for your action/application is the market. What we propose either pleases the market or not. And we need to take the market's judgement seriously and act accordingly.
