Striking a country-specific tone in your response to grant criticism?

Sep 26 2011 Published by under Grant Review, Uncategorized

Cath raised an interesting point:

There have been some unbloggably hilarious emails pinging around between the various PIs, including much discussion about country- and funding agency-specific conventions regarding the tone of such responses (a PI who trained overseas feels that Canadians are far too polite and passive in the face of bad reviews, and may well be correct).

This was partially in response to my post and, presumably, my advice not to be combative in your response to criticism of your NIH grant.

I am now imagining that the British funding agencies are more tolerant of a Prime Minister's questions type of response to criticism.

"Would the study section agree, Madam SRO, that the previous review was riddled with errors of FACT? and furthermore that the assigned reviewers were incompetent by reason of poor preparation? and that the bias inherent in the cozy relationship of Reviewer #3 with my primary scientific competitor renders the prior set of critiques invalid?"

[hear, hear...mutter, mutter, stomp, stomp booo!]

4 responses so far

  • WhizBANG! says:

    That would make grant reviews more fun.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Totes more fun.

  • arrzey says:

    Oh, I've been at some that weren't far off of that.

    "how could you be so stupid as to consider funding a [training] grant with no proteomics, let alone molecular biology, in it?"

  • TeaHag says:

    I am of Hibernian extraction (recent) and I can assure you that I would NEVER contemplate couching my rebuttals in our standard format........ because we have the potential to make Physioprof's comments seem like the gentle cooings of a Sunday-school teacher.

Leave a Reply


+ 4 = six