A paper by an academic published in the journal Nature, made the point that the research grant application process takes up too much time, and can be done by ChatGPT. In fact, this program writes better grant applications than most academics, which is saying something! But if that is so, then why use the expensive academics at all? Of course, first hand empirical research needs to be done, and technical mathematical work, but for most of the subjects at the degenerate modern university, one could replace woke academic scribblers with a woke computer generated output, which would be the same bs. But, it would save tax payers on academic salaries!

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03238-5?fbclid=IwAR2P_fxnccFU7IzI7mEpsv_KXzS6qKKmABPBcM-zBIpHZ35xXRjT1vhdVWo

“ChatGPT use shows that the grant-application system is broken

The fact that artificial intelligence can do much of the work makes a mockery of the process. It’s time to make it easier for scientists to ask for research funding.

• Juan Manuel Parrilla
• I’ve always hated writing grants.
• Like most scientists, I love having scientific ideas, and I love drawing diagrams and writing up my ideas. But grant applications require an enormous amount of work beyond conveying an idea for a research project. This takes a lot of time and effort.
• For example, grant applications usually require you to make the standard case for support, in which you detail your proposed research. But as many researchers know, you might also need to submit a lay summary; a long abstract; your CV; impact statements; public-engagement plans; an explanation of how other staff members will be involved; a project-management plan; letters of support from colleagues; a case for how you will handle data; and the predicted timescale of the project. And don’t forget the risk analysis! Here’s the kicker: all this for a 90–95% chance of getting rejected.
• Despite having to do all of this preparation, the brutal truth is that once you start on the research, there is a good chance things won’t proceed as expected. It’s possible that few of the milestones will be met, and some of the projected outcomes might not be achieved. If experiments go wrong, you might not have time to do all of the public-engagement activities you added to the grant application. Nevertheless, when the project is finished, you might well have managed to produce great science, although this could easily differ from that outlined in your original proposal. And that’s OK.
• Panel members tasked with deciding who gets a grant also find the process cumbersome. I’ve been on panels myself, and sometimes there just isn’t time to read everything. As a panel member, you are usually asked to focus on three main questions. Does this proposal fit the call brief? Is the proposed science good and novel? And are the candidates experts in the right field? The abstract and a small part of the research proposal answer the first two questions, and, when it comes to the third, I prefer to use Google to learn more about the candidates.

·       A flawed system

• So why the need for applicants to write all those documents? In theory, the system has been designed to be thorough, robust and unbiased; it’s supposed to mean that funding bodies are presented with a serious case. In other words, chancers need not apply. Making the process challenging and cumbersome ensures that only those who are really interested will apply. But creating these lengthy, seemingly useless documents is taking up too much of scientists’ time.”