Yes, 72% unfunded looks bad, but I suspect many of them have
some funding from other sources and are looking to the MRC for more
funds, or are even looking for a second MRC grant. The 28% may not
reapply again for 3-5 years, so it may be the SAME 72% which gets,
rejected, "competition" after "competition" (me included). Better
figures for evaluative purposes would be the percentage of total MRC
eligible researchers who are actually unfunded (a) from any source, and
(b) from the MRC.
As for Alex's wondering why the 72% appear not to be
incommoded by the MRC's adverse decision, I suspect that many of them
(like most members of the MRC itself) have never given deep thought to
the rationale of the process by which funds are assigned. One
commentator would compare their knowledge in this area to a bird's
knowledge of aerodynamics.
Regards, Donald Forsdyke