I am planning on applying to an NSF (US) grant, but found that a similar idea to what I had in mind is already funded by a foreign institution.
I am curious what the Research-Gate community would suggest: Do I ignore / not mention the other grant and submit my proposal anyway, mention it as a way to bring more credibility to the problem, or just give up and try to think of something more original?
Since it's not a secret, here is the grant I found: http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/J004871/1
I was planning on building a long-term set of research projects around this and similar ideas as part of an NSF CAREER award (a grant to facilitate the long-term development of a scientists career by supporting a long-term and potentially career defining project).
My question is in essence a specific case of the question: How do I justify my research proposal versus other more established, better funded and equipped laboratories?
Before worrying about how to deal with this, why not contact the PI of the funded grant to find out why the results have not been published? The project finished in 2014 so if all went well its results should be available by now. Perhaps the results were published somewhere that you overlooked? The alternative is that the project crashed and burned; maybe the PI can tell you what technical problems were encountered. You can then list these as pitfalls in your own proposal, and describe how you can circumvent them.
The worst that can happen is you will e-mail the PI and won't get a response. Perhaps you may find out there is a hidden problem with your proposed studies, saving you from wasting the time to submit your proposal. The best outcome would be that you recruit a consultant for your proposal who can provide expertise.
1. This is a important problem: How to get drinking water without expending costly energy. It is particularly important in providing water in remote areas and in long space flights.
2. How can (you yourself?) add value where profs and PhDs have worked? What will you bring to the party that they have not thought of?
Minas, K., Karunakaran, E., Bond, T., Gandy, C., Honsbein, A., Madsen, M., ... & Lawton, L. (2015). Biodesalination: an emerging technology for targeted removal of Na+ and Cl− from seawater by cyanobacteria. Desalination and Water Treatment, 55(10), 2647-2668.
3. There are many other groups tackling this. Perhaps you have or will find a way of conquering the problem. Bio-desalination appears to have some promise. The methods in the proposal sound innovative and reasonable, and should result in some patents.
4. While you are competing with other groups (see link), you will emphasize the aspects of your approach that are unique. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Bio-desalination
5. You do have to take into account the research of other groups and countries. Although they may have more resources, you have the flexibility and tightness of a small research group.
6. The first thing the funding body will do is check the link I gave you above.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing