We tried to secure some projects for new students and got the funniest reviews ever:

Topic one: Won't be granted because the principal investigator has no Nature paper (although we have Nature communciations from earlier this year and Nature Biotech from last year - but its not Nature alone!)

Topic two: We suggested to work on a novel protein which seems to be essential in RNA translation. We even have some good preliminary data... The project was not granted because the reviewer thinks that the protein can't be essential for humans if nobody else is working on this topic...

Topic three: There the comments were at least helpful and are really bringing the project as a whole forward - but doesn't help - got rejected.

Topic four: Mouse study - was not granted because "... nothing will be learned from a mouse model". Although, our paper for Cell was declined because the mouse model is missing.

So we have to apply for the next round, will loose approximately 3/4 of a year and have the risk that we get other reviewers in the next round which will find something else to pick on...

I am feeling as if I should hit a wall with my head.. several times ;-)

RinaL

I feel really sorry for you. Sounds a bit lunatic that not even high impact journals like nature comm or biotech guarantee some funding. Maybe the proposal itself can be improved an you just didn't present it in the optimal way? However, this could also be a result of the tons of proposals they receive for grants. There is probably always someone slightly superior in terms of publications. Topic 2 sounds like a great way to prevent any kind of discovery :D

It sounds absolutely farcical, and I am about to make my own attempt at getting some funding. Ultimately, when there is so little funding, people will reject applications on pretty flimsy grounds. Perfectly good projects will fail to include something minor and so get turned down. The only way round it is for there to be more research funding provided, and we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon!

That kind of feedback is not useful and just sounds like something to say because they have to think of something. Far better to say, 'funding is limited, we had to pick someone, and we picked them over you. but try again next year'.

Yeah, the problem is really linked to not enough money to fund all interesting projects. Here, when we submit a project and don't get full points from both reviewers, we won't get funded. Makes the situation a little bit tricky - some reviewers don't give full points at all because of cultural differences - if you get one of these you are officially f..ed up.

@TreeofLife: We actually have this: We have the "funded projects", then the" projects that are excellent but too few money" , then we have "very good but too few money" and then there is average (major revisions) and declined. Its really sad to see the current state of research - a lab partner of mine is trying to achieve his Habilitation - but without his own funded project he can't get it. And a chance for a funded project is around 5-10 % even when the funding body tells us its actually at 30 % (but over all projects - we in life sciences are competing with medicine, social science and everything else over the same amount of money)

Yes, this seems to make sense. Of course, it means that the young researchers with original ideas find it incredibly difficult! Status quo maintenance, reflects the level of those making grant decisions. System needs major revision.
I was interviewed for a post on a research project which seemed to me to have some obvious flaws, which I pointed out. I didn't get the post, but I heard there were lots of problems with it. But then the project was being run by a major unit in London, so got funding!