In the latest issue of Nature Genetics, the Editorial is full of praise for the European funding of PostDocs and young faculty.


In particular, it lauds the ERC starting grant:


To clarify, let me just mention 3 numbers: 9167 applications, 201 funded, makes a funding rate of 2.2% (source1, source2).
According to the NG editors, a 2.2% funding rate is "wonderful" and "a helping hand"? I'd call it "abysmal" and "a big middle finger" to 97.8% of all PostDocs in Europe. But the editors go on:


Maybe such praise is to be expected coming from a journal group that makes a living by creating an air of exclusivity akin to the shady night-club creating lines by preventing people from entering too quickly. The message of the editorial is clear: you have to be in the top 2.2% or you're out! This is obviously a huge incentive for the other 97.8% of also rans to produce data that will catapult them into the top 2.2%. And how do you get there? By flocking to "hip" research areas, dropping the boring but necessary controls and if all fails, fabricate data. Please provide feedback on how to improve this formidable process!

The only sane conclusion one can draw from a 2.2% funding rate is that young scientists in Europe are underfunded by about a factor of 40 - and that's not a good thing. Alternatively, Europe produces too many PostDocs by a factor of about 40 - which is not a good thing either.
So what is there to praise?