Grant writing/ghost writing... a new trend?

Fascinating discussion going on over at Drugmonkey's blog in re the use of professional grant writers at academic institutions. These folk are not uncommon in industry and at philanthropy-based non-profits from what I know, and are sometimes employed on an advisory basis within academic departments. However, one commenter employed as a grant writer at an academic institution appears to have more than a mere editing/advisory role, generating most of the proposal, and goings as far as to assist in troubleshoot experimental design: "I had a grant earlier this year with an Aim 3 done in a model that did not express the enzyme they were studying. Should the PI's have picked that up? Yes, but they didn't." As I wrote in the comments section: it's a tricky thing, because on the surface it seems dodgy and unfair, and yet it's hard to really ascertain where the ethical wrong is occurring. Whether right or wrong, though, a trend in this direction would skew bias in favor of large institutions with the capital to throw at blanket-bombing study sections with grants from their faculty. This is good for the institutions, but not necessarily good for science if, as Evelyn seems to suggest, a relatively weak PI could be kept afloat by the marketing savvy of a hired pen (to the certain detriment of another PI; it's a zero-sum game after all). Another grant writer commenting over there said the following, which really does start to raise alarm bells in re appropriate ethical con...
Source: Across the Bilayer - Category: Medical Scientists Source Type: blogs