Which of the following is a significant consequence of bias in grant proposal reviews?

Bias in grant proposal reviews can significantly compromise the fairness in the allocation of grant funding. When reviewers let personal preferences, affiliations, or preconceived notions influence their evaluation, it can result in certain proposals being favored over equally or more deserving ones. This inequity undermines the integrity of the funding process and can lead to a situation where valuable research ideas, particularly those from underrepresented groups or innovative areas that do not align with mainstream interests, do not receive necessary support.

In contrast, the other options do not capture the impact of bias accurately. Increased transparency in the funding process typically results from efforts to standardize reviews and reduce bias, rather than stemming from biased reviews. Enhanced collaboration among reviewers is ideal but often is not fostered by bias; instead, bias can lead to isolated decision-making based on subjective evaluations. Lastly, higher quality research outcomes are more likely to emerge from fair and unbiased funding decisions, which promote a diverse array of research proposals instead of favoritism that can stifle innovation. Thus, the best consequence of bias in grant proposal reviews is indeed the reduced fairness in funding allocation.