> You could make the argument (and I'm guessing it was?) that for scientific grants specifically, if the goal isn't money in the first place, and the lack of gr

> You could make the argument (and I'm guessing it was?) that for scientific grants specifically, if the goal isn't money in the first place, and the lack of grant makes a scientific career impossible to fix later even with any amount of money (say grants 10x as large), then maybe you meet "irreparable harm"? I think I'd agree with that, yes. I'd even go as far as to argue that you've caused irreparable harm to the public insofar as the grants specifically would have funded open-access publications.