Perspective: Is NIH Funding the "Best Science by the Best Scientists"? A Critique of the NIH R01 Research Grant Review Policies

Division of Oncology/Dental School and Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA.
Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges (Impact Factor: 3.47). 05/2010; 85(5):775-9. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d74256
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clinical and experimental biomedical research provides the foundation for advances in medicine, health, and the welfare of the public. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the major agency providing funding for biomedical research. The stated objectives of the NIH for funding research grants (R01s) are to "fund the best science, by the best scientists" and "to see that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews-free from inappropriate influences-so NIH can fund the most promising research." The NIH recently reviewed and identified issues involved with the study section peer review process that compromise the achievement of these laudable and important objectives. Consequently, the NIH has and continues to issue new guidelines and requirements relating to the R01 grant review process. The author argues that some of these NIH directives conflict with and counteract the achievement of the NIH's stated objectives. The author further contends that the directives introduce discrimination into the review process. Such conditions impede the funding of the best science by the best scientists, while funding lesser-quality research. The NIH should eliminate all directives that prevent R01 grants from being awarded solely to the highest-quality research. This is in the best interest of the biomedical community and the health and welfare of the public at large.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic cutaneous wounds are a major burden on patients, healthcare providers, and the US healthcare system. This study, carried out in part by the Wound Healing Society's Government Regulatory Committee, aimed to evaluate the current state of National Institutes of Health funding of cutaneous wound healing-related research projects. National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures & Results system was used to identify wound healing projects funded by the National Institutes of Health in the 2012 fiscal year. Research projects focusing on cutaneous wound prevention/education, mechanisms, complications, treatment, or imaging/monitoring were included in the analysis. Ninety-one projects were identified, totaling a collective funding of $29,798,991 and median funding of $308,941. Thirteen institutes/centers from the National Institutes of Health were responsible for awarding funds; three of which (National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases) accounted for 60.4% of the grant funding. The predominant funding mechanisms included R01 (48.3%), R43 (14.3%), and R21 (9.9%). New applications and pre-existing applications accounted for 39.6 and 55.0% of the awarded grants, respectively. Grants awarded to investigators affiliated with universities accounted for 68.1% of grants and 25.3% were to investigators in the private sector. This analysis of current National Institutes of Health funding may facilitate more transparency of National Institutes of Health-allocated research funds and serve as an impetus to procure additional support for the field of wound healing.
    Wound Repair and Regeneration 10/2013; 21(6). DOI:10.1111/wrr.12099 · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Graduate medical education (GME) has fallen short in training physicians to meet changes in the US population and health care delivery systems. The shortfall in training has happened despite a consensus on the need for accelerated change. This article discusses the varied causes of GME inertia and proposes a new funding mechanism coupled to a competitive peer-review process. The result would be to reward GME programs that are aligned with publicly set priorities for specialty numbers and training content. New teaching organizations and residency programs would compete on an equal footing with existing ones. Over a decade, all current programs would undergo peer review, with low review scores leading to partial, but meaningful, decreases in funding. This process would incentivize incremental and continual change in GME and would provide a mechanism for funding innovative training through special requests for proposals.
    Health Affairs 11/2013; 32(11):1887-92. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0451 · 4.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The literature suggests that research funding decisions may be influenced by criteria such as gender or institution of the principal investigator (PI). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between characteristics of funding applications and success when considered by a research funding board.
    Health Research Policy and Systems 09/2014; 12(1):54. DOI:10.1186/1478-4505-12-54 · 1.86 Impact Factor