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: 2.93). 05/2010; 85(5):775-9. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d74256
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: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system has been viewed as the best way to guarantee the scientific independence of biomedical research in the United States, and it has been emulated internationally. The system, however, is subject to a variety of stresses, and these have always been exacerbated at times of flat NIH funding, as in the past five years. To address several of these stresses, NIH first conducted a "diagnostic self-study" of the peer review system and then implemented a number of changes. Costello, in a Perspective in this issue of Academic Medicine, argues that two of these changes, special consideration for new investigators and emphasis of the criterion of "innovation," undermine the stated goal of funding the "best science by the best scientists." In this commentary on Costello's Perspective article, the author examines the issue of NIH funding of new investigators from a historical perspective, in the context of overall NIH priority setting in resource allocation. The related issue of innovation as a criterion in NIH peer review is also addressed, and the commentary concludes with an affirmation of the need to measure outcomes in assessing the impact of changes in the NIH peer review system.Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 05/2010; 85(5):746-8. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7e130 · 2.93 Impact Factor
- Geriatric nursing (New York, N.Y.) 09/2010; 31(5):321-3. DOI:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2010.08.001 · 1.20 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Science has a critical role to play in addressing humanity's most important challenges in the twenty-first century. However, the contemporary scientific enterprise has developed in ways that prevent it from reaching maximum effectiveness and detract from the appeal of a research career. To be effective, the methodological and culture reforms discussed in the accompanying essay must be accompanied by fundamental structural reforms that include a renewed vigorous societal investment in science and scientists.Infection and immunity 12/2011; 80(3):897-901. DOI:10.1128/IAI.06184-11 · 3.73 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.