Literature DB >> 20520024

Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies.

Leslie C Costello1.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20520024     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d74256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  10 in total

1.  Reforming science: structural reforms.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 3.441

2.  The Assessment of Potential Impact of Applications by Grant Review Panels.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research.

Authors:  Michael Levitt; Jonathan M Levitt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Decreased zinc in the development and progression of malignancy: an important common relationship and potential for prevention and treatment of carcinomas.

Authors:  Leslie C Costello; Renty B Franklin
Journal:  Expert Opin Ther Targets       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 6.902

5.  Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program.

Authors:  Donna K Ginther; Misty L Heggeness
Journal:  Res Policy       Date:  2020-03-14

6.  Poor Science; Poorly Trained Scientists; Poor Policies: Major Deterrents to the War on Cancer.

Authors:  Leslie C Costello
Journal:  J Can Res Updates       Date:  2018-06-25

7.  NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Anthony Bowen; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 8.  What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

Authors:  Susan Guthrie; Ioana Ghiga; Steven Wooding
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-08-07

9.  Features of successful bids for funding of applied health research: a cohort study.

Authors:  Sheila Turner; Peter Davidson; Louise Stanton; Victoria Cawdeary
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2014-09-22

10.  Top-cited articles in medical professionalism: a bibliometric analysis versus altmetric scores.

Authors:  Samy A Azer; Sarah Azer
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.