Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies
- PMID: 20520024
- DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d74256
Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies
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.
Comment in
-
Commentary: new guidelines for NIH peer review: improving the system or undermining it?Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):746-8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7e130. Acad Med. 2010. PMID: 20520019
Similar articles
-
Commentary: new guidelines for NIH peer review: improving the system or undermining it?Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):746-8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7e130. Acad Med. 2010. PMID: 20520019
-
Trends in program project grant funding at the National Cancer Institute.Cancer Res. 1993 Feb 1;53(3):477-84. Cancer Res. 1993. PMID: 8425180
-
Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants.Am J Med. 2005 Jun;118(6):658-63. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.02.015. Am J Med. 2005. PMID: 15922698
-
NIH revises rules of conflict of interest of grant peer reviewers.Lab Anim (NY). 2004 Mar;33(3):15-6. doi: 10.1038/laban0304-15. Lab Anim (NY). 2004. PMID: 15235618 Review. No abstract available.
-
Experience of King Abdul-Aziz City for science and technology in funding medical research in Saudi Arabia.Saudi Med J. 2004 Jan;25(1 Suppl):S8-12. Saudi Med J. 2004. PMID: 14968184 Review.
Cited by
-
The Assessment of Potential Impact of Applications by Grant Review Panels.Epidemiology. 2016 May;27(3):314-5. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000452. Epidemiology. 2016. PMID: 26829162 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Top-cited articles in medical professionalism: a bibliometric analysis versus altmetric scores.BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 31;9(7):e029433. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029433. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 31371297 Free PMC article.
-
'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research.F1000Res. 2024 Feb 21;11:961. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.124082.3. eCollection 2022. F1000Res. 2024. PMID: 38798304 Free PMC article.
-
Can Chatbots Assist With Grant Writing in Plastic Surgery? Utilizing ChatGPT to Start an R01 Grant.Aesthet Surg J. 2023 Jul 15;43(8):NP663-NP665. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjad116. Aesthet Surg J. 2023. PMID: 37082940 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Reforming science: structural reforms.Infect Immun. 2012 Mar;80(3):897-901. doi: 10.1128/IAI.06184-11. Epub 2011 Dec 19. Infect Immun. 2012. PMID: 22184420 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources