http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/07/inside-the-nih-grant-review-process-aka-catch-22/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=inside-the-nih-grant-review-process-aka-catch-22 MedCity News Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:17:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/07/inside-the-nih-grant-review-process-aka-catch-22/comment-page-1/#comment-90134 Nageswara Madamanchi Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:13:02 +0000 http://www.medcitynews.com/?p=34961#comment-90134 NIH peer review system has gone haywire and needs reform. There are plenty of problems other than those mentioned by Dr. Clark. The system has become too unresponsive to new investigators and non tenure track faculty, who carry the bulk of research in any given institution. The qualifying grounds for rejection include lack of publications with last authorship and not having previous NIH grants, etc. This is the real catch 22. NIH claims to encourage collaboration across disciplines and areas of expertise, but more often the multi PI grants get comments such as what is the need for multiple investigators when any one of them can lead the investigation. As Dr. Clark points out, the arrogance and cowardliness of the reviewers is astounding, all under the garb of anonymity. There does not seem any accountability to what they utter. There needs to be a good mix of young and experienced reviewers so that everybody will not be coerced into working on the latest fad. Finally, the study section roasters be changed often and include productive scientists of all rank and file. NIH peer review system has gone haywire and needs reform. There are plenty of problems other than those mentioned by Dr. Clark. The system has become too unresponsive to new investigators and non tenure track faculty, who carry the bulk of research in any given institution. The qualifying grounds for rejection include lack of publications with last authorship and not having previous NIH grants, etc. This is the real catch 22. NIH claims to encourage collaboration across disciplines and areas of expertise, but more often the multi PI grants get comments such as what is the need for multiple investigators when any one of them can lead the investigation. As Dr. Clark points out, the arrogance and cowardliness of the reviewers is astounding, all under the garb of anonymity. There does not seem any accountability to what they utter. There needs to be a good mix of young and experienced reviewers so that everybody will not be coerced into working on the latest fad. Finally, the study section roasters be changed often and include productive scientists of all rank and file.

]]>