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

被引:15
|
作者
Costello, Leslie C. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Sch Dent, Dept Oncol & Diagnost Sci, Div Oncol, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[2] Univ Maryland, Greenebaum Canc Ctr, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d74256
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:775 / 779
页数:5
相关论文
共 10 条
  • [1] Declines in NIH R01 research grant funding
    Mandel, H. George
    Vesell, Elliot S.
    SCIENCE, 2008, 322 (5899) : 189 - 189
  • [2] Declines in funding of NIH R01 research grants
    Mandel, H. George
    Vesell, Elliot S.
    SCIENCE, 2006, 313 (5792) : 1387 - 1388
  • [3] NIH Transformative R01 grant deadline approaches
    不详
    DISEASE MODELS & MECHANISMS, 2008, 1 (4-5) : 195 - 195
  • [4] NIH R01s: No Longer the Best Science
    Costello, Les
    SCIENTIST, 2009, 23 (09): : 27 - 27
  • [6] Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals
    Patrick S. Forscher
    William T. L. Cox
    Markus Brauer
    Patricia G. Devine
    Nature Human Behaviour, 2019, 3 : 257 - 264
  • [7] Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals
    Forscher, Patrick S.
    Cox, William T. L.
    Brauer, Markus
    Devine, Patricia G.
    NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, 2019, 3 (03) : 257 - 264
  • [8] Cracking the code: Can bibliometric attributes predict NIH R01 grant funding outcomes in gastrointestinal oncology? Exploring patterns from a five-year analysis.
    Khan, Sara Ahmed
    Eshaghi, Faraz
    Rehman, Mohammed Z.
    Kotwal, Serena
    Salama, Amy
    Khan, Kainat
    Farooq, Muhammad Zain
    Kumar, Kapisthalam
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 42 (16)
  • [9] Quantitative goals for research output and scholarly impact to enhance basic science R01 grant renewal for cardiothoracic surgeons
    Wang, Hanjay
    Bajaj, Simar S.
    Heiler, Joseph C.
    Krishnan, Aravind
    Williams, Kiah M.
    Woo, Y. Joseph
    Boyd, Jack H.
    JTCVS OPEN, 2022, 9 : 162 - 175
  • [10] National Institutes of Health R01 Grant Funding Is Associated With Enhanced Research Productivity and Career Advancement Among Academic Cardiothoracic Surgeons
    Bajaj, Simar S.
    Wang, Hanjay
    Williams, Kiah M.
    Pickering, Joshua M.
    Heiler, Joseph C.
    Manjunatha, Keerthi
    O'Donnell, Christian T.
    Sanchez, Mark
    Boyd, Jack H.
    SEMINARS IN THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2021, 33 (04) : 1047 - 1056