NIH Needs a Makeover

Abstract

NIH grants are coveted and lauded possessions among scientists. They are considered a mark of accomplishment or promise, offered for scientific merit and devoid of politics. Unfortunately, the system that bestows the grants has become tangled and inefficient. The lack of quality reviewers is a major issue. The guidelines for reviewer selection on the NIH Web site are vague at best ([ 1 ][1]). We need individuals who are experts in their fields, but there are no specific guidelines as to what defines “expert.” These flimsy criteria made it easy to increase the number of reviewers to an astonishing 30,000 ([ 2 ][2]) in the wake of the stimulus grant deluge, but do not ensure that the reviewers are of high quality. The Center for Scientific Review is desperate to recruit reviewers and is drafting individuals who have poor records of NIH grant awards or weak publishing histories. How can those individuals be trusted to review grants? Even without the unprecedented number of grants resulting from the stimulus, it is difficult to recruit and retain adequate numbers of qualified reviewers. (Three to four reviewers are solicited to critique each grant.) Study section reviews are still conducted largely onsite, requiring considerable time investments from reviewing scientists. The NIH should make better use of modern telecommunications technology; the grant discussions could easily be conducted via video/teleconference, freeing up not only time but copious amounts of money spent on travel and lodging. The newly introduced guidelines for reviewing grant applications also pose a challenge to NIH. Assigned reviewers now summarize the strengths and weaknesses on a grant in “bullet forms,” which allow for numerical scores but not detailed comments. A grant is scored in five categories (significance, investigators, innovation, approach, and environment), but a final score on overall merit determines the percentile score for funding determination. It is not yet clear whether individual scores have any bearing on the overall score. Moreover, without detailed comments from the reviewers, an applicant does not have much feedback on how to revise a grant for resubmission. The new system is intended to improve the review process, but requires close monitoring to determine whether it is serving the purpose. It is time to appoint a strong leader at NIH who has the understanding of a lifetime researcher and the authority to revolutionize the institution. It is imperative that the infrastructure be strengthened immediately to advance biomedical research pursuits. 1. [↵][3] National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research, Peer Review Process; [www.grants.nih.gov/grants/peer\_review\_process.htm][4]. 2. [↵][5] 1. M. Wadman , Nature 459, 763 (2009). [OpenUrl][6][CrossRef][7][PubMed][8][Web of Science][9] [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNature%253B%2BPhysical%2BScience%2B%2528London%2529%26rft.stitle%253DNature%253B%2BPhysical%2BScience%2B%2528London%2529%26rft.aulast%253DWadman%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D459%26rft.issue%253D7248%26rft.spage%253D763%26rft.epage%253D763%26rft.atitle%253DGrant%2Bapplications%2Bswamp%2Bagency.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1038%252F459763a%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F19516308%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/459763a&link_type=DOI [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=19516308&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F325%2F5943%2F944.2.atom [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000267084500010&link_type=ISI