Recommendation 1
c. Populate merit review study sections with generalists, who can recognize highly original ideas that would be impactful if successful. Potential for failure should not automatically lead to rejection of a proposal, nor should past failure bias against future funding – these are commonly accepted principles in the technology sector. d. Eliminate those ad hoc reviewers who are currently recruited as full participants in study section meetings solely for their expertise in specific experimental technologies. Instead, seek brief email commentary from two such outside experts, not on the grant application overall, but rather on whether the methodology proposed is appropriate and will accomplish the stated goal. The study section can then adequately assess the impact, innovation and methodological approach of the full proposal. This change will improve efficiency and elevate the overall quality of the review process.
These recommendations will enable funding of more impactful ideas, while reducing the cost of review and the administrative burden on applicants, applicant institutions, NIH, and reviewers.
Notably, however impactful these policy changes may be, they alone will not address the stark reality that only a small fraction of approved applications is funded. Moreover, the budgets of those that are funded are commonly reduced to levels insufficient to support completion of the proposed study. Hence, even successfully funded investigators must commonly submit applications for funding in almost every grant cycle. Therefore, a final, urgent element of this recommendation is to appropriate increased levels of funding for support of NIH research project grants, with a focus on fundamental discovery research, the bedrock of future innovation.
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker