An expert group has asked the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) to scrap 11 years, $ 368 million foray great in biology. Only two of the five original "glue grant" from the NIH institute were clear success, concludes an external review released Wednesday, and at least one grant had "significant flaws."
Glue Grants began with much fanfare in 00 as a way to solve the problems too big for a single laboratory. But some projects generally involved dozens of scientists in many institutions were more effective than others, according to a panel chaired by Norma Allewell molecular biologist at the University of Maryland, College Park. The report, which drew on a community survey, an analysis of the literature, and use of the website does not match the notes with individual projects. But NIGMS biophysics grants administrator Peter Preusch confirmed Science guesses Insider.
A "substantial success" was the Consortium for Functional Glycomics, who developed tables, mouse models and other resources for researchers studying the sugar molecules that cells use to communicate. The other winner was a project exploring the biology of why patients respond differently to inflammation of a severe burn or trauma. It led to new protocols that save lives, the report said.
Projects on lipid metabolism and cell migration were a "mixed success", the panel found. And the one with "significant flaws" was the Alliance for Cell Signaling, which aimed to map cell signaling pathways in heart muscle cells and immune cells. It was also the only one of the five who NIGMS eliminated early, after seven hours instead of 10 years.
So what went wrong? The report highlights the inadequate monitoring by NIGMS, the goals of the groups that were "inflexible" or "too wide or too narrow," "Missing expertise" and poor awareness of the rest of the scientific community. A common weakness was the databases. Often, investigators have generated data, for example, the functions of molecules, which are not easily converted into a computer readable form for use by the wider scientific community, said Preusch. "They was discover as they went along, "said Preusch.
The few (127) responses to the online community survey reflect these criticisms. Many who are not directly involved in the projects deemed a waste of money. And even participating in the lipid grant glue called a "mess."
NIGM devoted 1.8% of its budget of $ 2 billion per year in the program, and as the budget of NIH flattened, the gel became increasingly controversial. The panel shared this concern:
"The majority strongly questioned whether grants of this size are justified at a time when many researchers, especially young researchers, have serious difficulties to obtain and maintain funding."ultimately, the Panel found that "the scope and impact" of glue grant program was "not related to the investment." Thirteen of the 16 panelists voted to end glue grants following the most recent run in 2015.
the panel felt full NIGMS expected to support large-scale research through "smaller but more numerous awards." the report suggests that any new program should include more rigorous exams and a "relentless focus on important issues."
"The panel did not say that we should walk away from science quite large," said Preusch. But "clearly, it should be done differently."
0 Komentar