A new analysis of grantsmaking process the National Institutes of Health (NIH) unveils how many grant proposals are funded, even if they fall below a threshold based on peer review scores. The bottom line least 19% of basic research portfolio NIH funded for reasons that go beyond the quality can inflame simmering concerns about the policy of the organization that promotes young researchers.
The conclusion is part of a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today which examined management practices at 27 institutes and centers of the NIH. A delicate question is how often they go to "priority scores" assigned by peer juries. Institutions usually put a "payline" or minimum score that a proposal should receive funding. But they also finance the proposals below that line, for reasons that include the balancing of the portfolio of the institute and giving researchers a new leg.
Until this week, the scale numbers NIH has not been made public. The most surprising aspect of the GAO report, in addition to the total number of exceptions, is his discovery of a sudden increase in 2 years ago. In 03, 625 of the 6461 R01 grant for basic research of the NIH, fell below the quality threshold. In 07, the most recent year examined, the total had risen to 1059 of 5715 prices (see chart).
The GAO report refers to "a substantial increase" but NIH says there's really nothing to worry about. The subsidies are "examined meritorious applications," said Sally Rockey, NIH acting deputy director for extramural research. The recent rise, she notes, is almost entirely due to the new policy of NIH encouraging new researchers to curb a steady increase in the average age at which an investigator receives a first R01.
Yet data surprised an observer familiar with the NIH grant award process. "There will be people who will say, 'what's going on here? "Note the molecular biologist Keith Yamamoto of the University of California, San Francisco, who for years has been involved in redesigning the system peer. in as relentless promoter of the new policy of the investigator, however, it is comfortable with the increasing number of exceptions.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), which was also investigated financial conflicts in medicine, requested the report after questions were raised in 07 about the proposals with scores below Payline funded by the Institute of environmental health NIH. GAO recommends that the NIH Director closer monitoring of these exceptions, calling them "a potential risk area because [institute] administrators have the latitude." Makers disagree NIH with this remedy, however, and wrote GAO the institutes already document the reasons for decisions.
0 Komentar