Actions Proposed for Grant Review


On this page you will find possible solutions to the following question:

How can the grant review process be improved so as to fund the best researchers?

The actions below have been proposed by the commenters on this website, ordered with the most recent on top.

Comments by Mohamed Ahmed

Posted: September 28, 2015

NIH Grant review process is getting more diffuse and more unclear with the time:
e.g you apply for R01: you end with the comment the grant has no promising clinical application: it just focus on emchanistic pathway?? on the other hand you get it is more direct application as a proof of concept but missing more detailed mechanistic pathway. These two comments are widely used and each serving different entity of research.
Why we can not budegt a propsoal focus on studying mechansitic pathway without clear clinical translataion; once we understand maybe we can translate the and vcie versa is true. Aspirin was used as antinflamamtory many years before finding its mechanism…


Nathan Boles

Posted: July 22, 2015

Topic: Grant Review
“Restructure the review process by de-identifying many parts of the grant”


Donald Forsdyke: Queen’s University, Canada

Posted: June 30, 2015

Topic: Grant Review
“The “Bicameral Review” approach to research fund allocation has been on the table for some decades. It was arrived at from first principles and elementary logic. As Jevons pointed out long ago, our professional blinkers must be discarded if we are to implement effective reforms. We must boldly implement and then retrospectively consider, not stall with pleas for statistical comparisons that will create a bureaucratic nightmare.”

1 comment

Click here to see all comments on all topics >>
Offer your input on how to solve this problem here >>