Topic: Grant Review
by Mohamed Ahmed Feinstein
institute for Medical research
09/28/2015
Proposed Actions
1- Review and make clear without overlap for each grant e.g. I do not like to apply for R21 and the reviewer tell me you missing mechanistic approach; it is not one of the criteria to R21.
2- Including more clinicians in the study section: majority are basic scientist which in my opinion is of the main cause of the imbalance during review sessions. Clinicians also has to be selected from wide variety of clinical practice e.g. in heart & lung section, you can see the limited no. of clinicians and limited coverage of different practice, you need someone to stand for idea and help in clarifying how the study is appealing from clinical point of view. There are many studies approved and was NIH granted to study Carbon monoxide and other toxic gas e.g. sulphur in neonates and pregnant women, knowing these agents are teratogenic and toxic to the fetus and neonates??
3- Review panel has to be the same panel in reviewing the same study once resubmitted even if their members finish his cycle. It is very disappointed to submit a study, reviewed and get comments and work and answer all critics in acceptable manner and resubmit, then you get different feedback was not raised first time because you have new panel?? We will never satisfy everybody. Having the same panel will create some sort of team work between the reviewers and the applicant and they will represent him during the review session.