The Scientist =09
Volume 23 | Issue 9 | Page 27
=09
By Les Costello
NIH R01s: No Longer the Best Science
Funding preferences penalize senior investigators, lower the quality=20
of science.
For 60 years, the US National Institutes of Health R01 research grant=20
mechanism has aimed at funding the highest-quality science to address=20
the important contemporary issues.
That began to change in 2008, after NIH Director Elias Zerhouni=20
issued the goal to "Fund the best science, by the best scientists=85" 1=20
As a result, new guidelines, requirements, and considerations have=20
been introduced. Unfortunately, these changes are antithetical and=20
counterproductive to achieving Dr. Zerhouni's stated goal.
The new process has transformed the R01 mechanism into a channel that=20
provides funds for the training and development of new and=20
early-stage investigators (ESIs).
New directives require that "NIH will support New Investigator R01=20
awards at success rates comparable to those for established=20
investigators submitting new R01 applications." 2 Even recipients of=20
several already-existing NIH training and development grant programs=20
qualify as ESIs for up to 10 years of such funding.Recently NIH=20
required that "...applicants eligible for consideration as first-time=20
R01 investigators...will be paid using an extended payline of the=20
22.0 percentile; compared to 16.0 percentile for others." 3 These=20
directives mean that funds for the best science by the best=20
scientists will be diverted to fund lesser-quality research.
Moreover, the NIH policy introduces and justifies a form of age=20
discrimination, which guarantees that grant proposals from senior=20
investigators and longtime-funded investigators will be denied based=20
on age, not on scientific merit. This policy will introduce,=20
exacerbate, and even justify covert and overt discriminatory=20
tendencies of reviewers, when it is essential to suppress such=20
influences from a scientifically credible and objective peer review proce=
ss.
As a senior investigator with grant funding for 48 years, and a past=20
reviewer on several NIH and other agencies' grant review panels, I=20
vehemently object to this policy. I do so as an obligation to defend=20
a 60-year history of advancements in science and medicine, which was=20
based exclusively on funding the best science. As young=20
investigators, I and my colleagues successfully competed with=20
established researchers based on merit, without preferential=20
treatment. NIH states that in recent years young investigators have=20
not competed successfully with established investigators, hence the=20
need to downgrade the quality of science funded through the R01=20
research grant mechanism. 2 But this neither recognizes nor addresses=20
the cause(s) of the problem.
A major factor is that contemporary biomedical training programs fail=20
to train young investigators to be scientists. They are trained to be=20
myopic super-technologists, predominantly in areas of molecular=20
biology and molecular technology. They lack the broad holistic=20
background and capacity to integrate molecular events with cellular=20
through organ-systems physiological and pathophysiological principles=20
and relationships.
So, we have a striking contradiction. On the one hand, NIH identifies=20
the critical importance of, and need for, "the most accomplished,=20
broad-thinking, and creative scientists to serve on NIH study=20
sections." 1 On the other hand, those "most accomplished,=20
broad-thinking, and creative scientists" are penalized in the grant=20
review process because of their experience and success. Until this=20
problem is addressed, the number of broadly trained and knowledgeable=20
biomedical scientists will continue to decline, as will the quality=20
of biomedical research. Then there will be no need for NIH to impose=20
special considerations for young investigators=97there will be no=20
high-quality science and scientists to compete against.
Les Costello is Professor of Physiology and Endocrinology at the=20
University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md.
References
1. enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/index.html
2. grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-121.html
3. deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/FinalFundLtr.htm
---------------------------------------------
Send posts to CO-CURE@listserv.nodak.edu
Unsubscribe at http://www.co-cure.org/unsub.htm
Too much mail? Try a digest version. See http://www.co-cure.org/digest.htm
---------------------------------------------
Co-Cure's purpose is to provide information from across the spectrum of
opinion concerning medical, research and political aspects of ME/CFS and/or
FMS. We take no position on the validity of any specific scientific or
political opinion expressed in Co-Cure posts, and we urge readers to
research the various opinions available before assuming any one
interpretation is definitive. The Co-Cure website <www.co-cure.org> has a
link to our complete archive of posts as well as articles of central
importance to the issues of our community.
---------------------------------------------
