Last year, I was a reviewer of proposals to a newly created NIH program, the New Innovator Award. Its goal was to address a frequent criticism – that peer review is biased against innovation – and to fund exceptionally innovative, high–impact research from new investigators. To encourage the submission of innovative ideas, the agency didn't require preliminary data. We received nearly 2,200 applications, but awarded only 30, for a success rate of <1.4%. This suggests either that there are many unfunded innovative ideas out there, or that the ability to submit a proposal without preliminary data was irresistible.
Survey Series
For Advertisers
It's Not Just About Innovation
New ideas are cheap; what we really need are scientists who can see them through.
(continued >>)
To continue reading this full article, you must be a subscriber to The Scientist.
You are only a few minutes away from unlimited access.
If you already have an online subscription, please Log-In Now.
New to The Scientist? Register to get access to a selection of our content, interactive features and useful tools free without a subscription.
New to The Scientist? Register to get access to a selection of our content, interactive features and useful tools free without a subscription.
Subscribe to The Scientist to get unlimited access to our premium content
Get unlimited access to this article and over 20 years of The Scientist archives. You won’t miss a word – all for as little as $4.95. Subscribe now.The Scientist offers site licenses to institutions and organizations. Recommend us to your librarian and get online access through your place or work or study.