ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

NIH Study Section Review

I am writing to set the record straight. In a letter in the Nov. 13, 1995, issue of The Scientist [page 13], Paul K. Strudler, a National Institutes of Health grants administrator, refers to my article entitled "How Federal Funding Mechanisms Stifle Basic Biomedical Research (The Scientist, Aug. 21, 1995, page 10) as evidence that I believe that NIH study sections are not reviewing basic science applications adequately. In fact, I wrote that new innovative research-that is, R01s -- whether in

Edith Rosenberg
I am writing to set the record straight. In a letter in the Nov. 13, 1995, issue of The Scientist [page 13], Paul K. Strudler, a National Institutes of Health grants administrator, refers to my article entitled "How Federal Funding Mechanisms Stifle Basic Biomedical Research (The Scientist, Aug. 21, 1995, page 10) as evidence that I believe that NIH study sections are not reviewing basic science applications adequately.

In fact, I wrote that new innovative research-that is, R01s -- whether in basic or applied research, are not being adequately funded. Strudler quotes verbatim from the introduction to my article that "applied science, which requires the collaboration of many diverse people with their support staff and specialized instruments, has generally received the lion's share of research funds distributed by NIH," and bases his comment that it is my belief that study sections review basic science applications inadequately...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT