Physiologist Sees Bias In NIH Reviews

The review process at NIH downgrades promising interdiscplinary work in cardiovascular disease because the review system is biased toward individual disciplines, says a former president of the American Physiological Society. Howard Morgan of the Geisinger Clinic in Danville, Pa. has charged that high-quality proposals from academic physiologists are, being ignored by individual study sections because section members lack a sufficiently broad clinical perspective to appreciate the value of

The Scientist Staff
May 29, 1988

The review process at NIH downgrades promising interdiscplinary work in cardiovascular disease because the review system is biased toward individual disciplines, says a former president of the American Physiological Society.

Howard Morgan of the Geisinger Clinic in Danville, Pa. has charged that high-quality proposals from academic physiologists are, being ignored by individual study sections because section members lack a sufficiently broad clinical perspective to appreciate the value of such proposals. In addition, he says, the advisory councils for each institute fail to question adequately the priority scores given to each proposal.

Morgan isn’t alone. Physiological Society executive director Martin Frank says that young academic physiologists are being driven out of research by difficulties in obtaining NIH Funding.