Sidebar: The RGA's Committee's Recommendation
CREATIVE BOOST: An alternative proposal from UCSF’s Keith Yamamoto adds innovation into the peer-review equation.
While calling the current system good, NIH is seeking a better way to judge the more than 30,000 applications it receives annually. The process now in place has come under fire by scientists who are upset over the way the agency distributes NIH's limited research funds. Many feel it discourages the pursuit of cutting-edge research in favor of research with "guaranteed" results.
"The applicant community --...
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?