NIH Reviewers: Doing Their Best

I believe the peer-review system is operating well. The concerns recently raised about peer review are a symptom of the lack of sufficient resources to fund all proposed meritorious science. For the past 12 years, I have served on multiple government and private foundation review panels and currently serve on the NIH Cellular Biology and Physiology II study section. Like all biomedical scientists, I, too, am competing for NIH and private foundation funding. It has been my experience that grant reviewers are highly dedicated, hardworking, bright, objective individuals. I believe that the peer-review system is as impartial and fair as it can be, given that-as in any effort built upon human endeavor-mistakes can occur. All of us who sit on review panels understand and readily identify the enormous physical and emotional effort that goes into the preparation of a proposal and the anguish associated with the peer-review process, as our grants undergo that same peer-review process. Grant proposals are submitted to the Division of Research Grants and are assigned to individual study sections by referral officers in consultation with scientific review administrators (SRA). The SRAs then assign individual proposals to different reviewers. Each proposal is reviewed by three to five individuals, who complement each other's strengths and weaknesses in terms of the subject area and technical expertise. Following the airing of their comments regarding the merits of the proposal, the whole study section is allowed an opportunity to provide input-any information they feel would be valuable in making a decision regarding the potential success and importance of the proposed studies. This discussion is important, as it allows the whole study section to reach a consensus regarding the proposal before voting a priority score. It also protects as much as possible against any bias of individual members of the study section either for or against specific proposals. In addition, it protects (though not completely) against the possibility of an individual reviewer's missing something important in the proposal and provides a broader expertise regarding specific technologies. In determining funding priorities, it is necessary to assess, as objectively and impartially as possible, whether the proposed studies are likely to produce new information as well as whether they are technically sound. Despite the best efforts of reviewers, it is possible that the requisite expertise may not exist to review a specific proposal or that, because of changing study-section rosters, new concerns may appear upon resubmission, resulting in an individual's receiving less than the best review possible. However, the applicant may appeal to the institute's program staff or council or by resubmitting the proposal and addressing the criticisms as clearly as possible. The important point is that reviewers try to do the best, most objective job they can in making a decision regarding priorities of studies proposed in each grant. Recently, The Scientist published Opinion and Commentary pieces deriding the peer-review system (A.E. Sowers, Oct. 16, 1995, page 12; C.W. McCutchen, Oct. 16, 1995, page 13). I take issue with the authors' belief that the peer-review system is flawed. The problem as I see it does not lie with the peer-review system, which is functioning in a fair and objective fashion. Rather, it is that in today's funding climate, the available resources are not sufficient to support all of the excellent and outstanding research being carried out in the United States. I also do not believe, as Sowers suggests, that the current fiscal situation leads to the funding of only highly predictable science or selection against new areas or areas with only a few investigators. As in any other endeavor in life, one has no guarantees. Each of us must take our best shot and hope that he or she will be successful. There is no question that disruption in funding is very difficult to manage, especially in today's climate, in which insufficient funds prevent the funding of much worthy science. We should not be expending effort on misguided concerns about the peer-review process. Rather, we should be strongly emphasizing to the public the large amount of excellent and outstanding science that may not be funded if sufficient funds are not dedicated to research. Such investigations would likely lead to significant advances in our understanding of the health and well-being of our society. Brian Herman is a professor in the department of cell biology and anatomy at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

NIH Reviewers: Doing Their Best

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of