NIH Study Section Members Acknowledge Major Flaws In The Reviewing System

Three times a year, in conference rooms at the National Institutes of Health's Bethesda, Md., campus, about 1,440 permanent members of 100 study sections (accompanied by an annual total of about 1,800 ad hoc members) meet for two days to review 9,000 grant proposals. Critics of the system charge that it is cumbersome; needlessly hard on both reviewers and the reviewed; and rife with the potential for incompetent decisions, abuse of power, and conflicts of interest. Even its supporters acknowled

| 9 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
9:00
Share

Fred Bookstein OPEN TO SUGGESTION: Fred Bookstein urges a new ranking system for grant proposals.

A study section meeting is the culmination of a process that begins eight weeks earlier, when each of its members is mailed boxes containing 75 to 100 grant applications. Each of the applications is 25 pages long, not counting supporting documents, which themselves can run to 50 pages or more per application.

Although each reviewer is expected to read every one of those applications, he or she is assigned to write detailed critiques of just seven to 12 of them. Each application will have two such reviewers--designated the primary and the secondary--as well as a "reader," a reviewer who must be prepared to discuss the application in detail, but who isn't required to write a critique.

At the meeting, once the primary, the secondary, and the reader have delivered their opinions of a particular application, there is ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
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? Login Here

Meet the Author

  • Robert Finn

    This person does not yet have a bio.

Published In

Share
Image of a woman in a microbiology lab whose hair is caught on fire from a Bunsen burner.
April 1, 2025, Issue 1

Bunsen Burners and Bad Hair Days

Lab safety rules dictate that one must tie back long hair. Rosemarie Hansen learned the hard way when an open flame turned her locks into a lesson.

View this Issue
Conceptual image of biochemical laboratory sample preparation showing glassware and chemical formulas in the foreground and a scientist holding a pipette in the background.

Taking the Guesswork Out of Quality Control Standards

sartorius logo
An illustration of PFAS bubbles in front of a blue sky with clouds.

PFAS: The Forever Chemicals

sartorius logo
Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

dna-script-primarylogo-digital
Concept illustration of acoustic waves and ripples.

Comparing Analytical Solutions for High-Throughput Drug Discovery

sciex

Products

Green Cooling

Thermo Scientific™ Centrifuges with GreenCool Technology

Thermo Fisher Logo
Singleron Avatar

Singleron Biotechnologies and Hamilton Bonaduz AG Announce the Launch of Tensor to Advance Single Cell Sequencing Automation

Zymo Research Logo

Zymo Research Launches Research Grant to Empower Mapping the RNome

Magid Haddouchi, PhD, CCO

Cytosurge Appoints Magid Haddouchi as Chief Commercial Officer