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 on this.
In fact, this statement is not my unsubstantiated opinion but a summary of factual information about NIH funding. There have been a great many objective investigations of where NIH grant monies went during recent years. Four or five of the studies have been featured in The Scientist, and more have been referred to. It is misleading to present factual information as my belief, particularly when this is done in order ...
