Sidebar: The RGA's Committee's Recommendation
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 -- the scientists, the working investigators -- recognize that creativity is something that is not given the benefit of review. In fact, there's a penalty for putting creative ideas into applications," contends Keith R. Yamamoto, professor and chairman of the department of cellular and molecular pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco, who developed the much-discussed alternative to the NIH proposal. "That seems to encourage run-of-the-mill, conventional science."
The proposal now on the table (see inclusion at right) is ...
