 |
 |
Considering the groundswell of Parkinson's grass roots advocacy over the past few years as we attempted to get the Udall Bill passed, and funded, I found the following article an interesting insight into the "mind" of the NIH. It appears that the "squeaky wheel" STILL gets the oil, at least when it comes to medical research at the National Institutes of Health! Article follows - read on: Barb Mallut [log in to unmask] ------------------------------------ The process of awarding research grants Copyright © 1998 Nando.net Copyright © 1998 Scripps Howard SEATTLE (May 30, 1998 01:26 a.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -- Patient advocacy groups have quietly become a factor in the fiercely competitive process that the National Institutes of Health uses to select recipients of research grants, an official with the group acknowledged this week. The organization's budget, which totaled $13.6 billion in 1998, funds most biomedical research in the United States. Despite increased congressional funding, only 1 in 3 grant applications is approved for funding each year. The group portrays the process of selecting winning applications as based on scientific merit of the proposed project, its significance in advancing medical knowledge, the researcher's credentials, and other objective factors. Dr. David Badman said those remain the only criteria at the initial stage of the review process used for roughly 10,000 applications submitted each year. He spoke here at the national meeting of the American Society for Gene Therapy. The session, "NIH Grantsmanship and Funding," gave scientists tips on how to get government money for their research. Badman is with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, an NIH component. The initial review is done by "Study Sections." These are panels of scientists, sometimes consisting of 18 to 20 individuals, who read, evaluate, and discuss each application. They assign applications a priority score, a numerical ranking that reflects the quality of the application and helps determine its chances of getting funded. Nonscience considerations enter at the next major stage in the organization's review process, according to Badman. The Study Section rankings for applications involving each NIH institute go to a National Advisory Council composed of scientist and nonscientist members. By law, each grant application needs to be approved by the council to be eligible for funding. "There are a lot of public advocacy issues that enter at this stage," Badman said. "Advocacy groups put pressure on NIH and on Congress, and those things are taken into consideration by the advisory council. They consider not just the science, the merit, but public interest, advocacy, a lot of other issues." Badman said the advisory council's recommendation may mean that an application with a lower priority score is bumped ahead of others with a higher score because it involves a disease supported by a strong advocacy group. "That's really not fair," huffed a young California scientist after the session. He asked not to be named, noting that the organization had rejected one of his grant applications. "Nothing in the NIH grant application rules say that picking a 'politically correct' disease increases your chances of being funded. It's not fair to people with diseases without strong advocacy groups, either," he added. Several other scientists expressed surprise that an advisory council could alter a study section's recommendations on priority score and scientific merit. Badman noted that grant applications reaching the advisory council stage all represent good science, proposed by competent researchers. "I would say that the chances of a patient advocacy group getting an initiative going that is not well based on science is pretty small. "Usually they are very aware of scientific issues and the initiatives they push usually are based on science. So they don't necessarily conflict with the scientific process. What they do is result in a different emphasis." Badman said many patient advocacy groups are active and effective in pushing the agendas of their members. He specifically cited those devoted to juvenile diabetes and leukemia. "Patient advocacy groups have their most visible impact in testifying at congressional hearings and urging additional funding for their diseases," Badman said.