 |
 |
It is my assumption that NIH is peer reviewed grant funding as is NSF (National Science Foundation). Applications for research grants are sent to the appropriate focus study group. A study group is composed of scientists with expertise in the specific area of research. Grants are reviewed by the appropriate members of the study group.....then defended by those direct reviewers in the review sessions where the proposals are given a ranking....one cannot be a reviewer for a grant from one's own institute for research (i.e......if you work at Salk, you cannot review a proposal from another Salk investigator). Study group members are not paid for their participation....yet this requires many weeks of dedicated work each year. Grants are funded on the basis of monies available.......for instance if PD related work was granted $30M for funding.....and 150 grants totaling $942M were received, only those grants receiving the highest rating by the study group would receive funds. That may mean that only 10 proposals were funded (I am grabbing these numbers out of thin air....but I do know that in some areas of basic research less than 20% of proposals are funded). It does not mean that each funded proposal is funded at 100% of requested funds, but likewise....it does no good to fund only 15% of a specific proposal. Research scientists are often very frustrated by the lack of funding, however, I have never spoken with a research scientist who would trade peer review evaluations on proposals for any other form of review. What I am trying to say in my reply to you is that the title of a proposal is not a good basis for rebuttal for lack of funding.....the quality of the proposal is much more value. Rita Weeks 53/9 (My husband is a research scientist)