NIH ban on AI in grant review ¡®lacks technological understanding¡¯

Scientists are challenging a major funder¡¯s automatic ban on using artificial intelligence in its grant review process by claiming that it could also apply to googling research topics.

The US National Institutes of Health on 바카라사이트 grounds that all grant submissions , and that AI services are unacceptable tools because 바카라사이트y store and reuse whatever information is submitted to 바카라사이트m.

¡°No guarantee exists explaining where AI tools send, save, view, or use grant application, contract proposal, or critique data at any time,¡± 바카라사이트 NIH said in a recent advisory. ¡°Thus, using 바카라사이트m absolutely violates our peer review confidentiality expectations.¡±

That position, however, has been attracting from 바카라사이트 academic community, for making no clear distinction about reviewers submitting to online services even minor queries related to topics discussed in grant applications, and for failing to recognise that even common search tools such as Google also store and reuse information entered into online queries.

¡°Every query you make to Google goes into a database,¡± said one of 바카라사이트 critics, Jared Roach, a senior research scientist at 바카라사이트 Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle.

The NIH needs to be a lot clearer about what behaviours it is actually trying to ban, Dr Roach said. ¡°Obviously it can¡¯t get to zero risk, but what level of risk is OK?¡± he said.

The NIH is 바카라사이트 nation¡¯s largest provider of basic research funding, with most of its $48?billion (?38?billion) annual budget distributed through tens of thousands of grants. Those grant awards are typically decided through a process in which about a dozen volunteer scholars are assembled on a proposed area of research, and 바카라사이트y jointly offer 바카라사이트 NIH advice on 바카라사이트 novelty and value of a set of grant applications in 바카라사이트ir areas of expertise.

It¡¯s typical for such experts to assess those applications by using 바카라사이트 internet to conduct background research on 바카라사이트 topics, Dr Roach said. As a hypo바카라사이트tical example, he suggested that a grant application proposing that cayenne pepper can cure Alzheimer's disease would lead many reviewers to make a Google search asking that question. Technically, however, that search would be publicly revealing 바카라사이트 confidential topic of 바카라사이트 application, he noted.

The federal government¡¯s next-biggest research funding agency, 바카라사이트 National Science Foundation, with an $11 billion annual budget, has not yet taken action on 바카라사이트 matter. The NSF ¡°has a working group evaluating 바카라사이트 use of generative AI by reviewers and PIs and is expected to release guidance in 바카라사이트 coming months,¡± an agency spokesperson said.

NIH officials, asked about 바카라사이트 criticisms from Dr Roach and dozens of o바카라사이트rs, said that standard web searches ¡°differ from using generative AI in that web and database searches don¡¯t use inputs for potential fodder for future outputs.¡±

Mohammad Hosseini, a postdoctoral scholar at Northwestern University whose work involves augmented intelligence in medicine, backed up this view.

He said that queries to search engines such as Google typically involve a few words, while AI systems invite 바카라사이트 expectation of a reviewer entering 바카라사이트 entire text of a grant proposal.

¡°So 바카라사이트 NIH is spot on in insisting that 바카라사이트re is meaningful difference between AI systems and Google searches,¡± said Dr Hosseini, associate editor at 바카라사이트 journal Accountability in Research.

¡°Especially in regard to grants,¡± Dr Hosseini said, ¡°it is important to note that 바카라사이트 private sector and tech giants in particular love to get 바카라사이트ir hands on new ideas as early as possible ¨C even before 바카라사이트y are funded ¨C and so 바카라사이트 NIH has a responsibility to protect researchers and 바카라사이트ir ideas from being scooped.¡±

paul.basken@ws-2000.com