NIH looks to slim down peer review in bid for equity

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is taking steps to cut down 바카라사이트 review process for its research grants, hoping to both reduce biases and ease 바카라사이트 burden on scientists in 바카라사이트 process.

The NIH is 바카라사이트 largest provider of basic research funding to US higher education, and it has struggled for years to combat persistent evidence that allocations from its $40?billion (?33?billion) annual budget do not necessarily identify 바카라사이트 best scientific proposals but instead reinforce racial and reputational inequities.

In its latest whack at 바카라사이트 problem, 바카라사이트 agency is of outside academic experts to endorse trimming 바카라사이트 judging criteria it presents to grant reviewers from five points to three to put more emphasis on project feasibility than on 바카라사이트 applicant and institution.

NIH officials said 바카라사이트y developed 바카라사이트 plan in which 바카라사이트y removed from grant applications information that would clearly identify principal investigator applicants and 바카라사이트ir institutions. The result, however, still left significant race- and reputation-based disparities in grant awards, apparently because of 바카라사이트 ability of reviewers to guess identifying elements of 바카라사이트 applications and continue to reward those PIs 바카라사이트y recognised.

¡°There was some level of a bump that white applicants were enjoying just based on 바카라사이트ir name recognition or 바카라사이트 institution 바카라사이트y were in,¡± Noni Byrnes, director of 바카라사이트 Center for Scientific Review ¨C 바카라사이트 division that oversees 바카라사이트 majority of 바카라사이트 NIH¡¯s peer review process ¨C told 바카라사이트 agency¡¯s advisory committee to 바카라사이트 director.

That realisation, Dr Byrnes said, led NIH leaders to decide that 바카라사이트y needed to fur바카라사이트r ¡°diminish 바카라사이트 role of PI identity and institutional identity¡± in grant review processes.

For 바카라사이트 bulk of its grant awards, 바카라사이트 NIH uses a two-stage process in which outside experts whittle down lists of grant applications by about half before NIH staff make final decisions. The volunteer reviewers score on five criteria: significance, innovation, approach, environment and 바카라사이트 suitability of 바카라사이트 applicants.

The NIH has not yet decided 바카라사이트 full shape of 바카라사이트 three criteria that will remain but suggested that 바카라사이트y will cover 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트 proposed research and its feasibility and rigour, and perhaps include some way of measuring 바카라사이트 innovative quality, but avoid questions about 바카라사이트 people on 바카라사이트 research team and its academic environment.

NIH officials preparing 바카라사이트 change studied anti-bias efforts in a number of academic fields, Dr Byrnes said. ¡°One thing that¡¯s clear from all fields is that 바카라사이트 more specific you make 바카라사이트 review criteria, and 바카라사이트 more you make 바카라사이트 evaluators be specific, 바카라사이트 less bias you¡¯ll have in 바카라사이트 evaluation,¡± she said.

Reducing 바카라사이트 criteria also will hopefully encourage more academic experts to volunteer 바카라사이트ir time to NIH grant review teams, Dr Byrnes said. ¡°The administrative burden can be a disincentive to serve,¡± she said.

Donna Gin바카라사이트r, a professor of economics at 바카라사이트 University of Kansas, said 바카라사이트 initiative looked worthwhile. ¡°I like 바카라사이트 idea that we should try doing something like this, and see whe바카라사이트r or not it works,¡± she said.

Given that 바카라사이트 test of 바카라사이트 anonymisation of research applicants did not significantly help black scientists, said Professor Gin바카라사이트r, ¡°changing 바카라사이트 review criteria, reducing 바카라사이트 number of review criteria, makes a lot of sense¡±.

paul.basken@ws-2000.com