Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Prospects
  • Published:

Statistical analyses raise questions over NIH grant reviews

Nature volume 454, page 801 (2008)Cite this article

Two studies published last month hint at potentially troublesome trends in the grant-review process of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). One suggests that, despite being routinely touted as a high priority, clinical research faces significant hurdles that basic research does not. The other indicates that the peer-review system operates with an inherent bias.

Theodore Kotchen of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and his colleagues analysed NIH grant applications submitted between October 2000 and May 2004 (M. R. Martin et al. Am. J. Med. 121, 637–641; 2008). Of the 92,922 applications, just under one-third were for clinical work. The authors offer two main reasons for this discrepancy. First, they note that clinical investigators are less likely to submit a grant renewal, which puts them at a disadvantage as renewal applications generally receive more favourable ratings from reviewers. Second, applications from clinical researchers often failed to address adequately considerations about the human subjects in their proposed study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gene Russo is editor of Naturejobs.,

    Gene Russo

Authors
  1. Gene Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Related links

Related links

Related links in Nature Research

NIH responds to critics on peer review

Stats reveal bias in NIH grant review

Clinical trialists less likely to seek grant renewals

Related external links

“Why Are Peer Review Outcomes Less Favorable for Clinical Science than for Basic Science Grant Applications?” American Medical Journal

“Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system,” Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Russo, G. Statistical analyses raise questions over NIH grant reviews. Nature 454, 801 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7205-801a

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7205-801a

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing