Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 15 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5831, p. 1553
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5831.1553c
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

ScienceScope

Two new panels will try to figure out how to tweak the vaunted peer-review process at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to cope with soaring numbers of applications and other pressures on the agency.

NIH has created two working groups--one external, one internal--to examine the "content, criteria, and culture of peer review" in light of flat budgets, a rising number of grant applications, shrinking success rates, and a dearth of experienced reviewers (Science, 20 April, p. 358). The external committee is co-chaired by cell biologist Keith Yamamoto of the University of California, San Francisco, a member of the last review panel 8 years ago. Yamamoto expects the new panel to probe the current emphasis on preliminary results and weigh the proper balance between the bona fides of the investigator and the value of the project itself. The internal group, co-chaired by Jeremy Berg, director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, will examine the same issues. Both panels are to gather input and report back in December.

Meanwhile, a House spending panel last week voted to add $750 million next year to the agency's current $29 billion budget, a 2.6% raise that lags biomedical inflation. The increase drops to 1.9% if $200 million tagged for the global AIDS fund is removed.




To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)