Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
I would say the NIH is a better example than Veterans Affairs. The NIH reviewers for grant monies are actually scientists/epidemiologists/biostatisticians who are working in the field and who agree to be part of the study sections to review grant applications and score them. The highest scores get the grant money. They don't review applications from their own institutions and are never really sure how high a score needs to be to get the money. In recent years, funding has decreased so scores have had to be really high to get funding. It's a pretty good system though.
|
The grants are scored by a percentile rank and there is a payline. So a score of 100 or below with a payline of 80 will get funded. There is also a propensity of new researchers getting "first awards". The issue with that is, new researchers do not always have the support systems in place or the networking skills available to produce publishable bodies of work like senior researchers...
These days though, EVERYBODY is definitely NOT getting funding unless you cure a disease and you are the flavor of the month...
I KNOW THIS PROCESS ALL TO WELL!!! LOL!!! Enough reasons for leaving the field...
Oh, and the peer reviewer cores in the molecular side is VERY misogynistic, homophobic, racist, sexist and elitist.
So some top diseases will not be determined if you are in the "in crowd"--often driven by politics...
Basically, we are playing catch up to other countries who have been doing human embryonic stem cells for ~8 years now...
Threaded Mode
