Faculty Development and Diversity

The latest issue of Academic Medicine features a commentary by Leslie Costello called “Is NIH Funding the ‘Best Science by the Best Scientists?‘” In it, she contends that changes to the NIH review process of R01 grants have introduced elements that undermine the central mission to reward the most worthy proposals.

Deciding what constitutes the “best science” will always require subjective judgment. On a recent round of grants that I reviewed, I was curious to see the comments of my fellow peer reviewers. Applications that I had graded with the lowest score others had given the highest score. It was rare to find the grant that all three reviewers marked with the same score.

Subjective though it may be, grant reviewing does tend to identify the applicants who have thought most carefully about their proposed projects. Those scientists will be the most effective stewards of the money the committee awards.

The media reported yesterday that the National Football League has donated $1 million to BU School of Medicine's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy.

The grant supports their research into the long-term effects of concussions on professional football players. Best of all, it comes with no strings attached.

With federal funding increasingly difficult to obtain, the example of our colleagues shows the importance of seeking creative sources for research support.

As I hear about other unusual granting agencies, I'll post them on the Faculty Development and Diversity website.