The New York Times published the first article in a series today about the the struggle to make progress in cancer research. This article focuses on the dilemma of grant funding. Because groups like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have a limited amount of money and many applicants, the NIH tends to focus on grants with guaranteed results. But these studies yield little in the way of new knowledge. And this approach to funding means that innovative, high-risk, potentially high payoff studies don't get funded at all. An accompanying article explores what should be done.
What would you suggest grant reviewers should focus on, when considering innovation, risks and payoffs in cancer research?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment