To reduce ‘reputational bias,’ NIH may revamp how grant proposals are scored

Researchers familiar with the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) peer-review process can cite many cases where the reputation of a scientist or their workplace seemed to count for more than the strength of their ideas. There was the scientist who moved from the Ivy League to a large public university and saw scores on his grant applications drop. The investigators from historically Black institutions who always seemed to do worse than applicants from majority white schools. And the big names from research powerhouses whose proposals won stellar ratings without much scrutiny. “Anyone who actually attends a study section sees [reputational bias] happening,” says Noni Byrnes, director of NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR), referring to NIH peer-review panels. Now, in a bid to reduce that bias, her center is proposing the first overhaul of NIH’s scoring system in 14 years. But the idea is getting a mixed reception. The proposed reform was prompted, in part, by a striking pattern in NIH awards: About 70% of grants go to just 10% of all NIH-funded institutions. NIH says both anecdotes and data suggest reputational bias is partly responsible. So, in 2020, a working group of CSR’s advisory council began to examine ways to reduce this bias, as well as ease the workload for reviewers. Currently, reviewers rate proposals on significance, investigator, innovation, approach, and environment. The reform proposal, released last month...
Source: ScienceNOW - Category: Science Source Type: news