Controversial NIH counterpoint
I know this will not be accepted broadly, but in my opinion, NIH needed a shake up. It became way too inbred. I’ve been funded continuously for more than two decades. This is what I’ve seen in a study section in which I was a regular member. The chair was well known for telling PI’s who reviewed their grants. It was also well known in our study section that certain members would take retribution in their reviews. And so it was not unusual for reviewers to not say anything negative. Reminded me of a shakedown. In an egregious move, the spouse of one of the higher-ups in NIH thought they were mistreated by a prominent institution. council next round disapproved a proposal (mine) recommended for funding. council members were routinely not disqualifying themselves, which admittedly difficult when they are all coauthors on each other’s papers. It became such a nightmare that I did my best to steer my proposals away from the seemingly most appropriate review committees. Just for fun a few years ago, i tried a new idea on that committee and of course was triaged. A few years later one of the members was funded for a large inter-institutional grant with nearly the identical title. This isn’t sour grapes; I’m retiring soon at age over 70, I finally have the freedom to speak out. And as a final note, you can’t tell me it was ethical for Fauci’s wife to be the ethics advisor.