Category: Writing

A senior scientist at a major eastern medical school was
also a member of the grant review board for a large medical foundation. He was
also a member of an NIH study section. During foundation review deliberations
of a grant proposal from a relatively junior scientist, he stated, “We just
turned down his NIH research proposal, which was basically on the same topic.”
However, the outside reviewers recommended this proposal be funded bythe
foundation. Prior to the senior scientist’s comments, the discussions were
moving in favor of funding. After his comments, the entire discussion became
negative, and the proposal ultimately was not funded.
• What should the senior scientist have done?
• What should the junior scientist do if she hears what
happened?
• What should the chairman of the review group at the
foundation have done?

A member of an NIH study section hands over a proposal to
her postdoctoral fellow to read, to learn how to write a good grant proposal.
The postdoctoral fellow then copied the proposal so that he could read it at
his leisure and underline the important points. He also found a number of good
references that he could use. The researcher found out what her postdoctoral
fellow did and admonished him.
• What should the researcher do?
• What should the postdoctoral fellow do?

The same busy researcher received the same 15 grant
proposals to review in four weeks. He gave 10 of them (fi ve for which he was
primary/secondary reviewer and fi ve others) to his most senior postdoctoral
fellow to read and comment on. During the study section deliberation four weeks
later, the chairman of the study section realized that the researcher had never
read those fi ve proposals, because he was not able to discuss them.
• What should the reviewer do?
• What should the reviewer have done?
• What should the chairman of the study section do?

1. Do you think it is ever a good idea to censor scientifi c
research that poses a national security risk? Why or why not?
2. A very busy researcher is also a member of an NIH study
section. He received 15 proposals to review in four weeks. He is the primary or
secondary reviewer for six proposals. The primary and secondary reviewers are
supposed to prepare a report about each proposal. Also, all reviewers are
supposed to read all of the proposals. The researcher delayed reading the
material until the night before the meeting. He read thoroughly two of the six
proposals where he was the primary/secondary reviewer and prepared reports.
Lacking in time, he skimmed the other fi ve proposals and wrote reports laden
with generalized statements of praise or criticism. He never read the other
nine proposals.
• What should he do?
• What would you have done?