Gh. Williams et al., FUNDING FOR PATIENT-ORIENTED RESEARCH - CRITICAL STRAIN ON A FUNDAMENTAL LINCHPIN, JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association, 278(3), 1997, pp. 227-231
Context.-Interest in clinical investigative careers has declined over
the past 2 decades. While several factors are likely involved in this
decline, one is the perceived difficulty in obtaining support for inve
stigator-initiated clinical research projects. Objective.-To analyze t
he priority scores and funding rates of patient-oriented research (POR
) compared with laboratory-oriented research (LOR) when grant applicat
ions to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are reviewed by study
sections of the NIH Division of Research Grants. Design.-Research gran
t applications submitted to NIH were classified by the applicant as in
volving human subjects or not (LOR). Those classified as involving hum
an subjects were divided into clinical (POR) and nonclinical research.
The association of priority score and POR or LOR status was evaluated
using chi(2) statistical techniques. Setting and Participants.-Twelve
thousand investigator-initiated grant applications (R01s) in 2 of the
1994 NIH review cycles. Main Outcome Measures.-Grant application prio
rity scores and funding rates. Results.-On the basis of the following
3 criteria, POR applications fare less well than LOR applications: (1)
POR status and ranking in the total application pool; (2) percentage
of POR vs LOR applications in the top 20th percentile; and (3) funding
rates of POR applications. Furthermore, the fate of a POR application
depended on which study section reviewed the application. Those appli
cations that were reviewed in study sections that primarily reviewed P
OR applications fared equivalently to LOR applications; in contrast, P
OR applications reviewed in study sections that primarily reviewed LOR
applications encountered a less favorable fate. Conclusions.-These ob
jective data provide strong support to the clinical research community
's concern that investigator-initiated POR applications are not review
ed equitably at the NIH. By restructuring the review process, fairness
is likely to be restored. Without restructuring, the POR component of
the medical research community may be critically damaged.