Although I have no time now to meditate on NIH policies (I must take care of my cells), but I spread this package from Tom further, as the timing seems good, especially what concerns stem cell research. 4 rules (1 abandoned by me), and 1 copy/paste.
2. Include the list of six topics the NIH wants information about.
Please describe any specific challenges presented by NIH’s support of biomedical and behavioral research such as the current array of grant mechanisms, number of grants awarded per investigator, and the duration of grants.
Please describe any specific challenges presented by the current peer review process at NIH.
Please concisely describe specific approaches or concepts that would address any of the above challenges, even if it involves a radical change to the current approach.
Please describe the core values of NIH peer review that must be maintained or enhanced.
Are the appropriate criteria and scoring procedures being used by NIH to evaluate applications during peer review? If not, are there changes in either that you would recommend?
Is the current peer review process for investigators at specific stages in their career appropriate? If not, what changes would you recommend?
3. Comment on one or more of these issues. Reconsider the stem cell grant system completely.
4. Decide who the next seven vectors will be for this meme. Sorry, I don’t.