Grant Reviewers
by
(
|
by |
|
|
( |
|
Find more great reading matter on the Galapagos Summer Reading list.
Who are the grant reviewers? Why, they're just intelligent people who are willing to give up months of their time reviewing grants for virtually no money. OK, so they aren't that intelligent or else they would get more money. The selection of the reviewers is quite simple. The following is taken from an actual exam used to evaluate the grant reviewing abilities of potential recruits.
Grant
Reviewer Quiz
1. The major strength of the application is:
(a) the thoroughness of the experiments to test an important hypothesis. 2. There are, however, some details which:
(a) are especially novel and innovative. 3. The hypothesis is:
(a) reasonable and, if proven to be
correct, will revolutionize the field.
4. The preliminary results:
(a) are clearly presented, providing solid proof that
the proposed studies will succeed.
5. The proposed studies are:
(a) straightforward and
will directly test the central hypothesis.
6. The applicant:
(a) has considerable experience in the area of research.
7. The research technician is not essential to the project, and should be:
(a) better justified.
8. In summary, the proposed studies:
(a) are well designed and will lead to important results. BONUS QUESTION: You finally agree to review a few grants for an NIH study section. The SRA sends a box of 18 applications to review. You:
(b) the interesting, although not well established, area of research.
(c) the fact that the applicant correctly spelled his name on almost every page.
(b) detract from an otherwise outstanding proposal.
(c) reveal the utter stupidity of the proposed experiments.
(b) interesting, but difficult to test
using the proposed experimental approach.
(c) really weird.
(b) are internally inconsistent, revealing methodological problems.
(c) appear to be a complete fabrication.
(b) problematic and poorly justified.
(c) a total waste of time.
(b) has been modestly productive over the previous funding period.
(c) must have bribed someone to get his Ph.D. degree.
(b) deleted.
(c) taken outside and shot.
(b) are important, although several flaws slightly dampen the enthusiasm.
(c) made me laugh so hard I wet my pants.
(b) quit going to work for a month so you can devote all of your waking hours (and even some of your nonwaking hours) to the 18 reviews,
finishing several on the plane to Washington, D.C.
(c) not only review all 18 applications, writing extremely detailed
critiques, but you also read several dozen more applications and
comment on
each one at the meeting.
Lloyd Fricker is a professor of molecular pharmacology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.
Andrzej Krauze is an illustrator, poster maker, cartoonist, and painter who illustrates regularly for HMS Beagle, The Guardian, The Sunday Telegraph, Bookseller, and New Statesman.
