Funding for patient-oriented research. Critical strain on a fundamental linchpin

G. H. Williams, D. W. Wara and P. Carbone
Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

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 investigator-initiated clinical research projects. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the priority scores and funding rates of patient-oriented research (POR) compared with laboratory-oriented research (LOR) when grant applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are reviewed by study sections of the NIH Division of Research Grants. DESIGN: Research grant applications submitted to NIH were classified by the applicant as involving human subjects or not (LOR). Those classified as involving human subjects were divided into clinical (POR) and nonclinical research. The association of priority score and POR or LOR status was evaluated using chi2 statistical techniques. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twelve thousand investigator-initiated grant applications (RO1s) in 2 of the 1994 NIH review cycles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Grant application priority 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 applications that were reviewed in study sections that primarily reviewed POR applications fared equivalently to LOR applications; in contrast, POR applications reviewed in study sections that primarily reviewed LOR applications encountered a less favorable fate. CONCLUSIONS: These objective data provide strong support to the clinical research community's concern that investigator-initiated POR applications are not reviewed 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.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Shaping Your Career to Maximize Personal Satisfaction in the Practice of Oncology
Shanafelt et al.
JCO 2006;24:4020-4026.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Physician-Scientist Career Pipeline in 2005: Build It, and They Will Come
Ley and Rosenberg
JAMA 2005;294:1343-1351.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The state of patient-oriented research in neurology
Sacco et al.
Neurology 2004;62:1051-1055.
FULL TEXT  

NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research
Kotchen et al.
JAMA 2004;291:836-843.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Careers in Translational Clinical Research--Historical Perspectives, Future Challenges
Nathan
JAMA 2002;287:2424-2427.
FULL TEXT  

Educational-Debt Relief for Clinical Investigators -- A Vote of Confidence
Nathan
NEJM 2002;346:372-374.
FULL TEXT  

Removing Career Obstacles for Young Physician-Scientists -- Loan-Repayment Programs
Ley and Rosenberg
NEJM 2002;346:368-372.
FULL TEXT  

Obstacles facing translational research in academic medical centers
POBER et al.
FASEB J. 2001;15:2303-2313.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Crisis in Clinical Research
Lee et al.
JAMA 1999;282:1913-1916.
FULL TEXT  

Surgical Infection Society--Trials and Tribulations: The Importance of Clinical Trials
Dellinger
Arch Surg 1998;133:1192-1197.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Research: Perceptions, Reality, and Proposed Solutions
Nathan and for the National Institutes of Health Director's P
JAMA 1998;280:1427-1431.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Crisis in Clinical Research: Endangering the Half-Century National Institutes of Health Consensus
Schechter
JAMA 1998;280:1440-1442.
FULL TEXT