Scientific grants review score is very arbitrary, nothing scientific about it. In a scale of 1 to 10, the errors are in the range of 1 to 10. In order to be fair to CIRM, we decide to also release some samples of NIH grants review summary statement on human embryonic stem cell research proposals. To think about it, even funding like California stem cell research & cure bond act that is designated for human embryonic stem cell research, protected by a law Prop71, and closely watched under the public eyes, media, oversight committee, and government officials, was still taken mostly by those fruitfly dissecting, abnormal iPS cell, cancer cell, no stem cell, endogenous cell, mesenschymal junk cell individuals. And conflict of interest and non-transparent incidents happen all the time, such as a cluster of 5/6 out of 20, none had the scientific merits of the law, openly and carelessly went to the same institute in the same round. The NIH grant review on human embryonic stem cell research is not protected by any law, therefore, must be very shaky, the program officials often suddenly disappear, nowhere to find. Please note, since we did not write a full response, in the sample#1, human embryonic stem cell research was considered as human subject research by NIH, and in the sample#2, it was not. The score of sample#1 was overridden by the study section to outside of the funding range. For sample#2, the potential of stem/progenitor cells is to use their ability to be molded in vivo, not the conventional approach of using already molded adult cells. The reviewers obviously were not for human embryonic stem cell research, it is very common for reviewers to ignore the scientific data and stick to their own ideology, and human embryonic stem cell research critical to the National Institutes of Health’s mission and improvement of human health is only at the mercy of those reviewers.
See SDRMI wordpress for NIH grant review samples.
No comments:
Post a Comment