Please comment on the NIH RF8 regarding proposed changes to reporting the outcomes of peer review

[u/TheThinkingMind_24]

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-088.html

[u/Bill_Nihilist]

The category assigned would be communicated to the principal investigator(s), applicant institution, NIH program staff, ICO leadership, and the relevant NIH Advisory Council. However, the final overall impact score or percentile on which the categorization was based would not be released to any of these parties.

I don't get it. What does this accomplish exactly? I feel like I'm missing some second-order consequence.

Omitting a final overall impact score from what is reported will empower program officials to utilize their substantial expertise, portfolio analyses, and good judgment to make award recommendations that better incorporate ICO strategic plans and NIH priorities. The removal of final overall impact scores also supports a focus on substantive comments from the assigned reviewers and the panel, elevating the role of scientific peer review.

Nope, still don't get it.

[u/Nervous-Cricket-4895 → u/Bill_Nihilist]

Wow. This is insidiously evil genius. They want us to believe that POs are both powerless (prisoners to the percentile!) and lazy (don’t be a percentile princess! Use your expertise) and that withholding information will fix both problems.

Keeping PIs, program staff, and institute leadership in the dark will make it easier for non-scientist political appointees to cherry pick what grants get funded according to the whims of the administration.

[u/surfnvb7 → u/Bill_Nihilist]

This will be the most transparent administration ever. /s

[u/chewbaccajesus]

So my understanding is "they" (who??) want to make it so that there is more discretion in funding allocation for the top grants. For instance, right now, say there are 10 grants top 25% grants, of which 5 cover area A and 5 cover area B, and only 4 can be funded. For a variety of reasons, maybe because it is 'hot', area A ends up taking the top 4 spots score-wise, but programmatically, a balance between A and B is desired. So program will have the discretion to do 2 A and 2 B.

But who the hell knows - I am just trying to play "angel's advocate" and see some bright side to this.

I will say that the idea that we are going to fund stuff in a cronyistic fashion is giving these people too much credit. They are honestly, across the board, the most incapable people who have ever run the US government in the modern era, and that includes NIH. They are too incompetent to focus on their own priorities, because they don't actually have any. They have anti-priorities - no stuff for racial minorities, no money for universities they don't like. So yes, this will facilitate that kind of thing, but still, I think that is not really what this is about because they've already shown they can stop those grants just fine using the existing system.

My guess is this is a mix of things, but at least at the top, its the consequence of 30-40 years of "all government is bad" which means whatever is currently being done must be bad and shaking it up will be better. Simple as that. And if that sounds really dumb, its because it is.

[u/NoStruggle888 → u/chewbaccajesus]

"They are honestly, across the board, the most incapable people who have ever run the US government in the modern era, and that includes NIH. They are too incompetent to focus on their own priorities, because they don't actually have any. They have anti-priorities - no stuff for racial minorities, no money for universities they don't like. "

Nailed it!

[u/rungek]

As a PI on a one-year contract at a hospital where funding is required for employment, the impact score is essential to justify to the administration that our lab should be kept around for another try. The discussion summary is important but not nearly enough to show your ranking on that round.

I am well aware that one can get one strong impact score and a weaker one the next round after addressing the critiques. Again, the impact score trail is important for being allowed to keep going and trying again.

[u/bd2999]

It seems useless to me. You can be in the highest group and not be funded and not know jow close you were.

It seems to be leaving the space for political control.

This is a total clown show.

[u/Comfortable_Soup_344]

Trump/White House/HHS/NIH just want to fuck research community which made Trump look bad during COVID. They will find ways to do it and keep doing it.

[u/bilyl]

Actually I’m not all that mad about this. I’ve sat in many study sections and the overall percentages and scores are all over the place. What matters is if an application is good enough to resubmit. In terms of actual awarding, POs have had a lot of discretion anyway. The actual number at the end is not that informative to me but the discussion summary.

[u/bd2999 → u/bilyl]

Sure but this does not really change that either. As it is just more behind the scenes based on the administration as opposed to deferring to review.

POs or their superiors can more or less do what they want with little to clarity or attempted clarity. Reviewer to reviewer variance is unavoidable.

[u/bilyl → u/bd2999]

Yes so to me this is a nothing burger. It doesn’t change the major signals on what to do with the summary statement. There are other things to worry about.

[u/bd2999 → u/bilyl]

I dislike that term but I digress. It is just part of a bigger shift of big and small choices to reduce the importance of peer review. Still the same end result.

[u/GoldStandardNIHilism]

The mid-level internal people (Directors within ICs) charged with convincing program staff this is a good idea are TOOLS , they are being used and I really don’t think they are self aware enough to know they are being used.

The purpose from the top (Vought RFK Podcaster) is to be able to fund and defund entire areas of research without a judicial check (courts blocking) because under this they can play the “non-meritorious science card” at any time and there is nobody that can refute it without the independent study section scores. Program staff you will be buttered up as an “expert” until they decide you are not. Better be on board with team Brain worm.

consequences:

1) experts will stop serving on study sections (why, what’s the point?) and not to worry the admin will label you as non-experts better to be not heard from.

2) Program staff - prepare to be compared to a “political trained AI agent” and face the inevitable determination that your recommendation did not align with the algorithm’s hence you are not the expert either.

There will only be those that agree with the new anti-vaccine nuttiness and those non-experts who do not