The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 121, Issue 7 , Pages 637-641 , July 2008

Why Are Peer Review Outcomes Less Favorable for Clinical Science than for Basic Science Grant Applications?

  • Michael R. Martin, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md
    • ,
  • Teresa Lindquist, MS

      Affiliations

    • Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md
    • ,
  • Theodore A. Kotchen, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
    • Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Theodore A. Kotchen, MD, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd., Milwaukee, WI 53226.

References 

  1. Wyngaarden JB. The clinical investigator as an endangered species. N Engl J Med. 1979;301(23):1254–1259
  2. Goldstein JL, Brown MS. The clinical investigator: bewitched, bothered, and bewildered—but still beloved. J Clin Invest. 1997;99(12):2803–2812
  3. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Moy E, Blumenthal D. Status of clinical research in academic health centers: views from the research leadership. JAMA. 2001;286(7):800–806
  4. Nathan DG. Educational debt relief for clinical investigators—a vote of confidence. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(5):372–374
  5. Nathan DG. Careers in translational clinical research-historical perspectives, future challenges. JAMA. 2002;287(18):2424–2427
  6. Ley TJ, Rosenberg LE. Removing career obstacles for young physician-scientists—loan-repayment programs. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(5):368–373
  7. Sung NS, Crowley WF, Genel M, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2003;289(10):1278–1287
  8. Dickler HB, Fang D, Heinig SJ, et al. New physician-investigators receiving National Institutes of Health research project grants: a historical perspective on the “endangered species.”. JAMA. 2007;297(22):2496–2501
  9. Nathan DG. Clinical research: perceptions, reality, and proposed solutions. JAMA. 1998;280(16):1427–1432
  10. Nathan DG, Varmus HE. The National Institutes of Health and clinical research: a progress report. Nat Med. 2000;6(11):1201–1204
  11. Nathan DG, Wilson JD. Clinical research and the NIH—a report card. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(19):1860–1865
  12. Zerhouni E. Medicine (The NIH roadmap). Science. 2003;302(5642):63–72
  13. Williams GH, Wara DW, Carbone P. Funding for patient-oriented research: critical strain on a fundamental linchpin. JAMA. 1997;278(3):227–231
  14. Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Malik K, Ehrenfeld E. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. JAMA. 2004;291(7):836–843
  15. Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Miller Sostek A, et al. Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications. J Invest Med. 2006;54(1):13–19
  16. Mello MM, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. The rise of litigation in human subjects research. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(1):40–45
  17. Wolf M. Clinical research career development: the individual perspective. Acad Med. 2002;77(11):1084–1088
  18. Association of American Medical Colleges. Promoting Translational and Clinical Science: The Critical Role of Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals (Report of the AAMC's Task Force II on Clinical Research). Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2006;

PII: S0002-9343(08)00313-6

doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.03.031

The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 121, Issue 7 , Pages 637-641 , July 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution