Two studies published last month hint at potentially troublesome trends in the grant-review process of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). One suggests that, despite being routinely touted as a high priority, clinical research faces significant hurdles that basic research does not. The other indicates that the peer-review system operates with an inherent bias. Theodore Kotchen of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and his colleagues analysed NIH grant applications submitted between October 2000 and May 2004 (M. R. Martin et al. Am. J. Med. 121,637-641; 2008).
展开▼
机译：上个月发表的两项研究暗示了美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）的拨款审查过程中潜在的麻烦趋势。有人认为，尽管经常被吹捧为临床研究的重中之重，但临床研究仍面临着基础研究所没有的重大障碍。另一个表示同行评审系统具有固有的偏差。威斯康星州密尔沃基医学院的Theodore Kotchen及其同事分析了2000年10月至2004年5月之间提交的NIH赠款申请（M. R. Martin等人，Am。J. Med。121,637-641； 2008）。
展开▼
