Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10461, USA.
Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):746-8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7e130.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system has been viewed as the best way to guarantee the scientific independence of biomedical research in the United States, and it has been emulated internationally. The system, however, is subject to a variety of stresses, and these have always been exacerbated at times of flat NIH funding, as in the past five years. To address several of these stresses, NIH first conducted a "diagnostic self-study" of the peer review system and then implemented a number of changes. Costello, in a Perspective in this issue of Academic Medicine, argues that two of these changes, special consideration for new investigators and emphasis of the criterion of "innovation," undermine the stated goal of funding the "best science by the best scientists." In this commentary on Costello's Perspective article, the author examines the issue of NIH funding of new investigators from a historical perspective, in the context of overall NIH priority setting in resource allocation. The related issue of innovation as a criterion in NIH peer review is also addressed, and the commentary concludes with an affirmation of the need to measure outcomes in assessing the impact of changes in the NIH peer review system.
美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）的同行评议制度被视为保障美国生物医学研究科学独立性的最佳方式，并在国际上得到效仿。然而，该制度面临着各种压力，在 NIH 资金持平的时期，这些压力总是会加剧，就像过去五年那样。为了解决其中的一些压力，NIH 首先对同行评议制度进行了“诊断性的自我研究”，然后实施了一些变革。在本期《学术医学》的一篇观点文章中，Costello 认为，这些变革中的两项，即对新研究员的特别考虑和强调“创新性”标准，破坏了资助“由最优秀的科学家进行最佳科学研究”的既定目标。在对 Costello 的观点文章的评论中，作者从历史角度，在 NIH 资源分配的整体优先事项设定的背景下，审视了 NIH 对新研究员的资助问题。文中还讨论了创新作为 NIH 同行评议标准的相关问题，并在结论中肯定了需要衡量 NIH 同行评审系统变革的影响的结果。
