tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000891.post998544406426691774..comments2024-02-21T19:56:57.057-08:00Comments on California Stem Cell Report: CIRM Challenged by Nine Scientists on Negative Grant DecisionsDavid Jensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00077329461962729362noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000891.post-48672482092877129032010-06-22T10:50:55.201-07:002010-06-22T10:50:55.201-07:00Jeanne,
The CIRM extraordinary petitions are not ...Jeanne,<br /><br />The CIRM extraordinary petitions are not at all similar to simply resubmitting an NIH grant. I don't think that's a valid comparison.<br /><br /> NIH also has an appeal process that is more akin to the CIRM petition process, but almost no one uses the NIH appeal process because I think it is considered bad form and is almost never successful. <br /><br />Also, when scientists resubmit grants to NIH,they do not challenge the reviewers in the way that a lot of these extraordinary petitions have been doing. Instead, NIH resubmissions go to extreme lengths to be polite and not call out reviewers for making mistakes or missing things. <br /><br />It's true that some CIRM grant applicants may be used to the NIH system where you get 2 chances (not 3 anymore), but they should know that is not how the CIRM system works and respect that.<br /><br />If 1/3 of CIRM applicants file petitions every time and many of those challenge the reviewers, the system is going to break down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000891.post-2422459109383843122010-06-22T08:26:47.036-07:002010-06-22T08:26:47.036-07:00Dave,
This is the first time I've submitted a ...Dave,<br />This is the first time I've submitted a petition, although my grant applications have been right on the border (and unfunded) before. If I'd known that 8 others would file, I would have thought better of it. <br />But I want to comment on what I think is the reason behind the rush of petitions. I don't think the intention of any of the petitioners was to subvert the review system. Grant applicants who are used to the NIH system expect to have a chance to revise and resubmit their applications in response to the reviewers' critiques. I know that review committees are not offended by this, because I've served on many. In fact, in the last few years, the best strategy for getting an NIH grant funded was to re-submit revised proposals TWICE. The third submissions (called "A2") had a much higher rate of success than the first submissions!<br />I know that this was not the purpose of the petition system, but because of this NIH system, applicants are poised to respond to the reviewers' critiques, and mean no offense to the reviewers. <br />Jeanne LoringJeanne Loringnoreply@blogger.com