Post

This new policy from NIH is concerning. It looks like a way to weaponize administrative burden, one of Russell Vought's favorite moves to break gov't. Background: Program staff / NIH institute directors can move grants around outside peer review order. 1/

for example, Institute directors, program staff and offices (here ICOs) can take a grant that peer review scored highly and pass over it if they think there's too much work on the topic already. Or they can take a grant that scored badly and fund it if they think the work is important.

One stop for arbitrary, non-scientific decision-making for grant awards is to require institute officials to write specific justifications when awards are made outside of peer review ordering. /4

So what is concerning about this policy? 1. it requires new, added justification for EVERY grant funded, and 2. it says that no explicit justification should be written for going out of peer review order. /5

in other words: it's adding a mountain of new paperwork, and removing the most important parts of it. Any justification for ignoring peer review order will be hidden in a pile of irrelevant noise. And because this increases the workload on program officials, the new justifications will be rushed.