In DepthResearch Funding

Amid fears of idea theft, NIH targets foreign funding links

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  31 Aug 2018:
Vol. 361, Issue 6405, pp. 834
DOI: 10.1126/science.361.6405.834

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

  • NIH should focus on devising the better funding review strategy

    Jocelyn Kaiser et al. wrote an article entitled “Amid fears of idea theft, NIH targets foreign funding links” (1). A country that has economical leeway is generous to foreign people. For example, at the beginning of the 1980s in US universities, there was no scholarship difference between foreign students and US-citizen students. The strong term “idea theft” may mislead. The NIH's mission is to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health for “everyone”. Simply described, the goal of NIH research is to acquire new knowledge to help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability. The term “everyone” in the NIH’s mission should be changed into “people in US”. I agree that it is important for NIH to look to punish reviewers who violate confidentiality (1,2). However, NIH should focus on devising the better funding review strategy. Diversity plays a key role in real peer-reviewed evaluations. Grant application review is similar to paper peer review. Derek Lowe stated that great papers that have been rejected (3). Because, NIH’s review is lacking in diversity. The current NIH’s citation-based strategy does not work at all. John P.A. et al. mentioned that review articles receive more citations than articles with new empirical data (4). Editorial also states that reviews receive higher citations than original research papers (5). The review paper authors may not have contributed anything to the discoveries they summarized, yet they end up getting the cr...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science