NIH grants vs. investigator age

After more than 40 years of full-time research in developmental biology and genetics, I wrote my first grant and showed it to those experienced in grantsmanship. They advised me my application would not succeed. I had explained that we didn't know what experiments might deliver, and had acknowledged the technical problems that beset research and the possibility that competitors might solve problems before we did. My advisors said these admissions made the project look precarious and would sink the application. I was counselled to produce a detailed, but straightforward, program that seemed realistic—no matter if it were science fiction. I had not mentioned any direct application of our work: we were told a plausible application should be found or created. I was also advised not to put our very best ideas into the application as it would be seen by competitors—it would be safer to keep those ideas secret.

If you are an editor, author, reviewer, or reader of medical journals, or if you depend on your doctor or health care provider getting unbiased information from medical journals, then the 1,500 documents now hosted on the PLoS Medicine Web site [1] should make you very concerned and angry. Because, quite simply, the story told in these documents amounts to one of the most compelling expositions ever seen of the systematic manipulation and abuse of scholarly publishing by the pharmaceutical industry and its commercial partners in their attempt to influence the health care decisions of physicians and the general public.

Many researchers are ignoring a 2005 requirement that they register proposed clinical trials in a government database as a condition for publishing their results in medical journals. And the journals are publishing the papers anyway, a new study reveals. The study, a review of 323 articles published last year in leading medical journals, found that only 147 of the clinical trials — 45.5 percent — were properly registered before the end of the trial in a way that clearly stated the main outcomes being assessed. Even among the articles that were registered, almost a third had discrepancies between the outcomes described in the registry and the ones ultimately reported. Of the trials that were not registered properly, 89 — more than half — were never entered in the National Institutes of Health’s clinical trials registry. The report appears in the Sept. 2 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Some of the salaries look very attractive, but what these surveys never indicate is the low, low probability of ever attaining any such position.