750 First Street, NE
Suite 905
Washington, DC 20002-4241
Tel: (202) 336-5920
Fax: (202) 336-6183
[email protected]
http://www.fbpcs.org
Statement of Support for Grants Funded Under
NIH’s Peer Review System
Scientific research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) must be judged to be
of the highest scientific quality before grant awards are made to scientists. NIH’s peer
review system is rigorous and recognized around the world as the “gold standard” for
evaluating quality and relevance in research proposals. The process involves review by
independent scientific experts from around the country, as well as review by agency
advisory councils which include public representatives.
The interests of the American people are best served by a scientific process that is not
subject to political or personal attacks. Recent attacks on three NIH grants that address
HIV/AIDS prevention in at-risk populations around the world — despite the quality of the
proposals and independent judgment of their merit and contribution to public health — may
set back our understanding of the social and cultural contexts of high-risk behaviors in
vulnerable populations and ultimately our knowledge about the best ways to control the
spread of HIV/AIDS. Likewise, singling out basic research projects that increase our
understanding of fundamental principles (e.g., how memory works or how speech
develops), without a full understanding of the importance of the research in building a
foundation of knowledge that will improve the health of the population, decreases morale in
the scientific community and, again, may slow scientific progress. To accomplish its
mission of improving the nation’s health, the NIH must support all promising areas of
science.
The NIH’s peer review process has helped to make NIH one of the world’s premier
scientific institutions. The highly competitive process for reviewing proposals results in
only one in five proposals receiving funding – and the percentage of applications supported
using ARRA funding is considerably lower. The integrity of the review process is
undermined when individual grants are targeted, despite prior judgment by NIH and
independent scientists that the projects are significant and relevant to the agency mission.
Congress has an important oversight responsibility, but must ensure that the scientific
process critical to advancing the health of the population is protected. FABBS supports
NIH’s peer review system and its decision to fund research that will advance its mission to
improve the public health. We encourage Members of Congress to resist efforts to target
specific areas of research or individual grants and to protect the integrity of the peer review
process used by our nation’s premier institutions.
American Educational Research Association • American Psychological Association • Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback • Association for
Behavior Analysis International • Behavior Genetics Association • Cognitive Science Society • Human Factors and Ergonomics Society • International Society for
Developmental Psychobiology • Massachusetts Neuropsychological Society • National Academy of Neuropsychology • Psychonomic Society • Society for Behavioral
Neuroendocrinology • Society for Computers in Psychology • Society of Experimental Social Psychology • Society for Industrial and Organization Psychology •
Society for Judgment and Decision Making • Society for Mathematical Psychology • Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology • Society for Personality
Assessment • Society for Personality and Social Psychology • Society for Psychophysiological Research • Society for Research in Psychopathology