NIH Grant Reviewers in 2015

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

Thank you to Jennifer Spotila for giving us permission to reprint her article and for all of her great investigative work. The original post can be found on her blog at http://www.occupycfs.com/.

NIH: Who Reviewed Grants in 2015

In order to get NIH funding, a researcher has to succeed in several levels of application review. A persistent controversy in the field of ME/CFS is the allegation that grant applications are not reviewed by ME/CFS experts. So let’s take a peek behind the curtain and find out who is reviewing ME/CFS applications.
The vast majority of ME/CFS grants are assigned to the ME/CFS Special Emphasis Panel for review and scoring. The Panel is not a standing study section with the same members over multiple meetings. For each meeting (there are two or three per year), NIH invites a different group of reviewers based on the expertise needed for the current applications. So if there is a virology application, NIH would include a virologist on the panel.
But it does not automatically mean that the invited reviewers know much about ME/CFS. In 2014, Dr. Ian Lipkin said that a grant reviewer had given him terrible scores because CFS is “psychosomatic.” And if these are the types of scientists scoring ME/CFS grants, then it should be no surprise that researchers have trouble getting funding.
As part of a larger project, I obtained the rosters for the two grant review meetings of the ME/CFS Special Emphasis Panel in 2015. I’ve linked to the PubMed results for each researcher so you can see the studies they’ve published, but I’ve also tried to characterize their expertise relevant to ME/CFS. Here is the combined list:

  • Maria-Eugenia Ariza, The Ohio State University (Epstein-Barr virus and herpes viruses), December 2, 2015
  • James Baraniuk, Georgetown University (ME/CFS and Gulf War Illness expertise), December 2, 2015
  • Italo Biaggioni, Vanderbilt University (POTS and ME/CFS expertise), December 2, 2015
  • Maureen Hanson, Cornell University (ME/CFS expertise), December 2, 2015
  • Ben Katz, Northwestern University, (ME/CFS expertise), April 14, 2015
  • Anthony Komaroff, Harvard University, (ME/CFS expertise), April 14, 2015
  • Alan Light, University of Utah, (ME/CFS expertise), April 14 and December 2, 2015
  • Roland Staud, University of Florida, (CFS and FM expertise), April 14 and December 2, 2015
  • Peter Medveczky, University of South Florida, (herpes virus expertise), April 14, 2015
  • Marshall Williams, The Ohio State University, (Epstein-Barr virus), April 14, 2015
  • Jarred Younger, University of Alabama, (chronic pain and ME/CFS), April 14 and December 2, 2015

Of these eleven reviewers, eight can be fairly described as having ME/CFS expertise, even if it is not the focus of all their research. The three remaining reviewers are experts in human herpes viruses, something that is very relevant to ME/CFS.
If you look at the rosters by each meeting, then the April 14, 2015 review meeting was 70% ME/CFS experts (five of seven). The December 2, 2015 meeting was 85% ME/CFS experts (six of seven). That’s encouraging.
However, it is important to note that this is a list for just two review meetings. And not every single ME/CFS application goes to the Special Emphasis Panel. If Dr. Lipkin’s 2014 application went to a different study section, then the makeup of the SEP has no bearing on the prejudicial scoring he received. And it is also important to note that just because 2015 was a good year, that does not mean it has always been that way.
The makeup of the ME/CFS Special Emphasis Panel is just one piece of the NIH funding puzzle. The grant applications being submitted and accepted for review, their reviewer assignments, and the competition with other grants going to the Institutes – all of these factors contribute to the extremely low funding we see year after year. That’s why I believe a Request for Applications with set aside funds is critical to reversing the trend of dismal funding.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on google
Google+
Share on email
Email

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

Sign petition To Fix ME/CFS tracking In US!

In August, we shared with you that we and six other ME/CFS organizations had submitted a proposal to the National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) to fix the coding of ME/CFS in the US International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM). Today, we are writing with an update on that proposal and asking that you sign the

Read More »

NICE announces roundtable event to ensure implementation of ME/CFS guideline

NICE announced today that it will hold a roundtable in September as the next step in the publication of the ME/CFS guideline. The roundtable will include representatives from patient organisations and charities, relevant professional societies, NHS England and NHS Improvement, NICE and the guideline committee. It aims to, “better understand the issues raised and determine

Read More »

#MEAction & 6 ME Orgs Call for CDC to Change How it Tracks ME/CFS

Together with six other organizations, we have submitted a proposal to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to add myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to the neurological chapter of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM).  Today, ME/CFS does not exist in the US ICD-10-CM. Instead,  most US doctors assign the code for chronic fatigue

Read More »

Help keep our work going

We rely on donations from people like you to keep fighting for equality for people with ME.

Donate

Get actions alerts and news direct to your inbox

You can choose what you want to be kept up to date on.

Subscribe
Scroll to Top