The NIH Common Fund supports trans-NIH programs in strategic areas to address roadblocks and catalyze progress in biomedical research. Two Common Fund programs are the Pioneer Award and New Innovator Award, which I just posted about.
Each year, NIH asks internal and external scientists and stakeholders to identify new ideas for Common Fund programs. NIH is now seeking broader input on the proposed concepts to help shape them into new programs for 2013. The feedback period is open until September 14.
For more information about the Common Fund and its current programs, read this recent blog post from NIH’s Sally Rockey.
In theory I love the idea that NIH supports innovative research through the Innovator and Pioneer awards (and the Euereka grants too). However, in my own experience and in the experience of some of my colleagues, I’ve found that at least some of the reviewers are not knowledgeable in the area of the grant, and consequently some of the comments (and presumably scores) are way off base. They reveal that the reviewer did not understand fundamental aspects of the grant or of the field. That can always be true, of course, but it is especially hard for a study section to cover a very wide array of topics as it does for the Pioneer, for example. For regular R01 proposals, the study sections are more focused and presumably more informed. The comments have tended to make sense. This problem has serious repercussions for what grants are funded and the success of the program.