Every year, about 5000 new and competing NIH grants are awarded. The
vast majority are awarded on the basis of a peer-review system. In this
system, most grants are investigator-initiated (the R01 grant), and are
awarded on the basis of a review by an Initial Review Group (IRG) or
"study section". One may complain that the study sections tend to be
biased favorably towards people and institutions they personally know
(i.e., an "old boy's/girl's club"), as many junior faculty complain. I
completely disagree with your diagnosis of minority preference in this
system. Minorities fare particularly poorly in this peer-reviewed
system, favoring as it does "old boy's". To remedy this bias inherent
in a peer-review system, the NIH does have a small number of grant
opportunities restricted to "underrepresented minorities". The
operative word here is "small"; I know for a fact that in AIDS research,
only 1-3 of these will be awarded to minorities this year, compared to
about 500 new grants in AIDS in general (not restricted to minorities).
Thus, only 1% (or less) of NIH grants are minority-designated, not 75%
as you state!
I fully defend these minority "set aside" programs in science. They
make it easier for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to pick up
speed in the hellish-competitive world of NIH grants. These programs
enable Universities to recruit faculty that they otherwise would turn
away as "non-competitive for funding".
If you really want to piss and moan about bullshit, piss and moan about
the frigid climate for funding of basic research. The last two
Republican presidents socked it to NIH, favoring applied research over
basic research. Clinton has been even worse! Worse yet are the Newt
Wave Republicans, who tried to cut NIH funding last month by 10% per
year for the next five years!!!!! This is a time when NIH funding
should be increasing by 10% per year, since it stimulates America's best
homegrown industry today: biotechnology. Many leaders in the
pharmaceutical industry signed a letter protesting these Newt Wave
budget hacking on NIH. Fortunately, thanks to one enlightened
Republican from Oregon (Mark Hatfield), the Newt Wavers lost the vote,
and NIH fared better for 1996 and beyond. Hatfield persuaded most of
the Democrats and some of the Republicans in the Senate to reject the
budget stab for NIH last month, by a vote of 86-14.
Save your energy to lobbying for more Federal and State funding for
basic research, Kepley. Don't worry, the Newt Wavers will do their very
worst to destroy minority set-asides in the next year or so. What you
should worry about, is that the Newt Wavers want to bring down the
Federal Government and biomedicine in general. They figure that the US
is too technologically-advanced as it is and research only makes the
situation worse. Believe it or not, that is their philosophy. Ask Newt
Gingrich himself, he's written a tract on his mischief.
