Problems and Concerns Commonly Cited by Grant Reviewers
There was insufficient methodological detail provided that would convince
the reviewers that the investigator knows what he/she is doing
(i.e. the proposed experimental approach looks like it was simply
copied out of the Current Protocols book and there is no recognition
of potential problems and pitfalls).
Alternative approaches were not provided in case the primary
approach does not work out as expected.
The proposed project is too diffuse and lacks focus.
The proposed project is a fishing expedition that lacks any
solid scientific basis (i.e. what is the basic scientific question
that is being addressed).
The proposed experiments are simply descriptive and do not
test a specific hvpothesis.
A rationale for the proposed experiments was not provided
(i.e. why is this experiment important, or how is this experiment
relevant to the hvpothesis to be tested).
The proposed experiments to not address all of the relevant
issues, or do not include all relevant controls.
The investigator does not have experience (i.e., publications
or appropriate preliminary data) with the proposed techniques
and has not recruited a collaborator who does have the required
expertise.
The proposed studies are based on a shaky hypothesis or on
shaky data.
The proposed studies have little or no functional relevance
(i.e. no experiments that address functional relevance are proposed).
The ability to perform most of the proposed experiments depends
on the success of an initial proposed experiment (i.e., if the
answer to the first question is "no", are all the remaining
experiments worthless).
The proposed model system is not appropriate to address the
proposed questions (i.e. don't propose to study T-cell gene expression
in a B-cell line).
The project does not relate to the mission of the granting
agency, or has little significance to the scientific or clinical
issue being addressed.
The preliminary data do not support the feasibility of the
project, or do not support the hypothesis to be tested.
Important alternative hypotheses or approaches were not considered.
Why would someone want to do these experiments anyway?
The proposal is technology driven rather than hypothesis driven
(i.e., a method in search of a problem).
The proposal lacks critical iiterature references. Because
of this paucity of references it is not clear which data were
obtained by the investigator and which were reported by others.
The proposed experiments have no direction or sense of priority
(i.e. the experiments do not follow from one another, and lack
a clear starting or finishing point).
Division of Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
National Institutes of Health
Solar Building
Bethesda, MD 20892-7640
Telephone: (301) 496-1886
FAX: (301) 402-2571