Financial and intellectual conflict(s) of interest are common in academic medical sciences. Those conflicts could potentially bias decisions of study section members and change grant application outcomes. During the grant review process, financial and/or intellectual conflict(s) of interest disclosures of the study section members are not readily available to the grant applicants or the public. Should the NHBI increase ...more »
Given the global burden of disease, what does NHLBI plan to do to establish a diverse global cohort to connect basic sciences to population health, in a way that differences in phenotypes around the world can be studied rapidly? For example, why not start by supporting a coalition of cohorts originally funded by the Global Heart Initiative?
There are ample research evidence related factors contributing to obesity,type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease.The research grant money is diverted heavily on "novel" topic such as genes.The preventative efforts are the key to tackle the issues.Often times,researchers on cardiovascular prevention find it difficult to add novel ideas to convince the grant reviewers in their application.There are many communities here ...more »
Challenge is to have revised grants reviewed by the same reviewers, rather than delayed by new sets of reviewers. Also, having points such as changing model species addressable through Program Staff rather than prolonged re-review.
Funding and review mechanisms are essential resources that can facilitate or hinder innovative research to meet the NHLBI goals. These resources must be refocused to result in identification and funding of the type of innovative research being sought by NHLBI. The opportunities for leveraging available NHLBI funds with other sources should be considered formally as a component of overall budget planning, not just on ...more »