3 ms·

Aside from the couple of daft suggestions outlined in the article, this doesn't seem so bad. A mountain being made of a molehill, perhaps?

• 40four 4mo ago
  Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says: “The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
  • SubiculumCode 4mo ago
    yes further down? Or did you stop there?
    • 40four 4mo ago
      I read it all. But like many of these science.org articles they are pretty short, and not of the best quality in my opinion. The article itself admits the practice isn’t widespread. It sounds to me like there are a few disgruntled folks on the research side because of some unexpected/ unwanted back and forth in the “commenting” phase of the research? I’m not going to act like I know the mechanics of how research projects like that progress, but it doesn’t sound like it was more than a road bump and then the projects continued after said commenting. No projects were defunded or cancelled as per the article. Were the government commenters out of line or uninformed? Sure that wouldn’t shock me. Does that equate to “HHS is overriding peer review” on some grand systematic level? Seems like a big jump to me, and I don’t feel like the article demonstrates that, but I’m open to other ideas if you see it differently
• gmueckl 4mo ago
  What about the automatic scanning for politically inconvenient keywords then? How do you figure that this isn't bad?
• sega_sai 4mo ago
  I guess you are happy with this: "Staffers there who may be political appointees and not necessarily subject matter experts sometimes ask for substantive changes in the research."
• jonnycomputer 4mo ago
  Inaccurate, wrong. Did you read the article? to the end? political appointees shouldn't be trying to tell scientists what analyses to do. This is not the Soviet Union. Here: "For example, according to documentation seen by Science: *In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible. *HHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity. *An ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response. In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population." Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says.