Pisters: “Trust is broken when a grant reviewer decides that an idea should be better done elsewhere”

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print

As MD Anderson investigates reports of wrongdoing by its faculty members, it does so with full understanding that the stakes are as high as it gets: the integrity of the NIH peer review system, MD Anderson’s good name, and the future of cancer research.

To access this subscriber-only content please log in or subscribe.

If your institution has a site license, log in with IP-login or register for a sponsored account.*
*Not all site licenses are enrolled in sponsored accounts.

Login Subscribe

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Twenty years ago, the discovery of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations as drivers of tumorigenesis and viable targets for therapeutic intervention marked the beginning of a new era in lung cancer diagnosis and treatment. Since then, the field has made remarkable progress towards developing more effective targeted treatments and immunotherapies that have significantly improved patient outcomes and survival.
Paul Goldberg
Editor & Publisher

Login