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

With the recent FDA approval of daratumumab for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma, the moment is ripe to revisit the evolution of our understanding of smoldering multiple myeloma. This development not only underscores the growing recognition of early intervention but also invites a broader reflection on the biological insights and therapeutic strategies that have shaped—and continue to shape—this transitional disease state.
Paul Goldberg
Editor & Publisher

Never miss an issue!

Get alerts for our award-winning coverage in your inbox.

Login