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

After reading “Breast Cancer Mortality Continues Three-Decade Decline, but Steeper Increases for Women Under 50 & AAPI Women of All Ages,” it is evident that while overall progress is being made in the fight against cancer, concerning disparities remain—particularly within the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) communities. 
Paul Goldberg
Editor & Publisher

Login