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

Thomas J. Lynch Jr. and Howard A. “Skip” Burris III lead two institutions that couldn’t be more different—an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center on one side of the country and a for-profit research enterprise on the other—but they stay up at nights worrying about the same thing.
In back-to-back congressional hearings earlier this week, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that the massive staff and budget cuts over which he has presided during his nearly four months on the job as well as even bigger cuts still looming on the horizon are a part of a single plan.
Natalie Phelps, a 43-year-old mother of two, has stage 4 colorectal cancer. She has become a central figure in the controversy over the dysfunction the Trump administration’s RIFs and budget cuts have brought to NIH. 
Paul Goldberg
Editor & Publisher

Never miss an issue!

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

Login