It’s time to rethink peer review policies—and consider an “Earth Shot Program”

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

At a recent NIH study section that I chaired, we had many applications that we reviewed as a group before the meeting. At the meeting, we were required to discuss over 50% of the grants.

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
Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, FACP
Director, Joint Program in Cancer Biology, Brown University and Lifespan Cancer Institute
Associate Dean, Oncologic Sciences, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University
American Cancer Society Research Professor

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

In April 2025, announcements from the two most influential biomedical agencies in the US, the FDA and the NIH, declared that both will seek to reduce and minimize animal-based testing and experimentation. These declarations sparked joy in some circles, and deep concern in others that was reflected in a 28% fall in the share price of Charles River Labs (NYSE: NYSE:CRL). 
Over the past three decades, cancer genetics has transformed precision oncology. Germline testing has advanced from single-gene Sanger sequencing to parallel sequencing of hundreds of genes, while tumor (somatic) testing has expanded with the rise of targeted therapies based on point mutations, copy number changes and other alterations. 
Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, FACP
Director, Joint Program in Cancer Biology, Brown University and Lifespan Cancer Institute
Associate Dean, Oncologic Sciences, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University
American Cancer Society Research Professor

Never miss an issue!

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

Login