The National Institutes of Health, in considering anonymous grant applications, has been emboldened by evolutionary changes in science that include the trend toward interdisciplinary work, an agency leader said.
The greater frequency of research projects that cross multiple academic disciplines should significantly improve the ability of grant applicants to compete solely on the quality of their ideas, Lawrence A. Tabak, the NIH’s principal deputy director, said in an interview.
Mr. Tabak elaborated on an NIH announcement last week that his agency was considering a pilot program in which grant applicants would remain anonymous as their applications were reviewed.
Although the concept is still in its early stages, Dr. Tabak spoke enthusiastically of the idea, citing early signs from a similar study at the National Science Foundation that found anonymity cut the advantages enjoyed by more senior researchers and more prestigious universities.
“It should be the quality of my idea that matters,” Dr. Tabak said, “and not where my degree was conferred.”
The NSF, as part of its two-year-old Big Pitch initiative, has tested two approaches: requiring reviewers to evaluate grant applications without knowing who had submitted them, and cutting the length of the grant application to about two pages from 15.
The result produced sharp differences in outcomes, with less-experienced researchers winning more grants through anonymous applications and more concise project descriptions, NSF officials said.
‘The Quality of the Idea’
Dr. Tabak said he recognized that some academic fields are so specialized that reviewers would recognize applicants even without their names on the paperwork. In such instances, he said, the NIH could test alternative application forms, perhaps requiring candidates to describe relevant background research without acknowledging any personal involvement in it.
In a growing number of instances, however, the interdisciplinary nature of proposals should mean reviewers won’t necessarily recognize applicants without their names, Dr. Tabak said. “Increasingly, this becomes less of a problem with time,” he said.
The NIH does recognize that a record of success still could be important in the grant-review process, Dr. Tabak said. That factor could be incorporated into reviews by having professional staff members provide reviewers with a general summary of the applicant’s experience, he said.
Younger researchers are likely to appreciate the effort, said Morgan A. Sammons, a postdoctoral fellow in biology at the University of Pennsylvania who also writes on issues of science policy.
“The quality of the idea should be the main component of the review,” assuming the agency can be sure the applicant truly has the resources to carry out the project, Mr. Sammons said.
Exceptions, he said, might involve individual fellowships or training awards, which “certainly require some level of knowledge about the applicant,” he said.
Any changes also must avoid hurting confidence in the system, said Keith A. Williams, a visiting professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Virginia. Some would-be reviewers might not want to participate if they were allowed only limited information about applicants, Mr. Williams said.
“I don’t think we can afford to lose reviewers,” Mr. Williams said. Yet some pilot projects of the idea seem warranted, he said.
