AMP calls for greater transparency, balanced scientific expertise, and safeguards against methodological bias as NIH considers changes to its peer review process.

Washington, D.C. — October 13  — This week, Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) submitted comments in response to a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Request for Information proposing to replace final overall impact scores and percentiles with broader competitiveness categories.

As NIH places greater emphasis on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in its funding and peer review processes, AMP’s response outlines three recommendations:

1. Adopt more nuanced reporting categories to provide applicants with meaningful information about their competitiveness.
2. Increase transparency around NIH’s recruitment of “human-based” science experts to serve as grant reviewers.
3. Solicit formal public comment on the recruitment initiative to ensure scientific societies, institutions, and investigators have an opportunity to provide input.

Regarding Recommendations 2 and 3, AMP used this comment opportunity to raise concerns about NIH’s recently announced effort to recruit “human-based” science experts for its study sections. Specifically, AMP requested clarity on the following:

• Recruitment and qualifications: How reviewers will be recruited, screened, and selected.
• Balanced scientific expertise: How NIH will maintain appropriate expertise across animal models, NAMs, and complementary research approaches.
• Methodological bias: How NIH defines and evaluates perceived “animal methods bias” and will safeguard against introducing new biases.
• Reviewer training: Whether training on methodological bias will be developed and made publicly available.

Read AMP’s comments here.