This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:
The lead editorial in the August, 1965 issue of the Archives, entitled, The Good and Bad of Research Support," contains several statements which I believe should not remain unchallenged. While initially doling out a small measure of recognition for "the prudence... exercised by the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness in the allocation of government funds for research," the editorial goes on to criticize the fundamental basis for the research project award system. This system involves a dual review of each research project proposal by panels of nongovernmental experts appropriate to the given field, and has received the highest praise in a recent intensive appraisal of the whole National Institutes of Health extramural effort by a special Presidential committee. Instead, the writer calls for the Federal underwriting of certain individuals of "integrity and productivity," thus relieving them of the wearisome burden of drafting a reasonable plan
Weinstein GW. RESEARCH SUPPORT. Arch Ophthalmol. 1966;75(2):301. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1966.00970050303028
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: