A researcher's personal account of NIH grant review dysfunction — specifically, the penalization of novel, dogma-challenging, and translatable research — and the decision to relocate their laboratory to Europe (Helsinki).
The author argues that current NIH review practices, including reviewer bias against novelty and critique of dogma, and program officer guidance to reject proposals on certain topics, risk substantive harm to U.S. biomedical progress.
This is a single-author opinion/commentary with no empirical data; findings are based entirely on personal experience and cannot be generalized without broader evidence.
