Okay DearReader. Believe the NIH grant review process is irretrievably broken? Now's your chance.
If you have ever submitted a research grant proposal to the NIH, please estimate the percentage of your grant submissions (include each revision as an independent submission) that have received reviews with serious flaws.
Feel better? Okay, now tell us:
I see, I see. Okay, how about your study section experience as a reviewer?
If you feel strongly enough to comment on these matters, perhaps give us some idea of about how many proposals you've submitted to reach your conclusion of major problem / that's life / works perfectly or whatever. Also whether you have served on study section.
Obviously, I am curious as to whether the number of summary statements received and actual review service modulates one's view about the flaws in the system. It is my hypothesis that more experience gives you a more complete view of the strengths and weakness of the system and permits a more nuanced viewpoint. This is just one of the many, many reasons I think that CSR should be getting people closer to the beginning of their independent career involved with review as soon as possible.