Title: Double Jeopardy: Researcher’s Proposal Gets Rejected Twice

Author: Anji Wall

Description: A junior researcher’s luck turns bad when a promising proposal gets rejected on grounds that it had been rejected by another review board.

Keyword(s): Funding, Peer Review

Based On: (Shamoo & Resnik, 2003, p. 89)

Case: Dr. Brown is a member of a grant review board for a large medical foundation as well as a member of a grant review section for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). During a meeting for a foundation review board, the board began deliberating over a grant proposal by a junior scientist. Dr. Brown commented that they had received a proposal by the same scientist on a similar subject at NIH, which had been turned down. Before Dr. Brown made this comment, the board seemed to be in favor of funding the proposal. After the comment, the tone of the discussion changed and the proposal did not receive funding.

  1. What should Dr. Brown have done after realizing a similar proposal had been submitted to NIH?
  2. What should other members of the foundation review board do when presented with this kind of information?
  3. The junior scientist finds out why the proposal was not accepted. What should she do about this?
  4. What should the chairman of the foundation review board have done when Dr. Brown spoke up about the proposal?

Source: Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.