Close Menu

Irony at the NIH

Mike the Mad Biologist is a bit taken aback as he points to a statistical analysis in PLoS One that shows the NIH peer review process is not exactly steeped in the principles of statistical sampling. The paper says that the current number of recommended reviewers for each grant doesn't provide the level of precision that the NIH mandates for scoring the application.

To read the full story....

...and receive Daily News bulletins.

Already have a GenomeWeb or 360Dx account?
Login Now.

Don't have a GenomeWeb or 360Dx account?
Register for Free.

The Washington Post reports on researchers' efforts to determine the effect of an increasingly common SARS-CoV-2 mutation.

Florida Politics reports Florida's law barring life, long-term care, and disability insurers from using genetic information in coverage decisions went into effect at the beginning of July.

A new analysis finds a link between popular media coverage of a scientific study and how often that paper is cited.

In Nature this week: CRISPR approaches to editing plant genomes, way to speed up DNA-PAINT, and more.