The latter criterion is highly subjective and unscientific. Review panels expect so much preliminary data to ensure the feasibility of the proposed project that the major part of a discovery needs already to have been made. This implies that NIH is not funding actual discoveries, but merely their further characterization. Feasibility studies must often be conducted with the support of previous grants that were awarded for other purposes. This countermands the detailed description of experiments required by NIH grant applications, since principal investigators are pressured to channel their efforts toward generating preliminary data in addition to, or instead of, performing the funded experiments.
Investigators spend a large portion of their time preparing grant applications.
This is time not spent on research per se. In the case of currently funded scientists, much of this time is paid for by NIH grants in the form of salary support. The period between application and earliest funding is an unacceptable 10 months, during which time many fields advance rapidly. The review process consumes a significant portion of the reviewers' time, which is likely to lead to resentment and loss of objectivity, since this is time taken away from their own research activities. NIH officials publicly admit the lack of quality time devoted by the reviewers to this process.