patent. The economists report their findings April 23 in Science.
“It’s good news. It’s suggesting that [grant reviewers] do on average have a clue,
cheap jordan shoes
,” says Lars Lefgren,
cheap wholesale jordans
, an economist at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City. “Some people complain that the NIH may be biased in terms of awarding grants to people with big names or established track records but who don’t have the most exciting or novel research. This study suggests those types of concerns may not happen on average.”
While the results do suggest that peer review can identify and fund impressive grant applications, Berg says that there are lots of hits and misses. Some very well-scored grants have relatively low publication records, and some grants that barely made the cut turned out to be superstars. “There’s a lot of scatter at every score,
cheap real jordans
,” he notes. But that’s to be expected. “It’s about predicting the future,
http://cheapjordansstock.com
,” he explains. “A lot of scores are given for experiments that haven’t been performed yet. It’s like picking stocks: You do what you can do,
cheap jordans online
, but you don’t expect 100 percent accuracy.” And when money is tight and funding levels are extremely competitive,
cheap Authentic jordans
, a grant proposal that just barely got funded is probably not actually a better proposal than the one that just barely missed the cut.
The study included a large percentage of grants that were competitive renewals,
cheap jordans
. These are grants that have already been funded but are not complete and need a further five years of work,
cheap retro jordans
. These grants tend to receive much higher scores and are much more likely to be funded than brand

http://www.kenklaudt.c...-Cheap-Jordans-Stock-Sale

http://www.anno.co.uk/....msg927956.html#msg927956

http://www.martas.jawn...hread.php?thread_id=32986