Predominance of animal-based expertise may bias NIH neuroscience grant review: A pilot study with implications for non-animal methodologies

Despite increased enthusiasm for research methods that can replace the use of animals, the numbers of animals used in science and the funding for animal-based projects remain high. Our work addresses whether a possible "animal methods bias," a preference for or greater familiarity with animal-based methods, in the grant review process may be contributing to this problem. In a novel pilot study to assess the possibility of animal methods bias in the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) funding of basic, translational, and preclinical neuroscience research, we used the NIH's iCite and RePORTER tools to characterize the expertise of members of 23 non-clinical NIH study sections and the methods used in successful grants scored by these review groups, based on publicly available data. Our data suggest that study sections assessing grants for basic, translational, and preclinical neuroscience research are largely composed of reviewers whose primary expertise is in animal-based methods. Animal use among reviewers positively correlated with the number of animal-based grants funded and negatively correlated with funding of non-animal research methods. Recommendations for further study and for avoiding or mitigating animal methods bias in grant review are provided.