@article{5f70a5e2a4074131a7321ce9c6029b94,
title = "Knowing it and proving it are two different things",
author = "Clay, {Patrick G.}",
note = "Funding Information: In October 2012, an article title appeared in the journal Nature that included the words “optimize the predictive value of preclinical research.” 1 Though Nature exerts great influence in the scientific community and is often the first to publish groundbreaking discoveries about our world, I completely ignored this article–until last month. It appears this article resonated deeply with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the extent that on June 9, 2015, the NIH's Office of Extramural Research (OER) announced it is planning to “clarify and revise” application instructions and review criteria submitted for funding consideration. Funding Information: Why is this important? The NIH's OER sets the policies for grant applications. Which grants? Per the OER website, roughly 83% of the $30 billion NIH budget (basic and clinical). At present, OER has only “proposed” changes for applications submitted in 2016 ( http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-103.html ), but it is highly likely what OER has proposed will take effect with little alteration. Where the NIH goes, other federal agencies as well as major foundations are bound to follow–in other words, those funding sources often supporting pharmacist services demonstration projects and clinical trials are likely to adopt these policies over time. Copyright: Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "2015",
month = jul,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1331/JAPhA.2015.15524",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "464",
journal = "Journal of the American Pharmacists Association",
issn = "1544-3191",
publisher = "American Pharmacists Association",
number = "4",
}