Within the medical field, the destigmatization of mental health is a relatively new phenomenon. Even just a few decades ago, patients suffering from mental health conditions that we would now consider “common” would be labeled by society as outcasts. However, there is still a long way to go, and the first step that needs to be taken is a complete restructuring of the system that funds mental health research.
Although the end goal of the medical industry is to help people, the system is currently so overwhelmed that it often loses track of this purpose. There isn’t enough transparency or diversity of opinion in the industry to serve patients in the best possible way. Those at the forefront of the medical industry are so flustered trying to provide care that they cannot pursue the innovations they should. Organizations such as 1907 Foundation were founded to change the industry for the better by innovating a new way to make funding decisions.
When it comes to technological innovations in the healthcare industry, patients should always be put first. “The development of new technology should not have to be limited or influenced by money or other external factors,” says Adam Pieczonka, co-founder and chair of 1907 Foundation. “Still, the sad reality is that egos often dictates the decision-making process in research funding — especially in the medical field.”
Limitations of the status quo of grant applications
One of the aspects of the grant application system that is especially problematic is its reliance on applicants’ resumes. The first thing an evaluator sees is the applicant’s resume, with their name, institution, past collaborators, and awards. These factors all create additional bias. Often, evaluators don’t recognize the idea’s merit, but rather the pedigree of the person who has developed it.
However, it is also the system by which grant applications are evaluated that is inherently flawed. Many grant programs use absolute rankings as opposed to relative rankings. In other words, they score each idea on a hard scale in a set number of categories rather than determining what the top applicants are in a holistic sense. This creates conflicts and places more weight on some evaluators’ opinions than others, which is not an effective or fair decision.
Worse yet, many grant funding decisions are made by a panel of only three expert evaluators. How is this small sample size representative of the true merits of these innovations and technologies applying for funding? If only one reviewer is conflicted, it can skew the entire evaluation process and cause an idea that would otherwise deserve it to be left without funding.
Furthermore, what factors determine who becomes one of the evaluators making these funding decisions? Often, it is scientific professionals who put their entire reputations and careers on the line to advocate for these new innovators and fresh minds. However, the fact that they are visibly connected to the grant decision process means they don’t want to risk their images by supporting ideas that are perhaps more unorthodox or more innovative.
Making better funding decisions
The process being pioneered by 1907 Foundation ensures that funding decisions are made solely on the purity of the underlying science. The review process used in determining which applicants will receive funding from 1907 Foundation through their Trailblazer Awards involves much greater accountability on the reviewer’s part, ensuring that they conduct the decision-making process fairly.
One of the main things distinguishing the 1907 Foundation’s grant review process from other organizations is that 10 or more reviewers evaluate the application, rather than a typical committee of three. Furthermore, each of these reviewers conducts their review rounds independently without seeing the results of others’ evaluations, ensuring they do not suffer from “groupthink.” The final round is then open to a group discussion where all marks are shared and discussion is encouraged.
The level of information collected by the system and shown to evaluators also makes a substantial difference in the application process. The system collects a significant amount of data on both the applicant and reviewer, ensuring they are matched to avoid potential conflicts of interest. This way, when a reviewer is evaluating the application, they see only the proposal — not any of the applicant’s identifying information — ensuring they make their decision based solely on the quality of the research proposal, not their perception of the person conducting the research.
An innovative software to fix the system at its core
To eliminate the pervasive bias throughout a typical funding process, 1907 Foundation uses a first-of-its-kind grant management software called Atala. This software, created in-house for their own use, was designed to make the grant application process more efficient and equitable.
“Innovation and disruption create progress,” Pieczonka explains. “The obstacle we face is closing gaps in knowledge, access, and resource allocation. The Atala software allows us to fill this need.”
Perhaps the most frustrating part of the status quo is that researchers spend 40% of their time on grant aplications. By streamlining the process through software such as Atala, grant-issuing organizations can ensure they receive the information they need for their evaluators to make an informed decision, without making the process overly-convoluted and time-consuming for the applicant. Applicants can then spend more of their time conducting research and helping people.
Although 1907 Foundation specifically focuses on funding research in the mental health field, they believe that this groundbreaking approach to grant funding can have significant applications beyond this specific field. After all, most people who apply for grants intend to change the world for the better. “By making this process more ethical and more equitable to all, we open the door to a new generation of innovators and groundbreaking thinkers,” Pieczonka asserts.
