Rebecca Wagenaar-Miller, PhD Scientific Review Officer National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial...
-
Upload
kelly-logan -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Rebecca Wagenaar-Miller, PhD Scientific Review Officer National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial...
Rebecca Wagenaar-Miller, PhDScientific Review Officer
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
NIH
1
PhD Vanderbilt University Department of Cancer Biology (2002) Matrix Metalloproteinase-7 in Mouse Models of
Intestinal Tumorigenesis Vanderbilt University Postdoctoral
Fellow (2002-2003) MMP-7 in pre-clinical model of colorectal cancer
NIH, NIDCR Postdoctoral Fellow (2003-2007) Type II transmembrane serine proteases MMP-mediated and uPARAP-mediated collagen
degradation in development Scientific Review Officer (SRO), NIDCR,
NIH (2007-present)
2
Give a brief look into the NIH peer review process
Update you on changes in NIH peer review Discuss strategies for a successful
application Provide a few resources
3
4
5
6
ResearchGrant
Application
School or OtherResearch Center
National Institutes of Health
Center for Scientific Review
InitiatesResearchIdea
ConductsResearch
Submits Application
Allocates Funds
Assigns to IRG/Study Section & IC
Evaluates for Scientific Merit
Evaluates for Program Relevance
Advisory Councils and Boards
Institute Director
Recommends Action
Takes final action for NIH Director
Institute
Study Section
7
8
To ensure that grant applications and contract proposals are evaluated by qualified scientific peers in a fair, objective, and timely manner.
9
Conducted according to the Federal Advisory Committee Act
o Meetings are closed to the public
o All materials and discussions – strictly confidential
Over 80,000 applications reviewed per year
Almost 18,000 reviewers
10
80% of applications are reviewed by CSR in Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) that are part of Integrated Review Groups (IRGs)
The rest are reviewed by individual ICso Requests for Applications (RFAs)o Program Announcements with IC
Review (PARs)o Training Applications (F, K’s)o ‘Complex’ Applications (P, U’s,
Clinical Trials)o Contract Proposals
11
The legal summary of the review meeting
Includes all three reviewer critiques, largely unedited
Includes a resume, which is a summary of the discussion of the meeting, focusing on the major strengths and weaknesses that resulted in the overall impact score
Used by council, applicants, program staff
12
Applications Arrive
Peer Review Meeting
Summary Statement Council
One month
2-6 weeks
2-3 months
Pre-application
Programand GM
Peer Review Council
Award and Post Award
Program Scientific Review Officer
13
To Request a Scientific Review Group Cover letter of application
o Application titleo FOA# and titleo Request:– Assignment to particular SRG or study section–Assignment to particular IC for funding consideration– Disciplines involved, if multidisciplinary– Explanation for late application
Not all requestscan be honored.
SRG rosters are posted 30 days before the SRG meeting:http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfmhttp://www.csr.nih.gov/committees/rosterindex.asp
14
Reviewer Assignments• For each application: – ≥ Three qualified reviewers are assigned (“2 + 1”)– Assignments are made by the SRO • Based on the scientific content of application• Expertise of the reviewer• Suggestions from the PI on types of expertise –
not names!• Suggestions from Program staff
Assignments areconfidential!
15
Impact Score Descriptor Additional Guidance on Strengths and Weaknesses
High Impact
1 Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses
2 Outstanding Extremely strong with only negligible weaknesses
3 Excellent Very strong with only some minor weaknesses
Moderate Impact
4 Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses
5 Good Strong but with at least one moderate weakness
6 Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses
Low Impact
7 Fair Some strengths but with at least one major weakness
8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses
9 Poor Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses
Non-numeric score options: NR = Not Recommended for Further Consideration, DF = Deferred, AB = Abstention, CF = Conflict, NP = Not Present, ND=Not Discussed
•Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact•Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact•Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact
11 33 22
16
NIH Scoring System Preliminary scores (before the meeting)– Entered by assigned reviewers and discussants in secure website– Made available to other SRG members
Final overall impact/priority scores (at the SRG meeting)– Voted by private ballot– All eligible members vote Reviewers are instructed to revise their criterion scores after the meeting.
17
Post-submission Materials Applications submitted for Sept. 25th, 2010 and later:– Will only accept administrative materials resulting from
unforeseen administrative issues, such as– Revised budget page(s) (e.g., due to new funding)– Biographical sketches (e.g., due to the loss of an
investigator)– Letters of support or collaboration (e.g., due to the
loss of an investigator)– Adjustment resulting from natural disaster (e.g., loss of
animal colony)– Adjustments resulting from change of institution (e.g.,
PI moves to another university)– News of an article accepted for publication (do not
sent article) Special provisions for training grants and certain
FOAs Notice OD-10-11518
SRG Meeting Procedures Discussion format –Members with conflicts excused – Initial levels of enthusiasm stated(assigned
reviewers and discussants)– Primary reviewer - explains project, strengths,
weaknesses–Other assigned reviewers and discussants
follow–Open discussion (full panel)– Levels of enthusiasm (assigned reviewers)
restated– Individual SRG members vote–Other review considerations discussed
(budget)19
20
NEW Sections OLD Sections
INTRODUCTION-Revision (1 page) INTRODUCTION-Resubmission (3 pages)
SPECIFIC AIMS (1 page) SPECIFIC AIMS (1 page)
RESEARCH STRATEGY (R01-12 PAGES)
R01 25 pages
Significance Background and Significance
Innovation
Approach- Research Design and Methods
-(preliminary studies-part of approach)
Preliminary Studies
-(progress report-part of approach) Progress report
21
Impact Score
Do not Impact Score
22
Research Project Grant (RPG): likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the five core review criteria, and additional review criteria
Fellowship (F): likelihood that the fellowship will enhance the candidate’s potential for, and commitment to, a productive independent scientific research career in a health-related field, in consideration of the scored and additional review criteria
Career Development (K): likelihood for the candidate to maintain a strong research program, taking into consideration the criteria in determining the overall impact/priority score
23
24
Background:o Concern about the number of New Investigators
(NI) and the increasing age at first award
Goals: o Enrich the applicant pool with enough Early
Stage Investigator (ESIs) to reduce the average age at first award
o Accelerate the period of training leading to independence
25
26
NIH created a new ‘Early Stage Investigator’ (ESI) category designed to accelerate the early transition of new scientists to research independence by receiving their first R01 earlier. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-121.html
A PD/PI who qualifies as a New Investigator is considered an Early Stage Investigator (ESI) if he/she is within 10 years of completing his/her terminal research degree or is within 10 years of completing medical residency (or the equivalent).
NOT-OD-08-121 September 26, 2008
New Investigator Policies are limited to applications for traditional research project grant (R01) support.
All New Investigators are encouraged to apply for NIH R01 awards.
During Peer Review:o NI/ESI applications will be clustered during
reviewo Consider the career stage of the PD/PI when
evaluating elements of the applications, such as the availability of preliminary data
27
The NIH modified the collection of information on degree dates and medical residency within the personal profile of the eRA Commons.
PD/PIs must update their personal profile in the eRA Commons in order to be considered for the ESI classification. Investigators who enter degree and residency completion dates will be notified of their ESI status by email.
A procedure and guidelines for requesting an extension of the period of ESI eligibility is in place to accommodate individuals with various medical concerns, disability, pressing family care responsibilities, or active duty military service (instructions in Commons).
28
NOT-OD-10-039,January 8, 2010
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-039.html
Over the past three years, about 25 percent of all competing R01 awards have gone to New Investigators
Continue to equilibrate success rates for established and New Investigators submitting new R01 applications
Should permit the NIH to support 1,650 or more New Investigators
A majority of the New Investigators will be Early Stage Investigators
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm
30
31
Start early Start with a good idea Talk to your NIH Program Official(s) Remember review criteria Show you draft application to colleagues
o who do not already know what you intend to do
o who are not your best friend
o who has/had the same type of grant
Follow instructions carefully
32
33
Propose experiments that take advantage of o YOUR trainingo YOUR expertiseo YOUR environment
Don't say that you're going to learn a sophisticated new technique and then apply it in later yearso If you need a collaborator(s), get a strong one
who publishes in peer-reviewed journals and who has a grant
34
A major problem with applications from first time investigators is being overly ambitious.
Focus Focus Focus Did I remember to say “Focus”?
o Be certain every aim and experiment is clearly related to the overall goal of the application.
35
grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/listserv.htm
36
Late submission policy for NIH study section service for any PI/PD of grant application (NOT-OD-08-027)o Standard receipt dates (1 or 2 weeks late)o “Late applications have been accepted for reasons such
as…temporary or ad hoc service on a NIH extramural peer review group”
o “No NIH staff member whether in the Center for Scientific Review or any of the other Institutes/Centers has the authority to give permission in advance for a late application.”
Cover letter importanto Identify study sectiono Identify areas of expertise neededo Can list conflicts that should not review application (but
be prepared to justify) Submit to R01 to take advantage of NI/ESI mandate Submit to RFAs if possible… free review of
application
37
A Searchable database of federally supported biomedical research
Access reports, data, analyses, expenditures, results of NIH supported research activities
Identify, Analyze IC(s) research portfolios, funding patterns, funded investigators:o Identify areas with many or few funded projectso Identify NIH-funded investigators and their
researcho Identify potential mentors/collaborators
38
NIH Guide: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/ NIH Office of Extramural Research
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm NIAID “how to” website for developing a grant application:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/default.htm Writing a Grant: A Technical Checklist from NINDS:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/grantsmanship_checklist.htm
NIH RePorter: database of all funded grants including abstracts, funding amounts, study section, PI, and much more info: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
NIH Peer Review Policies and Practices http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer.htm
Changes to Peer Review (and applications) http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/docs/application_changes.pdf
39
40