NIH Study Section
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Typical Workload
•
•
•
•
70-90 applications
20-25 members
Each application is assigned primary,
secondary, tertiary reviewer
– 8-12 applications/reviewer
Reviewers in training sections typically
review applications covering a wide range
of topics
– Unlikely to be an expert in all of the grant
applications
• http://www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/Fell
owship_section.asp
When I review grants
• On plane, traveling to meeting
– no internet access!
• At home, watching reruns of Law and
•
Order
The night before the scores are due
F criteria
K criteria
Candidate
Assess the candidate's potential to become an important contributor to
biomedical or behavioral science. Because the goal is to identify
candidates who have the highest potential to develop into productive
independent scientists upon the completion of their training, this
element of review is critical to the overall score.
• extent and level of previous education including undergraduate or graduate
degree(s), the field, academic performance, mentor and institution;
• Dissertation topic(s) in one or two sentences;
• Previous postdoctoral research or clinical experience, including: the mentor,
institution, topic, and dates;
• Evidence of commitment to a career in research;
• Awards and honors, other relevant research experience, professional
training, and publications;
• Reference letters; considering both the numerical rankings and the text of
the letters
Important Note: Candidates with clinical degrees (M.D., D.V.M., D.D.S.,
etc.) may have had little previous research experience but are eligible
for postdoctoral fellowship support and may propose training that
leads to a Ph.D. degree. The candidate's specific background should
be considered in assessing the potential to develop into a productive
scientist.
Sponsor and Environment
•
•
•
Assess the qualifications of the sponsor including his or her
research expertise and prior experience as a mentor. Also
evaluate the degree to which the level of funding for the
proposed project, the environment of the host laboratory, the
proposed training program, and the institution will be
conducive to successful postdoctoral training.
The sponsor’s training plan should be individually tailored to
the applicant and should describe planned activities such as
coursework, seminars, scientific conferences, and
opportunities for interaction with other scientists.
Training in career skills, such as grant writing, lecturing, and
giving scientific presentations, is encouraged.
Research Proposal
•
•
•
Briefly evaluate the merit of the research proposal and the general
approach, considering the applicant's research background and the
respective contributions of the applicant and the sponsor in the
development of the research proposal.
The proposal must have scientific merit, but unlike a research grant
proposal, it should be evaluated in the light of the applicant's previous
training and career development. Therefore, avoid a detailed critique
of technical aspects of the research, but check for flaws so severe that
they cast doubt on the applicant's or the sponsor's scientific judgment
and qualifications or on whether such flawed research can serve as an
appropriate vehicle for the candidate’s development.
The emphasis here should be on potential of the training plan to
provide the fellow with individualized supervised experiences that will
develop the candidate’s knowledge and research skills, and not on the
likely significance or impact on the field of the proposed research.
•
•
Considering the candidate's qualifications and previous
research experience, evaluate the proposed training
experience as it relates to preparation for an independent
research career.
Candidates may choose to remain in a scientific area related
to their previous work or shift to an entirely new area of
research, but the proposed experience must augment the
candidate's conceptual and/or experimental skills. The overall
training potential should be considered in light of the
requested period of fellowship support.
Quick overview
•
•
Candidate, etc
• Evidence of scholarly activity, commitment to research
• Sponsor: experienced in research area? In mentoring
•
(junior/senior co-mentoring plan)?
Letters of recommendation
Training plan
• More than methods training
• Regular meetings with mentor/lab meetings? Advisory
•
committee (describe contribution of each member,
include letter)?
Career enhancement skills: writing/presentation/natl
meetings
Pet Peeves with Research
Proposal
•
•
•
•
•
Too dense
Annoying tpyos, obvious cut & pastes
Too many abbreviations
Figures too small, legends/axis too small
Color photos not submitted in appendix
Pet Peeves
• Biosketch not accurate or up-to-date
– Manuscripts “in press” for 5 years
– Separate abstracts and papers
– Acceptable to list manuscripts submitted or
in preparation
Pet Peeves
• Background too long
– Not a state of the art review, should lead
the reader to the hypothesis tested
– Only discuss subjects relevant to your
research plan
• Preliminary data not properly credited
(add citation if published)
Pet Peeves
•
•
•
•
•
•
Methods: too detailed
– Don’t need protocols for standard assays, buffer
compositions, etc
No discussion of interpretation of potential
results, alternative hypothesis
Potential problems limited to technical
difficulties
Dependent aims
Overambitious, unfocused aims
No letters from collaborators/consultants
Pet Peeves
• Animals: lack of numbers justification
• ALL required sections not addressed
• Incomplete references
– List all authors, article title
• Additional pointer
– Clarify how long have you been in the lab
particularly for MD fellows
What Happens
•
Reviewers submit grades and critiques online
1 week prior to meeting
– 4 components are individually scored (candidate,
sponsor/environment, research plan, training
potential), plus overall score
• Overall score is NOT an average of components
– Reviewers read other critiques
– SRA develops rank list of grants
Stuffy hotel meeting room
•
•
•
20 people sitting around table, with laptops,
iphones and internet access
– Jet-lagged, overworked
Bottom 40% of grants are triaged (not
discussed at meeting)
– Receive reviews
– No group discussion (no summary statement)
– Receive component scores, not overall score
Grants reviewed in order of preliminary
scores
– Best to worst
What happens
•
Chair asks each of the 3 reviewers for the
initial scores*
– Primary reviewer presents overview, strengths and
weaknesses
– Other reviewers concur or discuss differences
– Discussion open to floor
– Reviewers state their final scores at end of
discussion (opportunity to modify scores/critiques)
– Group votes within the range of the scores
• Assigned reviewers have the most
influence on scoring
– Passionate reviewer (pro or con) will
influence the group
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Resubmissions
• Address all of the critiques
• Reviewers may not be the same as the
•
original
Reviewers see the original critique, but
not the original grant
The “F” word
• Not decided by the study section
• Reviewers don’t know the final score of
•
a grant
Reviewed grants get funded through a
variety of different Institutes, with
different funding lines
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Surgery Study Section, 1962