The senior fellowship is designed to provide training for experienced scientists to make major changes in the direction of their research careers, or to broaden their scientific background by acquiring new research capabilities. These awards will enable individuals beyond the new investigator stage to take time from regular professional responsibilities for the purpose of receiving training to increase their scientific capabilities to engage in health-related research. This program is not designed for investigators seeking to prove their research potential. The proposed study must be full-time and must include the conduct of research with supervision or other opportunity for guidance appropriate to the applicant's background and objective. Senior fellowship support may be requested for a period of up to 2 years.
Please use the following guidelines when preparing written comments on senior fellowship applications assigned to you for review. Minimize descriptive and emphasize evaluative comments. Include the section heading titles, a rating adjective for each section, and follow the order of this guide. Your written reviews should not bear personal identifiers, because the reviews, essentially unaltered, will become part of the final summary statements sent to candidates.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Provide an overall evaluation of the application and a recommendation of numerical rating, or no further consideration should be given to the application, or deferral. If you assign a priority rating or score, assess the appropriateness of the years requested for accomplishing the research training, fully justifying any change.
CANDIDATE: Describe and evaluate the candidate's research competence through an assessment of academic background, pertinent awards and honors, research experience, professional training, publications, and references.
RESEARCH PROPOSAL:
Scientific Merit: Briefly summarize the research proposal and evaluate its strengths and
weaknesses, considering the quality and appropriateness of the research design and methods,
as well as the significance of the problem to be addressed.
Training Potential: Evaluate the training value of the research proposal relative to the candidate's training and career goals.
For revised applications, comment briefly on whether the application is improved, the same or worse. For renewal applications, comment briefly on the candidate's progress under current award and any additional training.
TRAINING RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT: Assess the quality of the research resources and environment, especially the suitability of the sponsor and department.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
Foreign Training: Describe the scientific advantages of the foreign training as compared to the training available domestically. Comment on any special talents, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that are not readily available in the United States or that augment existing United States resources. This consideration should not be factored into your overall recommendation and rating.
Human Subjects:
No Exemptions Claimed: Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the responses to the six required points, especially whether the risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to the subjects and in relation to the importance of the knowledge that may be expected to result from the research.
Vertebrate Animals: Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the responses to the five required points, especially whether the procedures will be limited to those that are unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research.
Biohazards: Note any materials or procedures that are potentially hazardous, and indicate whether the protection proposed will be adequate.
Minority and Gender Issues: As reviewers of fellowship applications you will determine if human subjects and/or human tissues are involved in the project and, if so, for scored applications (1) determine if the research is a Phase III clinical trials project, and (2) evaluate whether the minority and gender characteristics of the sample are scientifically acceptable and consistent with the aims of the project. You should evaluate the characteristics on a scale of "1" to "4" as follows:
| SCALE | Minority (M) | Gender (G) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | minority and non-minority | females and males |
| 2. | minority only | females only |
| 3. | non-minority only | males only |
| 4. | unknown | unknown |
You should evaluate acceptability as "A" (acceptable) or "U" (unacceptable). If you rate
the sample as "U", you should consider this feature a weakness or a deficiency in the
design of the project reflected in the overall scoring of the project.
NOTE: Your written reviews should not bear personal identifiers because unaltered
comments will be sent to the investigator.