NIH Peer Review Notes
June 1996
Contents
![[Return to Top]](../images/uparr.gif)
Return to Top
From the Director's Desk
This is a new piece for Peer Review Notes (PRN) and one which I
hope will become a regular byline for the next permanent Director
of the Division of Research Grants (DRG), the ninth such person in
our 50 year history. It had been my hope that this issue of PRN
might be among the first publications to provide information
concerning this important appointment by Harold Varmus, but details
were not available at the time we went to "press." It does,
however, appear likely that the announcement will be made during
this current round of reviews.
During the interregnum occasioned by the retirement of Jerome
Green, after nearly a decade in DRG and 40 years of NIH service, we
have continued to move forward. As Deputy Director, and in an
acting capacity as Director since April 1995, I have been
privileged to work with our many dedicated staff in establishing
new pilot studies and effecting changes throughout DRG.
I hope that this issue of PRN will provide you with a flavor of the
changes that have been initiated in the past year in DRG and
throughout NIH. If you're reading PRN on the DRG Home Page, I
would encourage you to browse through our other offerings,
including the report of a workshop sponsored by the Medicinal
Chemistry Study Section as well as the minutes of the DRG Advisory
Committee (DRG/AC) meeting last November. It is our hope that the
Home Page will become an increasingly useful vehicle for improved
communication with the extramural scientific community.
Finally, in addition to acknowledging the critical importance of
our staff, I am also indebted to the DRG/AC, its Chair, Thomas
Braciale, and to the other permanent and temporary members for
their abiding interest and wise counsel during this period of
transition. We plan to post on the DRG Home Page the entire
minutes from our most recent meeting held on May 20-21. In the
interim, at the recommendation of the DRG/AC, we will post an
excerpt of those minutes dealing with ongoing discussions and
recommendations on the Report on Rating of Grant Applications.
This material will be linked to the more comprehensive document on
this topic found on the NIH Home Page.
Return to Top
Recalibration of Scoring in DRG Study Sections
The primary service that peer review provides to the NIH is advice on the
scientific merit of individual applications so that informed funding decisions
subsequently can be made. This advice is provided both in the form of narrative
critique and numerical score. Unfortunately, as scores have become more and more
compressed into a narrow range over time, their discriminatory value has
diminished. For example, in some DRG study sections, a spread of only 5-8
priority score points now covers a range from the 10th to the 20th percentile.
Reviewers' written critiques may also be unduly affected, to the extent that
reviewers feel compelled to adjust their critiques to match the numerical score.
Consequently, institute staff are denied the full benefit of reviewers'
scientific judgment in distinguishing among applications.
In order to address this problem, DRG is instituting changes in review
procedures, beginning with study section meetings held this summer, for reviews
that will be considered by September and October meetings of the National
Advisory Councils and Boards of the Institutes and Centers for fiscal year 1997
funding.
- Reviewers are asked to recalibrate their individual ratings such that the
"average" application they customarily review in their study section
receives a score of 2.5. Thus, half of all applications reviewed by a
study section should receive scores ranging between 1.0 and 2.5, while the
remaining half are unscored (or in some instances, e.g., review of SBIR
and fellowship applications, receive scores numerically poorer than 2.5).
- Reviewers are expected to distribute scores, for applications judged to be
in the top half, over the full range from 1.0 to 2.5.
- This change in scoring policy is being implemented in a manner that will
neither advantage nor disadvantage previous applicants. Thus, these
changes will begin with the reviews of the first applications being
considered for funding in fiscal year 1997, and will not be influenced by
earlier scoring practices.
- Only R01 and R29 applications being reviewed during the June/July 1996
meetings of study sections will be used to compute percentile ranks;
previous scoring history will be eliminated. (For applications being
reviewed in October/November 1996, percentile rank will be based on those
reviews PLUS those of the previous June/July; and percentiles for
applications reviewed in February/March 1997 will be calculated using that
meeting's scores PLUS those from the previous June/July and
October/November meetings.)
Return to Top
OTHER CHANGES IN PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES
A number of additional modifications are being made to peer review
procedures for the next round of reviews, and other modifications
are being considered for the future.
Upcoming Receipt Date for Amended Applications
Normally, July 1 is the next receipt date for competing
continuation (Type 2) and amended R01 and R29 applications. Due to
government furloughs, rescheduling of study section meetings, and
resultant delays in summary statement production, the July 1, 1996,
receipt date for amended applications only has been postponed to
July 15.
Committee Management Policies
No longer will Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigators
be considered in conflict for the review of applications from other
HHMI investigators, based solely on HHMI affiliation. For example,
an HHMI investigator at Duke University will no longer be
considered in conflict for the review of an application from an
HHMI investigator at UCLA. Other modifications in Committee
Management policies include authorization for concurrent study
section service by two members from the same institution, providing
they are not from the same department, and there is no
supervisor/employee relationship.
Study Section Membership and Voting Rules
When individuals attend study section meetings as ad hoc members,
they have been prohibited from voting on and scoring applications.
Legal counsel has now determined that through an amendment to the
charters, this policy can be modified. Therefore, all review group
charters have been amended to permit Scientific Review
Administrators to appoint "temporary members" who will be permitted
all the rights and privileges of standing members, provided they
participate fully in the review. This change will do away with ad
hoc membership and the need for the NIH Reviewers Reserve, and will
be in effect for the June round of study section meetings.
Mechanisms to be Percentiled
Beginning with the June 1996 round of study section meetings, only
R01 and R29 applications routinely will be percentiled. No longer
will percentiles appear on snap-out mailers and summary statements for such mechanisms as F32s, R03s, and R15s. In addition, nearly
all mechanisms reviewed in most Institute/Center review branches
(e.g., P01s) no longer will have percentiles displayed on snap-out
mailers and summary statements.
Mailout of Summary Statements
Historically, summary statements have been mailed to applicants by
Institute/Center staff. Beginning last round, summary statements
for investigator-initiated R01 and R29 applications that were
unscored as a result of streamlined review were mailed out directly
from DRG. Beginning with the June 1996 round of reviews, DRG will
also mail out all summary statements for applications that were Not
Recommended for Further Consideration. Perhaps in the future, all
summary statements will be mailed out directly by DRG, increasing
the timeliness with which applicants receive feedback from the
review of their applications.
Just-in-Time Submission of R29 and K-Series Grant Applications
Beginning with the June 1, 1996, receipt date, applications for R29
and career development (K-series) awards are to be submitted using
"Just-in-Time" procedures. These procedures are intended to
lighten the burden on applicants by not requiring that information
such as the applicant's/co-investigator's Other Support and certain
specific budgetary information be provided at the time of
application submission. Instead, this information will be
requested prior to making an award. This change was announced in
the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, Volume 25, Number 10, March
29, 1996, and additional information appeared in the Guide in
Volume 25, Number 16, May 17, 1996.
Pilot Studies to Enhance Efficiency of Review
Over the next review rounds, certain pilot studies will be
undertaken in an attempt to increase the efficiency of the peer
review process. For example, consideration is being given to
allowing certain applicants to respond to reviewers' criticisms in
a 3-6 page letter for consideration at the very next study section
meeting. Other pilot studies (e.g., increased use of electronic
transfer of information prior to review) are being considered.
Return to Top
INTEGRATION OF NIAAA REVIEW AREAS WITH DRG ESSENTIALLY
COMPLETE
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the Division
of Research Grants (DRG) are completing the final steps of a process initiated in
October 1992 with implementation of Public Law 103-321, which transferred the
three research institutes (NIAAA, National Institute of Mental Health, and National
Institute on Drug Abuse) of the former Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health
Administration (ADAMHA) to the NIH. The Congress recognized that the most
significant operational distinction in 1992 between the NIH and the ADAMHA
Institutes related to peer review operations, and hence, included a provision in the
law that postponed the integration of that process until October 1996.
In the spring of l995, NIAAA and DRG staff members began steps to ensure a
smooth integration of the appropriate NIAAA review activities within DRG's
centralized system of initial peer review by the target date. With concurrence of
senior NIH officials, the NIAAA/DRG working group focused on four objectives:
(1) to determine a process by which new review areas might be integrated into DRG;
(2) to develop ways to address the issues and dynamics of the research community,
the peer reviewers, and NIH staff; (3) to test a model for reconfiguring areas of
research reviewed within an Integrated Review Group's purview; and (4) to complete
NIAAA/DRG integration activities by June 1996.
In preliminary work, NIAAA staff identified two broad areas of research and the
relevant peer review committees within DRG and NIAAA. The first area was
biomedical research on alcohol and other xenobiotics. Four review groups were
involved: two subcommittees of NIAAA's Alcohol Biomedical Research Review
Committee -- Biochemistry, Physiology and Medicine Subcommittee (ALCB-1) and
Neuroscience and Behavior Subcommittee (ALCB-2) -- and two study sections of
DRG's Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Integrated Review Group --
Toxicology 1 (TOX-1) and Toxicology 2 (TOX-2). The second area of integration
activity was community prevention and control. This area involved one
subcommittee of NIAAA's Alcohol Psychosocial Research Review Committee --
Epidemiology and Prevention Subcommittee (ALCP-2) -- and a special emphasis
panel in DRG's Biobehavioral and Social Sciences Integrated Review Group.
Although the peer review integration processes involved primarily NIAAA and DRG
staff, the participation of NIEHS and NCI program staff was also a key facet of the
successful integration endeavors. Briefings and progress reports have been
presented during the past year at meetings of involved Institute advisory councils and
the DRG Advisory Committee, the Research Society on Alcoholism, and the Society
of Toxicology, as well as other internal NIH meetings.
Following preliminary discussions begun during the October 1995 integrated review
sessions, a planning meeting was held with chairpersons and representative members
of the four preexisting committees involved in the xenobiotic research area (TOX
1, TOX 2, ALCB1, ALCB 2). These individuals met in Bethesda in December
1995 to develop the structure and referral guidelines for four new integrated review
committees -- Alcohol and Toxicology 1-4 ( ALTX) -- and to assign members to
each of the appropriate committees. Despite the perturbations caused by the
Federal furlough and the blizzard, these four new committees met concurrently (as
had been originally planned) in the same hotel in February 1996. Dr. Wendy
Baldwin, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, and Dr. Donald Luecke,
Acting Director of DRG, provided welcoming comments and responded to questions
and concerns in a joint administrative orientation session. NIAAA and DRG staff
met with each ALTX committee at the conclusion of its meeting to exchange views
and to gain recommendations. In addition, reviewers were asked to complete a
questionnaire. Staff analysis of the debriefing sessions and of the questionnaires has
indicated areas of minor adjustment needed in preparation for the June 1996 review
meetings. Following these sessions, it is anticipated that the four new Alcohol and
Toxicology Study Sections will be established within the DRG Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention Integrated Review Group.
In the community prevention and control area, ALCP-2, the alcohol prevention
subcommittee, met contiguously in February 1996 with the DRG ad hoc committee,
Community Prevention and Control (CPC). The back-to-back meetings facilitated
participation of several CPC reviewers at ALCP-2, and ALCP-2 member
participation at the CPC meeting, as well as an informal dinner gathering. In June
of this year, the two committees will merge and convene as one meeting, forming
the basis for a newly established DRG committee (Community Prevention and
Control) within the Biobehavioral and Social Sciences Integrated Review Group.
The final area of implementation was integration of NIAAA's AIDS review
activities, which paralleled efforts in the other two areas above. DRG already had
an Integrated Review Group dedicated solely to AIDS (AIDS and Related Research),
which operates in a highly flexible mode. This flexibility allowed the smooth
integration of NIAAA's review of AIDS applications into the DRG AIDS study
sections with minimal readjustments.
With completion of the June 1996 integrated review meeting cycle, full integration of
NIAAA review areas into DRG will have been accomplished. As with all of the
IRGs, it is anticipated that some adjustments may be needed. The nature of the ever
evolving initial peer review process at NIH and of its research constituencies make
such flexibility and readjustment necessary on a continual basis.
Return to Top
NIGMS MODIFIED SCORING SYSTEM
The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) is currently assessing a modified method of reporting
priority scores and percentiles to applicants for R01/R29 grants. Approximately
1000 to 1200 R01/R29 applications with primary assignments to NIGMS are
reviewed by DRG study sections each review cycle. This modified system, which
began with applications to the June 1995 round of study section meetings, does not
affect how study section members review or individually score the applications. It
only affects how scores are reported to the applicants, to NIH staff, and to the
members of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council that performs
the second stage of review. The modified scoring system is based on two principles:
a. The priority score is computed to only two significant digits (e.g. 150 or
160, rather than 153 or 159), and the rounded scores are used to generate
percentiles.
b. The calculated percentile is rounded to the nearest odd integer between 1
and 99 (e.g. 7, 31, 53, etc.).
The goal of the modified reporting system is to maintain approximately the same
degree of resolution that reviewers have available to them when scoring applications,
and not imply an unwarranted degree of precision. This will have the effect of
placing many applications at the same rank, where in the past those applications may
have been ordered by their scores (e.g. priority score/percentile pairs 146/24.1,
151/24.8, and 154/26.0, would all now be reported as 150/25). Funding decisions
among applications judged to be of comparable quality by the peer review system
will be made on the basis of the NIGMS's scientific interests, program balance and
diversity, and other support information.
This trial has been ongoing for one year and may be extended for a second year.
This modified reporting system is in effect for the NIGMS only, and does not affect
other Institutes. For NIGMS applications having a secondary assignment, the scores
and percentiles calculated according to the usual DRG procedures are available to
staff in other Institutes. Summary statements scored using the modified system are
annotated to indicate how the priority score and percentile were calculated. If you
have any questions about the modified scoring system, contact a program director
at the NIGMS.
Return to Top
CHANGE IN NIH ADVISORY COMMITTEE POLICY REGARDING
EXCESSIVE SERVICE AND MULTIPLE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS
The current DHHS policy regarding excessive service on advisory committees and
multiple committee memberships has been reviewed and a determination has been
made to provide blanket waivers of this Department policy. Specifically, it is now
NIH policy that
A FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER MAY:
(a) serve continuously as a member of any single advisory
committee or standing subcommittee thereof for no more than
four years, or a full term (as stated in the committee charter)1;
(b) serve no more than 9 combined2 years on one or more
committees at NIH within a period of 12 years;
(c) serve on no more than one committee within an
Institute/Center/Division (ICD) at the same time;
d) serve on the same committee at the same time with another
individual affiliated with a particular non-Federal organization or
institution in the same city as long as the two individuals do not
serve in the same department or unit or there is not a
supervisor/employee relationship3; and
(e) serve at the same time on:
(1) two Integrated Review Groups (IRGs) from two different
ICDs;
(2) one IRG and one Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC)
from two different ICDs;
(3) two BSCs from two different ICDs;
(4) two Program Advisory Committees (PACs) from two
different ICDs; OR
(5) one PAC and one National Advisory Council (NAC) from
two different ICDs.
Individual requests for waivers from the revised NIH policy generally will not be
considered. Any such requests for waivers of the policy stated above shall be
submitted to the Director, NIH.
In accordance with Department policy, NIH is required to report on all waivers
granted. Therefore, nomination packages will be required to cite any deviation from
the current Department policy, but no formal waiver request will be required for
nominations consistent with this revised NIH policy.
ENDNOTES
- Provided initial appointment is for two years or less and rotation remains balanced:
If a member is appointed to complete a term of a declinee or a resignee, that member may be
reappointed to serve a full term.
If a member is appointed for less than a full term to adjust rotation, that member may be
reappointed to serve a full term.
If a member is appointed at start-up of a new committee for less than a full term to adjust
rotation, that member may be reappointed to serve a full term.
- Combined service is defined as total of service on all committees in a given period of time, including concurrent or overlapping service.
- No more than two individuals affiliated with a particular non-Federal organization or institution in the same
city may serve on the same committee or standing subcommittee thereof.
Return to Top
JAMES A. SHANNON DIRECTOR'S AWARD PROGRAM TO CONTINUE IN 1996
Dr. Harold Varmus, Director, NIH, has decided to continue the
James A. Shannon Director's Award program, and will support it
with approximately $4 million of the FY 1996 Director's
Discretionary Fund (DDF). A matching amount will be provided by
the Institutes and Centers (ICs) that have elected to participate
in the program. The amount of a Shannon award is $100,000
($80,000 direct cost and $20,000 indirect cost) for up to two
years, so approximately 80 awards will be made with combined DDF
and IC funding. In addition to the co-funded Shannon Awards, some ICs
intend to repeat the practice begun last year of funding some
Shannon Awards entirely with their own funds. The National
Cancer Institute (NCI) published a Notice in the March 29, 1996
NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts regarding its Shannon program,
which will include both co-funded and fully-funded NCI Shannon Awards.
The Shannon program was initiated in 1991 and each year since
then has received the endorsement of the NIH Director. The
program provides support to applicants whose applications receive
strong ratings through the peer review process, but are outside
an IC's regular payline. The purpose of the funding is to enable
such applicants to improve the competitiveness of their
applications and thus attain funding through the regular grant
funding program. The following are types of activities that
Shannon awards support: testing the feasibility of innovative
approaches, developing further tests and refining research
techniques, performing secondary analyses of available data sets,
and conducting discrete projects that can demonstrate research
capabilities or lend additional weight to an already meritorious
application. Shannon awards do not provide hardship funds to
sustain an ongoing project.
Applications are selected for nomination by IC staff. Nominated
applications must adhere to the following guidelines:
- applications must be for R01, R21, R29, and R03 grants
(either new or competing continuation);
- applications must have received a priority score better
than the 50th percentile (or, if not percentiled, a priority
score better than 250), but beyond the nominal payline;
- the applicant may not have more than a total of $300,000
(direct costs) in PHS research grant support; and
- applications may not have been revised/amended more than
two times and, for those that have been amended twice,
specific reference to why they should be considered is required. Preference will be given to unamended applications.
Priority will be given to (1) applicants who are: at the entry
level of a research career or not "established"; "established",
but changing research areas; female, minority, disabled or a
member of another disadvantaged group; and (2) applications
where the proposed project is innovative or high risk. After the
eligibility of applications nominated to receive funding has been
confirmed by the Office of the Director, in mid-July, the ICs
will send offers for these Shannon awards to the 80 or so
nominees.
Return to Top
Research Enhancement Awards Program
An initiative has emerged from four offices within the Office of the Director, NIH: Office for
Research on Women's Health (ORWH), Office for Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
(OBSSR), Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), and Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS).
The new Research Enhancement Awards Program (REAP) is designed to fund applications
which are meritorious yet outside of the regular payline of the Institute/Center (IC), and which
are of programmatic interest to these four offices. In reaching beyond the regular payline,
REAP can potentially focus on a broader spectrum of research issues than was possible
through the previous program of administrative supplements to already funded grants. As with
the Shannon Awards Program (see article in this issue), nominations require no action on the
part of the potential grantee; nominations for the REAP awards will come from the ICs to the
individual program offices of the Office of the Director, NIH. Projects reviewed and
approved through the May/June Council may be considered, and funds for approved projects
will be transferred to ICs in August 1996.
SPECIAL FEATURES OF REAP
- Nominations for these awards will be initiated by the ICs and sent to the Office of the
Director, NIH for consideration.
- Any assistance mechanism, except conference grants (R13) may be nominated,
although the OBSSR will also accept conference grant applications for consideration;
- The REAP nominations may request up to two years of support;
- REAP nominations should be for projects that are of high scientific relevance and merit
and fall between the IC payline and the 50th percentile, or with a priority score better
than 250, if no percentile is available.
Return to Top
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT. . . . . .
Return to Top
Personnel Update
NIH
Appointments:
Dr. Steven Hyman,
Director, National Institute of Mental Health
Dr. Ernest Marquez,
Chief, Minority Biomedical Research Support
(MBRS) Branch,
Division of Minority Opportunities in Research
(MORE),
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
(formerly Chief, Office of Review, National Institute of Nursing Research)
Dr. Samuel Wilson,
Deputy Director, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences
Departure:
Dr. Edward Sondik,
Associate Director, Science Policy, National Cancer Institute,
joined the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics,
U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Retirement:
Dr. Earleen Elkins,
Acting Director/Deputy Director, Division of Extramural Activities,
National Institute of Deafness and
Other Communication Disorders
Death:
Dr. Aaron Ganz joined NIH in 1962 as executive secretary of the
National Institute of General Medical Sciences research career
award committee and held a number of NIH posts. At the time of
his retirement in 1986, he was special assistant to the
extramural program director for centers and special projects in
the National Institute of Dental Research.
DRG
Appointments:
Dr. J. Terrell Hoffeld,
Scientific Review Administrator,
Epidemiology and Disease Control-2 Study Section,
Referral and Review Branch (RRB)
Dr. Eugene Zimmerman,
Scientific Review Administrator,
Allergy and Immunology Study Section, RRB
Departures:
Ms. Judith Grover,
Deputy Chief, Grants Information Office, DRG,
and former editor, NIH Peer Review Notes,
joined the Extramural Outreach and Information Resources Office,
Office of Extramural Research, Office of the Director, NIH.
Dr. Peggy McCardle,
Scientific Review Administrator,
Human Development and Aging -2 Study Section,
joined the Office of Extramural Research, Office of the Director, NIH,
as Special Assistant to the Deputy Director for Extramural Research
Retirements:
Dr. Jerry Critz,
Scientific Review Administrator,
Physiological Chemistry Study Section, RRB
Dr. Edward Zapolski,
Scientific Review Administrator,
Metallobiochemistry Study Section, RRB
Return to Top
Grant Applications Reviewed
Presented below are the numbers* of competing grant applications
reviewed by NIH integrated review groups for the June 1992 and 1996
meetings of the national advisory councils and boards. These
statistics were obtained from the NIH IMPAC database.
From June 1992 to June 1996, the total number of grant applications
reviewed by NIH increased 2 percent, from 12,080 to 12,353. The
total direct costs requested in applications for research grants
increased 12 percent, from $1,728.9 million in June 1992 to
$1,944.4 million in June 1996.
June June
1996 1992
Applications reviewed.......................12,353 12,080
DRG........................................9,049 8,472
Institutes/Centers.........................3,304 3,608
Research grant applications.................10,798 10,615
Research projects..........................8,661 8,815
Small business/Technology transfer......... 995 745
Research centers.............................257 156
Other research...............................885 899
Training applications........................1,498 1,371
Fellowships................................1,299 1,141
Training grants..............................199 230
Other applications............................. 57 94
Applications amended.........................3,897 3,164
Percent of total number reviewed..............32 26
Applications responding to RFAs............... 686 939
*Includes the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institute of Mental
Health.
Return to Top
Report on Rating Grant Applications
As part of reinvention activities and the ongoing effort to maintain
high standards for peer review at the NIH, a subcommittee of the NIH
Committee on Improving Peer Review has produced the "Report on Rating
of Grant Applications." The report may be accessed on the NIH Home
Page at http://www.nih.gov/grants/dder/rga.htm. You are invited to read this
report and to E-Mail your comments to DDER@NIH.GOV until October 1,
1996.
Return to Top
Recruitment of the DRG Director
The recruitment for the position of the Director, DRG, has continued
to progress. Candidates recommended by the search committee to the
NIH Director, Dr. Harold Varmus, have been interviewed. At press
time a selection had not been announced, but one is anticipated in
the very near future.
Return to Top
DRG Advisory Committee Meeting
The most recent DRG Advisory Committee meeting was held on May 20 and
May 21. The discussions covered many areas, including the review of
patient-oriented research grant applications, the status of various peer
review reinvention activities (such as recalibration of percentiles,
amended applications, rating of grant applications, and "just-in-time"
submissions), the DRG Home Page, and the upcoming celebration of 50
years of DRG and NIH peer review.
As soon as the minutes of the meeting are available, they will be on the
World Wide Web, on the DRG Home Page. The minutes to the previous
meeting (November 13 and 14, 1995) are already available from the DRG Home
Page -- at the URL http://www.drg.nih.gov/drgac/nov95min.htm. For any questions on the minutes, contact Dr. Samuel Joseloff, Executive
Secretary of the Advisory Committee, at: Phone--(301) 435-0691; Fax--(301) 480-3693; or E-mail--joselofs@drg.nih.gov.
Return to Top
50th Anniversary of DRG
1996 marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Division of Research Grants (DRG). The
NIH and DRG are marking this occasion with a symposium on the "Past, Present, and Future of
Peer Review." This symposium will be held Thursday, June 20, at the Natcher Conference Center
on the Bethesda campus of NIH. The symposium will start at 8:00 a.m. and conclude with a
reception at the Natcher Center in the late afternoon. Speakers will include study section
members and current and former directors of DRG and NIH. There is no fee, but registration is
needed by June 10. All study section members are welcomed and invited to attend the
symposium. Information is available from the DRG Home Page (http: //www.drg.nih.gov/events/50anniv.htm) or from Dr.
Suzanne Fisher: 301-435-0715 (phone), 301-480-1987 (fax), or fishers@drg.nih.gov (E-mail).
This is an opportunity for colleagues and friends to discuss 50 years of excellence in peer review
and its impact on biomedical research.
Special thanks are due to the Friends of DRG, headed by Dr. John Sherman and Dr. Murray
Goldstein, for providing support for this symposium. Outstanding assistance in many areas is
being provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Return to Top
DRG Home Page
You can keep up with the latest information from DRG by visiting the DRG
World Wide Web Home Page at http://www.drg.nih.gov/. The DRG home page
contains a wealth of DRG-related material, including the latest news and
events, a CSR (formerly DRG) Phone and E-mail Listing DRG staff phone and e-mail directory, information related to
the referral and review process, study section workshop reports, study
section meeting dates, and other important dates to remember.
Return to Top
Thank You
The Division of Research Grants and the Peer Review Notes
Editorial Board would like to thank Ms. Judith Grover for her
outstanding professionalism, commitment, and efficiency in
improving the quality of Peer Review Notes during her tenure as
editor. DRG and the Board welcome Mr. Nicholas Moriarty as the
new editor.
Last Revised: June 7, 1996
Return to Top
![[DRG Home Page]](../images/drghome.gif)