Publication of Peer Review Notes each round follows quickly on the heels of the thrice-yearly meetings of the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee plays a key role in providing diverse, external input for development of CSR policies, and their meetings provide a forum in which progress with respect to the many initiatives underway is summarized. Complete minutes of the May meeting will be posted on the CSR web site as soon as they are available. In the meantime, I’ll use this column to update you regarding a couple of noteworthy activities. The Panel on Scientific Boundaries for Review (see http://www.csr.nih.gov/events/boundaries.htm for roster) is making steady progress in undertaking a comprehensive review of the scientific organization and function of the review structure of the CSR. The members are conducting their evaluation in two parts.

In Phase I, they are defining a new series of broad and overlapping scientific domains (integrated review groups, IRGS), each of which is intended to provide oversight for clusters of scientifically related study sections. In addition, they are developing recommendations concerning the policies and standards that should govern the conduct of the review process, as well as the principles that should be used in Phase 2, to design the study sections comprising each IRG. Phase 2 will begin in the fall of 1999, and will be implemented during the next few years, by expert groups consisting of both external scientists and NIH staff.

In developing their recommendations, the Panel is relying heavily on input from all stakeholders. To this end, a draft of the Phase 1 report will be posted in June 1999 for public comment by the broad scientific community. The Panel expects to release their Phase 1 report in the fall of 1999.

A similar reliance on public input was utilized by the Working Group on Review of Bioengineering and Technology and Instrumentation Development Research in developing their recommendations. The Working Group has fulfilled its charge to determine impediments to and outline principles for achieving fair, high-quality and rigorous review of technology-related applications. Though the mandate of the Working Group was relatively narrow, the members believed the issues to be broad. Consequently, their report also speaks to ways in which NIH might generally facilitate interdisciplinary research and become more agile at seizing emerging opportunities. The report and roster are available at http://www.csr.nih.gov/bioopp/select.htm.

The Advisory Committee was also informed of the work of Dr. Maxine Linial, who recently completed a study of the review of individual fellowship applications at CSR. Dr. Linial’s findings and recommendations are summarized below. I draw your attention to that piece as well as to the other articles included in this edition of the Notes: on (1) the role of Institute and Center (referred to for simplicity as Institute) staff; (2) the institution of modular grant practices; and (3) expediting the processing of applications that request $500,000 or more for a single budget year.

As always, I wish to thank all those who have contributed to these valuable activities and to the peer review process. A special thanks to the Peer Review Notes Advisory Committee and authors of this issue’s articles for their contributions. Have a terrific summer, everyone. See you in the Fall.

Reviewers may wonder why certain NIH people are sitting around the perimeter of the study section meeting room. They are "program people," health scientist administrators, often known as program directors or program administrators, who work in the NIH Institutes and Centers. Their primary role is to assist the Institutes in ensuring that the best science is supported. They do this through a variety of activities, one of which is keeping track of the applications pertaining to their respective Institutes as they make their way through the peer review process. In so doing, they find it extremely helpful, for several reasons, to attend review meetings.

First, the discussions during the meeting are more detailed than what is generally captured in a summary statement. Hearing the full discussion is useful during subsequent discussions with applicants about the review. Applicants often want to know why their applications fared as they did and what they might do to improve their applications. In rare cases, program staff has to deliver the news that an application should not be revised and resubmitted. In such cases, it is helpful to have heard the extended discussions that took place during the meeting. The discussions also provide them with a useful perspective for responding to applicants who express concerns about whether the review process was objective and fair. A second major value of attending review meetings is that the scientific discussions help program staff keep up with what is new and at the cutting edge in the areas of science that they are responsible for overseeing. Third, since program staff is knowledgeable about their Institute's policies and program priorities, they may be able to provide reviewers with useful information about or clarification of such policies or priorities. Although such information should never influence the scientific evaluation of specific applications, it may improve the reviewers’ understanding of the context and rationale for the Institutes programmatic initiatives.

Study sections often review applications that are assigned to several Institutes for potential funding. Therefore, some program staff will be in the room from the beginning to the end of the meeting, while others will pop in and out to listen to the review of a few applications.

The responsibilities of program staff also entail working with research communities: to identify critical scientific areas needing research support; to develop research initiatives for soliciting applications to address those areas (e.g., with program announcements or requests for applications); and to advise prospective applicants about their Institute’s program priorities.

After the initial scientific review, program staff: counsel applicants about how to deal with the outcome of the initial scientific review of their applications; handle appeal letters, which are always discussed with Scientific Review Administrators prior to making a decision; present the applications to the Institute’s national advisory councils and boards; and participate in the decision-making process about which grants will be awarded.

Following the award of grants, they monitor the progress of funded research projects, report scientific progress, and represent their respective programs to the scientific community and the general public. Because many of the Institutes have shared research interests, program staff also coordinates activities with those of the other Institutes and sometimes participates in joint research initiatives.

Program staff are an integral part of the NIH team of reviewers and administrators, whose recommendations are so critical in helping the NIH select the most meritorious or promising research to be funded.

"Modular grants" are not a new type of NIH grant mechanism. The phrase refers to simplified application procedures that are now to be used for most existing NIH grant mechanisms, including the R01, where $250,000 or less per year is being requested. The new application procedures feature budget requests made in modules of $25,000 and the absence of information regarding the budget categories that NIH used to use (i.e., Personnel, Consultants, Equipment, Supplies, etc.). While information about Personnel (their roles and percents of effort on the project [and, of course, their qualifications/Biosketch]) is still required, salary information is no longer to be provided. Similarly, dollar amounts for Travel, Supplies, and the other old budget categories are not to be provided, although an explanation is to given if the item is unusual or is unusually expensive. Thus, in the budgets of most applications, the only dollars to be shown (and they are to be in modular amounts) are the total direct costs requested for each year of the project and for the entire project. In fact, the old Budget pages (DD and EE) are not to be used and applicants are simply to use a blank sheet of paper to justify their request. The new application procedures have ramifications for the peer review of applications and for award procedures.

While a few of the review units in the NIH Institutes and Centers have over the past several years reviewed modular grant applications (most of which were submitted in response to RFAs), the beginning of the first NIH-wide initial scientific review of unsolicited modular grant applications will occur this fall. Modular procedures have been required for applications submitted starting in the spring of 1999 (the precise implementation dates depend upon the type of grant mechanism). The modular grant initiative expands the efforts that are designed to focus reviewers’ attention on the science being proposed rather than on budget details.

http://www.nih.gov/grants/policy/notices.htm.