Review of Neuroscience Grant Applications

REORGANIZING THE REVIEW OF
NEUROSCIENCE GRANT APPLICATIONS

OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

The integration of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) into the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has necessitated reexamination of the overall NIH review of neuroscience. A major goal is to integrate the review of grant applications from these institutes into the Division of Research Grants (DRG) peer review structure. Basic and clinical neuroscience research will be the initial focus, with behavioral science being considered in the near future. The overall goal is to insure quality peer review that identifies the most meritorious science for each institute to consider for funding.

LEADERSHIP

The Directors of the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), in conjunction with the new Director of DRG have established principles to guide the reorganization. They will monitor and review the process as will the NIH Peer Review Oversight Group (PROG). PROG comprises members of the NIH extramural community as well as NIH staff. It was established this past summer by Dr. Harold Varmus, NIH Director, to coordinate, evaluate and make policy recommendations for NIH peer review. In addition to these two groups, a working group of staff from the institutes involved and DRG have been meeting to discuss possible models of how the peer review of neuroscience might be reorganized. This group, in consultation with members of the research community, will be responsible for developing study section guidelines. The working group will attend to the details of the reorganization, with a view toward ensuring not only that every application gets a fair review from a panel with the appropriate depth and breadth of expertise, but also that the workload of each panel will allow sufficient time for serious consideration of all applications.

OPERATING PRINCIPLES FOR INTEGRATION

The array of applications being considered by a study section should be determined by the scientific focus of the research, rather than by the professional affiliation of the principal investigator, the grant mechanism (i.e. kind of award) applied for, or the research technique to be utilized.
The range of science considered by a study section should allow a breadth of perspective, yet this should be balanced by an appropriate depth of scientific expertise.
To allow flexibility in review, the range of scientific expertise of study sections should overlap.
When both clinical and basic research are reviewed by a single study section, representation of expertise in both areas should be adequate.
The structure of the initial review process should be flexible enough to accommodate emerging scientific areas.

TIMELINE

It is recognized that a thorough consideration of the issues will require an iterative process for which there can be no hard deadline. However, our current goal for implementation is the February 1998 receipt date so that all applications for award in FY 1999 could be reviewed under the new organization

EXTRAMURAL INVOLVEMENT

The NIH invites comments from the extramural community on the reorganization of neuroscience peer review. The information and principles set out here are open for comment.

If you would like to share your opinion, concerns, or perspective on these or other issues, please contact NIH at: neuro@drgpo.drg.nih.gov

Last update: May 30, 1997