1. 1 Presented by Peggy Shults, Lytmos Group Inc. May 18, 2008 BRAC Meeting Bankhead-Coley Cancer Research Program 2008 – 2009 Grant Funding

2. 2 2008 – 2009 Competition Observations and Statistics

3. 3 2008 – 2009 Competition Ineligible applications: Federal Proposal Submitted not multi-year (1) Previously a PI on a National Grant of $100k or more (1)

4. 4 Observations and Statistics 2008 – 2009 Competition

5. 5 Observations and Statistics 2008 – 2009 Competition

6. 6 Observations and Statistics 2008 – 2009 Competition

7. 7 Peer Review Process Review reports will be released after BRAC Meeting Grantees will be asked to respond to peer review comments Mechanism No. of reviewers Bridge3 NIR3 CRP4 SPORE5 Standard Proposal Score is the average of reviewer scores. For proposals with std deviation > 1.0 in first round, two more reviewers were assigned, and Standard Proposal Score was recalculated using the average score after excluding the high and low.

8. 8 2008 – 2009 Competition Peer Review Information NIR Grants 3 reviewers assessed –Scientific and Technical Merit of Project –Significant, Approach and Feasibility of Work Plan –Qualification of PI, Mentor and Supporting Team –Resources and Environment –Institutional Support –Cancer Relatedness –Comments/concerns about overlap, budget or subjects –Disparate Group Three scores averaged CRP Grants 4 reviewers assessed –Scientific and Technical Merit of Project –Work plan: Approach, Feasibility, Relationship to other research, Disparate and Underserved, Patient and Provider participation –PI, Supporting Team and Investigative Team Org Structure –Resources and Environment –Institutional Support –Cancer Relatedness –Comments/concerns about overlap, budget or subjects –Disparate Group Four scores averaged SPORE Grants 5 reviewers assessed –Significance, Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Feasibility of Project –Work plan: Organization activities, Contribution of Core Facilities and Services, Scientific Merit of Translation Projects, Technical Merit of Translation Projects, Translational Project Approach, Pilot Research Project Planning, Career Development Activities –PD, Investigator commitment, Supporting Team Qualifications –Resources and Environment –Institutional Support –Comments/concerns about overlap, budget or subjects –Disparate Group Five scores averaged Bridge Grants Scientific & Technical Merit Scores/Percentages accepted from Federal Agency Submission 3 reviewers assessed –Cancer Relatedness –Feasibility –Institutional Support –Disparate Group

9. 9 Scoring Worksheet 2008 – 2009 Competition

10. 10 How Competition Results are Presented in the Scoring Workbook SPORE Arranged in order of the calculated scientific merit score and then standard deviation CRP Arranged in order of the calculated scientific merit score and then standard deviation NIR Arranged in order of the calculated scientific merit score and then standard deviation Cancer Relatedness represents the average rating of all participating reviewers, with 1.0 being best and 5.0 worst Reviewer classification is consensus of Prevention (P), Diagnosis (D), Treatment (T), and Cure (C) Eligibility Issues are identified in the Notes column with a alphabetic character that relates to the legend Bridge Organized by federal grant mechanism sections Each section is in order of federal scientific merit score or rating Secondly, the 01s (First time Federal Application Submission) are listed followed by A1 (1 st Resubmission) and A2 (final resubmission). Eligibility Issues are identified in the Notes column with a alphabetic character that relates to the legend All Total amount of funding required is calculated at the top of the worksheet