1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.archivedOER Public Archive Home Page

2. Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services Toni Scarpa CSR: New Challenges and Opportunities PRAC, January 23, 2006

3. CSR Progress Report Changes that have Occurred Changes in Progress Changes under Discussion Challenges: Present and Futures

4. Increased Communication and Transparency Within CSR With NIH and other Agencies With the Scientific Community Changes in CSR Operations 1

5. Increase uniformity Slate Nomination Summary Statements Posting all within one months of Study Section Posting Summary Statements of new investigators within one week More complete and structured resumes Unscoring Common practice Unscoring 50% Changes in CSR Operations 2

6. Increase Efficiency Electronic Submission Text Fingerprinting, Artificial Intelligence Software Changes in CSR Operations 3

7. Potential of Knowledge Management Tools for Peer Review Collexis Software or Others Knowledge management solutions Fingerprinting and text retrieving Disease coding Benefits for Peer Review Assigning applications to Integrated Review Groups or Study Sections Selecting reviewers (one application, multiple applications) Nine pilots are underway to begin to assess these benefits

8. Facilitate work of IC program staff Possible Changes in CSR Operations

9. Study Section Realignment Review of one IRG every month Total review every 2 years

10. Desirable Changes in CSR Review Shorten the review cycle

11. Shortening the NIH Review Cycle, Initial Steps For most research grants, we are posting Summary Statements within one month after the Study Section meeting, instead of two to three months after the meeting (effective Oct 05) We are conducting a pilot study to speed the review process for new investigators so they may revise and resubmit for the very next review cycle, 4 months earlier than before (effective Feb ‘06). Dr. Bradley, next talk.

12. Desirable Changes in CSR Review Shorten the review cycle Address concern that clinical research is not properly evaluated Improve the assessment of innovative, high- risk/high-reward research

13. “The judging of grants has become a charade.” The American Society for Cell Biology “The judging of grants has become a charade. To be funded, the experimental plan has become a litany of experiments already accomplished so that everything is feasible. When grants come back with unfundable scores, new investigators may not have sufficient resources to do the experiments that “show feasibility.” Zena Werb President, ASCB Newsletter August 2005

14. Possible Changes in Current Systems Shorten the review cycle Address concern that clinical research is not properly evaluated Improve the assessment of innovative, high- risk/high-reward research Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers

15. Expanding Peer Review’s Platforms Electronic Reviews Telephone Enhanced Discussions Video Enhanced Discussions Asynchronous Electronic Discussions Study Sections Necessity ● Clinical reviewers Preference ● Physicists, computational biologists New Opportunities ● Fogarty, International Reviewers

16. Applications received for all of NIH and applications referred for CSR review, FY 1998-2004 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 1998200020022004 Fiscal year Number of applications Applications received for all of NIHApplications assigned for review by CSR

17. Applications received for all of NIH FY 1998-2004 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 1998200020022004 Fiscal year Number of applications

18. Number of Research Grant Applications/Applicant

19. Study Section Application/Reviewer Ratio October Council Only

20. CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW FY 2004-2006: Non-Discretionary vs. Discretionary Spending ■ Non-Discretionary ■ Discretionary FY 2004FY 2005 FY 2006

21. Challenges and Opportunities

22. Possible Short Term Approaches for Increasing Efficiency for Reviewers and CSR Shifting Additional Grant Review to Institutes Replace Many SEPs with Smaller Parallel Study Sections Enlarge Study Section Membership and Decrease Frequency of Participation Pre Meeting Streamlining Various Review Platforms Hybrid Review Platforms Staggering Application Deadlines 2 instead of 3 reviews Shorten Applications More Structured Applications and Reviews

23. Peer Review: An N.I.H. “Conception” Is the heart and soul of NIH Has produced an effective partnership between the federal government and research institutions Has created the best academic medical centers, the best biomedical/behavioral research and biotechnology Has made possible the best cures and the best prevention Has been admired and imitated here and abroad Has protected NIH against outside influence

24. This is CSR