1. The NIH Peer Review Process and Grant Writing
Denise Wiesch, Ph.D.
Scientific Review Administrator
Epidemiology of Cancer SRG
Health of the Population IRG
Center for Scientific Review
NIH/DHHS

2. Outline NIH Infrastructure From Submission to Funding Grant Mechanisms
Electronic submission
Grant Mechanisms
Reviewers
Study Section Meeting
Role of NIH Program vs. Review staff
NIH Advisory Councils
Grant Writing

3. NIH The Big Picture

4. National Institutes of Health
Much of the biomedical research in the United States is supported by the Federal Government, primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

5. National Institutes of Health
Office of the Director
National Institute
on Aging
National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism
National Institute
of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases
National Institute
of Arthritis and
Musculoskeletal
and Skin Diseases
National Cancer
Institute
National Institute
of Child Health
and Human
Development
National Institute on
Deafness and Other
Communication
Disorders
National Institute
of Dental and
Craniofacial
Research
National Institute
of Diabetes and
Digestive and
Kidney Diseases
National Institute
on Drug Abuse
National Institute
of Environmental
Health Sciences
National Eye
Institute
National Institute
of General
Medical Sciences
National Heart,
Lung, and Blood
Institute
National Human
Genome Research
Institute
National Institute
of Mental Health
National Institute
of Neurological
Disorders and
Stroke
National Institute
of Nursing Research
National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging
and Bioengineering
National Center
for Complementary
and Alternative
Medicine
Fogarty
International
Center
National Center
for Research
Resources
National Library
of Medicine
National Center on
Minority Health and
Health Disparities
Clinical Center
Center for
Information
Technology
Center for
Scientific Review

6. NIH Extramural Awarding Components
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
National Eye Institute (NEI)
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
National Institute for Nursing Research (NINR)
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
National Center for Research Resources (NCRR)
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD)

7. A Typical Institute/Center
National
Advisory
Council
Office of the IC
Director
Board of
Scientific
Counselors
Extramural
Intramural
Scientific
Programs
Laboratory
Studies
Clinical
Studies
Grants
Contracts

8. FY 2005 NIH Funding (dollars in billions)
TOTAL BUDGET
$28.8 Billion
Spending at NIH
$4.7
16% NIH In-House
6,000 Scientists
84% Outside NIH
- Supports over 212,000 Scientists & Other Personnel
- Supports over 3,000 Institutions Nationwide
Spending Outside NIH
$24.1

9. NIH Funding in FY 2004: By Mechanism Total = $27B

10. NIH Referral and Review Process
Program and Policy Considerations
NIGMS
NINDS
NIA
NIAID
NIAAA
NIDCR
Referral
NEI
NIAMS
NINR
CSR
NIMH
NIEHS
NHLBI
NCHGR
NIDCD
Funding
Decisions
Review
NLM
NICHD
NCRR
NIDDK
Scientific
NCCAM
FIC
NIDA
Management

11. Receipt of Grant Applications at CSR

12. CSR Referral Applications Are Assigned to:
Scientific Review Groups based on:
Specific referral guidelines for each scientific review group
NIH Institutes or Centers based on:
Overall mission of the Institute or Center
Specific programmatic mandates and interests of the Institute or Center

13. Number of Applications Reviewed by NIH

14. Where are Applications Reviewed?
CSR
Research Projects
Academic Research Enhancement Awards
SBIR & STTR
Shared Instrumentation
Career Awards
Small Grants
Fellowships
RFAs
Institutes/Centers
Contracts
Program Projects (most)
Institutional Training Grants
Conference Grants
Centers
Career Awards
Small Grants
Fellowships
RFAs

15. Division of Molecular and Division of Physiology
CSR Review Divisions
Division of Biologic
Basis of Disease
Elliot Postow, Ph.D.
Division of Molecular and
Cellular Mechanisms
Donald Schneider, Ph.D.
Division of Physiology
and Pathology
Michael Martin, Ph.D.
Division of Clinical and
Population-Based Studies
Anita Miller Sostek, Ph.D
Surgical Sciences, Biomedical
Imaging and Bioengineering
IRG (SBIB)
Eileen Bradley, D. Sc.
Health of the Population
IRG (HOP)
Robert Weller, Ph.D.
Risk, Prevention, and Health
Behavior IRG (RPHB)
Michael Micklin, Ph.D.
Brain Disorders and Clinical
Neuroscience IRG (BDCN)
David Armstrong, Ph.D.
Behavioral & Biobehavioral
Processes IRG (BBBP)
Karen Sirocco, Ph.D.
Bioengineering Sciences and
Technologies IRG (BST)
Sally Amero, Ph.D.
AIDS and Related
Research IRG (AARR)
Ranga V. Srinivas, Ph.D.
Cardiovascular Sciences
IRG (CVS)
Joyce Gibson, D.Sc.
Biology of Development and
and Aging IRG (BDA)
Sherry Dupere, Ph.D.
Endocrinology, Metabolism,
Nutrition and Reproductive
Sciences IRG (EMNR)
Sooja Kim, Ph.D.
Digestive Sciences IRG
(DIG)
Mushtaq Khan, Ph.D.
Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics IRG (BCMB)
John Bowers, Ph.D.
Hematology
IRG (HEME)
Joyce Gibson, D.Sc.
Immunology
IRG (IMM)
Calbert Laing, Ph.D.
Integrative, Functional
and Cognitive Neuroscience
IRG (IFCN)
Christine Melchior, Ph.D.
Cell Biology IRG (CB)
Marcia Steinberg, Ph.D.
Infectious Diseases and
Microbiology IRG (IDM)
Alex Politis, Ph.D.
Genes, Genomes and
Genetics IRG (GGG)
Richard Panniers, Ph.D
Oncological Sciences
IRG (ONC)
Syed Quadri, Ph.D.
Musculoskeletal, Oral, and Skin Sciences IRG (MOSS)
Daniel McDonald, Ph.D.
Molecular, Cellular and
Developmental
Neuroscience IRG (MDCN)
Carole Jelsema, Ph.D.
Renal and Urological Sciences IRG (RUS)
Daniel McDonald, Ph.D.
Respiratory Sciences IRG (RES)
Mushtaq Khan, Ph.D.

16. Health of the Population (HOP) IRG Population-Based Studies
Community-Level Health Promotion
Community Influences on Health Behavior
Division of Clinical &
Population-Based Studies
Behavioral Genetics and Epidemiology
Social Sciences and Population Studies
Behavioral & Biobehavioral
Processes
Health Services Organization and Delivery
Biostatistical Methods and Research Development
Brain Disorders & Clinical
Neuroscience
Epidemiology of Cancer
Cardiovascular and Sleep Epidemiology
Health of the Population
Kidney, Nutrition, Obesity, & Diabetes Epi
Risk, Prevention & Health
Behavior
Infectious Diseases, Reproductive Health, Asthma and Pulmonary Epidemiology
Neurological, Aging and Musculoskeletal Epi
Surgical Sciences, Biomedical
Imaging & Bioengineering
Nursing Science: Children & Families
Nursing Science: Adults & Older Adults

17. From Submission to Funding

18. From Submission to Funding: THE PROCESS FOR A RESEARCH GRANT
NIH
Principal
Investigator
School or Other
Research Center
Center for Scientific Review
Assign to IRG and IC
Initiates
Research Idea
Submits
application
Review Group
Institute
Review for scientific merit
Evaluate for relevance
Advisory Council or Board
Recommend
Action
Allocates
Funds
Conducts Research
Institute Director

19. Timeline for Submission to Potential Award
New RO1 Application
Feb. 1
March 15
May 10
June 24-25
July 8
August 1
September
Dec. 1
Send
Appl. to
CSR
New
Assignment Notification
Sent to PI
Mail to
Reviewers
Study
Section
Meeting
Review
Notification
Sent
Summary
Statement
Sent
Council
Meets
Earliest
Award
Date
Revised/Competing Continuation/ Supplemental RO1 Application
March 1
April 15
May 10
June
July 8
August 1
September
Dec. 1
Send
Appl. To
CSR
Revised or
Continuation
Assignment
Notification
Sent to PI
Mail to
Reviewers
Study
Section
Meeting
Review
Notification
Sent
Summary
Statement
Released
Council
Meets
Earliest
Award
Date

20. Who / What Determines which Study Section Reviews your Application?
Grant Mechanism
CSR Referral Staff – determine broad scientific area
Scientists, most of whom also serve as Scientific Review
Administrators (SRAs) of CSR Study Sections.
Initial Review Group (IRG) Chiefs and SRAs
IRGs: Clusters of scientifically related study sections
IRG Chiefs are also SRAs with own Study Section(s)
Past review history (if any) of application
Principal Investigator
Letter attached to application; self-referral

21. Cover Letter Request study section (optional)
Be familiar with the study sections and what they review
CSR website with study section descriptions and rosters (
Ask peers
Contact SRA
Do not recommend specific reviewers (expertise required is OK).
Request an NIH Institute (optional)

22. Assignment Notification
Study Section or Special Emphasis Panel
Scientific Review Administrator
Address, telephone number, etc.
Institute Assignment
Primary and any dual
General contact number
Unique Identifier (1 R01 CA A1)
Request change if assignment is wrong
Contact SRA if assigned to the wrong study section
Contact Referral office if grant # is wrong (is it really a new application or competing continuation). Is the NIH Institute assignment correct.
more efficient to include a request in cover letter at submission.

23. Sample Application Number
Individual Serial Amended
Research Number
Grant
1 R01 CA A1
New National Grant
Application Cancer Support
Institute Year

24. Receipt Dates Depend on the Type of Application
Jan 10, May 10, Sept. 10:
Institutional Training Grant Applications
Feb 25, June 25, Oct 25:
Academic Research Enhancement awards
Feb 1, June 1, Oct 1:
New Research Grant Applications
Mar 1, July 1, Nov 1:
Revised, Competing Continuations, Supplemental
April 1, Aug 1, Dec 1:
Small Business (sbir/sttr)
April 5, Aug 5, Dec 5:
Fellowship applications
May 1, Sept 1, Jan 1:
AIDS applications

25. Electronic Grant Submission!
Soon will be REQUIRED
Phased in dates by grant mechanism
Grant opportunities will be posted on Grants.gov
download and begin working on application package after grant mechanism transition - SF424(R&R) form
Until a grant mechanism is transitioned - submit on paper PHS 398 forms.
As mechanisms are transitioned, Funding Opportunity Announcements (PAs, RFAs etc.) will be issued in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ( and posted in Grants.gov.

26. Electronic Submission Transition Dates
GRANT TYPE
Submission DATE
Small Business (SBIR/STTR)
R41, R42, R43, R44
Dec. 1 ‘05
Conferences & Scientific Meetings
R13
Dec.15 ‘05
Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA)
R15
Feb. 25 ‘06
Small Grant Programs; Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Awards
R03, R21
June 1 ‘06
Research Project Grant Program
R01
Oct. 1 ‘06
Remaining grant mechanisms
May 2007

27. Where to go for Help
General information on Electronic Submission and the SF424 (R&R):
Forms transition and questions on NIH’s overall plan for electronic receipt
NIH GrantsInfo.gov
Phone:
eRA Commons registration and post submission questions on Commons functionality
Support Page:
Help Desk
Phone: OR
Grants.gov registration and submission questions
Visit:
Grants.gov Customer Service
Phone:

28. Grant Mechanisms

29. Unsolicited vs. Solicited Applications
Unsolicited R01s – Investigator initiated
Program Announcement (PA):
Funding announcement for grants relating to areas of increased priority and/or emphasis on particular funding mechanisms for a specific area of science. Applications are usually accepted on standard receipt dates on an on-going basis.
PAR:
A PA for which special referral guidelines apply (usually special receipt date), as described in the PAR announcement.
PAS:
A PA that includes specific set-aside funds, as described in the PAS announcement.
Request for Applications (RFA):
Funding announcement for grants that identifies a more narrowly defined area for which one or more NIH institutes have set aside funds for awarding grants. An RFA usually has a single receipt date, as specified in RFA announcement.
Request for Proposals (RFP):
Solicits contract proposals. An RFP usually has one receipt date, as specified in RFP solicitation.
Request for Applications (RFAs)
PARs (program announcements with special receipt dates)
Success Rates

30. R01 Can submit without PA etc. Need preliminary/pilot data
Up to 5 years of funding
Need to obtain approval from program staff prior to submission of proposal costing $500,000 or more in direct costs in any one year

31. Mechanisms for Preliminary Studies
R21 - Exploratory/Developmental Grants
Feasibility/New Technology/ Innovative High Risk
Pilot studies
Preliminary data for a R01
2 years with a maximum of $275K total
Need Program Announcement specific to appropriate funding Institute

32. Mechanisms for Preliminary Studies
R03: Small Grants
Feasibility (for those without preliminary data)
Development of pilot / preliminary data
2 years with a maximum of $50,000 per year
Need Program Announcement specific to appropriate funding Institute

33. Other Grant Mechanisms
Grant mechanisms supported by different NIH Institutes:
General information about different grant mechanisms:

34. for Grants NIH GUIDE and Contracts U. S
for Grants NIH GUIDE and Contracts U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Announces NIH Scientific Initiatives
Provides NIH Policy and Administrative Information
Available on the NIH Web Site
(can search for grant mechanism and specific NIH Institute using ‘Advance Search’)

35. Reviewers

36. Criteria for Selection of Peer Reviewers
Scientific Community
Active and Productive Researchers
Non-Doctoral
Non-Research
Active & Productive Researchers
Research Capability
Doctoral or Equivalent Degree
Interest in Serving
Expertise in Discipline of Review Group and Specialization Needed
Meet Internal Administrative Considerations
Geography
Institutional
Affiliation
Gender &
Ethnic
Status

37. Criteria for Selection of Peer Reviewers
Active and productive researchers
Demonstrated scientific expertise
Mature and impartial judgment
Work effectively in a group context
Breadth of perspective
Interest in serving
Adequate representation of women and minority scientists

38. Process for Nominating Chartered Study Section Members
SRAs solicit names from ICs, societies, former and current members
Try out potential nominees as temporary members
Contact potential members to see if they are willing to serve if nomination is approved
SRA drafts nomination package
Submission to IRG Chief and Division Director
CSR CMO sends copies to ICs for concurrence (3-week hold)
CSR Director’s approval
NIH Director’s approval
New members start July 1 and typically serve a four-year term

39. Study Section Meeting

40. CSR Study Sections
Each CSR standing study section has regular members who are primarily from academia
Ad Hoc members
CSR standing study sections convene face-to-face meetings
As many as applications are reviewed by each study section

41. Pre-Meeting Activities
Reviewers receive applications and assignments 4-6 weeks prior to meeting
Identify conflicts of interest
Generally assigned between 8-14 applications
Write critiques prior to the meeting
Post preliminary scores and critiques on secure meeting website
Read written critiques of other reviewers a few days before the meeting

42. What Happens at the Study Section Meeting
Closed Meeting
Orientation
Conflict of Interest
Confidentiality
Developments of interest to the study section
Changes in policy or procedure
Roles of the persons present
Chair and other Reviewers
Program Officers (Observers)
SRA
Streamlining
Application by Application review

43. Certification of No Conflict of Interest
This will certify that in the review of applications and proposals by (study section) on (date), I did not participate in the evaluation of any grant or fellowship applications from (1) any organization, institution or university system in which a financial interest exists to myself, spouse, parent,child, or collaborating investigators; (2) any organization in which I serve as officer, director, trustee, employee or collaborating investigator; or (3) any organization which I am negotiating or have any arrangements concerning prospective employment or other such associations.
__________________ __________________
SIGNATURES

44. Confidentiality
Review materials and proceedings of review meetings represent privileged information to be used only by reviewers and NIH staff.
At the conclusion of each meeting, reviewers will be asked to destroy or return all review-related material.
reviewers should not discuss review proceedings with anyone except the SRA.
Questions concerning review proceedings should be referred to the SRA.
K185pp.46

45. Streamlining
The process by which applications judged by the reviewers to be in the worse half are not discussed at the the study section meeting (identification of “unscored”)
Purpose is to allow more time for discussion of more meritorious applications
Shortens meeting time from 3 days to 1.5 days
Pre-meeting - identification of unscoreds
Meeting – unanimous voting of unscoreds (any member can object to streamlining an application)
Unscored applications receive written critiques
Unscored vs. NRFC

46. Review of Each Application
Reviewers with conflicts leave room
Assigned reviewers state preliminary scores
Discussion of scientific and technical merit
Based on the 5 review criteria
Assigned reviewers first then open discussion to whole committee
Discussion of Protection of Human Subjects and Inclusion criteria
Assigned reviewers state final score – range of scores is set
Every member scores each application
Budget and Administrative concerns
Ideal time for each application - 15 to 20 minutes

47. Review Criteria
SIGNIFICANCE: Does the study address an important problem? How will scientific knowledge be advanced by the proposed project?
APPROACH: Are design and methods well-developed, appropriate, and feasible? Are problem areas addressed?
INNOVATION: Are there novel concepts or approaches? Are the aims original and innovative?
INVESTIGATORS: Is the investigator appropriately trained? Is the investigative team strong in necessary areas?
ENVIRONMENT: Does the scientific environment contribute to the probability of success? Are there unique features of the scientific environment?

48. Inside the NIH Grant Review Process Video
CSR has developed a video of a mock study section meeting to show how NIH grant applications are reviewed.

49. Post Meeting: Results of Review
Unscored (approximately bottom half)
Score (generally between 100 and 300)
Percentile ranking (if scored)
Deferral (rare)
NRFC - Not Recommended for Further Consideration (very rare; serious concerns)
Notification of Principal Investigator
NIH Commons
Summary Statement

50. Summary Statement Study Section Recommendation – Score, Unscored
Resume and Summary of Discussion (if scored)
Description (Abstract)
Essentially unedited comments of reviewers
Organized by review criteria
Administrative notes
Budget Recommendations
Coding for human subjects, animals, gender, minorities, children
Institute/Center contact information – Program Director

51. Role of Program vs. Review Staff

52. Separation of Funding and Review
Program Staff:
Identify and promote research priorities
Recommend projects for funding (based on score, budget, priorities)
Manage portfolio of projects
Work with applicants up to review and after review
Review Staff:
Manage study section meetings to evaluate scientific and technical merit
Provide a fair, thorough and competent review for each application
Work with applicants before review

53. Review Process for a Research Grant
Study Section Meeting
Not Funded
N I H
Application
Grant
Referral
Review
Program
Principal Investigator

54. Review Staff – Scientific Review Administrators (SRA)
Designated federal official responsible for ensuring that the grant applications are reviewed in an impartial environment.
Responsible for overseeing the scientific peer review of applications
Managing study section meetings
Prepare summary statements
Communicate with program staff on review issues
Discuss review issues and policies with applicants

55. Program Officers (PO)
Interface between NIH funding Institute and the extramural research community
Serve as a resource and advocate
Monitor research progress via annual reports
Discuss other research opportunities (e.g. competing supplements, minority supplements)

56. PO Assistance: Pre-Application
Point of contact for investigators
Assist with identifying appropriate mechanism of support
Clarify policy requirements
Discuss budget plans

57. PO Assistance - After the Review Meeting
Review summary statement with PI
Obtain additional information regarding:
gender / minorities / children
human subjects
budget
Explore funding opportunities with other Institutes / Centers
Work with grants management to make award

58. Role of Program vs. Review
Program Officers
Contact for scores and other funding issues after SS meeting
Advocate
at Council meetings - Funding for borderline applications in some ICs
Observe study section meetings
Help with revised application
Contact after grant is funded
Progress reports
Oversight of funded grants
Review – SRAs
Contact for review issues – before SS meeting
(e.g. study section assignment, supplemental review material)
Unbiased treatment for all PIs –
Assure a fair, thorough, competent review of all applications
Supplemental data for applications

59. NIH Institute Advisory Councils

60. Dual Review System for Grant Applications
First Level of Review
Scientific Review Group (SRG)
Provides Initial Scientific Merit Review of Grant Applications
Scores Applications and Makes Recommendations for Appropriate Level of Budget Support and Duration of Award
Second Level of Review
Council
Assesses Quality of SRG
Review of Grant Applications
Makes Recommendation to
Institute Staff on Funding
Evaluates Program Priorities
and Relevance
Advises on Policy

61. Council Actions Concurrence with study section action
Modification of study section action
Deferral for re-review

62. STUDY SECTIONS DO NOT FUND
INSTITUTES FUND!
Study sections judge application’s scientific and technical merit
Institutes take these evaluations very seriously
Institutes also consider relevance of application to the Institute’s research priorities

63. What Determines Which Awards Are Made?
Scientific merit (score)
Program considerations
Availability of funds

64. Grant Writing

65. When Preparing an Application
Read PHS398 instructions
Consider the review criteria
Consider your primary audience - Reviewers
Never assume that reviewers “will know what you mean”
Refer to literature thoroughly and update when submitting revised application
Clearly state rationale of proposed investigation
Include well-designed tables and figures
Present an organized, lucid write-up
Obtain pre-review from other faculty at your institution

66. Common Problems in Applications
Lack of new or original ideas
Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale
Lack of experience in the essential methodology
Questionable reasoning in experimental approach
Uncritical approach
Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan
Lack of sufficient experimental detail
Lack of knowledge of published relevant work
Unrealistically large amount of work

67. Additional Considerations
Research involving human subjects
Protection from risks
Inclusion of women, minorities, children
Animal Welfare
Biohazards
Data Sharing Plans
Appropriateness of Budget

68. Revised Applications 2 amendment limitation (no time limit any more)
Must have received summary statement
Cycle designed to submit every other round
(this may change- see NIH Guide notice on pilot study to shorten cycle for New PIs )
Be calm and respectful of reviewers
Be responsive to reviewer’s specific critiques
Need to include Introduction and clearly mark text to show changes
Next review usually the same study section.
Continuity of review is goal.
Don’t give up!

69. Other Grant Writing Tips
Follow format rules (don’t squeeze, don’t cheat!)
At least 11 pt font smallest allowed
No more than 15 characters per inch and 6 lines per inch
At least ½” margins
Take time
avoid sloppy errors
Give to colleagues for feedback
Write clearly for whole review committee (they are your main audience as well as judge and jury)
Well-written applications are noticed and appreciated
You are not anonymous – don’t embarrass yourself with a sloppy application.

70. Pilot Study to Shorten the Review Cycle for New Investigator R01 Applications
To qualify for this expedited resubmission all of the following conditions must all be met:
The PI must meet the NIH definition of a new investigator (see webiste below).
A new or first resubmission of an R01 application must be submitted for the February 1 or March 1, 2006 date.
The application must be reviewed in one of the participating Study Sections listed in the Notice at website below.
The Summary Statement must have the special note indicating eligibility to participate in the pilot.
The Principal Investigator must determine that it is reasonable to prepare a resubmission application in a short time.
The Principal Investigator must agree that the resubmitted application be assigned to the same Study Section; no change in review venue is permitted for the resubmission.
The July 20, 2006 receipt date must be met; late applications will not be considered.

71. Volunteer To Review! Junior Investigators Senior Investigators
Ad hoc reviewer
Learn process – do’s and don’ts
Senior Investigators
Contribution is vital to peer review process
Consider the debt to the scientific community
Be constructive instead of complaining
You are the “Peer” in Peer Review!

72. The NIH Commons https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/
Register in the Commons
Individual Profile
Obtain priority score, summary statement, notice of grant award
Reviewer can post critiques

73. Websites WWW.NIH.GOV NIH homepage; directories; information;
gateway to parts of NIH
Information about Institutes
Application forms, rosters, policies
Information about HOP IRG