Archive for April, 2008

Peer Review Advisory Committee Meeting

April 30, 2008 at 1:55 pm · Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice

Update: Thus Spake Zerhouni … the projection of Age Distribution of PIs out to 2020 is amusing.

Update: The Chronicle of Higher Education has an article about NIH efforts to lure back senior reviewers, including an update on pilot peer review reform projects underway and a table at the end showing the percentage of assistant professors serving on CSR panels for 2002, 2005, and 2007. The numbers? 8%, 10%, 7%, respectively.

The Peer Review Advisory Committee (not to be confused with the Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director on NIH Peer Review) met today, and the presentations seem to all be uploaded … except for the Great Zerhouni’s update on NIH Peer Review Enhancements. So, we have:

- Toni Scarpa on CSR Initiatives to Improve Peer Review (most bang for the buck re: content)

- Megan Columbus on Electronic Submission Update (transition to Adobe not until Dec 2008 – tentatively)

- Don Scheider on CSR Realignments (neuroscience case studies) & Clustering of Applications (orphan applications explained)

- Marion Mueller on Peer Review in Germany (leads with quote “Peer review is 50% garbage, 50% malice, and 10% good advice.”)

- Olivia Bartlett & Shamala Srinivas on Instantaneous Electronic Scoring of Multicomponent Applications (P01, P50, U19, U54)

Norka Ruiz Bravo has two slides comparing outcomes in women and men and new and established investigators. For 2006, it seems 11% of women and 9% of men scored within the top 10% in CSR study sections. According to the May 2008 council meetings (nice trick to provide these data on April 30th), 13% of new investigators and 18% of established investigators had Type 1 applications scoring within the 20th percentile. Interestingly, the May councils in 2001 and 2002 showed the distribution to be 15% and 17%, respectively, with the gap creeping up in May 2006 (14% vs 18%) and again in May 2007 (14% vs 19%).

Comments (8)

How to Succeed in Science: a Concise Guide

April 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm · Filed under Research News

In Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, NIAID’s Jonathan Yewdell invites those looking for research career advice in the biomedical sciences to “take a study break, grab a cup of coffee and read on.”

He offers his series “How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists” in 2 parts.

In the May issue, Part I: taking the plunge, where he provides “unvarnished [not as unvarnished as PP's though] advice for young biomedical scientists on the difficulties that lie ahead and on how to find the right laboratories for training in the skills that you will need to succeed.”

In the June issue, Part II: making discoveries, where he provides “practical advice to young scientists on choosing a research topic, designing, performing and interpreting experiments and, last but not least, on maintaining your sanity in the process.”

Comments (5)

Response to Review Dilemma

April 21, 2008 at 3:41 pm · Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice

Case study from the writedit files with excerpts from a triaged R21 summary statement, which means the PI would have only one page in which to respond to all 3 reviewers. For those of you out there who have not yet had the pleasure of discerning the true meaning of an unscored summary statement, enjoy this taste of what you might have to look forward to.

Reviewer #1: “The application is not competitive, suffers from a lack of precision, and describes a series of weakly related studies aimed at investigating the …”

Reviewer #2: “This excellent application seeks to delineate the interactions of … and their roles in … . The investigator and environment are outstanding, and the work is highly innovative.” [note: "Excellent" refers to score range of 150-200]

Reviewer #3: “As a proof of concept, this application has great appeal. However, it was not clear to this reviewer that … is a worthy target for all of this effort.”

These would be from the “Overall Evaluation” sections at the end of the first two individual critiques (no summary of study section discussion in this case due to traiged status) and extracted from the last of 3 paragraphs provided by the third reviewer. I’m guessing a lot of NIH applicants out there are smiling (grimacing) & nodding knowingly.

Many clues can be found in the summary statement. The second laudatory reviewer (<1 p review) regurgitates the applicant’s main points but provides no real additional commentary. So, not a lot of weight to this “critique” no matter how attractive it might be to consider this to be the only one worth listening to.

The first (2.75 p review) and third (0.75 p review) reviewers cite specific concerns and their rationale for being concerned, which is what adds weight to their input. If the PI were responding, these would be the points to address in the Intro and to correct in the scientific approach & the application.

In its favor, consider that the significance and innovation of the application were uniformly recognized, the PI thought to be well qualified, and the environment cited as strong … so not total discouragement. And, for those curious about this point in relation to the R21 mechanism, yes, assume preliminary data were presented (& discussed in the first & third critiques).

Comments (6)

Managing Study Section Member Conflicts

April 18, 2008 at 2:37 pm · Filed under NIH Advice

From an SRO’s explanation of how COI on a study section is appropriately handled:

“It sounds like you are concerned with conflict of interest rules for member conflicts. … At CSR, member conflicts generally occur if someone has a “significant” role on a project. If a member is participating as a consultant, this is considered to be an individual conflict rather than one for the entire study section. So, the member would be in CF and would leave the room during the review, but the study section could then review it.

However, once involvement reaches a certain point, the study section itself is in conflict. If involvement exceeds 5% of effort (more than 0.6 calendar months), or if the member is described in the budget justification as participating in the preparation of manuscripts for publication or receiving other tangible benefit, then a line has been crossed and the study section itself is in conflict. At this point, the “member conflict application” is assigned to a member conflict review group or to another appropriate study section if there is one. These situations are evaluated on an individual basis. It is a question of both (1) tangible benefit, and (2) extent of involvement (e.g., would this be considered “this person’s research”, as our Chief says). There is also the important matter of “perception” of conflict; this is always a matter of judgment by the SRO for the group doing the review. We are to avoid actual conflict of interest, as well as the perception of conflict.”

Leave a Comment

Fixing Near-Miss Grant Applications

April 13, 2008 at 6:30 pm · Filed under Research News

So you have that priority score that is frustratingly close but no cigar. In fact, your program officer may have held out hope for last minute Council support … but no. What to do?

Case Study:

R21 receives a priority score of 138, 11th percentile (think about this a moment folks – 138 … 11th percentile?) … concerns are incredibly minor, including a quibble over word choice (discussed!). Think, use of sex vs gender appropriately. Not relevant to the science at all. However, this A0 is not funded.

The PI takes the Neuro-conservative zen view on resubmission (First, Do No Harm), including a clean, simple apology for the errant word usage. Remember, this is an R21 with only a 1-page introduction.

The A1 receives a priority score of 107, 0.1st percentile, with the following comments in the summary of discussion: “The proposal is significantly bolstered by the thorough responsiveness to minor concerns from the previous review and with the addition of new preliminary data. … the committee was unanimous in their high enthusiasm for this outstanding application.” Obviously.

So, the PI kept collecting data, did not change anything in the Specific Aims or, that I can recall, in the Background & Significance … did streamline one set of experiments thanks to a recent innovation in the lab.

In this case, I don’t think the program officer was a fount of insight, but I would recommend starting there if not enough guidance for the resubmission is communicated in the resume & summary of discussion. Hopefully your program officer heard or heard of the discussion and can offer pointers for what to address. I’ve seen scores of summary statements for just about every grant mechanism and IC, though, and usually the opening discussion paragraph (for scored applications) throws the PI a bone for preparing an amended application.

Certainly a pristine, laser-focused introduction sans color commentary is critical. Citing new reports in the literature as appropriate (especially by study section members) and of course tying in new data (even better, a new manuscript accepted/published) you have will show reviewers you are committed to seeing this work through in a sound, scientific manner. Appropriately integrating new data from the literature and/or your lab in the research design and methods (additional rationale for your approach, consideration as an alternative approach, insight into potential pitfall or divergence in outcome, etc.) will further increase reviewer enthusiasm. If your IC (institute/center) has a new strategic plan or programmatic priority in line with your proposal, point this out as well. The key is not to open yourself up for potential target practice with the insertion of a new theory or premise or methodology. And, of course, not to get in a pissing match with the study section.

I’m sure comments from yuns will add a battery of great suggestions. I find it difficult to offer blanket advice on this sort of situation without knowing the application and its history. Grantsmanship instruction is available freely everywhere … the key is to get good input on your application specifically rather than try to fix it in a vacuum, no matter how many grant-writing workshops you’ve attended or Websites you’ve clicked through. An army of one was never less likely to succeed as in the battle for grant funding.

Comments (13)

How to Prevent Grant Funding

April 2, 2008 at 12:55 am · Filed under Biomedical Writing/Editing, Grantsmanship, NIH Advice

Okay … a little help here, and this is no April Fool’s. I need to come up with 45 min worth of what not to do if you want to get funded. I could come up with dozens and dozens of bullets like this, and I have priceless gems from actual narratives that I couldn’t possibly make up if I tried. But I really am interested in what fatal flaws crop up in the routine grant-writing life of a reagent-quality scientist. When I’m all done in a few weeks, I promise to slap it up as a resource page (like NIH Paylines & Resources).

- Let the NIH assign your grant
- Mislabel tables/figures (better yet, don’t include any)
- Make legends small/cryptic (taking up valuable space)
- Don’t bother with letters of support/collaboration
- Only address the comments you agree with in your revision introduction
- Propose experiments using reagents/cell lines/transgenic models you don’t have & are challenging to generate
- Propose complex aims each of which is contingent on achievement of the one prior
- End vague sentences describing statistical analyses with “etc.”
- Mention by name as many well-known investigators as possible without explaining/justifying their role, which has no budget allocation either (no need for biosketch, everyone knows who they are – or a letter of support, hate to bother them)
- Use as many uncommon abbreviations as possible (defining each is optional – saves more space)
- Don’t waste space between paragraphs
- Remember, instructions are for sissies
- Never, ever show your grant application to anyone before submission

Comments (22)