Notice is hereby given that ORI found that Dr. Homer D. Venters, former graduate student, Neuroscience Program, UIUC, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by R01MH051569, F30MH12558, and R01AG06246. Specifically, PHS found that the Respondent committed misconduct in science: Read the rest of this entry »
Archive for December, 2008
Congressionally Directed NIH Pork?
The Chronicle of Higher Education summarizes today’s bombshell succinctly:
The study … found that public research universities in those states received about 9% more NIH money, on average, than did similar institutions with no Congressional representatives on the subcommittee [overseeing appropriations that the NIH received], other factors being equal. Private colleges got no additional money.
Creative Research Funding Strategies
Blagojevich tactics aside, the brains at Stanford brainstormed about how to generate research funding for the School of Medicine in an era of declining federal support. I have to say, I’m a little underwhelmed, but these summary suggestions in the 5 categories discussed may be of interest to some folks:
Increasing diversification of funding sources
Improve department-based faculty access to philanthropy
Team-up with School of Engineering programs: better coordination with all Stanford schools
Better response to RFAs
Sustaining existing programs
Create collaboration incentives
Improve clinical trials approval process and infrastructure
More investments to promote clinical and populations-based research
Enhancing faculty and institutional competitiveness
Enhance competitiveness of MCL for research (recruitment, time, resources)
Loosen restrictions on PI status
Pre-submission peer review of proposals
Creating incentives for collaborative or interdisciplinary research
Incentives for brainstorming at early stages
Improve access to consultation resources (biostatistics, etc.)
Improve focus of institutes
Using research funding and space more efficiently and cost effectively
Identify options to outsource core services
Rethink hotel space
Off-site storage space (freezers, biospecimens, etc.)
Where Now Writedit?
Having closed another life chapter, Writedit is deciding whether to remain at Baby It’s Cold Outside or, while still easily relocatable, move on to a new opportunity. A few have already presented themselves. Advice & suggestions from the blogosphere about great institutions (to work for, that is – I’ve already reserved a room with a view & a valium drip at the psych hospital here) and great places to live would be most welcome.
New Study Section Descriptions
CSR (Center for Scientific Review) has “updated and enhanced” its chartered study section descriptions, which I trust you all use to select the appropriate review group for your applications. These descriptions are intended to be “more transparent and reflective of the types of applications actually reviewed,” as indicated in a recent notice on this enhancement. Updated descriptions of recurring special emphasis panels will be posted in early 2009.
Caveat emptor … I suspect they need to tweak their search function a tad. Or more. Instead, I would recommend you do your first level screening using the one-line descriptors given on the study section roster page. Once you start looking through them, you will find a much simplified and more user-friendly presentation of who wants to read about what.
Ethelda Christina (Schmid) Kienholz
Aug 6, 1922 – Dec 2, 2008 Read the rest of this entry »
NIH Updates on Scoring & Review Criteria
Update: NIAID, per usual, has an excellent table comparing the old and new review processes.
Here is the official updated implementation timeline for enhancing peer review:
January 2009 Due Dates
Early Stage Investigator and New Investigator Policy
New NIH Policy on Resubmissions
May 2009 Review Meetings
9-Point Scoring System
Enhanced Review Criteria
Formatted Reviewer Critiques
Scoring of Individual Review Criteria
Clustering of New Investigator Applications During Review
January 2010 Due Dates
Shorter Applications for R01s and Other Mechanisms
Restructured Applications to Align with Review Criteria
The enhanced scoring procedures will use a whole-number, 9-point scale (1=exceptional; 9=poor), with percentiles starting from scratch from the May 2009 cycle on. Each application, including those not discussed, receives a score for all 5 core review criteria (see below). For discussed applications:
Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a preliminary impact score for that application. The preliminary impact scores will be used to determine which applications will be discussed. For each application that is discussed, a final impact score will be given by each eligible committee member (without conflicts of interest). Each member’s impact score will reflect his/her evaluation of the overall impact that the project is likely to have on the research field(s) involved, rather than a weighted average applied to the reviewer’s scores given to each criterion (see above).
The overall impact score for each discussed application will be determined by calculating the mean score from all the eligible members’ impact scores, and multiplying the average by 10; the overall impact score will be reported on the summary statement. Thus, the 81 possible overall impact scores will range from 10 – 90. (Overall impact scores will not be reported for applications that are not discussed.)
Funding Decisions. The new scoring system may produce more applications with identical scores (“tie” scores). Thus, other important factors, such as mission relevance and portfolio balance, will be considered in making funding decisions when grant applications are considered essentially equivalent on overall impact, based on reviewer ratings.
And about those enhanced review criteria … Read the rest of this entry »
