Review of SBRP Applications

1
Review of SBRP Applications
Janice B. Allen Scientific Review Administrator
Applicant Information Meeting October 29,
2003 Research Triangle Park North Carolina
US Department of Health and Human
Services National Institutes of Health National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
2
Components of a Successful Application

• Good Idea
• Good Science
• Good Application

A well prepared application will not make a bad
scientific idea good however, a poorly prepared
application can disguise a good scientific idea.
William Raub, Ph.D. Former Acting Director, NIH
3
Pre-submission

• Reread all instructions pertaining to RFA and
  Application Guidelines
• Follow budget restrictions
• Include checklist
• Sign application
• Affix RFA label (available in PHS 398) to bottom
  of the face page of application

4
Submission - April 21, 2004
Center for Scientific Review, NIH Signed
original 2 copiesScientific Review Branch
(SRB), NIEHS 3 signed copiesAppendix Materials
to SRB, NIEHS 5 copies, collated by research
projects/cores
NIEHS PO Box 12233 (MD EC-30) RTP, NC 27709

• Janice B. Allen, Ph.D.
• Sally Eckert-Tilotta, Ph.D.
• Scientific Review Administrators
• Scientific Review Branch

Express Delivery 79 TW Alexander Drive Bldg
4401, Room 3173 RTP, NC 27709
No official receipt of application, but notified
8 weeks
5
Review of Applications
Applications (042104)
Letters of Intent (021304)
Administrative Review
Non-responsive (return to applicant)
Responsive
Assign to reviewers and send to Review Committee
(060104)
Streamline (0804)
Competitive
Non-competitive
Review Meeting (October, 2004) Teleconference
Call with PI
Summary Statement
NAEHS (2/04)
Funding decisions and awards (3/04)
Summary Statements (12/04)
6
Letters of Intent (LOI)

• Not mandatory nor binding, but EXTREMELY helpful
• Due Feb 13, 2003
• Include
• Title
• Name, address, PIs telephone , email address
• Names of key personnel participating
  institutions
• Number (ES04-001) title of RFA
• Information about projects/cores
• Send to Sally Eckert-Tilotta or Janice Allen

7
Application Storage Room
8
Administrative Review

• Conducted by NIEHS staff Responsive to RFA?
• Complete and relevant to SBRP?
• Projects and Cores?
• Organizational adequacy (scientific and
  budgetary)?

9
Selection of Reviewers

• Determine areas of expertise (from LOI)
• Determine number of reviewers (from LOI)
• Select peers
• mostly academics
• peer-reviewed funding in appropriate areas,
• review experience
• Other reviewers
• ( e.g. government scientists industry
  scientists community representatives)
• Representation of women, minorities, and
  geographical distribution

10
Difficulties in Selection of Reviewers

• Many are needed
• About 160 needed to review
• About 800 projects/cores other review factors
• Wide range of expertise is needed
• Conflicts of interest must be avoided
• Reviewers commit a lot of time to do a lot of
  work

11
Reviewers Areas of Expertise, Including.

• Toxicology (all types)
• Epidemiology
• Biostatistics
• Bioinformatics
• Exposure Assessment
• Molecular Biology
• Chemistry
• Fate Area Transport
• Genomics
• Molecular Toxicol Design
• Struc/Integrat Biology
• Pathobiology

• Hydrogeology
• Ecology
• Molecular Biophysics
• Translational Research
• Microbiology
• Engineering
• Remediation (Bio-, Physical, Chem-, Phyto-)
• Community Outreach/ Communication

12
Information Sent to Review Committee

• RFA and Application Guidelines
• All applications assigned to the committee (8-10)
• Appendices only to primary/secondary reviewers
• Instructions/guidelines for review of
  applications
• Summary statement from previous SBRP review
  (competitive renewals)

13
Streamlining of Applications

• Purpose to identify applications that are least
  likely to be funded so that more time can be
  spent on the most scientifically meritorious
  applications
• Goal Identify lower 1/3 to ½ applications
• Conducted by review committee by teleconference
  prior to meeting
• Decision to streamline must be unanimous
• Streamlined applications do not get discussed and
  scored at full review meeting, but do receive a
  written critique

14
Review of Applications - 1

• Most meritorious applications
• undergo full discussion
• receive a priority score
• receive a summary statement
• Second level of review performed by NIEHS NAEHS
  Council.
• Applicants will address possible
  questions/concerns by reviewers via telephone
  conference call during the review meeting.

15
Review of Applications - 2

• Two Special Emphasis Panels (SEP)s running
  concurrently with one Chair and one SRA per SEP.
  
• Both SEPs convened together for reading of
  scripted instructions (for continuity)
• Total of 4 SEPs
• Primary/Secondary reviewers and Discussant per
  review element
• Review elements discussed and assigned numerical
  scores
• Budgets and other administrative matters
  discussed
• Two three applications per day

16
Review Elements

• Scientific merit of projects and cores
• Multi- and interdisciplinary nature of program
• Administrative core
• Principal Investigator
• Progress of competing renewal (if applicable)
• Overall SBRP

17
Review Factors

• Detailed in RFA (pp. 26-30) for
• Renewal applications
• Projects
• Support cores
• Administrative core
• Translation core
• Community outreach core
• Training core
• Principal investigator

18
Factors Affecting Overall Score

• Multi- and Interdisciplinary coordination
• Multi- and interdisciplinary nature
• Integration and interaction of non-health related
  research with health-based research
• Scientific merit of research projects
• Importance and use of cores
• Projects that are NRFC
• Director and other key personnel
• Community Outreach and Training plans (if
  included)
• Synergy
• Accomplishments (competitive renewals)

19
Make your Application Easy to Review

• Good ideas get good reviews this applies to both
  the program and individual projects
• State your ideas up front be clear and concise
• Get the reviewers attention and get the
  reviewers excited about your ideas
• Make the application easy to read
• Limited time to review a complex document!

20
Recommendations from a Reviewers Perspective

• Seek appropriate advice
• Organize according to guidelines
• Write application with review in mind
• Address all review criteria
• Be complete but concise
• Explain how it fits together as a program
• Exclude weak projects
• Include Multi/interdisciplinary, synergy,
  innovative
• Discuss accomplishments
• Include potential pitfalls and alternative
  approaches
• Dont assume reviewers will know what you mean
• Presentation

21
HELP?

• Contact
• Janice B. Allen
• Sally Eckert-Tilotta
• SRB/DERT/NIEHS
• Eckertt1_at_niehs.nih.gov 919.541.1446
• Allen9_at_niehs.nih.gov 919.541.7556
• FAX [phone]
• PHS 398 http//grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs3
  98/phs398.html
• Application Guidelines http//www.niehs.nih.gov/
  dert/rfa.htm
• Best of Luck!