Bioscience Briefing
For info about biomedical funding, animal research and other bioscience issues, click here.
SCience Policy Announcements
For the latest news from the APS Science Policy click here.
Resource Book Now Available
Click here for more info on The APS Resource Book for the Design of Animal Exercise Protocols.
CSR holds its first Open House, focuses on neuroscience study sections
On March 2, 2007, the NIH held the first in a series of Open House workshops that are intended to examine study section alignment. The first Open House focused on the neurosciences, and the APS was represented by Chet Ray, chair of the neural control of autonomic responses section. Additional APS members were in attendance representing other societies or as chairs of study sections. Marty Frank and Rebecca Osthus also participated in the workshop on behalf of APS. The meeting took place at the NIH and other participants included many of the study section chairs, several members of scientific society leadership, members of the public and NIH staff.
NIH director Elias Zerhouni and CSR director Toni Scarpa gave opening remarks that stressed the importance of the peer review process and indicated that it has been the subject of intense focus by the NIH leadership throughout the past year. Dr. Scarpa asked the participants to limit their focus throughout the day to the content of the peer review system, rather than the process. In other words, he didn't want to discuss grant length, triage policy, etc, but instead focus on whether or not the scientific structure of the study sections was appropriate.
The morning sessions featured CSR division directors and focused on the current study section alignment, including how the structure was adopted. They explained that changes have been largely driven by scientific needs, as evaluated by trans-NIH working groups and scientific leaders. During a brief question and answer period, the audience was given an opportunity to ask questions. Questions addressed whether proposals should be ranked, whether there is enough expertise on the chemical senses in the neuroscience IRGs, whether there is a lack of study sections that have sufficient clinical and basic expertise to evaluate translational proposals, what are the barriers to identifying, funding and encouraging innovative grant proposals, and whether there is a lack of multidisciplinary expertise on study sections, specifically genetics.
In the afternoon, participants broke into six groups: 1) neural excitability, synapses and glia, 2) developmental neuroscience, 3) behavioral and sensory neuroscience, 4) disorders of the nervous system, 5) neuroendocrinology, neuroimmunology, and neurogenetics, and 6) neurotechnology, neuroimaging and neuroinformatics. Each group was asked to respond to two questions: 1) Is the science of your discipline, in its present state, appropriately evaluated within the current study section alignment? Suggestions? 2) What will be the most important questions and/or enabling technologies you see forthcoming with the science of your discipline in the next 10 years?Following the breakout sessions, participants reported back and discussed the results. At the end of the day, Dr. Scarpa gave a session that focused on some of the process changes being considered at CSR.
The input gathered at the meeting will be posted in the form of reports on the NIH website, and interested parties will have an additional opportunity to provide input. The consolidated information will then go to the Peer Review Advisory Committee, which will consider possible changes to the study section structure based on the reports.
Follow up from this meeting on behalf of APS will include a letter to Dr. Scarpa detailing the results of the survey sent to the NCAR and CNS sections, as well as feedback from the APS representatives on the organization of the workshop. The next CSR Open House of relevance to APS members will be held in August and will focus on digestive sciences, musculoskeletal, oral and skin sciences, renal and urological sciences, endocrinology, metabolism, nutrition and reproductive sciences.
Survey Results:
Results of CNS/NCAR polling
108 responses total out of 1003 members, response rate=10.8%. For each question, the total number of respondents is indicated.
Study Section Alignment
Do you feel that the science of your discipline is appropriately evaluated within the current study section alignment?(n=107)
Yes 57.9% n=62 No 42.1% n=45 If you answered NO, please identify the areas you feel are underserved (for example, emerging areas, integrative biology, etc.) (results are summarized below)
Areas identified by multiple respondents:
- Computational neuroscience, computational and theoretical neurobiology, analytical methodologies, computation/theory combined with experimental approaches
- Integrative and systems biology
Examples: crossing genetics, immunology, infectious disease, and behavior; studies that focus on more than one system i.e. neural control of blood pressure (see next bullet point); neural and endocrine control of sepsis - Neural control of physiological systems including circulatory, cardiovascular, respiration and homeostasis
- Animal studies that examine multiple systems
Areas identified by at least one respondent:
- Basic mechanisms of hemorrhagic stroke
- Biomedical engineering
- Cellular neuroscience/neurophysiology
- Embryonic stem cells
- RNAi in the nervous system
- Invertebrate systems-level biology of behavioral plasticity
- Chemical senses (should have dedicated review panel)
- Emerging areas
- Acute injury to the developing brain
- Diabetes and the brain
- Neuroendocrinology
- Direct care strategies and intervention
- Human functional neuroimaging
- Women's health issues, basic mechanisms and broad behavioral outcomes
- Prosthetics
Study Section Service
Have you ever served as a member on a NIH grant review study section? (n=108)
I am currently serving on a study section 14.8% (n=16) I am not currently serving on a study section, but I have in the past 51.9% (n=56) I have never served as a grant reviewer for NIH 33.3% (n=36) If you have served on a study section, please indicate in which capacities (check all that apply): (n=73)
Special emphasis panel 69.9% (n=51) Full member of regular study section 45.2% (n=33) Ad hoc member of regular study section 82.2% (n=60) Chair of regular study section 1.4% (n=1) Have you been asked to serve on a study section in the last five years and declined? (n=106)
Special emphasis panel 26.4% n=28 No. When I was asked, I accepted the invitation to serve. 34.9% n=37 I have not been asked. 38.7% n=41 What factors influence your decision to serve on a study section, or would if you were asked? Check all that apply: (n=98)
Workload 69.4% n=68 Perceived benefit to own research program 29.6% n=29 Institutional recognition 29.6% n=29 Professional obligation to participate in peer review of grants 90.8% n=89 Please tell us if there are other factors that play into your decision on whether or not to serve as a grant reviewer. (results are summarized below)
General comments:
- Multiple respondents indicated that whether the study section reviews grants within the scientists’ expertise (discomfort reviewing grants out of area of specialty) plays into their decision.
- Whether a reviewers' own grant is under review by the study section
- Several respondents stated that whether there is the opportunity to learn interesting science is important (R01s and individual training grants are informative, institutional training grants are not)
- Never been asked because main support comes from NSF, but would be willing to serve
- Have not been asked to serve
Things that positively influence decision to serve:
- Hope that they can bring fairness to the system
- Several respondents indicated that they chose to serve in the hope that their expertise would complement those of others and provide better review
- Many respondents stated a desire to learn about the review process
Things that negatively influence decision to serve:
- Potential conflicts of interest, or conflicts with other PIs
- It is too much of a time investment for little benefit—professionally, competitively, institutionally
- Having extensively served in the past
- Personal depression produced by seeing first-hand the effect of low funding levels
- Several respondents indicated that with current low funding rates, it becomes difficult to rank and evaluate the top proposals fairly
- Multiple respondents indicated that service on other review panels prevented them from reviewing for NIH
- Need time to prepare own grants for submission
- Work load
- Other professional obligations do not allow time for study section service
- Travel
- Study sections poorly organized
- Personal/family obligations prevent service
- Currently working in industry
A reduction in grant size from 25 pages to 10 or 15 pages is being considered to enable reviewers to review more grants. If grant applications were shortened but you were asked to review more grants, would you be:
More likely to serve as a reviewer 19.4% n=21 Less likely to serve as a reviewer 25.9% n=28 It would not affect your choice 54.6% n=59 NIH is considering a number of incentives that would help them recruit reviewers to serve on study sections. Which, if any, of the following options would encourage you to participate as a study section member? (Check all that apply) (n=108)
Serving as a member of a much larger study section (~100 or so reviewers) for a longer period of commitment, but not being required to attend all meetings. 28.7% n=31 Receiving time extensions for your own grants, as well as having flexibility in submission deadlines when you submit your own grant applications (beyond the current two week grace period). 64.8% n=70 Instead of traveling to attend face to face meetings, the ability to meet electronically via videoconference or other means. 39.8% n=43 Recognition by my scientific society or university of my commitment to study section service. 50% n=54 None of these ideas would be helpful. 10.2% n=11 Please list other ideas for modifications that would encourage service as a reviewer. (results are summarized below)
Things that would benefit individual reviewers:
- Receiving additional grant support, either an extra year of funding to existing grants for every four years of study section service or a small lump sum ($10–15K)
- Obligatory service as a condition of being awarded a grant
- Increased honorarium
- Better access to NIH resources/core facilities/collaborations with NIH investigators
- 10% salary support
- Special consideration for your own grants (ie add percentile points)
NIH system in general:
- Efforts to recruit reviewers should be expanded
- Establish a system wherein reviewers are groomed, and have time to train without the full reviewer workload
- Fund relevant research
- Better paylines/more money
- Shorter grant application with the current number of grants reviewed
- Reduce number of grants/reviewer
- Develop a score sheet with short comments rather than long critiques
- Allow reduced funding in exchange for a better score to allow more innovative projects to get off the ground
- More attention to handling grants submitted by study section members
- Reviewing fewer grants per study section and per year (ie 5–7 grants twice/year instead of 10–15 grants three times/yr)
- Improve quality of panel reviewers
- More effective assignments, more efficient meetings
- Better informed SRAs who do more grant handling than managing of science
- Video/teleconferencing reviews would be a bad idea, reviewers need face to face contact, applications reviewed remotely my be at a disadvantage
- Better accommodations in DC
- Meetings in other cities
Expertise on review panel
-
If you have served on a study section, please indicate whether you found that: (n=72)
The panel on which I served was largely made up of people with the appropriate expertise. 54.2% n=39 The panel on which I served lacked a sufficient number of individuals with the appropriate expertise. 9.7% n=7 The panel on which I served would have benefited from additional expertise in integrative physiology. 34.7% n=25 The panel on which I served would have benefited from additional expertise on the appropriate use of human and/or animal subjects. 1.4% n=1 Triage system
The NIH recommends that approximately half of all incoming applications be scored, with the remainder left unscored, or “triaged”, with the goal of being able to spend more time discussing grants that are likely to get funded. However, there is concern in the community that half of all grants are being automatically triaged, and that receiving an unscored grant application is detrimental to the submitting scientist. Current policy encourages (but does not mandate) 50% triage, and allows for discussion of a grant if one reviewer requests it. Would any of the following suggestions alleviate concerns you might have about the triage system? (n=107)
All grant applications are given a score, but only the top 50% are discussed in study section. 27.1% n=29 Grant applications with disparate scores from reviewers would automatically be discussed, even if the averaged score falls into the lower 50%. 47.7% n=51 The current system of triage works fine. 25.2% n=27 If you have had a grant application to NIH triaged, what was the ultimate outcome? (n=95)
The work was later funded by NIH 23.2% n=22 The work was not ultimately funded by NIH 25.3% n=24 I have never had a grant application triaged 51.6% n=49