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.
Peer Review at NIH
In response to falling success rates and rising numbers of grant applications, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has undertaken several initiatives aimed at overhauling and improving the peer review system.
The problem of declining success rates for NIH grant applications has been recognized for some time. Contributing factors include a rapid increase in the number of applications submitted to NIH, an increased number of researchers seeking grants, and a budget that has been declining in inflation-adjusted dollars since it peaked in 2004. Those factors coupled with the reality that many grant applications are not funded until after the first or second amendment have caused significant challenges for the review system. More applications have meant a larger workload for reviewers, causing them to devote more time away from their own research programs in order to participate in grant review. The increasingly complex and interdisciplinary nature of biomedical research poses yet another challenge in obtaining appropriate expertise on review panels.
Integrated Review Group and Study Section Alignment
The most recent examination of the peer review system took place when the NIH Panel on Scientific Boundaries for Review restructured the integrated review groups (IRGs) within the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Completed in 2004, the Panel’s goal was to revise the IRG structure to achieve a more systems and disease based focus that would enable more translational research. This year, CSR has again undertaken a review of the IRGs, holding a series of Open House workshops where members of the extramural community are invited to participate in a discussion with NIH officials focusing on two main questions:
- Is the science of your discipline, in its present state, appropriately evaluated within the current study section alignment?
- What will be the most important questions and/or enabling technologies you see forthcoming within the science of your discipline in the next 10 years?
As the Open House workshops are held and reports are generated, information will be posted to the NIH website. The APS has participated in the workshops and provided the NIH with information collected through online member surveys. These surveys collected information on the two questions posed above, as well as a number of other aspects of the peer review system including streamlined review and service on study sections.
Other Peer Review Reforms
In addition to examining the alignment of IRGs and study sections, NIH has also been considering other initiatives aimed at improving grant review. These include changing the requirements for grant appendix materials, shortening the review cycle for new investigators to allow them to submit revised applications in consecutive cycles, moving to electronic grant submission, and considering shortening the R01 grant application from the current 25 page limit.
Given the large number of factors involved, officials at NIH have decided to undertake a much more comprehensive look at the peer review system. Two working groups were established to examine the review system, and those working groups issued a request for information (RFI).
In conjunction with the RFI, NIH officials and working group representatives met with scientific societies on July 30, 2007. The APS was represented at that meeting by John Chatham, a member of the Public Affairs Committee, who was selected to give a statement on behalf of the Society. The statement highlighted some of the general concerns of the APS including a lack of continuity in review of amended grant applications and a paucity of funding opportunities for newly independent investigators.
The NIH will also hold a series of regional meetings in Chicago, New York City and San Francisco to continue gathering input as they work to generate ideas for reform. The working groups stated goal is to gather input until the end of 2007, at which time pilot projects will be implemented and evaluated.
Back to NIH Materials