|
APS News
Council Meets in Bethesda
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
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 systems and disease based focus that would enable more translational research. This year, CSR has again undertaken a review of the IRG alignment, 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 (http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Openhouses.htm). The APS has participated in these workshops and has 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. The results indicate that 55-60% of APS members in the sections surveyed feel that the science of their discipline is appropriately evaluated within the current study section alignment. Interdisciplinary research and integrative physiology were the areas most often identified as underserved in the current system, but also as areas that will be vitally important to moving science forward in the next 10 years. In addition to the Open Houses, CSR plans to carry out ongoing internal reviews by examining one IRG per month. With 24 total IRGs, each one is reviewed within NIH every two years. Other reforms under consideration In addition to examining the alignment of IRGs and study sections, NIH has also been considering a number of other initiatives aimed at speeding and 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. In addition to electronic grant submission, CSR is developing a system that will automatically refer grants to IRGs based on a sophisticated computer search that extracts referral requests from cover letters and analyzes text. CSR is also experimenting with alternative formats for reviews, including asynchronous electronic discussions (secure online chatrooms where reviewers can post comments) and video enhanced discussions, where reviewers meet via a computer based videoconferencing system. The goal of the alternative review formats is to facilitate recruitment of reviewers with appropriate expertise by eliminating barriers to participation in face to face meetings, such as travel and time away from lab and clinical responsibilities. Overhauling peer review 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 of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director were established to examine the peer review system, and those working groups issued a request for information (RFI) in July 2007. The RFI asked for “creative, concrete suggestions” in six major areas: challenges of the NIH system of research support and the peer review process, solutions to those challenges, core values of the peer review process that should be enhanced or maintained, whether the peer review process uses appropriate criteria and scoring procedures, and whether there is adequate support for investigators at different stages in their career paths. The APS response to the RFI was prepared by the Public Affairs Committee and members of the APS Council. The response focused on key areas that were of greatest concern, including: modifying the practice of streamlined review—the APS recommends that grants receiving disparate reviews always be discussed, every grant should get a score, and that applications from new or first-time investigators be exempt from streamlining. The absence of unmentored entry level grant opportunities for new investigators – the APS recommends that NIH consider reviewing applications from new investigators in separate study sections that will focus their reviews on the quality of the PI’s training, research environment and support, merit of the research questions being posed in the application, feasibility of the experiments proposed and probability of success, past productivity and potential for future productivity. Shortening the review cycle – the APS commends the NIH for shortening the review cycle for new investigators, and recommends that NIH work toward the goal of reducing the review time for all grant applications. The APS also recommends that any major reforms to the peer review process be focused on clearly defined problems, and that implementation of new initiatives include specific plans for evaluation and measurement of success or failure. The Society’s response can be viewed in its entirety on the APS Science Policy website (http://www.the-aps.org/pa). In conjunction with the RFI, NIH officials are meeting with the scientific community to gather input directly. Working group representatives met with scientific societies on July 30, 2007 in Washington, DC. 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. APS will also have representatives at a series of regional meetings with NIH officials in San Francisco, Chicago and New York. The stated goal of the working groups is to gather input until the end of 2007, at which time pilot projects will be implemented and evaluated. To keep the scientific community up to date and informed on peer review initiatives, NIH has created this website: http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
APS President Hannah Carey hosted a staff
appreciation reception for the Society’s employees on Friday, July 13. The
event was attended by the APS staff, Council and Committee chairs. APS
Executive Director Martin Frank and President Carey, on behalf of the
Council and chairs, thanked the staff for their efforts over the past year.
Carey said it was a pleasure to work with the APS staff, and that their
devotion to their jobs and to APS helps to motivate her, and the rest of the
Council. During the appreciation reception, a ceremony is held to recognize those staff members who have served the Society. This year, Carey presented 20-year certificates to Alice Ra ‘anan (Director, Government Relations/Public Policy); and Mona Trang ( Peer Review); a 15-year certificate to Eric Pesanelli (Art Editorial Manager); 10-year certificates to Dell Pillers-Cline (Accounting Manager), Sue Sabur (Marketing Manager); and a five-year certificate to Gil Ebner (Peer Review Manager). Carey thanked the employees for their years of service.
|
||||
|
|
||||
In January 2007, Thomas A. Pressley
succeeded Robert G. Carroll as Chair of the Education Committee. Pressley
has been deeply involved in the educational activities of the APS since
joining the committee in 2002, organizing a Student-Teacher Workshop during
the 2004 Experimental Biology meeting in Washington, participating in the
Explorations in Biomedicine Retreat at Little Big Horn College in 2003, and
serving as the Physiologist-in-Residence at the 2006 Science Teaching Forum.
He has also served as a host for a Frontiers in Physiology Research Teacher
in 2000. A member of APS since 1996, his primary affiliation is with the
Cell and Physiology Section, although he also participates in activities of
the Renal Physiology and Endocrine and Metabolism Sections, as well as the
Epithelial Transport Group. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of
the Heart and Circulatory Section of the American Journal of Physiology. |
||||
|
|
