Upload
clarence-green
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Center for Scientific ReviewNational Institutes of HealthDepartment of Health and Human Services
Toni Scarpa
NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change
NIDA CouncilBethesda, Feb 8, 2006
Peer Review: An N.I.H. “Conception”
• Is the heart and soul of NIH• Has produced an effective partnership between the
federal government and research institutions• Has created the best academic medical centers, the best
biomedical/behavioral research and biotechnology• Has made possible the best cures and the best prevention• Has been admired and imitated here and abroad• Has protected NIH against outside influence
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Fiscal Year
Nu
mb
er
of
Ap
plic
ati
on
sApplications Received for all of NIH and Applications
Referred for CSR Review, FY 1998 - 2005
NIH Applications
Applications for CSR Review
CSR Mission Statement
To see that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews -- free from inappropriate influences -- so NIH can fund the most promising research.
NIDA Applications Reviewed by CSR in FY 2002 and 2005
2002 2005Number of applications reviewed by CSR (for all ICs) 33,469 51,690
Number of NIDA applications reviewed by CSRPercent of total reviewed by CSR
969(2.9%)
1,480(2.9%)
Number of CSR study section meetings 1,387 1,798
Number of CSR study sections meetings that reviewed NIDA applications(Percent of total)
225(16.2%)
30416.9%
Fiscal Year of Review
Review Outcomes for NIDA Applications in 2002 and 2005
R01 Applications Only
FY N%
Unscored
Median Priority Scores
% Scoring at the 10th percentile or
better
% Scoring at the 20th percentile or
better
2002 654 32.4% 244.0 7.8% 18.6%
2005 948 41.1%* 239.0 9.8% 20.5%
* FY comparison, p < .001
Time
C
om
ple
xity
an
d I
mp
act
CSR Operations
C
urrent S
ystems
New Systems?
Necessary Changes in CSR Peer Review Operations
• Increase communications between CSR, the ICs, our reviewers and applicants
• Increase uniformity
• Increase efficiency
• Facilitate work of IC program staff
Changes in CSR Operations
Increased Communication and Transparency
• Within CSR• With NIH and other Agencies• With the Scientific Community
Changes in CSR Operations 1
Increase uniformity
Slate Nomination
Summary Statements• Posting all within one month of Study Section meetings• Posting Summary Statements of new investigators within
one week• Producing more complete and structured resumes
Unscoring• Common practice• Unscoring 50%
Changes in CSR Operations 2
Increase Efficiency
• Electronic Submission
• Text Fingerprinting, Artificial Intelligence Software
Changes in CSR Operations 3
Potential of Knowledge Management Tools for Peer Review
Collexis Software or Others
• Knowledge management solutions• Fingerprinting and text retrieving• Disease coding
Benefits for Peer Review
• Assigning applications to Integrated Review Groups or Study Sections
• Selecting reviewers (one application, multiple applications)
Nine pilots are underway to begin to assess these benefits
This is Not an Ford Assembly Line
Receipt ReferEvaluate Scientific
Merit of Applications
Shortening the NIH Review Cycle, Initial Steps
For most research grants, we are posting summary statements within one month after the study section meeting instead of two to three months after the meeting (effective Oct 05)
We are conducting a pilot study to speed the review process for new investigators so they may revise and resubmit for the very next review cycle 4 months earlier than before (effective Feb 06)
Possible Changes in Current Systems
• Shorten the review cycle
• Address concern that clinical research is not properly evaluated
• Improve the assessment of innovative, high- risk/high-reward research
• Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers
Expanding Peer Review’s Platforms
Electronic Reviews• Telephone Enhanced Discussions• Video Enhanced Discussions• Asynchronous Electronic Discussions
Study Sections
Necessity ● Clinical reviewers Preference ● Physicists, computational biologists
New Opportunities ● Fogarty, International Reviewers
Applications Received for All of NIH FY 1998-2004
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
1998 2000 2002 2004Fiscal year
Nu
mb
er o
f ap
pli
cati
on
s
Number of Research Grant Applications/Applicant
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
CSR Applications Reviewed, Regular and SEP May Council Only
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Applications Regular
Applications SEP
Study Section Application/Reviewer Ratio October Council Only
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Regular
SEP
CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW FY 2004-2006 Non-Discretionary vs. Discretionary Spending
■ Non-Discretionary
■ Discretionary
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
77%
23%18%
82% 88%
12%
If we didn’t have any peer-review system and we had to design one from scratch, what would it look like?
Possible New Systems