- Mission [1]
- The goal of NIH research is to acquire new knowledge to help prevent, detect, and diagnose, and treat disease and disability,
from the rarest genetic disorder to the common cold. The NIH mission is to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better
health for everyone. NIH works toward that mission by supporting the research of non-Federal scientists in universities, medical
schools, hospitals, and research institutions throughout the country and abroad. Section 492 of the PHS Act states that "The
Secretary...shall by regulation require appropriate technical and scientific peer review of -- (A) applications...; and (B)
biomedical and behavioral research and development contracts..." The SEP advises the Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI),
and the Director, Division of Extramural Activities, NCI, about research grant and cooperative agreement applications, contract
proposals in basic and clinical sciences, and applied research and development programs especially relevant to the National
Cancer Institute. The members and chairs are selected "as needed" for review of specific applications, proposals or proposed
solicitations. Over 1600 reviewers served in FY 2011. Members selected are outstanding authorities in the various fields of
biomedical research. The committees serve as the primary filter to review applications for scientific merit and supply that
information to the Institute to help make funding decisions. The system works well and allows the Institute to develop novel
and innovative approaches to stimulate scientific inquiry. The approaches taken during the review process go beyond the traditional
review paradigm-special effort is taken to orient the SEP members on the intent of the Institute in issuing the call for applications
and about the approach to be used while reviewing the applications or proposals. This method produces an efficient review
process for the Institute. The SEP review groups will continue to provide quality peer review for the special initiatives
of the Institute. Additional attention will be focused on issues of information technology and the digitization of information
to reduce costs, enable procedures that are as seamless as possible for reviewers and make the entire process as productive,
effective and efficient as possible. Further evidence that the committee is meeting its mission is the overwhelmingly positive
response from the program directors who attend the review sessions. Management remains vigilant during peer review activities—from
the selection of consultants to the preparation of the final reports. Review staff are sensitive to conflicts of interest
among reviewers and other issues that could compromise the quality of the review process. Such issues generate frequent interaction
with the Offices of the Chiefs of the three review branches: RPRB, RTRB SRLB. The reviewers are highly satisfied with how
the review process functions in the SEP setting as demonstrated by the scores of the evaluation forms submitted to the review
officer. Finally, support staff and review officers meet regularly to evaluate the outcome of the meeting and to suggest improvements.
One example of success is the positive feedback from reviewers at the conclusions of meetings, both in written evaluations
and in verbal comments to review officers and support staff. Another example of success is the willingness of many reviewers
to serve again and again on different panels. Various steps have been taken to improve the efficiency of the peer review process.
Review staff now use IMPAC II stored digital images of grant applications to extract needed information from applications
without retyping or scanning individual pages. Therefore, electronic application files were used to produce CDs to be sent
to reviewers in place of paper copies. Now, CDs are being phased out in favor of allowing reviewers to access the applications
on line. Orientation teleconferences are regularly used so that the SRO and program staff can explain the review regulations
and the intent of the initiative whose applications are to be reviewed. These teleconferences serve to define and focus the
review process. In addition, the teleconferences are digitally recorded so that copies of the discussions can be sent to those
reviewers who may not have been able to participate in the discussions. Use of this approach defines and focuses the review
process. Finally, we are also using electronic transmission of reviewer comments. Not only could such an approach save tax
dollars; it could also help address regulatory compliance more efficiently, effectively and productively. The National Cancer
Institute Special Emphasis Panel held 111 advisory committee meetings in FY 2011 and reviewed 1801 grant applications requesting
$5,428,059,856 in direct cost for total years requested. Additionally, a total of 202 Loan Repayment Grants were reviewed,
and 202 grants were paid at $10,222,781, a success rate of 52%. Of the 202 funded, 52 were conducting Pediatric cancer research
and 150 were conducting Clinical cancer research.
|
