4302.0 NIH Grant Review Process

Tuesday, October 30, 2012: 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM
This session will be dually chaired by a Scientific Review Officer from CSR and a Program Director from a funding institute. The first part of this session attempts to demystify or unmask the NIH grant review process. It will briefly put in context CSR and track an application from submission to receipt at CSR. It will also outline how an application finds a review home, the Study section, the stewardship of a study section and the role of the scientific review officer in the review process and the process prior to and during the study section meeting and the final outcome of peer review. Human subject’s protections, new investigator considerations and changes in the peer review process relative to the number of times an application can be resubmitted will also be discussed. Finally the session will outline more recent efforts by NIH to expose individuals early in their careers to the Peer review Process with the intention of “growing” a new cadre of NIH funded scientists. The second part of this session covers the role of program officials in serving as “pilots” to help applicants navigate a course through careful conceptualization of a project’s stated purpose, building an application which clearly “teaches” reviewers about the proposed research’s goals and real-world impacts, and shepherds the application through its submission, review, resubmission (which is not uncommon—a mutual learning process should occur between applicants and reviewers), and all of the necessary tasks vital to successful attainment of a good review; then championing the application through the respective institute’s funding determination process, post-determination tasks, funding, and regular tasks necessary through the lifetime of a particular grant.
Session Objectives: The specific learning objectives are as follows: 1. Understand the peer review process 2. Understand NIH and other (e.g., State Department, if international research is involved) policies relative to application development, submission, funding--pending successful review, and successful maintenance of the grant over its lifetime. Such maintenance is critical to both the continued funding of a current grant and to chances for funding subsequent projects. 3. Understand NIH resources available to meet the first two objectives, including special attention for new investigators.
Fungai Chanetsa, PhD, MPH
Fungai Chanetsa, PhD, MPH

Nuts and Bolts of Peer Review
Fungai Chanetsa, PhD, MPH

See individual abstracts for presenting author's disclosure statement and author's information.

Organized by: Epidemiology

CE Credits: Medical (CME), Health Education (CHES), Nursing (CNE), Public Health (CPH)

See more of: Epidemiology