1 / 20

Archived File

Archived File. The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

norman
Download Presentation

Archived File

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

  2. Restructuring of Study Sections in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental NeuroscienceDon Schneider, PhDDiscussants Drs. Leinwand, Pugh, & McClainPeer Review Advisory CommitteeDecember 4, 2006National Institutes of HealthDepartment of Health and Human Services

  3. Study Section Organization • Core Values of Peer Review • Fair, expert, & timely • Free from influence/conflict • Organizational Approach: Integrated Review Groups (IRGs) • Good size work unit • Cluster related science

  4. Five Year AssessmentsWorking Groups • Full cycle of assessments completed 2001 • Second cycle started with Neuroscience IRGs • Other IRGs will follow in order of reorganization, AIDS and Behavioral/Social Science IRGs, then HEME (2003) and ending with BCMB and CB (2005) • Working Groups meet by email, telephone/video conference, asynchronous electronic discussion, or face-to-face • Results are presented to PRAC (a Federal Advisory Committee Act requirement)

  5. CSR IRG Review • Initiated February 2006, one IRG a month • Review sequence determined by: • Known/emerging issues • Scientifically related areas • For local matter, such as overload in one study section, CSR develops plan of action • For substantial matter, e.g., formation of new study section, a Working Group is formed, and the issue is presented and discussed at PRAC

  6. Principles • Be guided by Core Values of NIH peer review (fair, expert, and timely peer review free from influence/conflict) • Monitor study sections continuously (rosters, meetings, and summary statements) • Change study sections as the science changes (involve all stakeholders)

  7. MDCN Pre-Working Group(December 2005) • Paul Brehm, SUNY SB • Sandra Hewett, U Connecticut • Harry Ischiropoulos, U Pennsylvania • Robert Miller, Case Western Reserve U • Patricia Sonsalla, UMDNJ • Richard Tsien, Stanford U • Harel Weinstein, Cornell Weill

  8. PRAC (January 2006) • Restructure Biophysics of Synapses, Channels and Transporters (BSCT) as Biophysics of Neural Systems (BPNS) • Divide Neurodegeneration and the Biology of Glia (NDBG) into Neurodegeneration and Glial Biology (NDGB) and Neural Oxidative Metabolism and Death (NOMD) [BPNS, NDGB, & NOMD first met June 2006]

  9. Assessment of MDCN IRG • Pre-Working Group – December 2005; PRAC – January 2006 • CSR internal review – September 25, 2006 • Working Group – June 2005 – October 2006 (comments from reviewers over four cycles) • Working Group telephone conference – November 9, 2006

  10. Nancy Bonini, U Penn Iain Campbell, U Sydney Gino Cortopassi, UC Davis David Friel, CWRU Vittorio Gallo, CNMC, Wash DC Alex Kolodkin, JHU Patricia Reggio, UNC Greensboro Jose Rizo-Rey, UTSW David Rottenberg, U Minn William Shain, Wadsworth Claudio Soto, UTMB Harel Weinstein, Cornell Weill NIH: Chiiko Asanuma, Linda Brady, Yuan Liu, Larry Refolo, Steve Snyder, Carole Jelsema, Don Schneider MDCN Working Group(roster November 2006)

  11. Working GroupTelephone Conference • Draft report, issues, options, and master lists of applications provided in advance of call • Feedback from WG with names removed collated and returned to WG in advance of call • Discussion by teleconference November 9, 2006 • Development of written recommendations by email

  12. MDCN Assessment Issues • Telephone reviewers • Senior vs. Junior reviewers • Workloads • Large size of NDGB (already above 80 again) • Small sizes of SEPs (scientific/clustering and efficiency issues)

  13. Consensus view of WG on restructuring of study sections • Split NDGB along degenerative and glial lines • Develop guidelines for two standing SEPs in neuroengineering and in neuroinformatics/imaging • Continue neurogenetics SEP as needed; wait and see about guidelines

  14. Possible Guidelines: Cellular and Molecular Biology of Neurodegeneration [CMND] • Molecular characterization of abnormal protein processing • Molecular mechanisms underlying triple repeat neurodegenerative disorders • Molecular mechanisms for developing neuroprotection • Molecular analysis of gene products involved in neurodegeneration/protection, including ApoE

  15. Possible Guidelines:Cellular and Molecular Biology of Glia [CMBG] • Biology of glial cells • Neuroglial interactions • Glial response to injury or infection • Neuroimmune function • Metabolic disorders of glial cells

  16. Possible Guidelines:Neuroengineering SEP[ZRG1 MDCN-K(50)] • Neural multi-electrode array construction • Optimization of electrode/neural prosthesis biocompatibility • Microfluidic-based neural tissue culture platforms • Promotion of axon regrowth over engineered surfaces

  17. Possible Guidelines:Neuroinformatics/Imaging SEP[ZRG1 MDCN-K(51)] • Neurodatabase construction and sharing • Modeling of neural circuitry • Brain structure atlas creation • Registration of multi-modality brain images • Computational analysis of neurobiological data

  18. MDCN SEPs share interests outside of IRG • Bioengineering Sciences and Technologies – basic bioengineering or emerging approach vs. nervous system • Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering – biomedical engineering or emerging approach vs. nervous system • Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience – whole organ, translational, or clinical vs. cellular or molecular • Genes, Genomes and Genetics – basic genetics or emerging approach vs. nervous system

  19. Summary(seeking approval) • Divide NDGB into CMND (Neurodegeneration) and CMBG (Glia) • Form two recurring SEPs: Neuroengineering and Neuroinformatics/Imaging • Continue Neurogenetics SEP as needed; wait and see about guidelines

  20. DISCUSSANTS • Dr. Leslie Leinwand • Dr. Edward Pugh • Dr. Craig McClain • PRAC

More Related