Archived File

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 Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. REFERRAL PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE Suzanne E. Fisher, Ph.D. Director, Division of Receipt and Referral, Center for Scientific Review Jean Noronha, Ph.D. Referral Officer, National Institute of Mental Health

3. REFERRAL PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE – CSR PERSPECTIVE Suzanne E. Fisher, Ph.D Director, Division of Receipt and Referral, Center for Scientific Review

4. DIVISION OF RECEIPT AND REFERRAL FUNCTIONS • Receipt, processing, data entry, policy compliance, corrections, etc. - logistics and workflow are not the focus of this talk • Referral • Grant mechanism • Primary Institute/Center (IC) and appropriate dual ICs • Review location – CSR or IC • CSR review – assign to IRG and IRG decides on Study Section/SEP

5. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE • Initially Division of Research Grants (DRG) was responsible for receipt, review, award, and management of all scientific areas except cancer (only NCI established in 1946) • Logically this led to a central receipt and assignment role for DRG • As more ICs established, DRG relinquished role in awards process (ended in 1958) and concentrated on receipt/referral/review

6. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (continued) • Referral function needed from the beginning of the Division of Research Grants. Ten Study Sections in 1946: Antibiotics, Biochemistry and Nutrition, Cardiovascular, Dental, Hematology, Malaria, Pathology, Physiology, Virus and Rickettsial Diseases, Syphilis • First mention of a Referral Branch in 1974 • Many studies of review, few of referral and those mainly focus on workflow/logistics, making process faster

7. ROLE OF REFERRAL • Central Receipt point • Convenient for applicants • Economies of scale • Assignment to IC and review location based on guidelines, not considering other factors such as payline, portfolio balance, IC specific rules, etc. • Honest broker, ensuring equitable treatment for all applicants • Also gate keeper and enforcer of policies • Information source for applicants and NIH staff

8. CRITICAL FEATURES OF REFERRAL PROCESS • Information available to all potential applicants about opportunities • Trans NIH policies and procedures must be followed • Neutral, not show favoritism to ICs • IC specific variations have been established over time that limit options for assignment of some applications

9. COMPLICATIONS OF THE REFERRAL PROCESS • Twenty-four funding components of NIH have different missions, budgets, priorities, ways of achieving goals • ICs established through political process, not by scientific principles • ICs organized around different schemes – disease, organ systems, life stage, cross cutting issues • Overlap/shared interests on almost every major topic

10. COMPLICATIONS (continued) • Wealth of opportunities • Different grant mechanisms used in by ICs • Grant mechanisms may be used in different ways by different ICs • Constant tension between consistency/uniformity and specific intent/needs of ICs

11. CASE STUDY IN VARIATION: SMALL GRANT (R03) • 20 ICs participate; NIAMS, NIGMS, NCMHD, and NCRR do not • Number of revisions allowed: 1 or 2 (general NIH standard) • $ requested/years: $25,000 for 1 year; $32,000 a year for 3 years; $50,000 for 1 year; $50,000 a year for 2 years; $50,000 a year for 3 years; $75,000 for 3 years; $100,000 a year for 2 years; $100,000 a year for three years; $150,000 a year for 2 years • Eligibility: new investigators only, new investigators and those changing research focus; only K08 and K23 recipients; all investigators • Page limitsfor Research Plan: 8 pages;10 pages; 15 pages; 25 pages • Page limits for Introduction: 1 page; 1 ½ pages; 3 pages • Appendix Material: only figures and no publications; figures and up to 3 publications; figures and up to 5 publications; figures and up to 10 publications • No renewal allowed; one renewal allowed • Receipt dates: standing receipt dates; special receipt dates • Review: CSR review; IC review • Standard review cycle; expedited review • All topics appropriate to IC; limited scientific areas

12. $ ALLOWED FOR R03 APPLICATIONS

13. CASE STUDY IN VARIATION: R21 • 22 ICs participate; NCMHD and FIC do not • $ requested/years: $150,000 for 1 year; $100,000 a year for 2 years; $100,000 a year for 3 years; $125,000 a year for 2 years; $250,000 for 1 year; $275,000 over 2 years; $400,000 over 3 years • Page limits for Research Plan: 10 pages; 15 pages; 20 pages; 25 pages • Appendix material: figures plus up to 5 publications; figures plus up to10 publications • Receipt dates: standing receipt dates, special receipt dates • Review: CSR review; IC review • All topics appropriate to IC; limited scientific areas • Purpose: Exploratory/developmental; high risk; limited scope projects; preliminary data; feasibility; clinical trial planning grant; pilot clinical data

14. TOTAL $ ALLOWED FOR R21 APPLICATIONS

15. CASE STUDY IN LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES: K01MENTORED SCIENTIST DEVELOPMENT AWARD • 18 of 24 ICs utilize for unsolicited applications (NIDCD, NIDCR, NEI, NLM, and NCMHD do not; NHLBI for RFAs only) • 6 of the 18 ICs have specifications (NICHD only for Medical Rehabilitation, Child Abuse and Neglect, and Population Research)

16. CASE STUDY IN LIMITED OPPORTUNITY: PREDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP (F31) • All NIH ICs and AHRQ participate in the predoctoral program for minority students • All NIH ICs participate in the predoctoral program for students with disabilities • Only 10 ICs accept unsolicited predoctoral fellowship applications; 2 have very specific conditions (NCI and NIGMS) • DRR regularly has to return F31 applications that do not fit any of the participating ICs

17. REVIEW IN CSR OR IC • Overall paradigm • CSR reviews the common, universally used grant mechanisms: R01, F32, Small Business • ICs review grant mechanisms that have IC specific “spin”: Program Project (P01), Centers, Training • Reality is IC by IC agreement based on historical precedent and negotiation • Result is 42 page “Cheat Sheet” • Greatest variation occurs for: R03, R21, fellowships • Greatest discrepancies occur for: Ks, P01, R24, R25, S10, T35 • Change of primary IC may lead to change in review location

18. APPLICATIONS REVIEWED

19. APPLICATIONS REVIEWED

20. EFFORTS FOR SIMPLIFICATION • Consolidation of Career Award Mechanisms: Lasted only a short time and now have 14 different flavors, including K26, Mid career investigator award in mouse pathology • Cassman Report (1995) suggested that mission related research should be reviewed by ICs, broad areas of basic research reviewed by CSR. In practice difficult to apply, all applications should be mission related.

21. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REFERRAL FUNCTIONS • DRR • 7 full time staff – value broad scope, quick learners, ability to evaluate, synthesize, and make decisions • 16 Referral Officers- also experienced SRAs, broad science, flexible, able to manage additional responsibilities • IRGs – use different methods: IRG Chief, Deputy Chief, rotate among SRAs, discussions • ICs – Jean will address soon

22. LOGISTICS OF REFERRAL PROCESS • Referral Officers responsible for about 1000 applications per round – one or more IRGs • Referral Officers do not necessarily assign to their own IRG • Breakout – first cut, not binding; separate IC review applications here • Considerable movement of applications between Referral Officers • Carefully consider PI requests; capture data to check for future changes • Have process for ICs to request assignment • Discussion with IRG Chiefs, SRAs, Review Division Directors, ICs • Final decisions made by DRR staff • For RFAs/PARs assignment is generally predetermined

23. THOUGHT PROCESSES IN REFERRAL • Is the application assignable? • If not assignable in present form, is it fixable? • What is the real focus of the application; what kind of scientists care about this research; what expertise needed to evaluate? • Grant mechanism • IC – primary and dual • Interplay mechanism and ICs that support • If CSR review, what IRG?

24. ASSIGNMENT TO OTHER HHS COMPONENTS • Main customers • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) • National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) • Minor customers • CDC for small business • FDA for small business • Overall very small part of workload but may increase • Some discussion of CSR/NIH doing referral for all of HHS

25. CHANGES WITH ELECTRONIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION • Fundamental function of providing neutral, unbiased referral will not change • Many of the routine functions (checking/fixing, data entry) will be gone • Extensive variation (page limits, budget) will limit ability of electronic submission to do automated checking/policy enforcement • Knowledge management may offer suggestions for assignments, but generally not make final decisions • Need to develop tracking/reporting systems • Need to ensure equity during transition from paper to electronic

26. CONCLUSIONS • The good news – NIH provides a wealth of funding opportunities for investigators at many stages in their career and across the entire spectrum of biomedical and behavioral research • The bad news - NIH provides a wealth of funding opportunities for investigators at many stages in their career and across the entire spectrum of biomedical and behavioral research. Thus, it is challenging for investigators to understand the differences and pick the most appropriate one.

27. CONCLUSIONS • NIH strives to find a balance between uniformity/conformity and specific needs/desires of the initiatives of the ICs. • The referral process is challenged by the inherent complexity and continually increasing workload