# Presentation: 535373

## Review of R21s in CSRElaine Sierra-Rivera, PhDScientific Review AdministratorOncological Sciences IRGDBBDCenter for Scientific Review

## What are R21’s

**To support exploratory or developmental research (allowing PIs to conduct research on innovative ideas, develop new concepts or techniques).**
**Lead to a larger research grant (e.g. R01, P01, etc.)**
**Must be submitted in response to a PA       (PI initiated — PA-06-181 – replaces 03-107) **
**~408 Currently Active PAs**

## Other Characteristics of R21s

**Modular Budget (Range of 75 – 175K/year)**
**15 Page Research Plan (Few exceptions)**
**Allow up to 2 revisions/amendments **
**Preliminary data not required **
**No competing continuations**
**Appendix (PA specific)**
**SF424 – June 1, 2006 all electronic submission**

## Review of R21s

**~70% of all R21s submitted to NIH were reviewed by CSR (2005 – 01 / 2006 – 01) **
**CSR practices grouping (clusters) R21 applications for review**
**Assignment depends on scientific area of research**
**PAs are included with the applications and are available on the CD**

## SRAs instruct study sections on review criteria  

**Place less emphasis on indicators traditionally used to evaluate R01s such as preliminary data**
**Focus their evaluation on the conceptual framework**
**Level of innovation**
**Potential to significantly advance current knowledge or understanding**
**Proof of feasibility **

## R21 Applications in response to specific type of announcements (Oct 2005 – May 2006 councils)

**       ****Total # of Applications = 8,579**

## Distribution of R21 applications per IC (Oct 2005 – May 2006 Council Rounds)

**IC’s with > 5% are shown**

**CA**

**DK**

**AI**

** ****AG**

-    **NS**

**HL**

**HD**

**EB**

## R21 applications reviewed in theOctober 2005 - May 2006 Council rounds

**     ****73.2%**
**       ****(01)**

**21.9**
**(A1)**

**4.8%--------****↓**
** ****(A2)**

**Total # of Applications = 8,579**

**A3 = 2 **

## R21’s Distribution by CSR Divisions (Oct 2005 – May 2006 Council Rounds)

**DBBD**
**32.6%**

**DCPS**
**29.6%**

**DMCM**
**20.8%**

**DPP**
**16.9%**

**Total Number of applications = 8,579**

## Number of R21s and R01sreviewed in CSR

**          ****R21**

**    ****R01**

**Review Cycles**

-      **Number of Applications**

**Total # of applications = 34,102**

## Effect of Review Environment

_**< **_**150           151 – 175     176 – 200      >200              UN**

**Priority Scores**

**Percent**

**R21 = 8,579     -  R01 = 23,445**

##  Type 1 R21 applications compared to Type 1 R01s in chartered/standing meetingswith <40% R03/R21 applications

_**<**_**150           151 – 175     176 – 200      >200              UN**

**Priority Scores**

**Percent**

**R21 = 5,430   -    R01 = 16,614**

## Type 1 R21 applications compared to Type 1 R01s in chartered/standing meetingswith >40% R03/R21 applications

_**<**_**150           151 – 175      176 – 200     >200               UN**

**Priority Scores**

**Percent**

**R21 = 803   -  R01 = 768**

## Type 1 R21 applications compared to Type 1 R01s in chartered/standing meetingsthat primarily review R03/R21

_**<**_**150          151 – 175      176 – 200      >200             UN**

**Priority Scores**

**    ****Percent**

**R21 = 1,006   -  R01= 159**

## Type 1 R21 applications compared to Type 1 R01s in standing meetingsthat primarily review SBIR

** **_**<**_** 150           151 – 175    176 – 200     >200             UN**

**Priority Scores**

**Percent**

**R01= 107  -   R21= 197  -  SBIR/STTR= 1,640**

## Applications using Human Subjects

_**<**_**150         151 – 175     176 – 200     >200            UN**

**Priority Scores**

**Percent**

**R21 = 7,436  -  R01 Type 1 = 17,647  - R01 All = 23,443**

## Effect of Review Environment

_**< **_**150           151 – 175     176 – 200      >200              UN**

**Priority Scores**

**Percent**

**R21 = 8,579     -  R01 = 23,445**

## Summary

**Review environment does not affect score distribution of R21 applications**
**R21 application scores are comparable to Type 1 R01s**
**Study Sections are following review characteristics specific to R21 applications, reflecting SRAs effort in properly orienting reviewers to the uniqueness of this mechanism **

## Acknowledgements

**Teresa Lindquist,**** Program Analyst ****Office of Planning, Evaluation and Analysis, CSR **** **
**Valerie L. Durrant,****  Scientific Review Administrator, Health of the Population (HOP) Integrated Review Group**
**Elliot Postow,**** Division Director - DBBD**