# Presentation: 719085

## Review of SBRP Applications

**Review of SBRP Applications**

**US Department of Health and Human Services**
**National Institutes of Health**
**National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences **

**Applicant Information Meeting **
**October 29, 2003**
- Research Triangle Park
- North Carolina

- Janice B. Allen
***Scientific Review Administrator***

## Components of a Successful Application

**Good Idea**
**Good Science**
**Good Application**

- “A well prepared application will not make a bad scientific idea good; however, a poorly prepared application can disguise a good scientific idea.”  William Raub, Ph.D.  Former Acting Director, NIH

## Pre-submission

**Reread all instructions pertaining to RFA and ****Application Guidelines**
**Follow budget restrictions**
**Include checklist**
**Sign application**
**Affix RFA label (available in PHS 398) to bottom of the face page of application**

## 	Submission -  April 21, 2004

**Janice B. Allen, Ph.D.**
**Sally Eckert-Tilotta, Ph.D.**
**Scientific Review Administrators**
**Scientific Review Branch**
**	**
**	**

**Center for Scientific Review, NIH – ****Signed original + 2 copies****Scientific Review Branch (SRB), NIEHS – ****3 signed copies****Appendix Materials to SRB, NIEHS – ****5 copies****, collated by research projects/cores**

**Express Delivery****: **
**79 TW Alexander Drive**
**Bldg 4401, Room 3173 **
**RTP, NC  27709 **

**No official receipt of application, but notified ~8 weeks**

**NIEHS****	****	**
**PO Box 12233 (MD EC-30)**
**RTP, NC  27709****	****  ****	**

## Review of Applications

**Review of Applications**

**Administrative Review**

**Applications**
**(042104)**

**Letters of Intent**
**(021304)**

**Non-responsive**
**(return to applicant)**

**Responsive**

**Assign to reviewers and send to Review Committee (060104)**

**Streamline (0804)**

**Non-competitive**

**Summary Statement**

**Competitive**

**Review Meeting (October, 2004)**
**Teleconference Call with PI**

**NAEHS**
**(2/04)**

**Funding decisions**
**and awards**
**(3/04)**

**Summary**
**Statements**
**(12/04)**

## Letters of Intent (LOI)

**Not mandatory nor binding, but EXTREMELY helpful**
**Due Feb 13, 2003**
**Include:**
**Title**
**Name, address, PI’s telephone #, & email address**
**Names of key personnel & participating institutions**
**Number (ES04-001) & title of RFA**
**Information about projects/cores*******
**Send to Sally Eckert-Tilotta or Janice Allen**

## “Application Storage Room”

**“****Application Storage Room”**

## Administrative Review

**Conducted by NIEHS staff – Responsive to RFA?**
**Complete and relevant to SBRP?**
**Projects and Cores?**
**Organizational adequacy (scientific and budgetary)?**

## Selection of Reviewers

**Determine areas of expertise (from LOI)**
**Determine number of reviewers (from LOI)**
**Select peers:**
**mostly academics:**
**peer-reviewed funding in appropriate areas,**
**review experience**
**Other reviewers**
**( e.g. government scientists; industry scientists; community representatives)**
**Representation of women, minorities, and geographical distribution**

## 	Difficulties in Selection of Reviewers

**Many are needed**
**About 160 needed to review**
**About 800 projects/cores & other review factors**
**Wide range of expertise is needed**
**Conflicts of interest must be avoided**
**Reviewers commit a lot of time to do a lot of work**

## Reviewers’ Areas of Expertise, Including....

**Toxicology (all types)**
**Epidemiology**
**Biostatistics**
**Bioinformatics**
**Exposure Assessment**
**Molecular Biology**
**Chemistry**
**Fate & Area Transport**
**Genomics**
**Molecular Toxicol Design**
**Struc/Integrat Biology**
**Pathobiology**

**Hydrogeology**
**Ecology**
**Molecular Biophysics**
**Translational Research**
**Microbiology**
**Engineering**
**Remediation (Bio-, Physical, Chem-, Phyto-)**
**Community Outreach/ Communication**

## 	Information Sent to Review Committee

**RFA and ****Application Guidelines**
**All applications assigned to the committee (8-10)**
**Appendices only to primary/secondary reviewers**
**Instructions/guidelines for review of applications**
**Summary statement from previous SBRP review (competitive renewals)**

## Streamlining of Applications

_**Purpose**_**: to identify applications that are least likely to be funded so that more time can be spent on the most scientifically meritorious applications**
_**Goal**_**: Identify lower ****1****/****3**** to 1⁄2 applications **
**Conducted by review committee by teleconference prior to meeting**
**Decision to “streamline” must be ****unanimous**
**Streamlined applications do not get discussed and scored at full review meeting, but do receive a written critique**

## Review of Applications - 1

**Most meritorious applications:**
**undergo full discussion **
**	****	****receive a priority score**
**	****	****receive a summary statement**
**Second level of review performed by NIEHS NAEHS Council.**
**Applicants will address possible questions/concerns by reviewers via telephone conference call during the review meeting.****  **
** **

## Review of Applications - 2

**Two Special Emphasis Panels (SEP)s running concurrently with one Chair and one SRA per SEP.  **
**Both SEPs convened together for reading of scripted instructions (for continuity) **
**Total of 4 SEPs**
**Primary/Secondary reviewers and Discussant per review element**
**Review elements discussed and assigned numerical scores**
**Budgets and other administrative matters discussed**
**Two – three applications per day**

## Review Elements

**Scientific merit of projects and cores**
**Multi- and interdisciplinary nature of program**
**Administrative core**
**Principal Investigator**
**Progress of competing renewal ****(if applicable)**
**Overall SBRP **

## Review Factors

**Detailed in RFA (****pp. 26-30****) for:**
**Renewal applications**
**Projects**
**Support cores**
**Administrative core**
**Translation core**
**Community outreach core**
**Training core**
**Principal investigator**

##   Factors Affecting Overall Score

**Multi- and Interdisciplinary coordination**
**Multi- and interdisciplinary nature**
**Integration and interaction of non-health related research with health-based research**
**Scientific merit of research projects**
**Importance and use of cores**
**Projects that are NRFC**
**Director and other key personnel**
**Community Outreach and Training plans (if included)**
**Synergy**
**Accomplishments (competitive renewals) **

## 		Make your Application Easy to Review

**Good ideas get good reviews; this applies to both the program and individual projects**
**State your ideas up front; be clear and concise**
**Get the reviewers’ attention and get the reviewers excited about your ideas**
**Make the application easy to read**
**Limited time to review a complex document!**

## Recommendations from a Reviewer’s Perspective

**Seek appropriate advice**
**Organize according to guidelines**
**Write application with review in mind**
**Address all review criteria**
**Be complete but concise**
**Explain how “it” fits together as a program**
**Exclude weak projects**
**Include: Multi/interdisciplinary, synergy, innovative...**
**Discuss accomplishments **
**Include potential pitfalls and alternative approaches**
**Don’t assume reviewers will “know what you mean”**
**Presentation**

## HELP?

**Contact:**
**Janice B. Allen**
**Sally Eckert-Tilotta**
**SRB/DERT/NIEHS**
**Eckertt1@niehs.nih.gov****	****919.541.1446**
**Allen9@niehs.nih.gov****	****919.541.7556**
**FAX****	****919.541.2503**
**PHS 398:****	****http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html**
**Application Guidelines****:  ****http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/rfa.htm**
**Best of Luck!**