If there is a serious concern, the Chairman will ask for a motion to refer the issue to the affiliate Research Committee for review and resolution. The primary reviewer must fully record the reasons for the referral and any recommended actions. At the end of the discussion, the secondary reviewer is responsible for recording any new information that was brought out during the discussion that was not contained in the critiques of either reviewer. This is particularly important if the information resulted in the downgrading of the proposal. If a disparity of 2 points or more exists between the high and low scores, a revote is required.
Discussion is reopened.
The purpose of the discussion is to ensure that there has been sufficient exploration of differing viewpoints so as to ensure a thorough review of the application. The second vote stands, even if a 2 point spread remains. The following numerical scores apply only to scientific merit. Scientific merit should not include age of investigator, current support, etc. Funding of a disapproved application is prohibited.