NIH FY12 Appropriations – UPDATED
12.16.11 by Michelle Kienholz
With an agreement finally reached on an appropriations bill, the news for the NIH is better than if we had continued the CR with its 1.5% cut all year. Looking at the House Appropriations Committee’s marked up bill (H.R. 3671, see pp 50-56) and FY11 appropriation levels, I initially read slight decreases (except where NCRR funds move to new ICs), with any new money earmarked for specific programs (see notes below). Science and The Chronicle of Higher Education highlighted a slight overall increase for the NIH, which is true but relative (more below). Either way, not much change, up or down.
Biggest bonus surprise: anyone who applied to an IDeA FOA this past year certainly hit the jackpot: this program will have an extra ~$46M+ to hand out by September 30th … not sure if they’ll just reach farther down their payline or whip up a new solicitation in time for review & funding by the end of the FY. This is now NIGMS’ call, with the unfortunate dissolution of NCRR in the same appropriations bill.
I originally used dollar amounts from the marked up HR 3671 and the FY11 $s from what was signed into law. However, the Conference Report (see table at pp 31-34) helpfully provides $s for FY11 enacted that take into account Public Law 112-10‘s 0.2% across-the-board cut in discretionary spending plus an extra $210M cut to the NIH (spread across the ICs) … so the NIH is getting a small increase, though it does not quite offset what was lost last year (i.e., by the 0.2% + $210M additional cuts). I’ll leave all the numbers up as a reminder of how complicated this can get …
-
NCI: $5,103,388,000 FY11 (PL)/$5,058,577 (Conf) vs $5,081,788,000 FY12
NHLBI: $3,096,916,000 FY11 (PL)/$3,069,723 (Conf) vs $3,084,851,000 FY12
NIDCR: $413,236,000 FY11 (PL)/$409,608,000 (Conf) vs $411,488,000 FY12
NIDDK: $1,808,100,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,792,224,000 (Conf) vs $1,800,447,000 FY12
NINDS: $1,636,371,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,622,003,000 (Conf) vs $1,629,445,000 FY12
NIAID: $4,518,275,000 (after $300M to global fund) FY11/$4,478,668,000 (Conf) vs $4,499,215,000 FY12 (no global fund transfer)
NIGMS: $2,051,798,000 FY11 (PL)/$2,033,782,000 (Conf) vs $2,434,637,000 FY12 (includes $ for NCRR programs transferred to NIGMS … and “provided that not less than $276,480,000 is provided for the IDeA program”)
NICHD: $1,329,528,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,317,854,000 (Conf) vs $1,323,900,000 FY12
NEI: $707,036,000 FY11 (PL)/$700,828,000 (Conf) vs $704,043,000 FY12
NIEHS: $689,781,000 FY11 (PL)/$683,724,000 (Conf) vs $686,869,000 FY12
NIA: $1,110,229,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,100,481,000 (Conf) vs $1,105,530,000 FY12
NIAMS: $539,082,000 FY11 (PL)/$534,349,000 (Conf) vs $536,801,000 FY12
NIDCD: $418,833,000 FY11 (PL)/$415,155,000 (Conf) vs $417,061,000 FY12
NINR: $145,660,000 FY11 (PL)/$144,381,000 (Conf) vs $145,043,000 FY12
NIAAA: $462,346,000 FY11 (PL)/$458,286,000 (Conf) vs $460,389,000 FY12
NIDA: $1,059,848,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,050,542,000 (Conf) vs $1,055,362,000 FY12
NIMH: $1,489,372,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,476,294 (Conf) vs $1,483,068,000 FY12
NHGRI: $516,028,000 FY11 (PL)/$511,497,000 (Conf) vs $513,844,000 FY12
NIBIB: $316,582,000 FY11 (PL)/$313,802,000 (Conf) vs $338,998,000 FY12 (includes $ for NCRR programs transferred to NIBIB)
NCRR: $1,268,896,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,257,754,000 (Conf) vs $0 FY12 (these $ are all redistributed to other ICs & OD)
NCCAM: $128,844,000 FY11 (PL)/$127,713,000 (Conf) vs $128,299,000 FY12
NIMHD: $211,572,000 FY11 (PL)/$209,714,000 (Conf) vs $276,963,000 FY12 (includes $ for NCRR programs transferred to NIMHD)
FIC: $70,051,000 FY11 (PL)/$69,436,000 (Conf) vs $69,754,000 FY12
NLM: $339,716,000 FY11 (PL)/$336,733,000 (Conf) vs $338,278,000 FY12
NCATS: $0 FY11 vs $576,456,000 FY12 ($10M for CAN, $487,767,000 for CTSA, rest for other NCRR programs)
OD: $1,177,300,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,166,963,000 (Conf) ($544,109,000 for Common Fund) vs $1,461,880,000 ($545,962,000 for Common Fund)
Buildings and facilities: $100,000,000 FY11 vs $125,581,000 FY12
If anything changes in the language of the final bill signed into law, I will update this post accordingly.
In the meantime, the Conference Report includes a few other items of interest:
- The conferees affirm the critical importance o f new and competing RPGs to the mission of NIH and are concerned that in the past few years, NIH has failed to support the number of new, competing RPGs that it estimated
would be awarded in its annual congressional budget justifications. - NIH should also establish safeguards to ensure the percentage of funds used to support basic research across NIH is maintained.
- While the conferees welcome the creation of NCATS, they were disappointed by the way the administration requested it. The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 included a vague description of NCATS but did not formally request funding for the restructuring or provide any details about which components of NIH would be consolidated into the new Center. The failure to do so caused unnecessary uncertainty about the proposal and contributed to the impression that it was being rushed. The conferees are also aware of concerns that the NIH process for evaluating the merits ofthe NCATS reorganization did not comply with the NIH Reform Act of 2006 with respect to the role of the Scientific SMRB.
- Lessons learned with NCATS should guide NIH as it considers another proposed restructuring, one that would involve consolidating NIDA, NIAAA and components of other ICs into a new Institute devoted to research on substance use, abuse and addiction. The conferees understand that NIH plans to adopt a more deliberate approach in evaluating the need for this Institute. The conferees strongly recommend that this approach should include full consideration by the SMRB and that if the administration ultimately decides to seek such a restructuring, it should provide sufficient details in a formal budget request to Congress.
NSF Broader Impacts Broadened
12.15.11 by Michelle Kienholz
UPDATE: According to Science Insider, in addition to not listing specific broader impacts, the NSB recommended in its report, NSF Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions, flexibility in how these are measured (and by whom):
NSB notes that assessing the effectiveness and impact of outcomes of these activities one project at a time may not be meaningful, particularly if the size of the activity is limited. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of activities designed to advance broader societal goals may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project. Large, campus-wide activities or aggregated activities of multiple PIs could lend themselves to assessment, which should be supported by NSF.
According to Mervis, the changes should be incorporated in the January 2013 version of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Last summer, NSF sought input on merit review criteria for intellectual merit and broader impacts. Nature News now reports that the task force assigned to tweaking these presented its final report, which “kept the wording for the two criteria essentially the same as before” (i.e., no list of specific activities), to the National Science Board, which is likely to approve the recommendations. Another good outcome: NSF Director Subra Suresh indicated that “One thing that remains to be done is finding the right balance in shouldering the responsibility of broader impacts between principal investigator and institution.” Here-here.
NSF Program Announcements for Oncology & Health Services Research
12.2.11 by Michelle Kienholz
So, whether they are feeling flush or a need to diversify further into the health sciences (e.g, PAR-10-141 and 142 and PAR-11-203), the NSF just released two interesting program announcements, Physical and Engineering Sciences in Oncology in partnership with NCI (Office of Physical Sciences-Oncology) and Advancing Health Services through System Modeling Research in partnership with AHRQ (Health Information Technology). However, neither the Biological Sciences Directorate nor the Divsions of Chemistry or Physics are participating in any of these initiatives.
The NSF also just released a new report, Rebuilding the Mosaic, on its priorities for social science research. Hot topics include population change, sources of disparity, communication-language-linguistics, and technology-new media-social networks.
Budget Update … Good News For NSF (& their CREATIV use of these funds …)
11.18.11 by Michelle Kienholz
Today the President should sign legislation continuing the CR through December 16 and … miracle of miracles … establish the FY12 appropriations for several federal agencies, including the NSF (p 246-249). In a burst of generosity, both chambers agreed on a 2.5% increase for the NSF (whereas previously, neither had).
Interesting … but even more interesting is a new mechanism through which the NSF will distribute some of this taxpayer largess: the CREATIV means to by-pass external peer review. Of course, this $24M initiative has a contorted name to achieve his acronym … Creative Research Awards for Transformative Interdisciplinary Ventures … for which the distinguishing characteristics are that “only internal merit review is required; proposals must be interdisciplinary and potentially transformative; and requests may be up to $1,000,000 and up to 5 years duration.” You do need buy in from program directors in 2 distinct divisions or programs. Applications will start pouring in Dec 1.
Getting back to the larger budget issues, FY12 for the NIH remains an unknown beyond the 1.5% cut from FY11 in the CR. We’ll see what happens along the way to Dec 16. In the meantime, here is a recap of the budget process as part of a comment I posted in NIH Paylines & Resources that may help those new to government dysfunction:
The federal fiscal year goes from Oct 1 to Sept 30 … and the year attached to the FY is always the second calendar year involved. We are currently in FY12.
Long long ago, Congress used to pass appropriation bills for individual federal agencies (i.e., Defense, Energy, State, Agriculture, et al.) before the FY ended, so the agencies would know how much money they had to spend during the next fiscal year. If there are no appropriation bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (or if there are only a few passed into law) by Oct 1, then Congress needs to pass a continuing resolution (CR) to maintain funding for the operation of the federal government. When you hear about threats of a federal government shut-down, this is why – no appropriated funds, no money to continue functioning. Continuing resolutions typically simply maintain the same funding levels from the year prior. For this year, F12, Congress passed a CR that funded the NIH at FY11 funding levels *minus* 1.5%. So, the NIH started FY12 with a funding cut from FY11.
The NIH has a real problem this year in reading the tea leaves. The House and Senate have completely different versions of the appropriations bill for the NIH. The Senate cuts the NIH budget and authorizes the creation of NCATS and the abolishment of NCRR (which is what Collins wants). The House gives the NIH a 3.3% increase … but keeps NCRR and does not approve the creation of NCATS. The appropriate subcommitttees in each chamber have not made any progress (at least that they’ve made public) on which version of the NIH appropriations language to use. So, no one at the NIH has a clue – not one – as to whether their funding will go up or down as FY12 proceeds. Right now, they have to assume they will complete the entire FY at the current funding level, which is FY11 – 1.5%.
You got a problem with how this system is working? Contact your Congressional delegation about supporting scientific research in the US through consistent, reliable funding streams versus putting everyone through this game every year. FASEB can help you find and communicate with your elected officials.
Findings of Research Misconduct
11.10.11 by Michelle Kienholz
Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:
Based on the report of an investigation conducted by UVA and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Jayant Jagannathan, former Resident Physician at UVA Medical Center, engaged in research misconduct by including, in 5 publications, large amounts of text and an illustration that he plagiarized from publications supported by the following NIH grant awards: T32CA09677, P01HL024136, R01HL059157, P50CA090270, M01RR01346, R01CA075979, R01DK064169, R01NS027544, R01NS052406, and K08NS002197 and by intramural funds from the NINDS Surgical Neurosurgery Branch and from NIDCR.
Publications in which Respondent reported plagiarized material were:
1. Jagannathan, J., Li, J., Szerlip, N., Vortmeyer, A.O., Lonser, R.R., Oldfied, E.H., Zhuang, Z. “Application and implementation of selective tissue microdissection and proteomic profiling in neurological disease.’Neurosurgery 64:4-14, 2009 (to be retracted);
2. Jagannathan, J., Prevedello, D.M., Dumont, A.S., Laws, E.R. “Cellular Signaling Molecules as Therapeutic Targets in the Treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme.’Neurosurgical Focus 20(4):E8, 2006 (retracted “due to plagiarism,’Neurosurgical Focus 30(2):E8r, 2011);
3. Kanter, A.S., Jagannathan, J., Shaffrey, C.I., Ouellet, J.A., Mummaneni, P.V. “Inflammatory and dysplastic lesions involving the spine.’Neurosurgical Clinics of North America 19(1):93-109, 2008;
4. Jagannathan, J., Dumont, A.S., Prevedello, D.M., Oskouian, R.J., Lopes, B., Jane, J.A. Jr, Laws, E.R. Jr. “Genetics of pituitary adenomas: Current theories and future implications.’Neurosurgical Focus 19(5):E4, 2005 (retracted “due to plagiarism,’Neurosurgical Focus 30(2):E4r, 2011);
5. Jagannathan, J. “Role of calcium influx and modulation of local neurotransmitters as hallmarks of pediatric traumatic brain injury.’Biomarkers Med. 3:95-97, 2009 (retracted online 9/11/ 2010).
Dr. Jagannathan has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement (Agreement) and has voluntarily agreed for a period of 4 years, beginning on October 20, 2011:
(1) To have his research supervised; Respondent agreed to ensure that prior to the submission of an application for U.S. PHS support for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, the institution employing him must submit a plan for supervision of his duties to ORI for approval; the plan for supervision must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; Respondent agreed that he will not participate in any PHS-supported research after 60 days from the effective date of the Agreement until a plan for supervision is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;
(2) That any institution employing him must submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract;
(3) To submit a letter to the journal editor for publication 3 (Neurosurgical Clinics of North America) listed above, requesting that the paper be retracted because Respondent had plagiarized portions of text reported in it; the letter must be sent to ORI for approval prior to being sent to the editor; and
(4) To exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
Findings of Research Misconduct
10.28.11 by Michelle Kienholz
Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:
Based on an inquiry conducted and written admission obtained by the University of Pittsburgh and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Ms. Marija Manojlovic, former graduate student, Department of Chemistry, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by P50GM067082, P01CA078039, U54MH074411, and R01AI033506.
ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and fabricating the synthesis and spectral data that were included in one poster presentation and in one pre-submission draft of a paper to be submitted for publication.
Specifically, ORI found that the Respondent knowingly falsified and fabricated the synthesis and characterization, largely in the form of manipulated 1H- and 13C-NMR spectral data, for 5 intermediate steps and the final product, 9-desmethylpleurotin, and presented these false results in a poster, “Efforts Towards the Total Synthesis of Pleurotin,’ presented at the 2011 National Organic Symposium, and in a manuscript, “Total Synthesis of 9-desmethylpleurotin,’ prepared for submission to Angewandte Chemie International Edition.
Ms. Manojlovic has voluntarily agreed for a period of 3 years, beginning on September 26, 2011:
(1) To have her US PHS-supported research supervised; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for PHS support for a research project on which her participation is proposed and prior to her participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, she shall ensure that a plan for supervision of her duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of her research contribution; Respondent agreed that she shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;
(2) That any institution employing her shall submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which she is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract; and
(3) To exclude herself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
SMRB Meeting October 26
10.21.11 by Michelle Kienholz
Remember our friends at the SMRB? The folks charged to advise the NIH Director on the use of organizational authorities? The Federal Register (and finally, today, so does their main Website) announced their meeting next on October 26th, which is open to the public and can be viewed via Webcast.
Let’s see. Since their last meeting in Feb, the Director has directed the planned dismantling and redistribution of NCRR programs, which in fact remained at NCRR under the CR … and would be permanently kept at NCRR according to the House draft (which also increases NIH funding) of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill … whereas the Senate version eliminates NCRR, establishes NCATS, and cuts the NIH appropriation.
The agenda for next Wednesday’s SMRB meeting is as follows:
-
9:00 AM Opening Remarks, Norman Augustin
9:15 AM Status of NIH Today and Looking to the Future, Francis Collins
9:45 AM Advancing Translational Sciences, Kathy Hudson
10:15 AM Discussion
10:45 AM Substance Use, Abuse, & Addiction Research, Lawrence Tabak
10:50 AM Discussion
11:00 AM Public Comments
11:30 AM NIH Clinical Center, Stephen Katz
12:00 PM Discussion
12:30 PM Public Comments
12:45 PM Lunch (nothing served via Webcast)
1:30 PM SBIR & STTR Programs at NIH, Sally Rockey
2:00 PM Charge to the SMRB, Francis Collins
2:10 PM Discussion
2:45 PM Next Steps, Norman Augustine
3:00 PM Adjournment
To sign up to make a public comment at the meeting, send your name and affiliation to Lyric Jorgenson, PhD by October 25, 2011 (you can submit a written comment to the same address).
We will see what advice on executing organizational authority comes forth next …
Findings of Research Misconduct x2
04.29.11 by Michelle Kienholz
My least favorite scenario for my least favorite type of post … as reported last year in Nature and again on Nature’s Great Beyond blog …
Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:
Based on the findings of an investigation by UMich and additional analysis conducted by ORI, ORI found that Vipul Bhrigu, PhD, former postdoctoral fellow, Department of Internal Medicine, engaged in research misconduct in research funded by R01CA098730-05.
Specifically, ORI found that the Respondent knowingly and intentionally tampered with research materials related to 5 immunoprecipitation/Western blot experiments and switched the labels on 4 cell culture dishes for cells used in the same type of experiments to cause false results to be reported in the research record. ORI also found that the Respondent tampered with laboratory research materials by adding ethanol to his colleague’s cell culture media, with the deliberate intent to effectuate the death of growing cells, which caused false results to be reported in the research record. ORI has concluded that these acts seriously deviated from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, and/or reporting research.
ORI found that the Respondent’s intentional tampering of his colleague’s laboratory research constitutes research misconduct as defined by 42 CFR part 93. ORI determined that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct through the commission of multiple acts of data falsification. ORI also determined that the subterfuge in which he freely engaged for several months constitutes an aggravating factor. The Respondent attempted to mislead the UMich police by initially denying involvement in the tampering and refusing to accept responsibility for this misconduct. The Respondent eventually made an admission only after the UMich police informed him that his actions in the laboratory had been videotaped. This dishonest conduct established the Respondent’s lack of present responsibility to be a steward of Federal funds (2 CFR 376 et seq.; 42 CFR 93.408).
The following administrative actions have been implemented for a period of 3 years, beginning on April 7, 2011:
(1) Dr. Bhrigu is debarred from eligibility for any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for, or involvement in, nonprocurement programs of the United States Government, referred to as “covered transactions,’ pursuant to HHS’ Implementation of OMB [[Page 23600]] Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (2 CFR 376 et seq.); and
(2) Dr. Bhrigu is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity to the U.S. PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
And …
Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:
Based on the report of an investigation conducted by New York Medical College (NYMC) and additional analysis by ORI, the U.S. PHS found that Junghee J. Shin, PhD, former graduate student, NYMC, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by R01 AI048856 and R01 AI043063.
PHS found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying data in Figure 4 of a manuscript submitted to the journal Infection and Immunity (Shin, J.J., Godfrey, H.P., & Cabello, F.C. “Expression and localization of BmpC in Borrelia burgdorferi after growth under various environmental conditions.’ Submitted to Infection and Immunity; hereafter referred to as the “manuscript’) and Figure 5 of a paper published in Infection and Immunity (Shin, J.J. Bryksin, A.V., Godfrey, H.P., & Cabello, F.C. “Localization of BmpA on the exposed outer membrane of Borrelia burgdorferi by monospecific anti-recombinant BmpA rabbit antibodies.’ Infection and Immunity 72(4):2280-2287, April 2004; hereafter referred to as the “paper.’ Retracted in: Infection and Immunity 76(10):4792, October 2008). Specifically, NYMC and ORI found that:
- Dr. Shin falsified microscopic immunofluorescence blank images in Figure 4 of the manuscript (top row, 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th panels, and bottom row, 1st panel) and Figure 5 of the paper (top row, 1st and 5th panels, lower 1st panel) by using one blank image from an unknown experiment to falsely represent the preimmunization control conditions (intact cells and methanol fixation) as well as the negative staining of anti-BmpC and anti-FlaB in Figure 4 and anti-FlaB in Figure 5 on intact cells.
- Dr. Shin falsified at least one of two images in Figure 4 of the manuscript and Figure 5 of the paper by using different portions of a green-red pair of microscopic immunofluorescence images (1230036.tif and 1230037.tif) because unfixed cells staining positive for BmpA in the top row, 4th panel, of Figure 5 were the same unfixed cells purportedly positive for OspA in the top row, 3rd panel, of Figure 4.
- Dr. Shin falsified at least one of two images in Figure 4 of the manuscript and Figure 5 of the paper by using different photo cropping from a single microscopic immunofluorescence image (1230039.tif) to represent fixed cells positive for BmpA and labeled with anti-FlaB in the lower row, 5th panel, of Figure 5 and to also represent fixed cells positive for BmpC and stained with anti-FlaB in the lower row, 5th panel, of Figure 4.
Dr. Shin has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement in which she has voluntarily agreed, for a period of 3 years, beginning on April 5, 2011:
(1) That any institution that submits an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent’s participation is proposed or that uses her in any capacity on PHS-supported research, or that submits a report of PHS-funded research in which she is involved, must concurrently submit a plan for supervision of her duties to ORI for approval; the supervisory plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of her research contribution; Respondent agrees that she will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to ORI; and
(2) to exclude herself voluntarily from service in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
CSR Gets its Own Council
04.29.11 by Michelle Kienholz
As of March 31st and as recently announced, CSR has its own Advisory Council, the CSRAC, whose chartered mission is to “advise the Director … concerning matters of policy and practice pertaining to monitoring of, coordination of, and evaluation of peer review at CSR.” The CSRAC will be “keenly focused on enhancing CSR’s operations.” Notice there is no mention of approving applications for funding. Study sections still do not fund grants.
The CSRAC replaces the PRAC (Peer Review Advisory Committee), which was established in 2005 to provide “technical and scientific advice and recommendations to the NIH Director, the Deputy Director for Extramural Research, and the Director of CSR on matters relating broadly to review procedures and policies for the evaluation of scientific and technical merit of applications for grants and awards.” PRAC held its last meeting on Feb 1, 2010, when it discussed peer review pilot projects, study section realignments, the ESI initiative, and electronic submissions.
Some PRAC members will continue on the CSRAC (Garret Fitzgerald, Penn; Heidi Hamm, Vanderbilt; Peter MacLeish, Morehouse; Andrew Murray, Harvard), and two CSRAC members come from the ACD Working Group on Peer Review (which was active during the Enhancing Peer Review initiative): co-Chair Keith Yamamoto (UCSF) and Bruce Alberts (UCSF and editor-in-chief of Science).
Of course, continuous review of peer review occurs at OER, where you can also learn more about peer review policies and practices. CSR itself offers resources for applicants and for reviewers.
Collins to Honor NCRR as the NIH’s “Healthiest” IC on Take a Hike Day!
04.22.11 by Michelle Kienholz
It’s true …
The Office of Research Services is proud to announce that the NCRR is the winner of the 2010 NIH President’s Challenge.
The NCRR bested two-time defending champion, NIDCD, with the highest average point total per employee. …
Thus, the NCRR is now the “Healthiest” Institute/Center at NIH!
… Dr. Collins awards the trophy to NCRR at the 4th annual Take a Hike Day on Thursday May 11, 2011 at 11:30 AM on the steps of Building 1.
