1 / 13

Archived File

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 The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. PEER REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE

kevina
Download Presentation

Archived File

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. PEER REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE Update on New CSR Realignments Don Schneider, Ph.D. November 3, 2008 National Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  3. Reality checks are sometimes necessary • Gene Therapy and Inborn Errors Special Emphasis Panel - started in 2003 • Nuclear Dynamics and Transport - chartered in 2005 • Current NIH Enhancing Peer Review efforts – implications for study section organization

  4. Gene Transfer and Inborn Errors survived planned closing • Created as interim review home for inborn errors applications • Reorganization completed 2005 • In 2008, GTIE reviewed 30-35 applications a cycle • Rule of thumb, after one year, special emphasis panel should be chartered or discontinued

  5. GTIE Working Group met August 18, 2008 ROSTER • Gerard Berry, Children’s Hospital, Boston • Katherine High, Children’s Hospital, Philadelphia • Mark Kay, Stanford U • Blake Roessler, U Michigan • Mendel Tuchman, Children’s Nat Med Ctr • Stephen Warren, Emory U • NIH: Rebecca Link, NHLBI; Catherine McKeon, NIDDK; Richard Panniers, CSR; Don Schneider, CSR

  6. Working Group strongly favors chartering Broaden guidelines • Molecular mechanisms of genetic diseases • Development of genetic disease therapies • Preclinical and initial clinical studies of genetic disease therapies Shared interests • Gene & Drug Delivery (basic) • Genetics of Health & Disease (complex genetics) Broaden name • Genetic Disease Mechanisms and Therapies (GDMT)

  7. Cell Biology study sections have grown slowly • Nuclear Dynamics & Transport (NDT) 40-45 applications/cycle • Cell Structure & Function (CSF) 60 applications/cycle • Cellular Signaling & Regulatory Systems (CSRS) 65 applications/cycle

  8. Cell Biology-Nanotechnology Working Group met September 18, 2008 ROSTER • Ashutosh Chilkoti, Duke U • Joseph Gall, Carnegie Inst • Ian Macara, U Virginia • Paul Matsudaira, MIT • Timothy Mitchison, Harvard Med • Michele Pagano, New York U • Peter Rubenstein, U Iowa • Pamela Silver, Dana Farber • NIH: Ravi Basavappa, NIGMS; Lori Henderson, NIBIB; Jeff Schloss, NHGRI; Bert Shapiro, NIGMS; Noni Byrnes, CSR; George Chacko, CSR; Don Schneider, CSR

  9. Working Group agreed to disband NDT • Reassign applications and members to existing study sections • Cell cycle regulation, mitosis, and checkpoints to CSRS • Nuclear membrane, matrix, and architecture, pore development and function, nucleo-cytoplasmic transport to CSF, fit well with cytoskeleton, trafficking, and multiprotein assemblies • CSRS & CSF increase to 70-80 applications/cycle • Rename CSF: Nuclear & Cytoplasmic Structure/Function & Dynamics (NCSD)

  10. Working Group considered Nanotechnology • Nanotechnology (NANO) study section – diverse, more than 100 applications/cycle • Applied Nanotechnology (NANA) – appropriate for cell biology, with basic applications remaining in NANO • Complications – number trend unclear, bioengineers not comfortable (including James Baker, U Michigan) • Cell Biology does have a handful of technology-driven applications every cycle

  11. NIH Enhancing Peer Review will drive study section changes Likely changes • Shorter applications, 12 page R01 • Shorter written critiques, 1-2 pages Likely result on study sections • Enhanced quality of review outcomes • Enhanced efficiency of review process • If 20% gain in efficiency, ideal workload may shift from 60-80 to 80-100 applications/study section [This may not be a good time to charter small study sections.]

  12. PRAC approval soughtto finalize realignments Gene Therapy & Inborn Errors • Expand as Genetic Disease Mechanisms and Therapies (GDMT)? • Charter, or special emphasis panel for now? Nuclear Transport & Dynamics • Split between Cell Structure & Function (CSF) and Cellular Signaling & Regulatory Systems (CSRS)? • Rename CSF as Nuclear & Cytoplasmic Structure/Function & Dynamics (NCSD)? Nanotechnology (NANO) • With divided opinions and number decline, postpone splitting for now? • Meanwhile, for technology-driven R01s in Cell Biology, run special emphasis panel?

  13. The End

More Related