Sentences with phrase «nih grant review»
She was a permanent member of several NIH grant review panels and chair of the NIH Skeletal Biology Development and Disease Study Section.
http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/ Not exact matches
A third effort, by the Center for Scientific Review, the NIH unit that evaluates grant applications, aims to speed up the turnaround time for new investigators so they can resubmit a revised application by the next triyearly deadline.
NIH's Office of AIDS Research (OAR) then reviewed AIDs grants coming up for renewal in fiscal year 2016 to see how they fit the new priorities.
In June 2011, the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) Center for Scientific Review (CSR) debuted a program aimed at leveling the playing field — somewhat — by giving young researchers experience on grant - review panels so that they could see what they look for in the grant applications they choose toReview (CSR) debuted a program aimed at leveling the playing field — somewhat — by giving young researchers experience on grant - review panels so that they could see what they look for in the grant applications they choose toreview panels so that they could see what they look for in the grant applications they choose to fund.
Floyd Wormley Jr., a microbiologist at the University of Texas, San Antonio, serves as a standing member on NIH's AIDS - associated Opportunistic Infections and Cancer study section, which reviews grant proposals on that topic, scores them, and forwards the best ones to the appropriate NIH institutes for the final funding decision.
AHRQ shares the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant application and review processes, including those for research studies (e.g. R01, R03), training (K - series), and small business.
Individual institutes could decide to fund more grants, but that will depend on how proposals fare in peer review, NIH officials say.
The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, for example, received more than four times its usual number of applications owing to cuts in NIH spending on breast cancer research, according to Paula Witt - Enderby, a researcher at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and a member of the charity's grant review panel.
These issues are very much on the minds of policymakers and funding agency administrators... so much so that an explicit and measurable focus on training — scientific and soft skills — may well become a review criterion at NIH in the near future, even for pure research grants.
As Science Careers has reported, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation peer - review panel meetings are on hold, which will delay the review of grant proposals.
T. A. Kotchen et al, «NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research.»
Model 4 included controls for previous NIH grants, NIH review experience, and NIH institute, and while it reduced the award differential for blacks and Asians by 1 percentage point, the differential was still significant (P <.001).
In the NIH's usual grant review process, applicants» names and ethnicities are removed, but in some cases it's still possible to guess who's applying.
Applications will be reviewed by subject matter experts at NIH and other health agencies to see if «they show a reasonable potential to meet the statutory goals,» says NIH's Jo Anne Goodnight, who oversees NIH's small - business research grants.
Rockey's e-mail also suggests that NIH can fund about 20 grant proposals that had passed the first stage of peer review and were awaiting review by institute councils.
Thus, the NCI's grant review cycle could be significantly delayed, threatening a smooth restart of NCI's support of extramural research, even if the NIH reopens relatively soon.»
NIH's grant - reviewing organization — the Center for Scientific Review (CSR)-- is one of 24 NIH institutes.
NIH now requires a recipient of a grant in excess of $ 500,000 in any year to develop a data sharing plan that is reviewed by the study section that assesses the grant proposal, Liu said.
NIH program officers, or program directors as they are sometimes called, serve as scientific liaison between the study section that reviews your grant and the institute that will hopefully be funding your work.
One way, Tilghman said, would be for NIH to shift funding from R01 research grants, which currently support the majority of graduate students in biomedical sciences, to NIH training grants, which are peer - reviewed by NIH for their training - related virtues.
Many NIH institutes provide on their Web sites detailed information to help new investigators understand the grant review process and improve their grant writing skills.
As a result, the NIH grant success rate (the portion of reviewed grants that received funding) may drop from an already record - low 18 % in 2012 to 16 %, according to Senator Tom Harkin (D - IA), chair of the Senate spending subcommittee that discussed NIH's 2014 budget request last week.
Only two of the NIH institute's five original «glue grants» were clear successes, concludes an outside review released Wednesday, and at least one grant had «significant flaws.»
A lower court's 23 August preliminary injunction halting hESC research «has a profound impact» that «disrupts not only the processing of grant applications currently under review by NIH, but it disrupts many of its currently funded grants, and it has already threatened ongoing programs to educate physicians and physician - researchers,» the brief states.
NIH issued guidelines last summer to govern work on the cells, but this spring the Bush Administration halted the process that was to review the first grant applications, saying it wanted to evaluate the issue (ScienceNOW, 9 April).
Bob Godt, a professor at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta who also sits on NIH review panels, describes his grant - writing experience while doing research in Sweden.
Anil Potti, M.D., Duke University School of Medicine: Based on the reports of investigations conducted by Duke University School of Medicine (Duke) and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Anil Potti, former Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R01 HL072208 and National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, grants R01 CA136530, R01 CA131049, K12 CA100639, R01 CA106520, and U54 CA112952.
To answer these questions, we invited panelists with experience reviewing NIH grant proposals and participating in study section to share their experiences and advice with us.
After the Institutes reviewed a 2011 analysis that found African Americans significantly less likely than white applicants to win NIH research grants, it pushed for a deeper look.
The study is one of two NIH - funded projects — the other strips previous applications of all identifying characteristics before subjecting them to a new round of reviews — now underway that were spawned by a 2011 finding that black scientists have a much lower chance of receiving an NIH grant than their white counterparts.
His aim was to allow them to learn the NIH peer - review system and improve their grant - writing skills.
Previously, Toliver had served as the executive secretary (scientific review administrator) of the biochemistry study section of the NIH Division of Research Grants (now called the Center for Scientific Rereview administrator) of the biochemistry study section of the NIH Division of Research Grants (now called the Center for Scientific ReviewReview).
Different from other NIH initiatives that are funded purely based on a grant's peer - review scores, the Common Fund program staff handpick from the most highly - ranked applicants, taking into account the investigator and institution's level of innovation, history of collaboration, and how well the proposed project fits in with the overall goal of the initiative.
He has contributed to more than 130 peer - reviewed publications in journals, has participated in grant review panels nationally (NIH and NSF) and internationally and is member of the Editorial Boards of the American Journal of Hematology, Clinical Chemistry, Human Mutation, European Journal of Human Genetics, Journal of Cancer Therapeutics and Research and Journal of Genomics and Proteomics.
She has served on federal grant review panels, the NIH / NEI National Advisory Eye Council, and she is a fellow of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (FARVO), American Academy of Optometry (FAAO) and a board member of the International Society for the Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV).
Lorsch reviewed the new NIH policy called Grant Support Index (GSI), which aims to more widely distribute taxpayer funding of science by limiting additional grant support for already well - supported principal investigaGrant Support Index (GSI), which aims to more widely distribute taxpayer funding of science by limiting additional grant support for already well - supported principal investigagrant support for already well - supported principal investigators.
These observations suggest that human subject concerns are not being adequately addressed in the preparation of clinical grant applications, and this problem may have been augmented by rescinding the requirement for IRB approval prior to NIH peer review.
Charles is the principal investigator on multiple grants from the NIH and other institutions, and has more than 35 patents and peer - reviewed publications in major scientific journals.
Since 1946, the CSR mission has remained clear and timely: to see that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews — free from inappropriate influences — so NIH can fund the most promising research.
CSR organizes the peer review groups or study sections that evaluate the majority (70 %) of the research grant applications sent to NIH.
He also serves as a peer reviewer for various scientific journals in the field of cancer research and immunology and as reviewer for grants in scientific review study sections of the NIH and National Cancer Institute (NCI).
This work was supported by University of California at Los Angeles Specialized Program of Research Excellence In Lung Cancer NIH grant P50 CA90388, UC Tobacco - Related Disease Research Program 13RT - 0031, NIH RO1 CA111851 and Merit Review Research Funds from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Design and Setting Peer review outcomes of grant applications submitted to NIH by MDs were compared with those of non-MDs, and outcomes of applications involving inclusion of human subjects were compared with those not involving human subjects.
In 1996, in response to these concerns, Varmus, then director of NIH, impaneled a group of experienced clinical investigators and academic health center administrators to make recommendations that might guide the NIH toward policy changes to alleviate the concerns in the clinical research community.14 Several of the panel's recommendations have been implemented, including increased support of the General Clinical Research Center budget, expanded support of training in clinical research, and the establishment of NIH - sponsored educational debt relief programs for clinical investigators.15 - 18 The panel also recommended restructuring of NIH peer review groups so that patient - oriented grant applications would be evaluated by study sections in which at least half the grant applications involve patient - oriented research.
As you may know, the lion's share of medical research funding in the U.S.A. comes from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is a government organization that reviews grant applications from scientists around the country and around the world and provides research funding for the best of those projects.
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) manages the peer review process for approximately 70 % of the grant applications submitted to NIH; the remainder are reviewed in peer review panels managed by the various funding institutes and centers aReview (CSR) manages the peer review process for approximately 70 % of the grant applications submitted to NIH; the remainder are reviewed in peer review panels managed by the various funding institutes and centers areview process for approximately 70 % of the grant applications submitted to NIH; the remainder are reviewed in peer review panels managed by the various funding institutes and centers areview panels managed by the various funding institutes and centers at NIH.
Although earlier reports emphasize that the percentage of NIH extramural grant dollars devoted to clinical research depends on the inclusiveness of the definition of clinical research, 5,14,18,29 the primary purpose of the current analysis was to describe outcomes of the scientific review of grant applications rather than to provide a comprehensive overview of extramural NIH funding for clinical research.
Nevertheless, there is a continuing perception among clinical investigators that the NIH peer review process may discriminate against clinical research.11 The purpose of this analysis was to describe recent trends and outcomes of peer review for grant applications requesting support for clinical research.
She has served on NIH Study Sections and EMSC grant review panels.
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)-- Est. in 1946 The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is the portal for NIH grant applications and their review for scientific Review (CSR)-- Est. in 1946 The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is the portal for NIH grant applications and their review for scientific Review (CSR) is the portal for NIH grant applications and their review for scientific review for scientific merit.