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 seen quotas used to increase the proportion of women
in grant review panels.
Not exact matches
UPDATE, 4:25 pm EST: A different New York judge has
granted DraftKings and FanDuel an «emergency stay» of the injunction order; it means the companies can, for now, continue to operate
in New York until an appellate
panel reviews the injunction on January 4.
[BOX 5] Alliance of Third Class Non-Profit Mailers, 1981 - 1982 Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) files I, 1981 II, 1980 - 1981 III, 1978 - 1980 IV, 1979 - 1980 Council of Allied Engineering and Scientific Societies, 1969 - 1981 Council of Allied Engineering and Scientific Societies, 1981 - 1982 Department of Education, 1977 - 1978 Energy Research Advisory Board Multiprogram Laboratory
Panel, 10/15/81 -11 / 19/82 Institute of Medicine - I, 1982 - 1983 Institute of Medicine - II, 1979 - 1982 Roger W. Jones Award, 1979 - 1980 W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 1982 Mellon (Andrew W.) Project, 1978 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Files: I, 1981 - 1984 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Files: II, 1981 - 1982 National Committee on Public Employee Pension Systems (PEPS), July 1982 National Governors» Association Meeting - Task Force on Technological Innovation, 2/21/82 National Publication Act of 1979 Office of Technology Assessment, 1972 - 1973 Peace and Conflict Resolution, 1980 Pensions for Professionals, 1971 - 1972 Saturday
Review of Science, 1972 - 1979 Scientists and Engineers Emigrant Fund, 1978 - 1979 SOHIO, Standard Oil of Ohio
Grant, 1982 - 1986 Technology
in Science - Advisory Board, 1981 Tyler Prize, 1984 - 1985 White House Study of Science and Engineering Education, 1980 Znaiye (Soviet Scholarly Society), 1971 - 1977
The AGIES
panel's «perception was flavored by its public - health perspective on scientific arguments», says
Grant McFadden, a poxvirus researcher at the University of Florida
in Gainesville and a member of the scientific
review panel.
In particular, the researchers want the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to reinstate face - to - face meetings of peer review panels, which the agency has ended in favor of an on - line system for evaluating grant proposal
In particular, the researchers want the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to reinstate face - to - face meetings of peer
review panels, which the agency has ended
in favor of an on - line system for evaluating grant proposal
in favor of an on - line system for evaluating
grant proposals.
In my opinion, it's better to fund one novel, exciting paper than 10 pedestrian «dotting i's and crossing t's» papers, but such high - risk research seems to go against the prevailing attitude of
grant review panels.
These two roles should be separated, the
panel recommended, by putting the CIRM president and other senior managers
in charge of daily operations, including
grant reviews, and ICOC
in charge of strategic planning and oversight.
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 to fun
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 to
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 to
review panels so that they could see what they look for
in the grant applications they choose to fun
in the
grant applications they choose to fund.
«It's a bit nerve - wracking, not because there are no special
grants for it, but because there's no special expertise on the
review panels,» says Leonard Maler, a professor
in the department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Ottawa.
Witt - Enderby is on the
grant review panel for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer charity, which is placing greater emphasis on translational research, and a corresponding increase
in suitable bids.
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.
In particular, the researchers want the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to reinstate face - to - face meetings of peer - review panels, which the agency has ended in favor of an online system for evaluating grant proposal
In particular, the researchers want the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to reinstate face - to - face meetings of peer -
review panels, which the agency has ended
in favor of an online system for evaluating grant proposal
in favor of an online system for evaluating
grant proposals.
Annual or semiannual
grant deadlines lead to enormous spikes
in submissions, which
in turn cause headaches for the program managers who have to organize merit
review panels.
The government has also struck a requirement, introduced by former research and education minister Daniel Funeriu, that international
panels review grant applications and that applicants have papers published
in an internationally ranked peer -
reviewed journal.
A
review panel found
in 2009 that the ERC's management system was «obsolete»
in the way it left nonscientist bureaucrats
in charge of day - to - day operations, leading to constant low - level conflict and even «abusive» requirements of volunteer
grant reviewers.
The
panel found that the existing
grant review process,
in which NHP studies undergo extra scrutiny by NC3Rs, generally works: Most research was justified
in its use of NHPs and led to peer -
reviewed publications.
At a commission event
in Brussels on Tuesday, an attendee suggested that funding
review panels might also be biased against
grant proposals that include U.K. participants.
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.
Paul's proposed solution starts with adding two members who have no vested interest
in the proposed research to every federal
panel that
reviews grant applications.
[4] CIHR continues to work on issues regarding the size and membership of the expert
panels, the use of teleconferencing
in early stage
review, and the algorithms used to match applications to reviewers, issues which will need to be resolved prior to the next competition for both «Foundation» and «Project»
grants, scheduled for fall 2016.
OCEAN SPRINGS, Miss. — A team of university and government scientists, selected by an expert
review panel convened by the Mississippi - Alabama Sea
Grant Consortium, will conduct an independent study to estimate the number of red snapper
in the U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
In managing RPB's extensive and highly regarded
Grants Program, Patricia Moran interfaces with more than 50 of the nation's top departments of ophthalmology and more than 120 active researchers, coordinates the activities of RPB's
grant review panels, and provides analytical support for special projects.
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).
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 researc
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 researc
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 researc
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 researc
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 researc
in which at least half the
grant applications involve patient - oriented research.
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 a
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 a
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 a
review panels managed by the various funding institutes and centers at NIH.
Over the course of his career, he has served on
grant review panels of multiple funding agencies, actively participated
in the development of national and international nutrition policy, authored over 300 research papers, has been awarded more than seventy
grant - years of peer -
reviewed research funding and given hundreds of lectures around the world.
The risk with these competitions when carried out by the Office of the Secretary is that they become politicized, that they are judged by
review panels without methodological competence, and that they are overseen, once awarded, by career staff
in program offices that do not have the background to monitor what is, at root, a program evaluation
grant.
The administration
granted waivers to to states
in spite of questions raised by the peer
review panel it put
in place to vet the proposals about whether the promises made would be fulfilled.
The entire waiver process was sloppily administered
in the first place, with Duncan
granting waivers to states (and allowing them to ignore whole sections of No Child) even thought they have not yet implemented or enacted all the proposals within their applications, and the administration ignoring concerns raised by its own peer
review panels about such matters as how states have ignored the need to gain consultation on proposed changes from American Indian tribes as required under the U.S. Constitution (as well as from black and Latino communities equally affected by the evisceration of accountability).
These issues, along with the fact that the Obama administration seems not to be paying attention to what is happening inside the states to which waivers have been
granted, and has generally ignored concerns raised by its own peer
review panels about waiver proposals, makes it hard for centrist Democrat reformers to make the case that the School Reformer -
in - Chief is doing a credible job advancing reform.
The Department of Education has
granted waivers to states
in spite of concerns raised by the
panels reviewing the requests.
In late 2014, he was selected as an Evaluator for Creative Capital's 2015 Visual Arts
Grant Award
review panel.
Initiated
in 1985 with the support of Jerome Foundation, Franklin Furnace has annually awarded
grants to emerging artists selected by peer
panel review to enable them to produce major performance art works
in New York.
In late 2014 he was an Evaluator for Creative Capital's 2015 Visual Arts grant award review panel; most recently he was a visiting curator at the Joan Mitchell Center in New Orleans, and will be a guest lecturer at the University of Florida in Spring 201
In late 2014 he was an Evaluator for Creative Capital's 2015 Visual Arts
grant award
review panel; most recently he was a visiting curator at the Joan Mitchell Center
in New Orleans, and will be a guest lecturer at the University of Florida in Spring 201
in New Orleans, and will be a guest lecturer at the University of Florida
in Spring 201
in Spring 2017.
Special programs are evaluated
in panels (center grants, etc.) Panels, which tend to look at proposals over a large range of fields, will often receive written reviews from ex
panels (center
grants, etc.)
Panels, which tend to look at proposals over a large range of fields, will often receive written reviews from ex
Panels, which tend to look at proposals over a large range of fields, will often receive written
reviews from experts.
• Speaker, National Pathways to Adulthood: A convening on Youth
in Transition — 2011 • Centenary Methodist, Speaker, Homeless / Runaway Youth Awareness Workshops — 2011 • Speaker, Missouri SYAB Youth Empowerment Conference — 2011 • Federal
Grant Reviewer, Administration for Children and Families: Improving Service Delivery to Youth
in the Child Welfare System — 2011 • Federal
Grant Reviewer, Office of Family Assistance: Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Father - Hood
Grants — 2011 • Federal
Grant Reviewer, Administration of Children and Families
Grant Review: Improving Outcomes for Youth
in Childwelfare — 2011 • Federal
Grant Reviewer, Administration of Children and Families
Grant Review: Community Centered Healthy Marriage and Fatherhood — 2011 • Federal
Panel Chair, Administration of Children and Families
Grant Review: Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood — 2011