Sentences with phrase «of grant review panels»

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.

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 proposals.

The IOM panel took note of this as well and recommended that ICOC members should not be allowed to sit on the committees that review grants.

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 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.

He also allowed me to review the panel reviews» of the grant proposals he helped write, says Lower.

«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.

Like all the Australian government's special research centres, the centre was reviewed after three years operation by a panel appointed by the Institutional Grants Committee of the Australian Research Council.

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.

She has seen quotas used to increase the proportion of women in grant review panels.

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 proposals.

Beaudet also indicated CIHR is postponing the deadline on a forthcoming grant competition until after the working group meets, and Philpott said the results of the meeting will be expected to inform the findings of a recently launched Advisory Panel for the Review of Federal Support for Fundamental Science.

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.

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.

This morning, many research agencies had suspended activities because of the funding lapse, shutting down public websites, preparing to shutter laboratories, and planning to postpone grant review panels.

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.

First, a hasty, $ 20 million grant to the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and Rice University prompted the resignation of the agency's Nobel Laureate chief scientific advisor and, ultimately, most of his blue - ribbon peer review panel.

[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.

He has published over 100 scientific journal articles and book chapters, chaired and been a member of numerous agricultural and ecological research grant review panels and been a member of two National Academy of Science National Research Council Committees on Agriculture.

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).

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.

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.

Grant applications are reviewed for funding by a panel of scientists from outside of California.

She was a permanent member of several NIH grant review panels and chair of the NIH Skeletal Biology Development and Disease Study Section.

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).

He has also served on grant review panels for Florida State University, the Community Foundation of Middle TN and the New Jersey State Council on the Arts.

Susan currently Chairs the University Club of Boston's Scholarship Committee as well as serves on EDVestors» Grant Review panel and is an Executive Advisor for the Lynch Leadership Academy.

The Department of Education has granted waivers to states in spite of concerns raised by the panels reviewing the requests.

A panel of judges from the San Francisco Bay Area book community will review applications and the Scholarship Grant recipient (s) will be publicly recognized at a Book Promotion Forum event and asked to contribute an article for the e-Newsletter.

With the help of our expert review panel, grants are awarded twice yearly to fund groundbreaking studies.

Grants range between $ 2,000 and $ 10,000 based on the peer review panel allocation of funding received by Franklin Furnace.

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.

She has also served as a panelist on several grant review panels including Miami - Dade County Department of Cultural Affairs, State of Florida Division of Cultural Affairs, Southern Arts Federation, Arts & Humanities Council of Montgomery County, Ohio Arts Council and Miami Light Project's Here & Now Festival.

Grant Criteria All proposals for the Kindling Fund are reviewed by a panel of artists and / or arts professionals.

Grants range from between $ 2,000 and $ 10,000 based on the peer review panel allocation of funding received by the Franklin Furnace.

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 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 expanels (center grants, etc.) Panels, which tend to look at proposals over a large range of fields, will often receive written reviews from exPanels, which tend to look at proposals over a large range of fields, will often receive written reviews from experts.

An expanded panel of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board («PTAB» or «Board») recently exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (c) to grant a motion to join an inter partes review proceeding with an already - initiated proceeding filed by the same petitioner.

• 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

(A) reviewing and analyzing the statewide needs assessments required under subsection (b), the awarding and oversight of grants awarded under this section, the establishment of the advisory panels required under subsections (d)(1)(B)(iii)(II) and (g)(1), and the evaluation and report required under subsection (g); and