Ken:  At the UConn Health Center we have several programs of this type, each
with its attendant NIH-type bureaucracy, e.g., review panels, priority score
calculations, "pink" sheets, etc.  Each of them tend to adopt different
philosophical approaches to the question of peer review.  For example:

1)  Faculty Research Grants Program - $450,000/year, reviewed by two panels
(clinical and basic science), each panel composed of about 12-15 members with
differing areas of scientific expertise.  Funding generally for "pilot"
projects.  Applicants may propose any size budget, but typical awards range
$25 - 35K.  Applicants are instructed to provide at least 5 additional
reviewers, preferably from within the Health Center or Univ. of CT, but may
suggest reviewers from anywhere.  Purpose of non-committee review is to get
the opinion of someone who is equally conversant in the field as is the
applicant.  Conflicts of interest in suggesting reviewers are prohibited, and
we tend to work on the honor system on this question.  Applicants are expected
to put together a proposal which would pass muster at NIH.

2)  Research Initiation and Support Enhancement (RISE) Program - $350K/yr.
Used to support start-up of new and transferring faculty.  Requires
departmental match (1:1), and can provide up to $50K (exclusive of dept.
match).  Reviewed by a committee of 3 senior faculty members of Health Center
Research Advisory Committee (HCRAC).  In depth peer review, when necessary,
provided by soliciting reviews from experts (in- or outside of UCONN).
Typically, proposals need not have the same degree of rigor as an NIH app,
but must spell out applicant's research plans for 5 years.  Transfering
faculty generally present funded NIH application.  Applicants who do not pass
muster are often unskilled at writing proposals or conducting research, and
are either asked to revise the app, or shunted to a "Faculty Development
Program" which is a mentoring program for those who need some training.

3)  Emergency Grants Program - $650,000/yr.  Used to support projects in
funding hiatus, up to $60K/year of support for up to 2 years.  Apps reviewed
by subcommittee of HCRAC.  To qualify applicant must fall into very carefully
defined eligibility criteria, e.g., first 6 months almost automatic, unless
app was "disapproved" by NIH, 2nd 6 months only if revised app submitted to
NIH and it must address shortcomings of unfunded app.  3rd 6 months only if
unfunded revised app got priority score of 225 or lower, etc.  Peer review
philosophy is that NIH will do that part for us.

 " 1.   In a process which does NOT constitute a "peer review,"
 how does your campus provide sufficient expertise to make
 possible a "scholarly" review/rating of applications?"

We think that our approach does provide a "scholarly" review of apps, but
it is one helluva lot of work.

 "It is often the case (with just 12 committee members and
 70 applications) that there are a number of applications
 (in each competition) which none of the committee members
 feels qualified to evaluate as an "expert".

Again, our approach generally provides expert reviews.  While we do not
pretend to be as expert as NIH, it does provide an indepth review of apps.

 "Applicants are instructed to NOT assume that the
 committee is compose of experts; they are instructed to
 write a proposal to a "generalist" audience."

Our applicants are expected to apply to knowledgeable reviewers.

 "What processes/procedures do you employ to address this
 problem?  Is "expert" opinion ever solicited to augment
 the review provided by committee members themselves?"

See above.

 "Is "feedback" provided to those applicants who do NOT
 receive an award?"

Yes, absolutely!  We provide sanitized copies of reviews, and the
chairman of each panel writes a "pink sheet" which summarizes the
discussion regarding that app.  No feedback on emergency grants, since
NIH pink sheet is the peer review feedback.

 "Have you had positive/negative experiences with attempts
 to provide such feedback?"

It ain't easy to coordinate all this, and sometimes getting reviewers
to respond is like pulling teeth (appropriate, since we have a dental
school here), however our extraordinary skills of diplomacy always
prevail.

Hope this helps.

Len

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard P. Paplauskas    Assistant Vice President for Research     |
203-679-3173             University of Connecticut Health Center   |
FAX 679-2670             Farmington, CT   06030-5355               |
                                                                   |
xxxxxx@neuron.uchc.edu                                           |
xxxxxx@sun1.uchc.edu                                           |
--------------------------------------------------------------------