Re: Internal faculty research grants programs? Len Paplauskas 10 May 1994 15:51 EST
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 | --------------------------------------------------------------------