Liaison to the National Institutes of Health

The Surgical Research and Education Committee leadership has promoted the appointment of surgeons to various study sections and Institute Councils to which grants from surgeons are ordinarily directed.

It is the conviction of the Committee that surgeons are underrepresented on the study sections and Councils of the NIH and that peer review of grants submitted by surgeons is often lacking.

For this reason, the Committee strongly encourages surgeons actively engaged in research, basic or clinical, to complete NIH Consultant File Information Forms, available through email request to: farleye@drg.nih.gov. In the near future, a Web-based updatable form for direct entry will be available on the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) home page. Call 301/435-1742 for further information. The CSR is extremely interested in registering scientists with surgical backgrounds and welcomes your registration.

Surgeons interested in, or currently serving on NIH peer review groups are encouraged to notify the staff of the Surgical Research Committee, so that this information can be made available to young surgical investigators who are applying to the NIH for the first time.

Back to top

The NIH consists of 18 research institutes, one research center, the National Library of Medicine, the Fogarty International Center, a clinical center, and two service divisions. One services division is the CSR. While most of the NIH is in Bethesda, Maryland, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is in Research Triangle Park, NC, the intramural program of the National Institute on Aging is in Baltimore, MD, and some research components of the NIH are in other areas of the United States.

Back to top

Office of Extramural Research (OER) / Center for Scientific Review (CSR) / Institutes

The Office of Extramural Research (OER) manages the development and implementation of policies and procedures that pertain to peer review conducted in all components of the NIH. The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) manages the initial review groups that review most of the investigator -initiated applications. The awarding institutes and centers (ICs) manage the review of applications submitted in response to special solicitations (contracts) and for unique programs.

Back to top

Peer Review System (Study Sections and Review Committees)

Because of the magnitude, diversity, and complexity of its research mission, and its pursuit of excellence, the NIH draws for assistance on the national pool of scientists actively engaged in research. These scientists assist the NIH by advising on the selection of the most meritorious and the most promising research projects for awards.

The peer review system for grant applications used by the NIH is based on two sequential levels of review, referred to as the "dual review system". The first level involves panels of experts established according to scientific disciplines or current research areas for the primary purpose of evaluating the scientific and technical merit of grant applications. These panels are referred to as scientific review groups (SRGs). SRGs are commonly called study sections in the CSR and review committees in the Institutes. A group of SRGs which are closely related in areas of science is called an initial review group (IRG). The initial review process is managed by Scientific Review Administrators (SRAs).

The second level of review is performed by a national advisory board or council composed of both scientific and public representatives who are noted for their expertise, interest, or activity in matters related to the mission of the specific Institute for which they serve. Council recommendations are based not only on considerations of scientific merit, (as judged by the SRGs), but also on the relevance of the proposed study to an Institute's programs and priorities.

Back to top

DRG is now the Center for Scientific Review (CSR)

Effective October 1, 1997, the Division of Research Grants (DRG) has been renamed the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). The name change highlights the fact that the Center is the focus point at NIH for the conduct of peer review and, thus, more accurately reflects the mission of the organization. The establishment of a Center is to signal a broadening of the mission to include a new emphasis on the development and implementation of innovative and flexible ways to conduct referral aspects of science.

Back to top

Extramural Research Support (Grants, Contracts, Cooperative Agreements)

The diverse mechanism for extramural research and development support are divided into three main categories: grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. Grants for health-related research and research training projects or activities make-up the largest category of funding provided by the NIH. In general, the investigator who applies for a grant, through an eligible institution, is normally responsible for developing the ideas, concepts, methods, and approach for a project.

In contrast, the awarding Institute is responsible for establishing the plans, parameters, and detailed requirements for projects that would be supported by contracts. Contracts are usually solicited through requests for proposals (RFPs), while most grants are not solicited. In certain circumstances, however, grant applications are invited to address areas of special interest to an awarding Institute, in which case requests for applications (RFAs) and program announcements (PAs) are issued. RFAs, and PAs are published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, which can be accessed electronically. Other distinctions between contracts and grants involve variations in the review procedures, and such technical issues as the cost reimbursement, the timing of the application or proposal process, the requirements and mechanisms for award and administration, the extent of the involvement of the funding Institute, and the delivery of the end product.

Cooperative agreements are similar to grants in that they are awarded by NIH to assist and support reseach and related activities. They differ, however, in that while grants require minimal or no involvement of the awarding Institute during performance of project activities, cooperate agreements involve a substantial programmatic, i.e., scientific-technical, role. This role may involve cooperation and/or coordination to assist the awardee in carrying out the project, or review and approval of certain processes/phases in scientific management of the project. Policies and procedures for application, review, and administration of cooperative agreements are similar to those for grants. An important difference, however, is that the awarding Institute issues a specific RFA describing the program, functions, or activities that it proposes to support by coopertive agreement, and the nature of the proposed Institute staff involvement.

Back to top

__________

Surgical Research Committee

This page and all contents are Copyright © 1996-2002
by the American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL 60611-3211