E D I T O R I A L
Editorial: In Praise of Scientific Review Officers Dariush Elahi, Raghavendra G. Mirmira, and Jake A. Kushner ICON Development Solution (D.E.), San Antonio, Texas; Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, Cellular and Integrative Physiology, and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (R.G.M.), Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202; and Section of Pediatric Diabetes and Endocrinology (J.A.K.), Baylor College of Medicine and Diabetes and Endocrinology Service, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, Texas 77030
tudy sections within the National Institutes of Health Dr Connaughton is the SRO of the DDK-B and also of the United States of America (NIH) carry out vital serves as the chief of the NIDDK Training and Mentor roles to assess the scientific and technical merit of research Research Section in the Review Branch. DDK-B is proposals. There are several types of study sections, charged with developing and maintaining the pipeline of which have different degrees of complexity ranging from scientists for research activities focused upon diabetes, evaluation of centers, program projects, and research endocrinology, and metabolic diseases with NIDDK, project grants to evaluation of the first grant proposals evaluating fellowship career development and institufrom young investigators tional grant applications whose intent is to become assigned to the NIDDK. independent and produc- “From the outside it might seem as The range of these applicative researchers. As mem- if the success of the study section tions encompasses a variis entirely dependent upon the bers of the Diabetes, Endoety of forms, including the crinology and Metabolic collective wisdom of the external K01 and K08, K23, K24, Diseases B Subcommittee scientists who are contained within K25, K99/R00, R03, and (DDK-B), we wish to share it......In reality, the overall success R25 mechanisms. As if this our experience as to its opportfolio of grant types in adjudication of NIH grants by the were not sufficiently dieration. From the outside, it might seem as if the over- study section members is largely verse, the study section all success of the study sec- dependent on the expertise and also evaluates the National tion is entirely dependent organizational skill of the Scientific Research Service Award upon the collective wis- Review Officer (SRO)” (NSRA) training grants dom of the external scienT35 and T32. Given this tists who are contained within it. However, this assess- monumental task, we recognize that the SRO for these ment cannot be farther from the truth. We assert that the kinds of grants for young investigators has a heavy buroverall success in adjudication of NIH grants by the study den for NIDDK, the NIH, and for biomedical research section members is largely dependent on the expertise and within the United States as a whole. The officer must have organizational skill of the Scientific Review Officer sufficient biochemical knowledge across a vast array of (SRO), an extramural staff scientist who guides the pro- research areas and must be familiar with senior investigacess of recruitment and grant selection and guides the tors in the field who have sufficient knowledge, skills, and review process of the study section. We wish to describe passion to be nominated to serve on the committee. the function of this type of study section, focusing on the The SRO has a key role in adjudicating grant applicaexpertise of the leadership of our experienced SRO, Dr tions to allow individual reviewers the opportunity to John Connaughton. openly articulate their assessment of an application. In
S
ISSN Print 0888-8809 ISSN Online 1944-9917 Printed in U.S.A. Copyright © 2014 by the Endocrine Society
doi: 10.1210/me.2014-1179
Abbreviations: DDK-B, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases B Subcommittee; NIDDK, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; NIH, National Institutes of Health of the United States of America; NSRA, National Research Service Award; SRO, Scientific Review Officer.
Mol Endocrinol, July 2014, 28(7):987–988
mend.endojournals.org
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 23 October 2015. at 10:45 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
987
988
Elahi et al
Editorial
Dariush Elahi, PhD
Mol Endocrinol, July 2014, 28(7):987–988
Jake A. Kushner, MD
our committee (and those of other training-focused study sections), every application is discussed to allow an objective assessment of each trainee’s proposal. In practical terms, this means that numerical impact scores are provided to the applicant as well as detailed comments and a summary statement. We believe this policy and approach is of great value to applicants and their mentors, as it provides objective feedback at a critical early stage in a scientist’s training. An SRO such as Dr Connaughton has the opportunity to ensure that individual scores within an application reflect the overall score of a reviewer so that the overall assessment of the application is aligned. Another important attribute of an effective SRO is availability. SROs need to be prepared for the frequent changes that come with assembling a large meeting several times a year, such as weather emergencies, unexpected personal events, or other exigencies. A major task of any SRO involves screening, recruitment, and selection of study section members, who can be either permanent or ad hoc. Reviewers must be recruited across a broad range of disciplines with sufficient diversity of personal, scientific, and professional backgrounds to allow fair review for a wide variety of applicants. Given this wildly diverse portfolio of scientific disciplines, SROs have the challenging task to ensure the proper assignment of the grants to the reviewers. Finally, there is the challenge of running a complicated review meeting, which must be highly organized and executed. The meeting commences with the introduction of
members after which the SRO provides the definition and scope of each grant type and reminds study section members of the junior investigator status of applicants (implying that the detail of the grant should not be expected to be of the caliber of R01 quality). During the deliberation, the SRO takes notes, interjecting only if a point of clarification Raghavendra G. is required. An effective SRO Mirmira, MD, PhD must also contend with the complexity of an electronic scoring system to ensure that all information is correctly entered. The after-meeting tasks include assembling the reviews, proofing them, writing summary statements, and beginning the process of working with program officers and the Institute Council to make funding decisions. The review process is thus an interaction among expert scientists, who have had experience with dependency with the US Federal Government (science and politics), and young investigators. The conductor of the review process is the SRO, who is last to leave the meeting. We salute Dr John Connaughton and all other SROs who carry out this essential task on behalf of our nation’s biomedical research. Dariush Elahi, PhD Raghavendra G. Mirmira, MD, PhD Jake A. Kushner, MD (On behalf of the members of the Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases B Subcommittee of the NIDDK)
Acknowledgments Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Raghavendra G. Mirmira, Wells Center Program in Diabetes Research, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, 635 Barnhill Drive, MS 2031A, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail: [email protected]. Disclosure Summary: The authors have nothing to disclose.
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 23 October 2015. at 10:45 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
Editorial: In Praise of Scientific Review Officers Dariush Elahi, Raghavendra G. Mirmira, and Jake A. Kushner ICON Development Solution (D.E.), San Antonio, Texas; Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, Cellular and Integrative Physiology, and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (R.G.M.), Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202; and Section of Pediatric Diabetes and Endocrinology (J.A.K.), Baylor College of Medicine and Diabetes and Endocrinology Service, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, Texas 77030
tudy sections within the National Institutes of Health Dr Connaughton is the SRO of the DDK-B and also of the United States of America (NIH) carry out vital serves as the chief of the NIDDK Training and Mentor roles to assess the scientific and technical merit of research Research Section in the Review Branch. DDK-B is proposals. There are several types of study sections, charged with developing and maintaining the pipeline of which have different degrees of complexity ranging from scientists for research activities focused upon diabetes, evaluation of centers, program projects, and research endocrinology, and metabolic diseases with NIDDK, project grants to evaluation of the first grant proposals evaluating fellowship career development and institufrom young investigators tional grant applications whose intent is to become assigned to the NIDDK. independent and produc- “From the outside it might seem as The range of these applicative researchers. As mem- if the success of the study section tions encompasses a variis entirely dependent upon the bers of the Diabetes, Endoety of forms, including the crinology and Metabolic collective wisdom of the external K01 and K08, K23, K24, Diseases B Subcommittee scientists who are contained within K25, K99/R00, R03, and (DDK-B), we wish to share it......In reality, the overall success R25 mechanisms. As if this our experience as to its opportfolio of grant types in adjudication of NIH grants by the were not sufficiently dieration. From the outside, it might seem as if the over- study section members is largely verse, the study section all success of the study sec- dependent on the expertise and also evaluates the National tion is entirely dependent organizational skill of the Scientific Research Service Award upon the collective wis- Review Officer (SRO)” (NSRA) training grants dom of the external scienT35 and T32. Given this tists who are contained within it. However, this assess- monumental task, we recognize that the SRO for these ment cannot be farther from the truth. We assert that the kinds of grants for young investigators has a heavy buroverall success in adjudication of NIH grants by the study den for NIDDK, the NIH, and for biomedical research section members is largely dependent on the expertise and within the United States as a whole. The officer must have organizational skill of the Scientific Review Officer sufficient biochemical knowledge across a vast array of (SRO), an extramural staff scientist who guides the pro- research areas and must be familiar with senior investigacess of recruitment and grant selection and guides the tors in the field who have sufficient knowledge, skills, and review process of the study section. We wish to describe passion to be nominated to serve on the committee. the function of this type of study section, focusing on the The SRO has a key role in adjudicating grant applicaexpertise of the leadership of our experienced SRO, Dr tions to allow individual reviewers the opportunity to John Connaughton. openly articulate their assessment of an application. In
S
ISSN Print 0888-8809 ISSN Online 1944-9917 Printed in U.S.A. Copyright © 2014 by the Endocrine Society
doi: 10.1210/me.2014-1179
Abbreviations: DDK-B, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases B Subcommittee; NIDDK, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; NIH, National Institutes of Health of the United States of America; NSRA, National Research Service Award; SRO, Scientific Review Officer.
Mol Endocrinol, July 2014, 28(7):987–988
mend.endojournals.org
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 23 October 2015. at 10:45 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
987
988
Elahi et al
Editorial
Dariush Elahi, PhD
Mol Endocrinol, July 2014, 28(7):987–988
Jake A. Kushner, MD
our committee (and those of other training-focused study sections), every application is discussed to allow an objective assessment of each trainee’s proposal. In practical terms, this means that numerical impact scores are provided to the applicant as well as detailed comments and a summary statement. We believe this policy and approach is of great value to applicants and their mentors, as it provides objective feedback at a critical early stage in a scientist’s training. An SRO such as Dr Connaughton has the opportunity to ensure that individual scores within an application reflect the overall score of a reviewer so that the overall assessment of the application is aligned. Another important attribute of an effective SRO is availability. SROs need to be prepared for the frequent changes that come with assembling a large meeting several times a year, such as weather emergencies, unexpected personal events, or other exigencies. A major task of any SRO involves screening, recruitment, and selection of study section members, who can be either permanent or ad hoc. Reviewers must be recruited across a broad range of disciplines with sufficient diversity of personal, scientific, and professional backgrounds to allow fair review for a wide variety of applicants. Given this wildly diverse portfolio of scientific disciplines, SROs have the challenging task to ensure the proper assignment of the grants to the reviewers. Finally, there is the challenge of running a complicated review meeting, which must be highly organized and executed. The meeting commences with the introduction of
members after which the SRO provides the definition and scope of each grant type and reminds study section members of the junior investigator status of applicants (implying that the detail of the grant should not be expected to be of the caliber of R01 quality). During the deliberation, the SRO takes notes, interjecting only if a point of clarification Raghavendra G. is required. An effective SRO Mirmira, MD, PhD must also contend with the complexity of an electronic scoring system to ensure that all information is correctly entered. The after-meeting tasks include assembling the reviews, proofing them, writing summary statements, and beginning the process of working with program officers and the Institute Council to make funding decisions. The review process is thus an interaction among expert scientists, who have had experience with dependency with the US Federal Government (science and politics), and young investigators. The conductor of the review process is the SRO, who is last to leave the meeting. We salute Dr John Connaughton and all other SROs who carry out this essential task on behalf of our nation’s biomedical research. Dariush Elahi, PhD Raghavendra G. Mirmira, MD, PhD Jake A. Kushner, MD (On behalf of the members of the Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases B Subcommittee of the NIDDK)
Acknowledgments Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Raghavendra G. Mirmira, Wells Center Program in Diabetes Research, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, 635 Barnhill Drive, MS 2031A, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail: [email protected]. Disclosure Summary: The authors have nothing to disclose.
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 23 October 2015. at 10:45 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
