Merit Review Process Scrutinized by House Panel

On July 27, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee's panel on Research and Science Education, chaired by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), held a hearing on The Merit Review Process: Ensuring Limited Federal Resources are Invested in the Best Science.

Given the Subcommittee's jurisdiction, the hearing mostly focused on the merit review process at the National Science Foundation (NSF).   Chairman Brooks noted that in FY 2010 NSF received over 55,000 proposals and funded nearly 13,000 or 23 percent. Since "many were not funded because federal funds are limited...those limited dollars should go to the very best scientific research...NSF must maintain a robust and transparent merit review process," Brooks asserted.

The panel's hearing comes in the midst of another examination of the process by the National Science Board (NSB), whose Task Force on Merit Review is chaired by Alan Leshner, CEO of the AAAS, and John Bruer, President of the James S. McDonnell Foundation. The NSB's interest is to "determine the way the current criteria [Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts], and their instructions, are interpreted and utilized by both proposers and NSF program staff." Of particular concern is the interpretation of the second criteria, which would ask the reviewers to determine whether the proposal addresses "national goals."

The hearing also explored this specific item in the context of the overall broader subject. Witnesses at the hearing were: Cora Marrett, NSF Deputy Director; Keith Yamamoto, Vice Chancellor for Research at the University of California, San Francisco; Nancy Jackson, President, American Chemical Society; and Jorge José, Vice President for Research at Indiana University.

All the witnesses strongly defended the merit review process. As José proclaimed, "the merit review system is the most effective process we have for ensuring that federal funds are used most effectively in support of scientific research, in particular at this time of limited resources when we need to prioritize how the taxpayer's dollars are best invested."

Brooks inquired about the sometimes disregard of review panels in final funding decisions at NSF. Marrett reminded the Subcommittee that NSF's peer review panels only provide "recommendations" to the program directors who can revise these to "balance the portfolio" among areas within a discipline or area in making those decisions.

Yamamoto, who led the committee that revised the NIH Peer Review process, expressed concern about the "national goals" criteria. He testified that "this criterion, as stated, would in my view adversely affect the merit review process because it departs from the singular focus on scientific merit that is essential to the process, and because it obligates peer reviewers to judge grant applications by metrics outside of their expertise."

José also expressed concern about the proposed expansion of the "Broader Impacts" criterion. He suggested that his worry was not that "this expanded list might alter the appropriate balance between intellectual merit and broader impacts in funding decisions," but it will "diminish the NSF's admirable and necessary leadership in promoting the participation of underrepresented groups in the sciences."

Jackson recommended reducing the burden on peer reviewers and program officers by allowing the latter to "triage" grant proposals.   The program officers, Jackson testified, should decide which grants could not be "competitive" and were not worthy of funding and remove them from the merit review process.

Ranking Member Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) expressed his interest in alternatives to standard merit review. He was delighted to hear from Marrett that his provision to authorize prizes, included in the America COMPETES reauthorization last year, was close to implementation. Lipinski also suggested that NSF conduct "tutorials" for members of Congress on the working of the merit review process. This is an idea that Marrett approved and noted that NSF is always seeking feedback on its programs and activities.

There was also a lot of discussion about "virtual peer review panels," which NSF is experimenting with. Although the hypothesis is that these "virtual" panels would save NSF travel money and expand the pool of reviewers, Marrett indicated this may not hold. Lipinski also expressed concern that "the group dynamics in a virtual environment, while certain to be different, do not in any way undermine the quality of NSF merit review." Marrett told the panel, that researchers funded by NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorate have conducted many studies of group dynamics whose results will serve as important input to NSF decision-making on the virtual panel proposal.

The witnesses' written testimony and an archived recording of the hearing is available at: http://science.house.gov/hearing/research-and-science-education-subcommittee-hearing-merit-review-process-federal-funding.

PRB Releases 2011 World Population Data Sheet

The Population Reference Bureau (PRB), a COSSA member, has released a report: 2011 World Population Data Sheet: The World at 7 Billion.   The report is full of demographic data on all countries of the world as well as health and environmental indicators. The report includes results from the 2010 U.S. census, United Nations' reports, and other countries' official national data counts.

PRB reports that the world's population will reach seven billion in 2011, which despite declining birth rates in many countries, still continues "the most rapid [global] population growth in history."   It took only 12 years to go from six billion to seven billion. Birth rates will have to remain in decline in order not to exceed the eight billion mark in 12 years.

According to the report, there are four phases of demographic transition evident in the world's population: 1) High Birth Rate, Fluctuating Death Rate; 2) Declining Birth and Death Rates; 3) Birth Rate Approaching Replacement; and 4) Low to Very Low Birth Rate, Very Low Death Rate. In examining countries around the world Afghanistan and Uganda represent number one. Ghana and Iraq fall into the second category. India and Malaysia represent category three. And Brazil, Germany, and Japan are examples of number four.

The five most populous countries in 2011 are: China, India, U.S., Indonesia, and Brazil.   Projecting to 2050, PRB expects India to overtake China as the world's largest nation, with Nigeria moving to number three and Pakistan to number five, displacing Indonesia and Brazil. The U.S. would be fourth.

PRB indicates that the country with the youngest population (percent under 15) is Niger, with the top ten nations in this category all in Africa.   Japan, with 23.2 percent of its populations over 65 has the oldest population, with the countries of Europe - Germany, Italy, Greece, and Sweden rounding out the top five.

The report also includes the news that the growth in the youth population in the Middle East "has slowed and even is declining in some countries," perhaps hindering the recruitment of terrorist organizations. At the same time, "poverty remains a significant problem worldwide," PRB notes, with the Congo, Democratic Republic as the poorest nation, with 80 percent of its population earning less than $2 U.S. dollars a day. Surprising to some, may be that India is second in this category at 76 percent.

Infant mortality rates remain high in the least developed world with a rate of 76 deaths under age one per 1,000 population. The number for the more developed world is five.   The report includes indicators of migration that show large in-migrations to countries such as Qatar, Singapore, Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Luxembourg, and as can be expected large out-migrations from Somalia and Libya as well as Lithuania.

Finally, HIV/AIDS continues to remain a problem, according to the report, in Southern and Eastern Africa, with infected populations over 20 percent in Botswana and Swaziland, and above 10 percent in South Africa, Namibia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

For a copy of the full report go to: www.prb.org.

For further examination of world population issues see SCIENCE Magazine July 29, 2011.

PCORI Seeks Comments on Research Topic Areas for Potential RFA

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCORI) has announced its intention to issue a request for applications (RFA) in late September 2011 for a series of grants for "Tier 1 Pilot Projects." According to PCORI, the pilot projects will: 1) assist PCORI in establishing national priorities for research, 2) support the development of novel methods or the collection of preliminary data that can be used to advance the field of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), and 3) inform the development of a future PCORI research agenda.

Accordingly, PCORI has identified eight initial areas of interest for the pilot projects. This request is for input on the pilot project topics, not a request for applications for pilot project grants. The pilot projects will focus on methods and approaches appropriate to PCORI, including observational methodologies, systematic reviews, mixed methods and qualitative methodologies, simulations, small pragmatic pilot trials and survey methods.  The projects will not include clinical efficacy studies on specific conditions or interventions or randomized clinic trials. The deadline for input is 11:59 p.m. EST on Wednesday, August 31, 2011.

The eight topics are:

1. Developing, testing, and/or evaluating novel methods and approaches that can inform the process of establishing and updating national priorities for the conduct of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR).

2.Developing, testing, and/or eva

luating methods for bringing together patients, caregivers, clinicians and non-traditional partners in all stages of a multi-stakeholder research process, from the generation and prioritization of research questions to the conduct and analysis of a study to dissemination of study results.

3. Developing, testing, and/or evaluating novel processes for translating research findings into changes in health care practices.

4. Developing, testing, and/or evaluating approaches that could systematically, without bias, identify gaps in evidence that most affect low-income populations; minorities; children; elderly; women; people with disabilities, multiple medical conditions, rare conditions, and other vulnerable populations.

5. Identifying, testing, and evaluating novel predictive outcomes instruments of interest to patients.

6. Identifying, testing, and evaluating novel methods for researching behaviors, lifestyles, and choices within patient control that may influence their outcomes.

7. Identifying, testing, and evaluating novel methods for studying the patient-clinician interaction in situations where multiple options exist.

8. Identifying, testing, and evaluating methods to assess strategies that respect patient autonomy and promote informed decision-making, incorporating the best healthcare knowledge into the application of care.

For more information and/or to provide input go to:  

http://www.pcori.org/provideinput/tier1input.html

Autism Spectrum Disorders: Psychosocial/Behavioral Interventions and Services Research

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders (NIDCD) are seeking to facilitate exploratory research on psychosocial/behavioral treatments and innovative services research for autism spectrum disorders. The Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), Psychosocial /Behavioral Interventions and Services Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders (PA-11-283), is intended to encourage research on:

1)    The development and/or pilot testing of new or adapted interventions or instruments;

2)    Pilot testing novel interventions in preparation for larger efficacy trial; and

3)  Innovative services research directions that require preliminary testing or development.

According to the FOA, Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) share a cluster of impairments in reciprocal social interaction, communication and the presence of stereotyped behavior, interests, or activities. These complex disorders are usually lifelong duration and affect multiple aspects of development, learning, and adaptation at home, in school, and in the community. Research suggests that early intervention can result in significant improvements for some children with ASD. It is difficult, however, to predict which children will benefit from any of the available treatments, and there is currently no universally accepted medical or biological treatment for the core features of ASD. There is also a paucity of research addressing interventions and services across the lifespan in ASD.

Exploratory grants for interventions and services research are designed to support the early phases of intervention development or adaptation, protocol development and preliminary pilot testing to support a full-scale efficacy or effectiveness study, and innovative services research.

Examples of research topics related to interventions covered under the FOA include:

• Studies that relate phenotypic characteristics of individuals with ASD to treatment outcomes.
• Development and testing of interventions for infants and toddlers who are at-risk for ASD. 
• Studies of adapted/novel treatments for nonverbal school-aged children with ASD.
• Development of innovative treatments that specifically target core symptom clusters unique to ASD. 
• Studies of the relationship between family variables and treatment outcome.
• Research examining the effects of psychosocial/behavioral intervention on parents and families of individuals with ASD.
• Studies seeking to validate outcome measures that are sensitive to treatment effects, generalize across settings (e.g., from treatment setting to school, home, etc), and which can be used to assess intervention outcomes across activities and task demands.
• Research examining psychosocial/behavioral treatments in under-represented populations, such those living in rural areas, or non-English speaking individuals with ASD.
• Studies seeking to translate findings from research on basic behavioral and neurobiological processes (e.g., cognition, attention, emotion) into applied interventions.
• Research specifically focused on developing interventions targeted to youth with ASD who are transitioning to adulthood, or other important periods of transition, especially those in later life, with incorporation of measures to assess functional outcomes. 
• Studies to refine and/or adapt specific existing psychosocial/behavioral interventions for individuals with ASD.
• Research focusing on basic design issues, such as those dealing with confounding effects of pharmacologic treatments in behavioral treatment trials, those comparing levels or intensity of intervention; and those comparing single subject, small group, and/or large group approaches.

Examples of research topics on services for persons with ASD across the lifespan include:

• Studies on the organization, delivery and financing of interventions and services for ASD and the impact these factors have at the individual,  family,  program, and  systems levels in specialty health, primary care, and other delivery systems (e.g. the school system, etc).
• Research on how evolving technologies, programs and policies affect the access to and delivery of services to people with ASD, including studies of underserved populations.
• Research on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of services and support to improve the community functioning of people with ASD, including strategies to enable integrated education, post-secondary education, supported employment, independent living, etc.
• Research to develop and test the effectiveness of services to assist people with ASD and/or their families in navigating complex systems to obtain needed services and supports. 
• Studies to determine the impact of coordination strategies among State and local mental health and other agencies on improving functional outcomes of people with ASD and the cost-efficiency of such strategies.
• Research on the effectiveness of widely used but under-studied services for persons with ASD, including diagnostic, treatment, rehabilitative and support services.
• Research using quantitative or mixed methods approaches to identify factors that impede or facilitate service access for persons with ASD and develop and pilot test strategies to overcome or enhance these factors.
• Studies to evaluate the effectiveness of provider training and decision support in improving quality of care and clinical outcomes for people with ASD across the life span.
• Studies to determine what aspects of self-directed services are most effective and cost-effective in for enhancing community functioning of people with ASD.  

Applications will begin accepting applications on September 16, 2011. For more information and/or to apply see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-11-283.html.

NEA Solicits Proposals to Research Value and Impact of the Arts

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is soliciting proposals that will help lead to greater public understanding of the contribution of the arts.  NEA seeks "to expand the body of evidence for the value and impact of the arts."

The current solicitation seeks research that investigates the value and impact of the U.S. arts sector through the analysis of existing and/or newly established datasets. Grantees may use either existing or newly established datasets to conduct their research, for example:

The resulting projects will help determine the usefulness of various datasets to arts-related research-including those not previously used for that purpose. Through this grant opportunity, the NEA hopes to further expand the pool of researchers knowledgeable about arts and culture datasets.

The NEA encourages applicants from diverse backgrounds, including those who have not specialized in arts-related research. Although applicants must be nonprofit organizations, they are encouraged to partner with for-profit entities, and/or use commercial and/or administrative datasets.

The NEA anticipates awarding up to 25 grants in the range of $10,000 to $30,000. The deadline for applications is November 8, 2011.

For further information: nearesearchgrants@arts.gov.

The full solicitation is available at: http://www.nea.gov/grants/apply/Research/index.html.