Editorial: In Praise of Scientific Review Officers

Study sections within the National Institutes of Health of the United States of America (NIH) carry out vital roles to assess the scientific and technical merit of research proposals. There are several types of study sections, which have different degrees of complexity ranging from evaluation of centers, program projects, and research project grants to evaluation of the first grant proposals from young investigators whose intent is to become independent and productive researchers. As members of the Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases B Subcommittee (DDK-B), we wish to share our experience as to its operation. From the outside, it might seem as if the overall success of the study section is entirely dependent upon the collective wisdom of the external scientists who are contained within it. However, this assessment cannot be farther from the truth. We assert that the overall success in adjudication of NIH grants by the study section members is largely dependent on the expertise and organizational skill of the Scientific Review Officer (SRO), an extramural staff scientist who guides the process of recruitment and grant selection and guides the review process of the study section. We wish to describe the function of this type of study section, focusing on the expertise of the leadership of our experienced SRO, Dr John Connaughton.

“From the outside it might seem as if the success of the study section is entirely dependent upon the collective wisdom of the external scientists who are contained within it......In reality, the overall success in adjudication of NIH grants by the study section members is largely dependent on the expertise and organizational skill of the Scientific Review Officer (SRO)”

Dr Connaughton is the SRO of the DDK-B and also serves as the chief of the NIDDK Training and Mentor Research Section in the Review Branch. DDK-B is charged with developing and maintaining the pipeline of scientists for research activities focused upon diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolic diseases with NIDDK, evaluating fellowship career development and institutional grant applications assigned to the NIDDK. The range of these applications encompasses a variety of forms, including the K01 and K08, K23, K24, K25, K99/R00, R03, and R25 mechanisms. As if this portfolio of grant types were not sufficiently diverse, the study section also evaluates the National Research Service Award (NSRA) training grants T35 and T32. Given this monumental task, we recognize that the SRO for these kinds of grants for young investigators has a heavy burden for NIDDK, the NIH, and for biomedical research within the United States as a whole. The officer must have sufficient biochemical knowledge across a vast array of research areas and must be familiar with senior investigators in the field who have sufficient knowledge, skills, and passion to be nominated to serve on the committee.

The SRO has a key role in adjudicating grant applications to allow individual reviewers the opportunity to openly articulate their assessment of an application. In 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.

Dariush Elahi, PhD

Jake A. Kushner, MD

Raghavendra G. Mirmira, MD, PhD

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 is required. An effective SRO 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)