Proposed Reorganization of NIH Neuroscience Scientific Review Groups

Following is the draft plan for the reorganization of NIH neuroscience scientific review groups (including those currently in NIMH and NIDA) in the Division of Research Grants (DRG). This plan resulted from an iterative process involving not only NIH staff, but also members of the scientific community. Earlier versions of the plan have been presented at professional meetings, such as the Society for Neuroscience and the Winter Conference on Brain Research and at meetings with each of the current NIH neuroscience study sections. Details of the review groups described here were defined at a two-day meeting that included 30 extramural scientists in Bethesda. The draft plan has been reviewed by the national advisory councils of several of the institutes, and by the NIH-wide Peer Review Oversight Group (PROG). We have attempted to include a wide range of basic and clinician scientists in the development of scientific review groups that will capture the many facets of the broad field of neuroscience as it is today and be flexible enough to review the neuroscience of tomorrow. Scientific review groups are organized into five clusters: Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Developmental Neuroscience, Integrative and Functional Neuroscience, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience.

At this stage we are requesting your feedback about the extent to which these proposed review groups meet the following principles:

• The array of applications being considered by a scientific review group should be determined by the scientific focus of the research rather than by the professional affiliation of the principal investigator, the grant mechanism (i.e. kind of award) applied for, or the research technique to be utilized.

• The range of science to be considered by a review group should allow a breadth of perspective, yet this should be balanced by an appropriate depth of scientific expertise.
  
• To allow flexibility in review, the range of scientific expertise of review groups should overlap.
  
• When both clinical and basic research are reviewed by a single study section, representation of expertise in both areas should be appropriate.
  
• The structure of the initial review process should be flexible enough to accommodate emerging scientific areas.

Please send your comments to neuro@drgpo.drg.nih.gov
or by FAX to: (301) 480-3962
or by letter to:
Elliot Postow, Ph. D.
Chief, Review Branch I
Division of Research Grants MSC 7766
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, MD 20892-7766

Since we intend to have the new review structure in place to review applications submitted for receipt dates beginning with February 1998, we need to receive your comments by August 1, 1997.

Last update: May 30, 1997

[Referral & Review]