Notice2023-08603
Request for Information (RFI) on Recommendations for Improving NRSA Fellowship Review
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 24, 2023
Issuing agencies
Health and Human Services DepartmentNational Institutes of Health
Abstract
The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to solicit public input on proposed changes to the peer review of Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) fellowship applications that would restructure the review criteria and modify some sections of the Public Health Service (PHS) Fellowship Supplemental Form within the application. The goal of this effort is to facilitate the mission of NRSA fellowship peer review: to identify the most promising trainees and the excellent, individualized training programs that will help them become the outstanding scientists of the next generation. The proposed changes will allow peer reviewers to better evaluate the applicant's potential and the quality of the scientific training plan without undue influence of the sponsor's or institution's reputation; and ensure that the information provided in the application is aligned with the restructured criteria and targeted to the fellowship candidate's specific training needs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24821-24823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08603]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Request for Information (RFI) on Recommendations for Improving
NRSA Fellowship Review
AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, HHS.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to
solicit public input on proposed changes to the peer review of Ruth L.
Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) fellowship
applications that would restructure the review criteria and modify some
sections of the Public Health Service (PHS) Fellowship Supplemental
Form within the application. The goal of this effort is to facilitate
the mission of NRSA fellowship peer review: to identify the most
promising trainees and the excellent, individualized training programs
that will help them become the outstanding scientists of the next
generation. The proposed changes will allow peer reviewers to better
evaluate the applicant's potential and the quality of the scientific
training plan without undue influence of the sponsor's or institution's
reputation; and ensure that the information provided in the application
is aligned with the restructured criteria and targeted to the
fellowship candidate's specific training needs.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 23, 2023 to ensure
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Submissions can be sent electronically to: <a href="https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=642ed5def0356688b20e6be3">https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=642ed5def0356688b20e6be3</a>. NIH is specifically
requesting public comment on the proposed changes to the peer review of
NRSA fellowship applications that would restructure the review criteria
and modify some sections of the PHS Fellowship Supplemental Form within
the application described above and at: <a href="https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/improving-nrsa-fellowship">https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/improving-nrsa-fellowship</a>. Response to this RFI is voluntary.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about this request for
information should be directed to Kristin Kramer, 6701 Rockledge Drive,
Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-437-0911, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a4458594b786f7c636f7d4a676b636624646362246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b0519180a392e3d222e3c0b262a222765252223652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Current Process
The overall goal of the NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research
Service Award (NRSA) program is to help ensure that a diverse pool of
highly trained scientists is available in appropriate scientific
disciplines to address the Nation's biomedical, behavioral, and
clinical research needs. NRSA fellowships support the training of pre-
and postdoctoral scientists, dual-degree investigators, and senior
researchers. The first stage of NIH peer review serves to provide
expert advice to NIH by assessing the likelihood that the fellowship
will enhance the candidate's potential for, and commitment to, a
productive independent scientific research career in a health-related
field. The criteria for the review of NRSA fellowship applications
derive from the NRSA regulation at 42 CFR part 66.106 (<a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-66/subpart-A/section-66.106">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-66/subpart-A/section-66.106</a>):
(a) Within the limits of funds available, the Secretary shall make
Awards to those applicants:
(1) Who have satisfied the requirements of Sec. 66.105; and
(2) Whose proposed research or training would, in the judgment of
the Secretary, best promote the purposes of section 487(a)(1)(A) of the
Act, taking into consideration among other pertinent factors:
(i) The scientific, technical, or educational merit of the
particular proposal;
(ii) The availability of resources and facilities to carry it out;
(iii) The qualifications and experience of the applicant; and
(iv) The need for personnel in the subject area of the proposed
research or training.
The NIH peer review regulation does not address scoring. Scoring of
all regulatory factors is determined by NIH policy. Currently, peer
reviewers provide an Overall Impact Score (scored 1-9) that reflects
their assessment of the likelihood that the fellowship will enhance the
candidate's potential for, and commitment to, a productive independent
scientific research career in a health-related field. Peer reviewers
provide individual criterion scores for five criteria: (1) Applicant;
(2) Sponsors and Collaborators; (3) Research Training Plan; (4)
Training Potential; and (5) Institutional Environment and Commitment.
Additional review criteria are evaluated and factored into the Overall
Impact Score but are not given individual scores: Protections for Human
Subjects; Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the
Lifespan; Vertebrate Animals; Biohazards; and Resubmission. Beyond
these criteria, reviewers are asked to assess the following additional
review considerations; these considerations are not considered in the
Overall Impact Score: Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research,
Applications from Foreign Organizations, Select Agents, Resource
Sharing Plans, Budget and Period of Support, and Authentication of Key
Biological and/or Chemical Resources.
Proposal Development
NIH gathered input from many sources in forming this proposal.
Unsolicited comments over a period of years conveyed persistent
concerns that the NRSA fellowship review process disadvantages some
highly-qualified, promising applicants. In response, the Center for
Scientific Review (CSR) formed a working group to the CSR Advisory
Council. To inform that group, CSR published a Review Matters blog at:
<a href="https://www.csr.nih.gov/reviewmatters/2022/01/06/strengthening-fellowship-review/">https://www.csr.nih.gov/reviewmatters/2022/01/06/strengthening-fellowship-review/</a>, inviting comments, which was cross-posted on the
Office of Extramural Research blog, Open Mike at: <a href="https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2022/01/10/strengthening-fellowship-review/">https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2022/01/10/strengthening-fellowship-review/</a>. The
working group presented an interim report at: <a href="https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/Review_criteria_wg_CSRAC_interim_report_7April2020.pdf">https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/Review_criteria_wg_CSRAC_interim_report_7April2020.pdf</a> to the CSR
Advisory Council, which adopted the recommendations, at public CSR
Advisory Council meetings (March 2022 video <a href="https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=44677">https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=44677</a>, slides <a href="https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/CSRAC_Fellowship_WG_interim_presentation.pdf">https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/CSRAC_Fellowship_WG_interim_presentation.pdf</a>; September 2022
video <a href="https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=45767">https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=45767</a>, slides <a href="https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/CSRAC_WG_on_Fellowship_Review_Sept_2022.pdf">https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/CSRAC_WG_on_Fellowship_Review_Sept_2022.pdf</a>). Final recommendations
from the CSR Advisory Council at: <a href="https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/CSRAC_Fellowship_review_WG_report_September_2022_final.pdf">https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/CSRAC_Fellowship_review_WG_report_September_2022_final.pdf</a> were
considered by the CSR Director, as well as major internal NIH
extramural-focused committees that included leadership from across NIH
institutes and centers. Additional background information can be found
at: <a href="https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/improving-nrsa-fellowship">https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/improving-nrsa-fellowship</a>.
[[Page 24822]]
Recommendations for Improving NRSA Fellowship Review
Revise the Criteria Used To Evaluate NRSA Fellowship Applications
As is currently the case, the Overall Impact Score (scored 1-9)
will reflect the scientific and educational merit of the proposal and
an assessment of the likelihood that the fellowship will enhance the
applicant's potential for, and commitment to, an independent,
productive research career in a health-related field. However, the
current 5 scored criteria that inform the Overall Impact Score will be
restructured into the following 3 scored criteria. Additional detail on
proposed reviewer guidance can be found here: <a href="https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/improving-nrsa-fellowship/reviewer-instructions">https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/improving-nrsa-fellowship/reviewer-instructions</a>.
Criterion 1: Scientific Potential, Fellowship Goals, and Preparedness
of the Applicant (Scored 1-9)
<bullet> Evaluate the breadth and depth of scientific understanding
the applicant conveys in their statements. To what extent does the
candidate articulate the importance of their science and demonstrate an
ability to study that problem in a rigorous scientific manner.
<bullet> Evaluate the preparedness of the applicant to undertake
the proposed training and their capacity to benefit from the
fellowship. Evaluate their accomplishments in the context of their
stage of training and the scientific opportunities they have had.
<bullet> Evaluate the applicant's scientific potential. Consider
their trajectory in the context of their opportunities. Also consider
other factors that bear on their potential to succeed, such as
determination, persistence, and creativity.
Criterion 2: Science and Scientific Resources (Scored 1-9)
<bullet> Evaluate the quality of the proposed science. Assess the
depth of understanding of the scientific background and the scientific
rigor and feasibility of the approach.
<bullet> Evaluate the extent to which needed technical, scientific,
and clinical resources are specified and are realistically available to
the applicant.
<bullet> Assess whether the scientific expertise of the mentorship
team is appropriate for the proposed science and whether the role of
each mentor is clearly defined.
<bullet> Evaluate how well the proposed scientific project serves
the applicant's training goals.
<bullet> Note that peer review of financial support for the
proposed research will be eliminated.
Criterion 3: Training Plan and Training Resources (Scored 1-9)
<bullet> Evaluate whether the applicant clearly defines their
career goals and whether the training plan is linked to them.
<bullet> Evaluate whether the applicant has clearly defined areas
of needed growth. These could include specific scientific skills and
knowledge and other professional needs such as communication, teaching,
and mentorship skills.
<bullet> Evaluate the training environment for this applicant.
Assess whether the necessary institutional training resources are well-
specified and available, specifically the practical availability of
resources.
<bullet> Evaluate whether the trainee articulated a coherent and
cohesive plan for interacting with sponsors and mentors.
<bullet> Assess whether the sponsor presents a strong pedagogical
plan appropriate to the needs and goals of the applicant. Please
include an evaluation of the training philosophy of the sponsor, their
approach to training, time commitments and their accessibility.
<bullet> Evaluate and comment on what impact completion of the
training plan will make in meeting the scientific development needs of
the applicant and aid them in achieving their career goals.
The Additional Review Criteria (e.g., Protections for Human
Subjects; Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Individuals Across the
Lifespan; etc.) would not change.
The Additional Review Considerations (e.g., Training in the
Responsible Conduct of Research, Resource Sharing Plans, Budget, etc.)
would not change.
Revising the criteria simplifies the task of reviewers by focusing
their attention on just three key assessments: the scientific potential
of the applicant, the science and scientific resources, and the
training plan and training resources. The criteria are defined to give
applicants from heterogeneous backgrounds a fair chance; reviewers are
asked to evaluate applicant accomplishments and trajectory in the
context of the opportunities they have had. In addition to evaluating
applicant accomplishments, reviewers are asked to evaluate personal
characteristics that contribute to success in science, factors such as
determination, persistence, and creativity. The revised criteria are
also expected to reduce bias in review by reducing any consideration of
sponsor and institutional reputation and instead focusing review on
their specific, realistic, and current contributions to the scientific
needs, goals, and training of the specific trainee. NIH believes these
changes will better enable peer review to identify those applications
with the highest potential for producing productive research
scientists, regardless of where the applicant started or the applicant
institution.
Revise the Fellowship Supplemental Section of PHS SF424
The NIH proposes to revise the following sections of the PHS 424
Fellowship Supplement (<a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-g/fellowship-forms-g.pdf">https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-g/fellowship-forms-g.pdf</a>): (1) Fellowship
Applicant; (2) Sponsor(s), Collaborator(s), and Consultant(s); and (3)
Letters of Reference. There are no proposed changes to the Research
Training Plan section. Additionally, the revision would allow an
optional Statement of Special Circumstance.
The changes are intended to restructure the application so that the
application content is better aligned with the review criteria, is less
duplicative, and is easier for reviewers to assess. The changes
emphasize substantive statements that pertain to the individual
applicant trainee, require detailed accounts from sponsors explaining
their preparation and approach to training, and their availability to
the student. The changes would shorten the application by up to 2\1/2\
pages. The proposed changes for each section are described below:
1. Revised Applicant Section of the Fellowship Supplement
Applicants would be asked to submit five statements:
1. Statement of professional and fellowship goals.
2. Fellowship qualifications.
3. Self-assessment.
4. Statement of scientific perspective.
5. Activities planned under this award.
Additionally, grades would no longer be required or allowed,
however, applicants would be requested to include the titles of
relevant courses completed.
2. Revised Sponsor and Co-Sponsor Section of the Fellowship Supplement
Sponsors and Co-sponsors would be asked to submit three statements:
1. Training plan, environment, and research facilities.
2. Number of Fellows/Trainees to be supervised.
3. Applicant's qualifications and potential for a research career.
[[Page 24823]]
3. Revised Instructions for Reference Letters
NIH proposes to update the instructions for reference letters with
more structure so that the resulting letters better assist reviewers in
understanding the applicant's strengths, weaknesses, and potential to
pursue a productive career in biomedical science. Writers would be
instructed to respond to four questions addressing:
1. Two to four most important characteristics that will contribute
to applicant's success.
2. Two to four areas of needed growth.
3. Intellectual contributions made by the applicant during
training.
4. Overall assessment of readiness and potential.
4. Allow an Optional Statement of Special Circumstance
NIH recommends allowing fellowship applicants to submit an optional
Statement of Special Circumstance to address situations that may have
hindered the trainee's progress, such as harassment, the COVID-19
pandemic, or other personal or professional circumstances.
Additional detail on proposed changes to the Fellowship Supplement
can be found at: <a href="https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/improving-nrsa-fellowship/reviewer-instructions">https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/improving-nrsa-fellowship/reviewer-instructions</a>.
Submitting a Response
Comments should be submitted electronically to the following web
page at: <a href="https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=642ed5def0356688b20e6be3">https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=642ed5def0356688b20e6be3</a>.
This RFI is for planning purposes only and should not be construed
as a policy, solicitation for applications, or as an obligation on the
part of the Government to provide support for any ideas identified in
response to it. Please note that the Government will not pay for the
preparation of any information submitted or for its use of that
information.
Please do not include any proprietary, classified, confidential, or
sensitive information in your response. Responses will be compiled and
a content analysis will be shared publicly after the close of the
comment period. The NIH may use information gathered by this Notice to
inform future policy development.
Dated: April 18, 2023.
Tara A. Schwetz,
Acting Principle Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-08603 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 24, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.