Research Grant Writing Webinar Series-NIH Grant Review Process

Video Transcription

Video Summary

In this video, Tom Gregory, an Associate Professor of Female Public Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at Oregon Health and Science University, discusses the NIH grant review process. He explains that the grant applicant initiates the research project, but the institution of the principal investigator is responsible for submitting the application to the NIH. The application is reviewed by the institution to ensure all requirements are met before being submitted to the NIH. Gregory explains that the NIH is comprised of 27 separate institutes or centers, and the specific ones relevant to female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery are highlighted. He discusses the different types of scientific review groups and the grants they review, which include research project grants, postdoc fellowships, and small business innovation research grants, among others. Gregory describes the process of peer review, where assigned reviewers evaluate applications for scientific merit and program relevance. He highlights the importance of strong grant writing to ensure clarity and understanding for reviewers who may not be experts in the specific field. Gregory discusses the scoring process and the criteria used to assess applications, including significance, approach, innovation, investigators, and environment. He explains that applications are scored on a scale of one to nine, with one being exceptional and nine being poor. The video concludes by touching on the National Advisory Council, the funding decisions made by the NIH based on scientific merit and programmatic considerations, and the resources available to learn more about the grant review process. No specific credits were mentioned in the video.

Meta Tag

Category webinars

Category professional concerns

Category research

Session 182387

Keywords

NIH grant review process

research project

peer review

grant writing

scoring process

criteria assessment

funding decisions

scientific merit