MODIFICATION OF EXISTING REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NRSA INSTITUTIONALRESEARCH TRAINING GRANTS NIH GUIDE, Volume 21, Number 11, March 20, 1992 P.T. 44 Keywords: Biomedical Research Training Grants Administration/Policy+ National Institutes of Health In October, 1989, the NIH issued a report titled the Review of the NIH Biomedical Research Training Programs, hereafter called the Review, which summarized the recommendations of three NIH Task Forces on Research Training established by then NIH Director, Dr. James Wyngaarden. These Task Forces recognized the important role of the NIH research training programs in the development of productive researchers and the advancement of biomedical sciences. They also reiterated the NIH commitment to ensuring the training of an adequate number of individuals with appropriate skills to meet future personnel needs in biomedical research. After a careful analysis of existing programs, the Task Forces developed a series of recommendations designed to enhance those aspects of institutional training programs known to be correlated with the production of successful researchers. Many of these recommendations will be implemented by the modification of the review criteria to emphasize the record of successfully placing former trainees into research intensive positions. The changes outlined in this notice are designed to improve the efficiency of the NIH funded research training programs. The four policy changes listed here will be administered through the initial review process. Revised review criteria for all T32 institutional research training grants will be presented near the end of this notice. These criteria will be in place beginning with applications received for the May 10, 1992 receipt date. In some cases, compliance with the revised policy will be phased in and reviewers will be instructed to take the date of implementation into account. In other cases, the proposed modifications will not represent a significant departure from existing policy. Applicants are advised to consult with the appropriate NIH program administrator to determine the best way to emphasize information in their applications related to these policy directives. A clear presentation of related information will facilitate the peer review process. 1. Emphasize Past Performance of the Training Program at Review. Background: Based on information discussed in the Review, the single best predictor of future success for a research training program is the record of past performance in terms of producing trainees who remain engaged in research careers. Policy Implementation: Program directors on all competing and non- competing research training grants are expected to select postdoctoral trainees who are genuinely interested in a career in research. Additionally, postdoctoral trainees already appointed to research training grants are expected to enter research careers after termination. Competing renewal applications submitted for the May 10, 1992 and subsequent receipt dates are to include detailed information related to the activities of all trainees supported by the training grant who have terminated during the last ten years as specified in the instructions to Form PHS 398 (rev. 9/91). In addition, non-competing renewal applications are to contain information on research involvement for all trainees who terminated during the previous budget period. Evidence of research involvement should include information on employment, publications, grants, and any other relevant information. Review: Beginning with competing renewal applications received for the May 10, 1992 receipt date, reviewers will focus on the research involvement of former NRSA trainees taking into consideration the date of implementation of this policy. Certainly, trainees appointed after July 1, 1992 should have been informed about the purpose of NRSA support and the expectation that a career in research is the anticipated outcome. Training programs in which there has been a consistent pattern of transition to an active research career after termination will be considered favorably at review. On the other hand, training programs in which few former trainees are participating in research activities will be considered less meritorious. 2. Minimum Two Year Training Periods for Health-Professional Postdoctoral Trainees. Background: Data presented in the Review showed very clearly that postdoctoral trainees with longer periods of appointment to an institutional research training grant were more likely to apply for and receive PHS research grant support. This trend was especially pronounced for postdoctoral trainees with the M.D. degree. The NIH is, therefore, emphasizing a policy that encourages all health-professional postdoctoral trainees appointed to a research training grant to commit at least two years to research or research training. For the purpose of this policy, individuals who have the M.D., D.O., D.D.S., D.V.M., or similar clinically related doctoral degrees are considered to be health-professionals. The Review also recognized that it would be inappropriate to limit all trainees to appointments on research training grants that last two or more years because there may be other more appropriate training and research opportunities available. In some cases, for example, it may be appropriate for a postdoctoral trainee to obtain a second year of support from an individual fellowship, from a career award, or from a research grant(*). The important concept, however, is that more than one year of postdoctoral research experience is necessary to develop an independent research career. * The National Eye Institute encourages postdoctoral trainees to obtain other support for the second and subsequent years of postdoctoral research experience. Policy Implementation: Beginning with competing and non-competing training grants made from fiscal year 1992 funds, training program directors will be expected to be more selective in appointments to research training grants so that appointments to be filled by health- professional postdoctoral trainees are preferentially given to individuals who are willing to engage in a research career and are willing to devote at least two years to research training or some other research related activity. Additionally, health-professional postdoctoral trainees who are currently appointed to positions on training grants are to be strongly encouraged to remain in research or research training for at least two years. Applications for competing renewal research training grants beginning with the May 10, 1992 deadline are to include information on the duration of appointment for all trainees who have terminated during the previous 10 years. For each trainee who terminated before receiving at least two years of research training, the application must also contain an explanation for the short appointment and whether the former trainee's activities subsequent to termination involved research or additional research training. Non-competing T32 applications submitted on or after September 10, 1991 must also contain information on the duration of support for all NRSA trainees that terminated during the previous budget period. Support periods of less than two years must be followed by an explanation of post-termination activities in the narrative section. Review: Beginning with competing renewal applications received for the May 10, 1992 receipt date, reviewers will consider the duration of research training and other research activities in the determination of quality. If there is a consistent pattern of appointment of health- professional postdoctoral trainees for periods less than two years with no indication of subsequent research involvement, it will detract from the assessed merit of the grant application. Of course, the Initial Review Group will take into consideration the date this policy was implemented. For example, all appointments made after July 1, 1992 should reflect compliance with this policy. The duration of the research or research training experience for health professional trainees will also be considered in non-competing research training grants received after May 10, 1992. 3. Encourage Postdoctoral Trainees to Apply for Independent Training or Career Development Support After Training on an Institutional Research Training Grant. Background: Several studies on career patterns of former NRSA recipients have shown that individuals who compete for and receive individual postdoctoral fellowship support are more likely to apply for and receive PHS research grant support than individuals supported solely on research training grants. It is, therefore, in the best interest of postdoctoral trainees to move from a training grant experience to an individual support mechanism such as an individual postdoctoral fellowship, a clinical investigator award, a FIRST award, or a physician/dental scientist award at an appropriate time. It is felt that in many cases postdoctoral trainees will be ready for this transition after completion of one or two years of research training on a research training grant. At that point, most postdoctoral trainees are still in need of further supervised research experience but they should have gained the ability to contribute substantially to the development of a competitive application for individual support. Obviously, health-professional postdoctoral trainees engaged in training leading to a graduate degree might require longer periods of support from a research training grant. Policy Implementation: By one year from implementation of this policy (May 1993), program directors of research training grants should have established a record of encouraging postdoctoral trainees, who have had one or more years of support from the research training grant, to apply for individual support for further research training or career development. Applicants for competing renewal research training grants are advised to document instances in which trainees have converted to individual support mechanisms such as fellowships, research grants, and career awards. Applications for non-competing renewals should indicate instances of transfer to individual funding for all trainees who terminated during the previous budget period. Review of Applications: Reviewers will be instructed to examine renewal applications for evidence that postdoctoral trainees have been encouraged to convert to individual support mechanisms. A pattern of application for or receipt of individual fellowships, career awards, or research grants after termination will be considered favorably at review. 4. When Health-Professionals are included in a postdoctoral research training program, the training program will be given special consideration during review if the program incorporates concomitant training of health-professionals with individuals trained in the basic sciences (e.g., individuals with the Ph.D.). Background: Data discussed in the Review indicate that M.D. trainees who are supported on training grants that include Ph.D. trainees are more likely to apply for and receive independent NIH research support than M.D. trainees who train only with other M.D. trainees. It was therefore recommended that training programs which in the past have exclusively supported postdoctoral research training for health-professionals should consider shifting the focus of the program to include more fundamental approaches in order to attract Ph.D.s. The overall objective is to enhance the focus on research and research related activities in order to improve the likelihood that the health-professionals who finish the training program will have had sufficient experience to launch an independent research career. Policy Implementation: Beginning with all institutional research training grants received for the May 10, 1992 receipt date, program directors on training grants that typically train health-professional postdoctoral trainees should consider modifying the training environment in order to make the program more attractive to individuals interested in basic research questions. For example, an integration of training for M.D.s and Ph.D.s could be achieved by developing active linkages with basic science departments through joint appointments for the training faculty or by creating training experiences that involve collaboration between the clinical department and basic science departments. Other modifications of the program to increase the exposure of health-professional trainees to basic research should also be considered. One measure of success would be the appointment of postdoctoral trainee(s) with the Ph.D. or equivalent degrees. It is recognized that such an integration may not be feasible for all training programs. Review: Initial Review Groups will evaluate the program plan to assess whether or not trainees with health-professional doctorates receive a proper grounding in basic sciences and are provided with exposure to basic biomedical or behavioral research during the training period. Initial Review Groups will also consider the appropriateness of such plans to the overall goals and focus of the training program. When appropriate, the establishment of linkages with basic science departments and the concomitant postdoctoral training of physicians or dentists with individuals with doctorates in the basic sciences (Ph.D.s) will be considered as one indicator of a meritorious research training program. COMBINED, MODIFIED REVIEW CRITERIA These four policy modifications will result in an increased emphasis on the past success of the training program in producing biomedical or behavioral researchers. Beginning with applications received for the May 10, 1992 receipt date, initial review groups will consider the following criteria when assessing the merit of a research training grant application: o Past research training record for both the program and the designated preceptors in terms of the rate at which former trainees establish independent and productive research careers o Past research training record in terms of the success of former trainees in obtaining individual awards such as fellowships, career awards, and research grants for further development o Objectives, design, and direction of the research training program o Caliber of preceptors as researchers including successful competition for research support o Training environment including the institutional commitment, the quality of the facilities, and the availability of research support o Recruitment and selection plans for appointees and the availability of high quality candidates o The record of the research training program in retaining health- professional postdoctoral trainees for at least two years in research training or other research activities o When appropriate, the concomitant training of health-professional postdoctorates (e.g., individuals with the M.D., D.O., D.D.S.) with basic science postdoctorates (e.g., individuals with a Ph.D., Sci.D.) will receive special consideration .
Return to NIH Guide Main Index
Office of Extramural Research (OER) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) 9000 Rockville Pike Bethesda, Maryland 20892 |
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
||||||||
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |