36 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.
GRANTS CORNER
Reorganization of NIH’s Neuroscience Study
Sections: Part of a Larger Integration Plan
T
he review responsibilities of the
NIH neuroscience study sec-
tions are being reorganized. Ac-
cording to NIH, there are two reasons
for the changes: first the integration of
the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) and the National Institute on
Drug Abuse (NIDA) into the NIH ne-
cessitates that applications previously
reviewed by these two institutes will
now be reviewed by the NIH Center
for Scientific Review (CSR; formally
the Division of Research Grants). Sec-
ond, the NIH wanted to reexamine the
review process itself as far as the neu-
roscience field was concerned. The
overall goal has been to insure quality
peer review that identifies the most
meritorious science for each of the
Institutes to consider for funding.
The Directors of the 5 NIH ‘‘brain-
related’’ Institutes, in conjunction with
Dr. Ellie Ehrenfeld, NIH’s new director
of the CSR, have established prin-
ciples to guide the reorganization:
● The array of applications being con-
sidered by a study section should be
determined by the scientific focus of
the research, rather than by the
professional affiliation of the princi-
pal investigator, the grant mecha-
nism applied for, or the research
method to be used in the research.
● The range of science considered by
a study section should allow a
breadth of perspective, yet this
should be balanced by an appropri-
ate depth of scientific expertise.
● To allow flexibility in review, the
range of scientific expertise of study
sections should overlap.
● When both clinical and basic re-
search are reviewed by a single study
section, representation of expertise
in both areas should be adequate.
● The structure of the initial review
process should be flexible enough to
accommodate emerging scientific ar-
eas.
An NIH committee, comprised of
staff from the 5 Institutes and the
CSR, concluded that the field of neuro-
science was too broad for a single
group to design the necessary study
sections the committee therefore di-
vided the field into five areas: molecu-
lar and cellular neuroscience; develop-
mental neuroscience; integrative,
regulator and behavioral neurosci-
ence; cognitive neuroscience; and
brain disorders and clinical neurosci-
ence. Working groups, each comprised
of six members of the extramural re-
search community and six NIH staff
members, were given the responsibil-
ity of defining study sections appropri-
ate for the review of grant applications
in each area. The working groups were
given abstracts of applications re-
viewed during one review cycle and
asked to define the review responsibili-
ties of an appropriate group of study
sections and to provide a list of areas
of scientific expertise that should be
represented among the members of
the study sections.
Following the meeting of the work-
ing groups, a consensus was reached
to recommend the defining five Cellu-
lar Neurobiology study sections, three
Developmental Neuroscience study
Sections, two Cognitive Neuroscience
study sections, five Integrative and
Functional Neuroscience study sec-
tions, and seven Brain Disorders/
Clinical Neuroscience study sections.
James L. Olds
Executive Director, AAA