| Dear FASEB Board, Member Society Volunteer Leaders, and Staff, At approximately 6:30 pm ET on March 6, NIH shared a news release announcing that the agency's intentions to centralize peer review for all applications for grants, cooperative agreements, and research and development contracts within its Center for Scientific Review (CSR). The news item noted that the proposed approach is expected to save more than $65 million annually and "improve quality, consistency, and integrity of review while maximizing competition of similar science across the agency." It is important to note that this is the first news item issued on behalf of the Office of the Director since the transition and is also a bit of an anomaly, as this type of information would normally be shared via the NIH Guide as a policy announcement as well as respective I/C blogs (e.g., a cross-post between the CSR Peer Review Matters Blog and Extramural Nexus blog). As most of you are aware, CSR oversees peer review processes for 78% of the funding applications to NIH. Twenty-three I/Cs also have their own "in-house" SROs to handle review of "specials," – research and training programs that are specific to the Institute and its strategic vision. This proposal would eliminate I/C-specific review processes and staff and consolidate them within CSR. The news item raised three immediate thoughts/concerns for FASEB's policy team: - CSR was already projected to be short-staffed by at least 40 SROs at the beginning of 2025. Will CSR be provided sufficient financial and staffing resources to meet increased review needs and this transition?
- Will existing I/C SROs be granted the option to transfer to CSR? What is the anticipated reduction in force associated with this consolidation?
- Is this a preview of how the recission of the Richardson Waiver (officially announced on Monday) will affect NIH processes? Per the final paragraph of the news item, "NIH's proposal is now under review with implementation pending external review. This includes review by HHS and the Office of Management and Budget, providing Congress with a 15-day notification period, and issuing a Federal Register notice." With other updates to the peer review process, these changes typically involve extensive outreach across NIH I/Cs as well as the stakeholder community rather than OMB and Congress. Comments from individuals within NIH have indicated that staff did not have advance notice of this change.
We expect to see additional perspectives on this news item over the next few days and will keep you posted regarding updates and recommendations for potential FASEB actions. Sincerely, Beth A. Garvy, PhD FASEB President |