DOC

52903

By Gladys White,2014-05-07 13:29
6 views 0
52903

    09/04

    Funding Organizations with Approved Peer Review and Funding Systems

As described in the new Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) Guidelines, eligibility criteria for applying

    for a CCSG application and for meeting the minimum standard to be considered a research program

    require specific minimum levels of peer reviewed, funded research projects.” In addition, peer reviewed,

    funded research projects always have access to CCSG shared resources.

    To be considered as a “peer reviewed, funded project,” the responsible funding agency or organization should meet the general NIH standards of peer review and funding. These include meeting three criteria:

    (1) a peer review system which uses primarily external reviewers and is free of conflict-of-interest; (2) a

    ranking or rating system in the review process based on the scientific merit of the proposed research; and

    (3) a funding system based primarily on the peer review ranking or rating of the research applications.

In addition to research grants, contracts and cooperative agreements from the NIH (which now includes

    all of the research elements of the (ADAMHA) Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration),

    the organizations listed below generally employ a system of external review and funding that complies

    closely with the NIH standard. All funded, multi-year research projects (equivalent in size and complexity

    to an NIH R01) from these organizations (excluding contracts, pilot projects, and feasibility studies) are

    eligible 1) to count toward the minimum research base of a cancer center, 2) to have access to CCSG

    shared resources, and 3) to count toward the minimum number of grants needed to constitute a research

    program of the center as defined in the 2004 Interim CCSG Guidelines:

    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

    2. American Cancer Society (ACS): national office only

    3. American Foundation for AIDS Research (AFAR)

    4. American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR)

    5. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

    6. Central Office of the Veterans Administration (VA) - excluding

    local/regional awards and “block” grants

    7. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    8. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

    9. Howard Hughes Foundation

    10. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society

    11. Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation

     1

    12. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    13. National Science Foundation (NSF)

    14. Prevent Cancer Foundation

    15. Susan G. Komen for the Cure

    16. University of California-Wide Breast Cancer Research Program

    17. U.S. Army (DOD) special research programs in ovarian, breast and prostate cancer

    18. Florida Biomedical Research Program

    Note: Grants funded through the U.S. Armys, (DOD) special research programs in ovarian, breast and prostate cancer may also be listed in the category of peer reviewed funded grants.

The Cancer Centers Program also recognizes that many high quality, cancer-relevant research projects are

    funded by other organizations such as the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD),

    Department of Agriculture (DOA), the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), State Health

    Departments etc. While funding from these organizations should not represent the major component of a

    cancer center's research base, the Cancer Centers Program wishes to provide all centers the option of

    carefully defending selected projects of special importance to the center for full access to CCSG resources.

    With this intent in mind, multi-year projects, which are equivalent in size and scientific complexity to an

    NIH R01 research project and funded by other organizations not listed specifically above, can be

    considered for eligibility if approved by peer reviewers as part of the initial review of a competing CCSG

    application. The peer reviewers may evaluate funded projects on a case by case basis using the following

    criteria:

(1) Project is a multi-year project equivalent in size and scientific complexity to an NIH R01.

(2) The project is clearly cancer relevant.

    (3) The investigator has a clear, current track record of productivity in the field as judged by scientific publications in “peer-reviewed” journals.

    (4) If a newly funded project, it is clearly within the proven experience and expertise of the investigator as judged in (3) above.

    (5) If a continuing funded project, it clearly has a convincing track record of high quality scientific productivity as judged by publications in “peer reviewed” research journals.

A special suggested form will be provided to centers who wish to have selected projects evaluated on a

    case-by-case basis. It is the responsibility of the cancer center to provide written information that fully

    satisfies the above criteria. This will not be a topic for further review as part of the site visit.

     2

    Project Approval/Disapproval for CCSG Applications

Cancer Center:

    Principal Investigator of CCSG Application:

    Project Leader:

    Professional Collaborators:

    Title of Project:

    Total Project Period:

    Direct Costs for Current Year:

    Funding Organization:

    Number Identifier of Funding Organization:

    Center Program Affiliation:

Abstract of the Project (in 500 words or less describe rationale, objectives, cancer relevance and progress):

     3

    Publications of the Project Leaders in the last five years in “peer-reviewed research journals clearly demonstrating competence in area of scientific investigation described in the abstract (limit to 5 selected

    publications listing authors, titles, journals and dates):

    Current Publication record of the project (if applicable) in peer-reviewed journals (limit to 5 selected publications listing authors, titles, journals and dates):

     For Peer Reviewer's Use Only:

    Clear Cancer Relevance based on the Abstract:

    Yes _ No _____

    This is a high quality study based on the abstract and on the track record of the

    Project Leader and the project (if applicable) as judged by scientific

    publications in “peer-reviewed” journals. This project should be eligible for

    full participation in and benefits derived from the Cancer Center Support

    Grant for as long as it remains funded.

    Yes No ______

     4

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com