NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

The first Boards of Scientific Counselors (BSCs), constituted of scientists from outside NIH, were established in 1956 to review intramural research at NIH.

• The Clinical Center's BSC was chartered in 1990.
• The BSCs were established to assist the Scientific Directors (SDs) and Institute or Center Directors (ICDs) in evaluating the quality of the intramural research programs for which they are responsible.

To assure that the BSCs' evaluations will be most useful to the institute or center leadership in their decision making, the BSCs must be composed of individuals who themselves have outstanding scientific credentials and who are committed to providing rigorous, objective reviews.

Although the principal purpose of these independent evaluations is to advise the SDs and ICDs, the reports of the BSCs are also distributed to the Director, National Institutes of Health and the NIH Deputy Director for Intramural Research.

NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

Review Process - Overview

The first Boards of Scientific Counselors (BSCs), constituted of scientists from outside NIH, were established in 1956 to review intramural research at NIH.

• The Clinical Center's BSC was chartered in 1990.
• The BSCs were established to assist the Scientific Directors (SDs) and Institute or Center Directors (ICDs) in evaluating the quality of the intramural research programs for which they are responsible.
• To assure that the BSCs' evaluations will be most useful to the institute or center leadership in their decision making, the BSCs must be composed of individuals who themselves have outstanding scientific credentials and who are committed to providing rigorous, objective reviews.
• Although the principal purpose of these independent evaluations is to advise the SDs and ICDs, the reports of the BSCs are also distributed to the Director, National Institutes of Health and the NIH Deputy Director for Intramural Research.
• Careful, critical review of the science conducted at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is central to the mission of the NIH. Over the past several years, primarily as a result of the review of the NIH intramural program by an External Advisory Committee
• We convened at the behest of the Director of the NIH; the scientific review process has been strengthened substantially.
• Each institute's Board of Scientific Counselors has a significant role in the conduct of these reviews.
• The Board reviews the independent research conducted by each Institute investigator.
• Although the Clinical Center is primarily a service organization, with approximately 95 percent of its resources dedicated to service to the other Institutes and Centers, a small fraction (approximately 4%) of the Clinical Center's budget is spent on the independent research of Clinical Center investigators.
• This investment is necessary to recruit and retain top quality staff to provide the highest quality clinical services to Clinical Center patients and to provide the best infrastructure for interactive research with the institutes.

As is the case for all independent investigators in NIH's intramural program, each Clinical Center tenured and tenure-track investigator is externally reviewed every 4 years as part of the scientific review of her/his clinical department.

1. To assure that all of the research performed by the Clinical Center departments receives adequate scientific review, staff clinicians and staff scientists, who generally function in a supportive role but may spend a small fraction of their time leading individual projects for the department, may be asked to present their projects to the Board of Scientific Counselors.
2. The charge to each Board of Scientific Counselor's site visit team focuses on three fundamental questions:
3. Is the research of each independent investigator in the department outstanding?
4. Does the research exploit the unique features of the NIH Intramural Program (captive or unique patient populations, stable long-term funding, critical mass, unique support facilities.
5. Does the scientist's research contribution merit the resources invested (funds, space, staffing)?

NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

Goals of Scientific Review

The Board of Scientific Counselors are asked to review each independent investigator and his/her specific research projects for:

1. Scientific significance
2. Does the project address an important problem?
3. Are the aims of the project being achieved?
4. If so, is scientific knowledge being advanced?
5. What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?
6. Scientific approach
7. Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project?
8. Where problem areas arose were reasonable alternative tactics employed?).
9. Innovation
10. Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods?
11. Does the project employ original innovative aims?
12. Do the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methods?
13. Scientific and intellectual environment 
14. In the context of this project, is the investigator taking advantage of the special features of the NIH intramural scientific environment or employing useful collaborative arrangements?).
15. Investigator training 
16. Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to conduct this project?
17. Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and, where appropriate, other researchers?).
18. Scientific productivity
19. Considering the investigator's other responsibilities [e.g., service, or administrative].
20. How does the Board of Scientific Counselors rate his/her overall research productivity?
21. Outstanding, and everything possible should be done to increase support; outstanding, but current level of support is appropriate; excellent, and continue support at current level.
22. Good, but needs some improvement to guarantee the current level of support.
23. Low to warrant current level of support; so inadequate that the project should be phased out and the scientist reassigned to another activity.  

NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

Review Process - Tenure Track and Tenure

Contemporaneous with the strengthened review of intramural science, the NIH has implemented a new tenure program, the major features of which are:

1. A requirement that all new tenure-track positions be established only after discussion among senior scientists in an institute and a recommendation to establish the position from the BSC.
2. A requirement that a national search be performed for all new tenured or tenure-track scientists.
3. A requirement that each institute's promotion and tenure committee review all tenure and tenure-track appointments.
4. The establishment of a new, NIH-central tenure committee to advise the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, NIH about all tenure candidates.

The Board of Scientific Counselors plays a significant role in the tenure process. The Board:

1. Will be consulted as part of the process of establishing new tenure-track positions.
2. Reviews tenure-track candidates at approximately the midpoint of their tenure-track appointments with an eye toward making recommendations concerning continuance in the tenure-track and concerning changes in resources.
3. Review candidates being considered for tenure and make recommendations concerning advancement.

REVIEW

NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

Review Process - Scientific Review Team

In general, Clinical Center clinical departments include from one to four tenured and/or tenure-track investigators.

1. The Director, NIH, appoints members of the Clinical Center's Board of Scientific Counselors with the advice and concurrence from the NIH Deputy Director for Intramural Research.
2. At least two members of the Board of Scientific Counselors attend each intramural site visit.
3. The site visit team is comprised of these BSC members plus an appropriate number of ad hoc members who have expertise in the specific scientific areas being evaluated.

The Clinical Center administrative staff organizes each site visit. 

1. The ad hoc reviewers are identified by the Chair of the Board of Scientific Counselors with the advice of the CC Director and the CC Deputy Director for Clinical Care.
2. In general, the work of each tenured or tenure track investigator is reviewed by two or three experts, such that the usual site visit team comprises from four-to-ten members.

REVIEW

NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

Review Process - Background Materials

In preparation for the quadrennial visit, each department provides a detailed written description of past, current, and proposed research for each of the department's tenured or tenure-track investigators.

1. The materials supplied conform to the format prescribed by the Director, Clinical Center.
2. The resources, which the Clinical Center invests in each investigator's research, are enumerated (space, staffing, funds, as well as the administrative structure and flow of information within the research component of each Department).
3. In addition, the previous Board of Scientific Counselor reports on the investigators are included.
4. This detailed volume of written materials, representing the clinical department's scientific efforts in its entirety, is provided to the members of the Board of Scientific Counselors site visit team approximately one month before the visit.
5. The Clinical Center's Deputy Director for Clinical Care coordinates the visits.

NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

Review Process - Site Visits

The visits occur over a 1- to 2-day period. Each visit begins with an orientation by the Clinical Center Director or the Deputy Director for Clinical Care, Clinical Center.

1. The chair of the department being reviewed or his/her designee presents to the site visit team a departmental overview as well as a broad description of the entire portfolio of clinical research being conducted by the department, including the work that is collaborative with institutes and/or other Clinical Center scientists.
2. For projects that are collaborative with institute scientists, the Board of Scientific Counselors' review from the institute laboratory or Branch that reviews the collaborative work will be included in the materials distributed to the Board.
3. Each tenured or tenure-track investigator spends approximately 30 minutes with the site visit team in a formal presentation and discussion.
4. In addition, staff clinicians or staff scientists who have lead roles in independent projects may be asked to present those projects as well in a structured oral presentation of appropriate length.
5. The purpose of these oral sessions is to clarify issues and resolve ambiguities identified in the written materials.
6. The site visit team also has the opportunity to visit the investigators' laboratories for a "hands-on" review of data, evaluation of experimental setups and an informal discussion with postdoctoral fellows and students.
7. This discussion with fellows and students focuses on the training environment and the quality of mentoring available to the trainees.
8. During their visits, the site visit team develops written critiques of each independent investigator.

The Board of Scientific Counselors' team enters an executive session, leading to the production of a draft report. 

1. The recommendations of the Board of Scientific Counselors may relate to experimental plans and scientific directions, changes in funding, allocation of space, allocation of staffing, advancement to tenure-track or tenure, as well as more global recommendations, such as those pertaining to the quality and presence of mentorship, the absence, presence and/or quality of scientific synergy within the clinical department.
2. At the end of their deliberations, the team meets privately with the Department Chief under review to discuss their findings and to provide the Department Chief with opportunity for comment.
3. The team then meets with the Director, Clinical Center, the Deputy Director for Clinical Care, Clinical Center, and the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, NIH (or designee), to present an oral summary of their findings.
4. Before departure from the NIH, the team hands in the draft report.
5. The Deputy Director for Clinical Care, CC collates and formats the response.
6. The final report is submitted to the Director of the Clinical Center within two months of the visit.

NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

Review Process - Response to Review

The Clinical Center then prepares a written point-by-point response to each recommendation enumerated in the final report, noting specifically how the team's recommendations will be implemented.

1. The report and response are then presented to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, NIH, and to a subcommittee of the NIH Board of Scientific Directors.
2. At the end of each four-year cycle of reviews, the full Board meets to review all the recommendations made in the prior cycle and evaluates the Clinical Center's responses to these recommendations.
3. Annually, the Chair of the Board of Scientific Counselors, presents a summary of the review process and the activities of the Board of Scientific Counselors' to the Clinical Center's Advisory Board for Clinical Research.

Reference:

(1) Report of the External Advisory Committee of the Director's Advisory Committee, a report on the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program, November 17, 1994, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.