Independent Scientist Award (K02) Guide for Written Review

PA NUMBER: PA-06-527

The Independent Scientist Award (K02) provides up to five years of salary support for newly independent scientists who can demonstrate the need for a period of intensive research focus as a means of enhancing their research careers. This award is intended to foster the development of outstanding scientists and enable them to expand their potential to make significant contributions to their field of research. The application should be evaluated for scientific, technical, and career development merit. Please use the following format and specific criteria below to evaluate the application.

General considerations when reviewing K02 applications:

• The candidate must have an active NIDCR R01 grant at the time of submission.
• The candidate must be willing to spend a minimum of 75 percent of fulltime professional effort conducting research and research career development.
• A maximum of $75,000 can be requested for salary and a maximum of $15,000 for training related expenses.
• Applicants must be US citizens or noncitizen nationals, or must have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

REVIEW FORMAT

In one paragraph, briefly summarize the most important points of the Critique, addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the application in terms of the review criteria. Each scored application will receive a numerical rating that will reflect your opinion of its merit. Provide the key reasons for your recommendation of a level of merit based on the NIH rating scale. The review components: Candidate, Career Development Plan, Research Plan, and Environment and Institutional Commitment, should be considered in determining the overall score.

Please address, in six individual sections, each review criterion listed below. Include as little descriptive information as possible. In addition, for amended applications, address progress, changes, and responses to the critiques in the summary statement from the previous review, indicating whether the application is improved, the same as, or worse than the previous submission. Comments on progress and response to the previous review should be provided in a separate paragraph and/or under the appropriate criteria.

• Capacity to carry out independent research;
• Potential to become an outstanding scientist who will make significant contributions to the field;
• Past and present research productivity as evidenced by contributions to the scientific literature, and success in obtaining independent funding.
• Ability to conceptualize and organize a long-term research approach; and
• Evidence of current independent, peer-reviewed, research support;
• Level of training, experience, and competence commensurate with the purposes of the award.

• Likelihood that the award will contribute substantially to the continued scientific development and productivity of the candidate;
• The extent to which the award will enable a candidate to devote full time (at least 75 percent effort) to research and related duties by release from teaching, administration, clinical work, and other responsibilities;
• Consistency of the career development plan with the candidate's career goals; and
• Proposed collaboration with other active investigators and other opportunities for professional growth.

• Quality of research plan and potential for advancing the field of study;
• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed research plan; and
• Adequacy of plans to include both genders and minorities and their subgroups as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated.

• Quality of the proposed training or instruction in areas related to the responsible conduct of research. No award will be made if the application lacks this component

• Institutional commitment to the development of the candidate as an independent scientist and assurances that the candidate will be an integral part of its research and academic program;
• Evidence that the candidate's full-time effort (at least 75 percent) will be set aside to pursue research and career development activities; and
• Strength of the institution's commitment to scientific research.

• Justification of budget requests in relation to career development goals and research aims and plans.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Human Subjects:

In applications with research proposals involving human subjects, consider the following issues:

Exemptions Claimed: Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the exemption(s) claimed (e.g., for Exemption 4, is it clear that the information will be recorded by the investigator so that subjects cannot be identified directly or indirectly?).

No Exemptions Claimed: Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the applicant's responses to the six required points.  Discuss whether the risks to the subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to the subjects and/or in relation to the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result from the research.

Gender, Minority, and Children Subjects:

As reviewers of the K02 applications you will determine of human subjects and/or human tissues are involved in the project.  If they are, evaluate whether the minority and gender characteristics of the sample are scientifically acceptable and consistent with the aims of the project, using the categories of "1" to "4" as follows.  Also examine whether there is appropriate inclusion of children (Also determine whether the research is a Phase-III clinical trial.)

Evaluate acceptability as "A" (acceptable) or "U" (unacceptable).  If you rate the sample as "U", consider this feature a weakness or a deficiency in the design of the project reflected in the overall scoring of the project.  Explain the reasons for the recommended codes; this is particularly critical for any item coded "U".

NOTE: To the degree that acceptability or unacceptability affects the investigator's approach to the proposed research, such comments should appear under "Research Plan" section of the criteria, and should be factored into the score as appropriate.

Animal Welfare:

Evaluate acceptability as Acceptable, Unacceptable (expressed as concerns), or Comments. Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the responses to the five required points, especially whether the procedures will be limited to those that are unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research.

Biohazards:

Note any materials or procedures that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and indicate whether the protection proposed will be adequate.