 Some links will work for NIAID staff only.
|
Standard Operating Procedure Table of Contents
|
|
Purpose
To prevent program
officers or other extramural staff, peer
reviewers, or Council members
who may have a real or apparent conflict of interest with an investigator or applicant organization
from participating in a peer
review.
Procedure
A conflict of interest in peer review exists if a reviewer or staff
member has a real or apparent conflict of interest with an investigator
or an organization that has
submitted
a grant application or contract proposal he or she is supposed to review
or manage. It is important that you consult the scientific review officer (SRO) in
charge of the review when there is any question about your participation
in a meeting.
NIH Conflict of Interest Guidelines
A participant must leave the room for the following reasons:
- The participant, a close relative (e.g., spouse, minor child, sibling, or
parent), or partner (e.g., close professional associates or other colleagues)
has
a financial
interest
in the outcome
of an activity such as peer review.
- Serving as an officer, director, member, owner, trustee,
expert, advisor, consultant (with or without compensation), or employee
of an applicant or other organization that would be affected by his
or her decision.
- Negotiating or has an arrangement for prospective employment
with an applicant or other organization that would be affected by his
or her decision.
- Conducting research or other
professional activities with an applicant or has done so within three
years of the review date.
Participants are urged to avoid any actions that might give the appearance
of conflict of interest, even if they believe there may not be an actual
conflict. For example, a reviewer should not participate in the deliberations
on a grant application or contract proposal from a student,
teacher, or a close personal friend.
If an applicant names a person from another
institution in the application, that named person may not participate
in the application's
review if he or she is:
- Collaborating with the applicant's research
(direct conflict).
- Co-funded with other investigators or
key personnel who are collaborating with the applicant's research (indirect
conflict).
However, the named person will be permitted to
review other applications from the applicant's institution as long
as he or she has no
other conflicts of interest (direct
or indirect)
with the other applicants.
Components of a large or multi-component organization
that function as separate organizations. NIH
may determine that a peer reviewer selected from a component
does not
have a conflict of interest with the review of an application from another
component when both of the following conditions exist:
- Components are independent and act as separate
organizations.
- Reviewer does not have responsibilities at one component of the
organization that significantly affect the other component.
For more information, see NIH
Conflict of Interest, Confidentiality and Non Disclosure Rules: Information
for Reviewers of Grant Applications and R&D Contract Proposals. NIH
has established a new conflict of interest threshold of $10,000 for
extramural researchers serving on NIH scientific
peer
review panels that are used to evaluate research proposals.
The $10,000 financial threshold includes all sources of financial benefit,
including honoraria, fees and stock holdings, both currently held and
accruing over a 12-month period. Interests held by immediate family members
of the reviewer are included.
A reviewer with a financial or other interest worth $10,000 or more
in the application to be reviewed will be disqualified from the review.
Exceptions may be made by the NIH director if "there are no other
appropriate means of securing appropriate expert advice," or the
conflict is not substantial enough to bias the review. This new rule
was published in the January 5, 2004, Federal Register.
Council Members
Program Officers
- May provide only guidance, not evaluative comments, about applications
or proposals at peer review meetings.
- If co-authored a paper during the previous five years with an investigator,
must defer funding decisions for five years, as stated in NIAID
Co-Authorship Resulting from Collaboration with Extramural Scientists,
Co-Authorship Clearance Form (see certification at end).
- If co-authored papers with an investigator within the previous three
years, you cannot participate in source selection meetings as a selecting
official.
- If your attendance may present a conflict of interest to
review, discuss the situation with the SRO.
- When you attend a meeting, do not take notes that would identify reviewers, and do not discuss individual reviewer comments with investigators.
Contacts
Contact for NIAID Staff
Contact for NIAID Staff
If you have knowledge to share or want more information on this topic, email deaweb@niaid.nih.gov with the title of this page or its URL and your question or comment. Thanks for helping us clarify and expand our knowledge base.
Links
42 CFR 52h: Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications and
Research and Development
Contract Projects
Clearance of Extramural Publications and Presentations SOP
Conflict of Interest, NIH Office of Extramural Research portal
NIAID
Manual 1183 co-authorship of publications resulting from collaborations
with extramural scientists
NIH Conflict of Interest, Confidentiality and Non Disclosure Rules: Information for Reviewers of Grant Applications and R&D Contract Proposals
|
