Boards of Scientific
The first Boards of Scientific Counselors (BSCs),
constituted of scientists from outside NIH, were established in 1956
to review intramural research at NIH. The BSCs were established to
assist the Scientific Directors 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 SDs 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, the reports of the BSCs will be distributed to the Director,
National Institutes of Health, the Deputy Director for Intramural
Research, and the appropriate Institute or Center Director. The BSC
also reports annually to the National Advisory Council or Board of
Click here for further information contained in
Criteria for Scientific Review of Intramural
Have the investigator's studies addressed important problems?
Are the aims of the project(s) being achieved? Is scientific
knowledge being advanced and are the projects affecting the
concepts or methods that drive this field?
In general are the approaches well conceived? Where problem
areas arose were reasonable alternative tactics employed?
Do the projects employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods?
Are the aims original and innovative? Do the projects challenge
existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or
Is the investigator taking advantage of the special features
of the NIH intramural scientific environment or employing useful
Is the support the investigator received appropriate?
- Investigator training
Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to
carry out the projects being pursued? Is the work proposed
appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator
and other researchers (if any)?
Considering the investigator's other responsibilities (e.g.,
service, or administrative), how would you rate his/her overall
Is the investigator providing appropriate training and
mentoring for more junior investigators?
Page | Index
Reviews of IRP Research