CBCRP Application Evaluation & Review Committees
Grant applications in 2002 were initially reviewed and scored for scientific merit in six peer review Committees. The Committees are composed of distinct types of reviewers, and they reviewed grants modeled on established practice at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Chair leads the review process and is a senior researcher in breast cancer areas associated with the Committee's central topic or priority issue. Committee members have broad expertise in topics associated with individual applications. Breast cancer Advocate reviewers are women active in breast cancer issues (many of whom are also living with the disease), and they bring their personal knowledge and commitment to the review process. Often the Advocates have specialized training in grant review, such as the NBCC's Project LEAD. Each committee also has a California Advocate Observer, who is not assigned applications for review and does not vote, but represents the California advocacy community. The Observer gains insight into the research evaluation process and provides feedback to the Program on this process. Ad Hoc members participate by teleconference and bring their specialized expertise to the review of individual applications.
Over the past five years, the CBCRP has developed, tested, and phased in a scoring system that allows our expert reviewers to better differentiate applications that are especially innovative and that have the most potential impact on breast cancer. This has improved our ability to choose the most innovative and creative research for funding. In the past, the majority of research funding agencies, including the CBCRP and the NIH, rated proposals with a single scientific merit score. With this method, for example, an application with an excellent research plan to test an idea that wasn't particularly novel could receive the same score as an application with an average research plan to test a very novel idea. CBCRP's new scoring method, which separates scientific merit into component elements specific for each award type, can better differentiate specific qualities in each application. Some key scientific merit components include:
- Innovativeness
- Impact
- Approach
- Feasibility
- Career Development
- Translational potential (TRC award type)
- Cross-disciplinary elements (TRC award type)
- Community Involvement (CRC award type)
- Community Benefit (CRC award type)
After the completion of all review committees, the CBCRP ranks the application pool by average scientific merit, which is the combined average of the scientific merit components for the application's award type. The lowest third (approximately) of applications ranked by average scientific merit are excluded from further consideration for funding.
Next, applications having sufficient scientific merit are then examined by the CBCRP's advisory Council for programmatic relevance. The following criteria are used:
- Responsiveness to the CBCRP's priority issues and award types
- Multidisciplinary approach
- Translational potential
- Focus on the underserved
- Strength of individual scientific merit component scores
- Balance of overall portfolio
- Emphasis on relatively underfunded areas
- Inclusion of advocates and sensitivity to advocacy issues/concerns
In addition, we place some of our Priority Issues and Award Types into a primary category, and these applications are given first consideration for funding.
Finally, the advisory Council recommends the grants to be funded, based upon (1) the review committee scientific average and component merit scores and (2) the programmatic relevance. This two-tiered process ensures both scientific excellence and relevance of the research to CBCRP's mission and goals.
Review Committees
The CBCRP wishes to thank the participants in our 2002 Review Committees for their service and dedication to our Program.
Basic Breast Biology Committee
CRC and Sociocultural, Behavioral, and Psychological
Committee
Etiology and Prevention Committee
Innovative Treatments and Earlier Detection Committee
Pathogenesis Committee
Tumor Progression Committee
Basic Breast Biology Committee
Chair: Margaret (Peggy) C. Neville, Ph.D. |
J. Thomas Pento, Ph.D. |
California Advocate Observer: |
Members: Michael F. Clarke, M.D. |
Terry Riss, Ph.D. |
Ad Hoc Members: |
James DiRenzo, Ph.D. |
Mary Sharon Stack, Ph.D. |
Richard W. Kriwacki, Ph.D. |
Leena Hilakivi-Clarke, Ph.D. |
Alan Wells, M.D., D.M.S. |
James P. Landers, Ph.D. |
Russell Hovey, Ph.D. |
Advocate Members: |
David Mankoff, M.D., Ph.D. |
Patricia J. Keely, Ph.D. |
Michele W. Ganon, M.B.A., Ph.D. |
Mario Marchand, Ph.D. |
| M. Stephen Meyn, M.D., Ph.D.,
FRCP(C) |
Selma J. Morris, M.Ed. |
Michael D. Morris, Ph.D. |
Community Research Collaboration and Sociocultural, Behavioral, and Psychological Committee
| Chair: Electra
D. Paskett, Ph.D. |
John K. Worden, Ph.D. |
James T. Thigpen, M.D. |
| Members: Deborah
Bowen, Ph.D. |
Advocate Members:
Deborah Clark |
|
| Karen H. Dow, Ph.D. |
Susan M. Cohen, J.D. |
|
| Paula M. Lantz, Ph.D. |
California Advocate Observer:
Kathy Walters, J.D. |
|
| Frances Marcus Lewis, Ph.D. |
Ad-Hoc Members:
Debra Barton, RN, PhD, AOCN |
|
| Alfred C. Marcus, Ph.D. |
Nancy Keating, M.D. |
|
| Marianne N. Prout, M.D. |
Charles L. Shapiro, M.D. |
Etiology and Prevention Committee Committee
Chair: Susan Harlap, M.D. |
Gary L. Johanning, Ph.D. |
Ad-Hoc Members: Celia Byrne, Ph.D. |
Members: Christine Ambrosone, Ph.D. |
James D. Shull, Ph.D. |
Carol Friedman, Ph.D. |
Bradley A. Arrick, M.D., Ph.D. |
Andrew T. Vaughan, Ph.D. |
Jennifer A. Harvey, M.D. |
Melissa L. Bondy, Ph.D. |
Douglas Yee, M.D. |
Susan L. Hendrix, D.O. |
Gail M. Clinton, Ph.D. |
Advocate Members: Barbara Balaban |
Michael A. Hollingsworth, Ph.D. |
Andreas I. Constantinou, Ph.D. |
Cynthia Geoghegan |
Wei-Zen Wei, Ph.D. |
Joan E. Cunningham, Ph.D. |
Janice Malett, RN, MPH, WOCN |
Martin J. Yaffe, Ph.D |
Marco M. Gottardis, Ph.D. |
California Advocate Observer
Member: |
Innovative Treatments and Earlier Detection Committee
Chair: Mary (Nora) L. Disis, M.D. Members: Rajesh Agarwal, Ph.D. Emmanuel Akporiaye, Ph.D. Guy Besson, Ph.D. David K. Bol, Ph.D. James T. Dalton, Ph.D. Ram Ganapathi, Ph.D. Mark A. Green, Ph.D. |
H. Kim Lyerly, M.D. Edward R. Sauter, M.D., Ph.D. Gerald A. Soff, M.D. David A. Talmage, Ph.D. Nancy S. Templeton, Ph.D. Philip M. Toleikis, Ph.D. Advocate Members: Jessica Henderson, Ph.D. Claudia C. Kruggel Brenda MacGibbon-Taylor, Ph.D. California Advocate Observer Member: Janet Howard-Espinoza Mark B. Williams, Ph.D. |
Pathogenesis Committee
Chair: Ann D. Thor, M.D. Marie Audette, Ph.D. James Kaput, Ph.D. Thomas Kelly, Ph.D. William G. Kerr, Ph.D. Scott Kurtzman, M.D. Zheng-gang Liu, Ph.D. |
James B. McCarthy, Ph.D. Steffi Oesterreich, Ph.D. Susan E. Pories, M.D., FACS Patricia Schoenlein, Ph.D. Gail E. Sonenshein, Ph.D. Erik (Rik) W. Thompson, Ph.D. Roberta C. Gelb Diane L. Roth Sandra Stanford Emilia Sebestyen |
Tumor Progression Committee
Chair: Nita J. Maihle, Ph.D. Anne M. Bowcock, Ph.D. Jeffrey T. Holt, M.D. Michael S. Kinch, Ph.D. Dawn A. Kirschmann, Ph.D. Richard C. Kurten, Ph.D. Michael T. Lewis, Ph.D. Peggy L. Porter, M.D. |
Karin D. Rodland, Ph.D. Debra F. Skafar, Ph.D. Thomas E. Smithgall, Ph.D. Saraswati Sukumar, Ph.D. Danny R. Welch, Ph.D. Margaree S. Crosby, Ed.D. Dale Eastman Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Ph.D. Edare K. Carroll |
