FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

HHS - 796 - Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel - Authorized by Law

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel	Agency Name	Department of Health and Human Services
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	796
Original Establishment Date	11/20/1985	Committee Status	Chartered
Actual Termination Date		Committee URL	http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Special...
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	No	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Division Director
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix
Current Charter Date	2/26/1992	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	John
Date Of Renewal Charter		Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Bowers
Exempt From Renewal*	Yes	Designated Federal Officer Suffix	PHD
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(301) 435-1725
Establishment Authority*	Authorized by Law	Designated Federal Officer Fax*
Specific Establishment Authority*	42 U.S.C. 282(b)(16)	Designated Federal Officer Email*	bowers@mail.nih.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	11/20/1985
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Special Emphasis Panel

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	Not Applicable
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	Section 492 of the PHS Act states that The Secretary ...shall by regulation require appropriate technical and scientific peer review of -- (A) applications...; and (B) biomedical and behavioral research and development contracts. This committee is composed of recognized biomedical and behavioral research authorities who represent the forefront of research and technical knowledge and who provide first-level merit review of funding applications and proposals, including but not limited to grant and cooperative agreement applications and contract proposals, for research projects and for research and training activities in areas relevant to neuroscience, development and aging, behavioral and population sciences, basic and integrative biological sciences, physiological and pathological sciences, and translational and clinical sciences. Operation of this committee is accomplished using a fluid membership with members designated to serve for individual meetings rather than formally appointed for fixed terms of service. During this reporting period the committee reviewed 24,966 applications requesting $27,786,711,641.00.
How is membership balanced?*	This committee has a fluid membership with members designated to serve for individual meetings rather than formally appointed for fixed terms of service. The reviewers for each meeting are selected to evaluate grant applications or contract proposals for a specific, perhaps narrow, expertise area. Participants for each meeting are assembled to most efficiently and effectively cover the number and breadth of applications or contracts requiring review. Members and chairs are authorities who are knowledgeable in the various disciplines and fields relating to neuroscience, development and aging, behavioral and population sciences, basic and integrative biological sciences, physiological and pathological sciences, and translational and clinical sciences.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	The Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel held 817 meetings during this reporting period. The flexibility in review allowed by this committee structure has proved both efficient and effective.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	This committee is composed of recognized biomedical and/or behavioral research authorities who represent the forefront of research and technical knowledge and who provide first-level merit review of highly scientific and technical research grant applications and contract proposals. These evaluations and recommendations cannot be obtained from other sources because the specialized, complex nature of the applications and proposals requires a unique balance and breadth of expertise not available on the NIH staff or from other established sources.
Why close or partially close meetings?	The meetings of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel were closed to the public for the review of grant applications. Sections 552(c)(4) and 552(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act permit the closing of meetings where discussions could reveal confidential trade secrets or commerical property such as patentable material and personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Recommendation Remarks	This committee did not produce any public reports during the fiscal year. Due to the assignment of responsibilities within the Center, the roles of committee designated federal officer and committee decision maker are filled by the same individual. Membership: The members of this Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) do not have standing appointments and serve on an as needed basis for meetings throughout the fiscal year. Therefore, the members list does not reflect appointment start and end dates. As often as possible, instead of appointment start and end dates, each meeting date on which the SEP member served is identified on the Members list. When necessary to protect peer review integrity, a fiscal year start and end date is used as the alternative to appointment start and end dates for some SEP members. As a result, the Members list, including the number of chairs, may not align or directly match to specific meeting dates. Meeting rosters, including members’ affiliations and zip codes are available online at https://public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/. The list of members includes two records each with the same first and last name; however, these are different individuals. The names are: Kim Albert, Bin Chen, Jie Chen, Xi Chen, Xu Chen, Yu Chen, Michael Goodman, Xiaohua Huang, Lee John, Lee Joseph, Li Li, Wei Li, Yan Li, Liang Liang, Jing Liu, Yong Lu, Luis Martinez, Patrick Murphy, Ravi Patel, Li Shen, Wei Sun, Jin Wang, Jing Wang, Jun Wang, Ping Wang, Ting Wang, Yong Wang, Fan Wu, Jing Yang, Jun Yang, Ling Yang, Yang Yang, Yi Yang, Yi Zheng and Yong Zhu. The list of members includes three records each with the same first and last name; however, these are different individuals. The names are: Hao Chen, Xin Chen, Bin He, Yan Li, Mark Lowe, Emmanuelle Meuillet, Benjamin Miller, Sarah Moore. The list of members includes four records each with the same first and last name; however, these are different individuals. The names are: Sarah Parker and Hui Zhang. There are several records on the membership list that represent members who participated in two meetings that were held at different times within the same day.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	Yes	Action Reorganize Priorities*	No
Outcome Trust In Government	Yes	Action Reallocate Resources	No
Outcome Major Policy Changes	No	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	Yes	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	Yes
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	No	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	No	Action Comment	An action of “approved” or “recommended” for grants receiving initial peer review by this committee does not infer that the grant will be or has been funded. Research grant applications submitted to NIH must go through a two-step review process that includes the initial peer review for scientific and technical merit and a second step of review and approval by a National Advisory Council for program relevance. In addition, prior to an award or funding being made, NIH staff must conduct an administrative review for a number of other considerations. These include alignment with NIH’s funding principles, review of the project budget, assessment of the applicant’s management systems, determination of applicant eligibility, and compliance with public policy requirements. After all these steps have been completed, NIH officials make funding decisions on individual grant applications.
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	No	Grants Review*	Yes
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	24,966
Outcome Comment	NA	Number Of Grants Recommended	24,966
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$27,786,711,641.00
Cost Savings Comment	NIH supported basic and clinical research accomplishments often take many years to unfold into new diagnostic tests and new ways to treat and prevent diseases.	Grants Review Comment	Grant Review
Number Of Recommendations*	513,341	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	Grant Review	Access Agency Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	0.00%	Access Committee Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	The mission of the Center for Scientific Review is to provide the funding Institutes and Centers of NIH with the scientific and technical merit of research grant applications submitted to the NIH. It is these Institutes or Centers and their advisory councils that make funding decisions.NIH Peer Review Committees are involved in the initial review of research grant applications. The NIH dual peer review system is mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public Health Service Act. The charge to this committee is to determine scientific and technical merit of the individual grants or contracts. These recommendations are forwarded to Federal officials who generally accept the committee’s recommendations and favorable applications are then forwarded for the second level of review performed by Institute and Center (IC) National Advisory Councils or Boards. Only applications that are favorably recommended by both the initial peer review committee and the Advisory Council may be funded.	Access GSA FACA Website	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	0.00%	Access Publications	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	The mission of the Center for Scientific Review is to provide the funding Institutes and Centers of NIH with the scientific and technical merit of research grant applications submitted to the NIH. It is these Institutes or Centers and their advisory councils that make funding decisions. NIH Peer Review Committees are involved in the initial review of research grant applications. The NIH dual peer review system is mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public Health Service Act. The charge to this committee is to determine scientific and technical merit of the individual grants or contracts. These recommendations are forwarded to Federal officials who generally accept the committee’s recommendations and favorable applications are then forwarded for the second level of review performed by Institute and Center (IC) National Advisory Councils or Boards. Only applications that are favorably recommended by both the initial peer review committee and the Advisory Council may be funded.	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	N/A
Agency Feedback Comment*	Information resulting from closed initial peer review meetings is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The public can view information on research projects funded by NIH on the RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool) website located at http://report.nih.gov.	Narrative Description*	NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. NIH works toward that mission by supporting the research of non-Federal scientists in universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions throughout the country and abroad. Section 492 of the PHS Act states that The Secretary ...shall by regulation require appropriate technical and scientific peer review of (A) applications...; and (B) biomedical and behavioral research and development contracts... The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is the portal for NIH grant applications and their review for scientific merit. CSR receives about 80,000 applications a year. The majority of those grant applications (70%) are reviewed by peer review committees managed by CSR. Since 1946, our mission has remained clear and timely: to see that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews -- free from inappropriate influences -- so NIH can fund the most promising research. NIH advisory councils provide a second level of peer review and make funding recommendations based on priorities set by Congress, DHHS, and the public. For over 60 years, this peer review system has enabled NIH to fund cutting-edge research that has allowed millions to leave their doctor’s office with new drugs and cures for diseases. This committee is responsible for determining the scientific and technical merit of applications based on the type of science, unique program emphasis, possible conflict of interest, or other factors that would or appear to compromise the review process if they were assigned to one of CSR's Initial Review Groups. This committee operates using a fluid membership, with individuals designated to serve for individual meetings rather than formally appointed for fixed terms of service.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	3/14/2025 9:33 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Health Health Care Medicine Health and Health Research

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports