Evaluation of scientific productivity and excellence in the NHLBI Division of Intramural Research

I have been asked to write a description of the scientific review processes of investigator programs in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Division of Intramural Research (DIR), especially with regard to evaluating the scientific productivity and impact. The DIR is composed of a broad group of investigators working on basic structural biology and cell biology to clinical research within the Clinical Center on the Bethesda Campus and regional hospitals. Investigators are reviewed every four years by an external Board of Scientific Counselors (BSCs) as specified for all National Institutes of Health (NIH) intramural research programs. Each institute accomplishes this task in a slightly different manner. At NHLBI, the review is a Bethesda campus site visit involving BSC members chairing an expert panel of ad hoc experts to evaluate the scientific accomplishments over the last four years and to hear a description of the future direction of the work. Before the visit, the investigator provides an extensive written report on recent work and available resources. At the meeting, the investigator makes a brief presentation before a question and answer session where the strengths and weakness of the program are explored. Any program weakness revealed in the BSC report must be discussed in this open question period. After the site visit, the BSC members working with the information provided by the ad hoc members create a draft report provided to the investigator. The investigator can then write a rebuttal or request a formal meeting with the entire BSC to review the report and finalize the recommendations to the NHLBI director and council. Through this process, an investigator has his or her " day in court " as well as an appeal process. The primarily retrospective nature of this review is one of the important aspects of this process, focusing on the previous four years. This makes the review rather straightforward in simply reviewing scientific accomplishments rather than the more difficult task of speculating what might happen in the future. The accomplishments of the investigator are judged based on the sometimes interrelated elements of productivity, significance, innovation/ scientific approach, use of DIR resources, and mentor-ing of fellows and students over the last four years. In this task, we ask the ad hoc reviewers to provide their judgment based on the investigators' publications, write-up, presentation, and response to questions during the review. However, in the last decade or so I have …