2006 CBCRP Application Evaluation & Review Committees
The CBCRP wishes to thank the participants in our 2006 review committees for their service and dedication to our Program.
In the first phase of the funding process, grant applications were reviewed and scored for scientific merit in five peer review committees using a model that follows established practice at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Each committee is composed of scientists and advocates from outside California. The committee chair leads the review process and is a senior researcher in breast cancer areas associated with the committee’s central topics (e.g., etiology and prevention). Committee members have broad expertise in topics associated with individual applications. Breast cancer advocate reviewers are women and men active in breast cancer issues and many of whom are also living with the disease. Advocates bring their personal knowledge and commitment to the review process. Often they have specialized training in grant review, such as the NBCC’s Project LEAD. Each committee also includes 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.
The majority of research funding agencies rate proposals with a single scientific merit score. For the past nine years the CBCRP has been using a merit scoring system that separates scientific merit into individual components (e.g., approach, innovativeness, impact). This allows our expert reviewers and the Program to better differentiate applications that might otherwise appear identical. For example, we can now pick the most innovative applications, or those that might have the most impact on breast cancer. Depending on the award type, we use four or five scientific merit components in the peer review process.
After the completion of all review committees, the CBCRP ranks the application pool by average scientific merit. The lowest one-third (approximately) of applications, ranked by average scientific merit are excluded from further consideration for funding.
Next, applications having sufficient scientific merit are rated by the CBCRP’s advisory council for programmatic relevance. The following criteria are used:
- Responsiveness to the CBCRP’s priority issues and award types
- Strength of individual scientific merit component scores (e.g., innovation for IDEA applications)
- CBCRP balance or an underfunded topic
- Quality of the lay abstract
- Inclusion of advocates and sensitivity to advocacy issues/concerns
- Addressing the needs of the underserved
- Critical path/translation (IDEA), career plan/mentoring (dissertation, postoc), or dissemination and translation potential (CRC)
This two-tiered evaluation and funding process ensures both scientific excellence and relevance of the research to the CBCRP’s mission and goals.
CRC Concept Paper and
CRC-Sociocultural Review Committees
Mary K. Anglin, Ph.D., M.P.H. Janice V. Bowie, Ph.D. Patricia A. Carney, Ph.D. Lori A. Crane, Ph.D., M.P.H. Michael Diefenbach, Ph.D. Karen H. Dow, Ph.D. Elmer R. Freeman Mel R. Haberman, Ph.D.
|
Kathryn M. Kash, Ph.D. Alicia K. Matthews, Ph.D. Cathy D. Meade, R.N., Ph.D., FAAA Margo Michaels, M.P.H. Shiraz I. Mishra, Ph.D., M.B.B.S. Marion E. Morra, D.Sc. Marc D. Schwartz, Ph.D. Lonnie Sessoms, Ph.D., L.P.N. Beti Thompson, Ph.D. Francisco A. Villarruel, Ph.D. Mayumi A. Willgerodt, Ph.D. |
Kim O’Meara Jane B. Segelken Sara S. Williams
Donald F. Austin, M.D., M.P.H.
|
Cathy J. Bradley, Ph.D. Marilie D. Gammon, Ph.D. Paula Klemm, DNSc, R.N., OCN Electra D. Paskett, Ph.D. Patricia A. Thompson Carino, Ph.D. George Wright, Ph.D. |
Chair:Etiology and Prevention Committee
Stephen Barnes, Ph.D. Celia Byrne, Ph.D. Andreas I. Constantinou, Ph.D. Joan E. Cunningham, Ph.D. Steven M. Hill, Ph.D. Russell Hovey, Ph.D. |
Adrian V. Lee, Ph.D. Kirsten Moysich, Ph.D. James D. Shull, Ph.D. Patricia A. Thompson Carino, Ph.D. Rosemary Rosso Njara Stout, MBA |
Innovative Treatments/Earlier Detection Committee
Joseph Baar, M.D., Ph.D. Rosalyn Blumenthal, Ph.D. Jenny Chang, M.D. Si-Yi Chen, M.D., Ph.D. Timothy M. Clay, Ph.D. Billy W. Day, Ph.D. Stephen L. Eck, M.D., Ph.D. Silvia C. Formenti, M.D. Michael A. Jacobs, Ph.D. |
Gregory S. Karczmar, Ph.D. Raymond Raylman, Ph.D. Eva Sevick-Muraca, Ph.D. Dihua Yu, M.D., Ph.D. Zhen Zhang, Ph.D.
Kathleen Livingston Sylvia G. Rickard Candice Zito-Gilhooly |
Pathogenesis Committee
Sanford H. Barsky, M.D. Ching-Shih Chen, Ph.D. Geoffrey J. Clark, Ph.D. Jeffrey T. Holt, M.D. Shawn E. Holt, Ph.D. Thomas J. Kelly, Ph.D. Michael S. Kinch, Ph.D. Charlotte Kuperwasser, Ph.D.
|
W. Jack Pledger, Ph.D. Pranela Rameshwar, Ph.D. Jeffrey E. Segall, Ph.D. Danny R. Welch, Ph.D. Alan Wells, M.D. D.M.S. Bart Williams, Ph.D.
Martina Correia Ginny Mason, R.N. Musa Mayer |
Tumor Progression Committee
Amy M. Fulton, Ph.D. William C. Hahn, M.D., Ph.D. Stephen R. Hann, Ph.D. Brittney-Shea Herbert, Ph.D. Eldon R. Jupe, Ph.D. Khandan Keyomarsi, Ph.D. Rachel E. Klevit, D. Phil. Rakesh Kumar, Ph.D. Indira Poola, Ph.D. |
Victoria Seewaldt, M.D. Stewart Sell, M.D. Carolyn L. Smith, Ph.D. Mary Sharon Stack, Ph.D. David A. Talmage, Ph.D. Andrew Thorburn, Ph.D. Ming Zhang, Ph.D. Nancy Finken Patricia Haugen Pamela J. Vaughn |
