2007 CBCRP Evaluation Process & Review Committees
In the first phase of the funding process, grant applications were peer reviewed and scored for scientific merit in a “study section” format 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 does not review or vote, but represents the California advocacy community. The observer gains insight into our process and provides feedback to the Program. 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. In contrast, the CBCRP uses 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 have the highest career development potential. 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. Applications in the upper two-thirds of average scientific merit are rated by the CBCRP’s advisory council for programmatic responsiveness. 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 & Translational Research Award), career plan/mentoring (dissertation, postdoc), or dissemination and translation potential (CRC)
This two-tiered evaluation and funding process ensures both scientific
excellence and relevance
of the research to CBCRP’s mission and goals.
CRC Concept Paper & CRC-Sociocultural Review Committees
►Chair:
►Members:
Janice V. Bowie, Ph.D. Patricia A. Carney, Ph.D. Lori A. Crane, Ph.D., MPH Michael Diefenbach, Ph.D. Marilie D. Gammon, Ph.D. Karen Glanz, Ph.D., MPH Carolyn Gotay, Ph.D. Mel R. Haberman, Ph.D. Kathryn M. Kash, Ph.D. Laura A. Linnan, Sc.D. Alicia K. Matthews, Ph.D. Cathy D. Meade, R.N., Ph.D. Margo Michaels, MPH Shiraz I. Mishra, M.B.B.S., Ph.D
|
Beti Thompson, Ph.D. JoAnn Tsark, MPH Sally W. Vernon, Ph.D. Francisco A. Villarruel, Ph.D. ►Advocate Members: Kim O'Meara Jane B. Segelken Sara S. Williams Kimberly E. Wright ►California Advocate Observer Member: ►Ad-Hoc Members: Mary K. Anglin, Ph.D., M.P.H. Namni Goel, Ph.D. Mark Kettler, M.D. Wanda Pratt, Ph.D. Charles Wiggins, Ph.D. Mayumi A. Willgerodt, Ph.D. |
Etiology and Prevention Committee
►Chair: ►Members: David A. Boothman Abenaa M. Brewster, M.D., M.H.S. Andreas I. Constantinou, Ph.D. Joan E. Cunningham, Ph.D. Laurence M. Demers, Ph.D. Marilie D. Gammon, Ph.D. Kirsten Moysich, Ph.D. Peggy L. Porter, M.D. |
Pepper J. Schedin, Ph.D. James D. Shull, Ph.D. Jamboor K. Vishwanatha, Ph.D. Danny R. Welch, Ph.D ►Advocate Members: Susan Pelletier Rosemary Rosso, JD Njara Stout, MBA ►California Advocate Observer Member: ►Ad-Hoc Member: |
Innovative Treatments/Earlier Detection Committee
►Chair: ►Members: Rosalyn Blumenthal, Ph.D. Virginia F. Borges, MD, MMSc Esteban Celis, M.D., Ph.D. Jenny Chang, M.D. Timothy M. Clay, Ph.D. Billy W. Day, Ph.D. Silvia C. Formenti, M.D. Michael A. Jacobs, Ph.D. Gregory S. Karczmar, Ph.D. Andrew Karellas, Ph.D. |
A. James Mixson, M.D. Raymond Raylman, Ph.D. Eva Sevick-Muraca, Ph.D. Alison T. Stopeck, M.D. Zhen Zhang, Ph.D. ►Advocate Members: Jessica Henderson, Ph.D. Kathleen Livingston Musa Mayer ►California Advocate Observer Member: ►Ad Hoc Member: |
Pathogenesis Committee
►Chair: ►Members: Steven Goodison, Ph.D. Stephen R. Hann, Ph.D. Brittney-Shea Herbert, Ph.D. Shawn E. Holt, Ph.D. Cheryl L. Jorcyk, Ph.D. Thomas J. Kelly, Ph.D. Michael S. Kinch, Ph.D. Charlotte Kuperwasser, Ph.D. Cathy Lofton-Day, Ph.D. |
James B. McCarthy, Ph.D. W. Jack Pledger, Ph.D. Susan E. Pories, MD, FACS Pranela Rameshwar, Ph.D. M. Sharon Stack, Ph.D. Andrew Thorburn, Ph.D. Lily Yang, M.D., Ph.D. ►Advocate Members: Christine Carpenter Martina Correia Patricia Haugen ►California Advocate Observer Member: |
Tumor Progression Committee
►Chair: ►Members: Charles V. Clevenger, M.D., Ph.D. James DiRenzo, Ph.D. Gabriela Dontu, M.D., Ph.D. William C. Hahn, M.D., Ph.D. Jeffrey T. Holt, M.D. Patricia J. Keely, Ph.D. Khandan Keyomarsi, Ph.D. Rachel E. Klevit, D. Phil. Rakesh Kumar, Ph.D. Indira Poola, Ph.D. Victoria Seewaldt, M.D.
|
Jeffrey E. Segall, Ph.D. Stewart Sell, M.D. Carolyn L. Smith, Ph.D. Saraswati Sukumar, Ph.D. Kay-Uwe Wagner, Ph.D. Robert Wieder, M.D., Ph.D. Ming Zhang, Ph.D. ►Advocate Members: Maria W. Lyzen, RN, MPH Jane Perlmutter Pamela J. Vaughn Elizabeth Wohl ►California Advocate Observer Member: |
