NIH Sees Computerization As Remedy For Paper Flood

Automated grant system could cut months off the proposal process. By 1990, the paper weight could lighten, those grant applications filling the mailrooms at the National Institutes of Health at the rate of 40 or so pages times seven copies times 25,000 proposals a year. The retyping at NIH could ease, too. Probably few grantees are aware that much of the administrative information on grant appli- cations is rekeyed in its travels through the agency. The abstract is retyped twice. To defend itself against this juggernaut of paper, NIH is planning to computerize its whole investigator-initiated research (ROI) grant process, from the application to reviewer commentary. Changes should benefit proposal-writers as well as the agency. The new system could knock a month, possibly three, off the usual nine-month processing time. One of the new system’s features, computer-matching of proposal with Study Section, should make the assignment process more accurate and uniform. Under the new system, NIH will provide academic business offices with a disk, either for a Macintosh or IBM (or IBM-compatible) computer. (Regardless of which machine the applicant chooses, NIH will arrange copies for reviewers in the format of their choice.) The business offices will enter administrative information and distribute disks to researchers. The researcher will type the whole text of the application onto this disk— both the administrative part and the research plan. NIH already has a working prototype software for this process, thanks to Richard J. Feldmann, a molecular graphics specialist at the NIH Division of Computer Research and Technology Division, and John Mathis, executive secretary of the NIH Pathobiochemistry Study Section. A version of this software, which this writer tried in April, was still rough, but was clearly designed to be easy to use. Not only does the disk provide instructions for completing the proposal, but the program also prompts the applicant for appropriate responses to all administrative portions of the application. A menu allows the writer to go to any part of the application and an edit mode lets the applicant make changes readily. The program makes it difficult to put information, at least the administrative parts, in the wrong place or the wrong format. Proposal writers can mail the floppy disks to NIH directly, and, Feldmann hopes, applicants will eventually be able to mail proposals electronically. He explains that current electronic mail networks need strengthening before handling the challenge: "At 12 o’clock on the day they’re due, there will be 9,999 grant proposals, each 150kb, trying to jam through the system." But someday systems should be able to cope, he hopes. Electron micrographs and other graphics may still have to go to NIH by mail. Ultimately, Feldmann speculates, scanning and other technologies will be able to transfer images electronically with sufficient detail to represent accurately the quality of the proposal writer’s work. Once the proposal gets to NIH, a computer-matching system will assign it for review to one of the 63 chartered Study Sections (which fragment frequently so that the computer may end up choosing among 90-some groups). The computer will match the proposal’s descriptive key words or phrases, chosen by the proposal writer, with a section’s description of appropriate subject matter and specific disciplines of its members. Under the new system, proposals should be more likely to get the most appropriate reviewers; a computer can easily keep track of the numerous sections, with their changing memberships and shifts in expertise. The system can easily reevaluate the choice of Study Section for a revised proposal; under the present system, the original Study Section often remains focal, despite subtle shifts in the thrust of the proposal or the membership of the section. Also, a computerized system could document the reasons for assignment to a particular section. The current system is much harder to track. NIH also expects to assign grants to institutes for potential funding by computer matching However this process is less clear-cut than Study Section assignment and may take longer to implement. For the peer-review process, Study Section members will receive applications on floppy disks, and the primary reviewers will write their reports directly on copies of the applicants’ disks. After a Study Section meeting, the executive secretary will use these reviewers’ reports to generate the summary statement, again on disk. Passwords, and other encryption methods will ensure that no one can change the protected documents either accidentally or intentionally. NIH will send summary statements to the proposal writer on a copy of the original application disk. Thus the grant writer can revise the proposal easily and even resubmit it on the same disk. Liane Reif-Lehrer, a biochemist who has served on an NIH Study Section, is the author of Writing a Successful Grant Application.

NIH Sees Computerization As Remedy For Paper Flood

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of