Definitions of Criteria and Considerations for HEI S10 Critiques

[Return to Review Guidelines Page]

1. Justification of Need.
Is the need for the instrument clearly and adequately justified? Is the equipment essential and appropriate? Will the instrument requested have a significant impact on biomedical/behavioral research and contribute to the advancement of human health?

2. Technical Expertise.
Does the institution have the high-level technical expertise and access to the necessary infrastructure to make effective use of the requested equipment? How well qualified are the participating investigators to operate and maintain the instrument, conduct the projects, and evaluate the research results? How will new users be trained? Are collaborations in place between disciplinary and interdisciplinary scientists? How will biosafety procedures be implemented?

3. Research Projects.
Will research with the requested instrument advance the knowledge and understanding of the proposed projects? How would the research project of each major user be enhanced? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? Are appropriate plans in place for record keeping and bioinformatics?

4. Administration.
Is the plan for the management and maintenance of the requested instrument appropriate? Are there plans for maximizing the effectiveness of the investment in instrumentation? Is there an advisory committee for oversight of the instrument including sharing arrangements? Is the membership of the advisory committee broadly based to oversee the use of the instrument for a wide range of biomedical investigators? How will research time be allocated among the projects? Are the sharing arrangements equitable?

5. Institutional Commitment.
What is the evidence of institutional commitment to support the instrument? Is institutional infrastructure (technical support, space, environment and utilities) available to support the instrument? Is there an institutional track record for making technology available? Is the financial plan for fully funding the purchase and long-term operation and maintenance of the instrument reasonable? Is there appropriate documentation (letters from institutional officials)?

Resubmission. When reviewing a Resubmission application (formerly called an amended application), the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Biohazards. Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Budget and Period of Support. Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research. For more details, please see Budget Information.

Additional Comments to the Applicant. Reviewers may provide guidance to the applicant or recommend against resubmission without fundamental revision.

[Return to Review Guidelines Page]