EUREKA

1
EUREKA
2
EUREKA!(Exceptional, Unconventional Research
Enabling Knowledge Acceleration)

• Can we encourage scientific leaps?
• Leaps instead of incremental progress
• NIH support of some risky, high-impact research
• EUREKA designed to support innovative research
• Unconventional hypothesis or solution for major
  technical/methodological challenges
• High impact on scientific community
• Emphasis on idea rather than PI
• Specifics
• R01 (4yrs, 200k DC/yr)
• NIGMS, NINDS, NIHM, NIDA
• Multiple PIs allowed

3
Unconventional ApplicationFocus on novelty and
magnitude of impact

• Biosketch
• 4 page limit
• Cite up to 10 pubs
• State how pubs show PIs relevant
  knowledge/experience, innovation, or broad impact

• Research Plan
• 8 page limit
• 3 pages Approach
• 1 Specific Aim
• Must Address
• Challenge
• Potential Impact
• Approach
• Fit for EUREKA
• Likelihood of Success
• Timeline

• Other Features
• 1 page Literature Cited
• Preliminary data not required
• No appendix material

4
EUREKAReview Challenges

• Innovative ideas may not generate consensus
• Balancing need for expert opinion with that from
  reviewers outside of the field
• Large number of applications and broad range of
  science

5
Comparison of EUREKA reviews by NIGMS and by
NIDA/NIMH/NINDS

• Both used a 2 phase review
• Both used a structured review form for phase 1
• Both used whole numbers for preliminary scores
• NIGMS used AED for phase 2 Neuro used an in
  person meeting
• Neuro used initial binning of discussed
  applications, followed by a final scoring phase

6
Comparison of EUREKA reviews by NIGMS and by
NIDA/NIMH/NINDS
7
EUREKA Review NIGMS details
8
Phase 2 Discussion Final Scoring
Phase 1 Review
Streamline

• Balance workload with chance of seeing innovative
  application
• 52 reviewers for 226 applications (single panel)
• 15 applications per reviewer (typical), 3
  reviewers per application

• Expertise vs. broad knowledge
• At least one reviewer had good expertise match
• Reviewers outside of field appreciate expert
  opinion

• Focus reviewers on EUREKA criteria
• Telephone orientation conferences
• Structured review form emphasizing unique
  features of EUREKA
• Preliminary scores in whole numbers (1, 2, 3, 4,
  5)

9
Review form highlights criteria most relevant to
EUREKA

• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Investigator
• Environment
• Overall score
• Overall comments

Comments REQUIRED for top 3 applications
Portion of 2 page Review Form
10
Phase 2 Discussion Final Scoring
Phase 1 Review
Streamline
Innovative ideas may not generate consensus
Prioritize applications for full discussion based
on best score instead of average score
Two or more reviewers found it extremely
exciting (2 or more 1s)
Discuss 43 out of 226
OR
One reviewer found it extremely exciting and
requested that it move forward
11
Phase 2 Discussion Final Scoring
Phase 1 Review
Streamline

• Discuss and score most innovative applications
• Single panel
• Asynchronous Electronic Discussion (web-based)
• Allowed majority of phase 1 reviewers to
  participate
• Reviewers may be more comfortable expressing
  opinion
• Reviewers had time to read or re-read
  applications

12
EUREKA Review Neuroscience details
13
Neuroscience EUREKA Review

• Collaboration involving NIMH, NINDS and NIDA
• Mark Swieter (NIDA)
• David Armstrong, Megan Libbey Vin Charles
  (NIMH)
• Phillip Wiethorn, Bill Benzing Alan Willard
  (NINDS)

14
Applications were assigned to one of seven
broad scientific categories
15
Phase 1 Five reviewers were assigned to each of
the seven scientific categories
16
Each Reviewer Evaluated Every Application Within
Their Assigned Scientific Category

• Their major emphasis was placed on innovation and
  significance.
• Review criteria were individually rated on a
  template. Comments encouraged but not required.
• Overall score provided (1-5) using whole numbers.
• Suggested target was to give a score of 1 for
  top 4 applications in each bin. Actual ratings by
  individual reviewers ranged from 2 to 6 scores of
  1.
• Reviews submitted electronically 3 weeks before
  the Phase 2 in person meeting.

17
Example of a Criterion on the Neuroscience EUREKA
Review Template

• Significance This study addresses an important
  problem and the outcome of the proposed studies
  will drive the field. The potential impact of
  the proposed research is exceptional, in terms of
  the magnitude of the impact and the size of the
  community affected.
• Strongly Agree ___ Moderately Agree ____Neither
  Agree nor Disagree ___ Moderately Disagree ___
  Strongly Disagree ___
• Comments

18
Neuroscience Phase II In person meeting

• 17 of the 35 reviewers (circa two per scientific
  category) participated in an in person meeting
• Ten days prior to the review meeting,
  participants held a teleconference and determined
  a tentative triage list based upon initial
  electronic postings.
• Scientific categories were collapsed and
  reviewers were asked to evaluate all applications
  in the discuss category (circa 30 of total)
• Following discussion applications were initially
  assigned to one of four bins best (1.0 -1.5),
  better (1.5-2.0), good (2.0-2.5), unscored
• After all applications had been discussed,
  initial bin assignments were re-evaluated and
  final scores cast.