The goal of the National Research Service Award (NRSA) Postdoctoral Fellowship (F32) Program is to help ensure that highly trained, productive, and creative scientists will be available to carry out the Nation's biomedical and behavioral research agenda. The goal of review is to identify those candidates who have the highest potential to develop into successful, independent scientists upon the completion of their training. Therefore, in preparing your comments, it is important to remember that the F32 program is a training award and not a research award. Major considerations in the review are the candidate's potential for a productive career, the candidate's need for the proposed training, and the degree to which the research training proposal, the sponsor, and the environment will satisfy those needs.

Each major element of the fellowship review (Candidate, Sponsor and Training Environment, Research Proposal, and Training Potential) should be commented on in a separate section of your written critique. For revised applications, also comment briefly on whether the application is improved, the same, or worse. In addition, provide a one-sentence summary of your evaluation at the end of each section. After considering all of the review criteria, briefly summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the application and recommend an overall level of merit in a section titled Summary and Recommendations (see below).

Please note that your comments will be used essentially unedited in the final summary statement sent to the candidate.

REVIEW CRITERIA

CANDIDATE: Assess the candidate's potential to become an important contributor to biomedical or behavioral science. Since the goal is to identify candidates who have the highest potential to develop into productive independent scientists upon the completion of their training, this element of review is critical to the overall score. When evaluating the candidate's potential, you may consider the following items where relevant:

• The extent and level of previous education including any undergraduate or graduate degree(s), the field, the date received or expected, academic performance, the mentor and the institution;

• Dissertation topic(s) in one or two sentences;

• Previous postdoctoral research or clinical experience, including: the mentor, institution, topic, and dates;

• Evidence of commitment to a career in research;

• Awards and honors, other relevant research experience, professional training, and publications;

• Reference letters; considering both the numerical rankings and the text of the letters (Be sure to protect the confidentiality of the references).

IMPORTANT NOTE: Candidates with clinical degrees (M.D., D.V.M., D.D.S., etc.) may have had little previous research experience but are eligible for postdoctoral fellowship support and may propose training that leads to a Ph.D. degree. The candidate's specific background should be considered in assessing the potential to develop into a productive scientist.

SPONSOR AND TRAINING ENVIRONMENT: Assess the qualifications of the sponsor including his or her research expertise and prior experience as a mentor. Also evaluate the degree to which the level of funding for the proposed project, the environment of the host laboratory, the proposed training program, and the institution will be conducive to successful postdoctoral training.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL: Briefly evaluate the merit of the research proposal and the general approach, considering the candidate's research background and the respective contributions of the candidate and the sponsor in the development of the research proposal. The proposal must have scientific merit, but unlike a research grant proposal, it should be evaluated in the light of the candidate's previous training and career development. Therefore, avoid a detailed critique of technical aspects of the research, but check for flaws so severe that they cast doubt on the candidate's or the sponsor's scientific judgment and qualifications. If the research proposal involves human subjects, include an evaluation of the plan to include representation of both males and females, children (individuals under the age of 21), and members of minority groups as it relates to the scientific goals of the research. Try to limit the written critique of the research proposal to two or three short paragraphs.

TRAINING POTENTIAL: Considering the candidate's qualifications and previous research experience, evaluate the proposed training experience as it relates to preparation for an independent research career. Candidates may choose to remain in a scientific area related to their previous work or shift to an entirely new area of research, but the proposed experience must augment the candidate's conceptual and/or experimental skills. The overall training potential should be considered in light of the requested period of fellowship support.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Briefly summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the application and recommend an overall level of merit, weighting each of the review criteria as you feel appropriate. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to receive a good rating. Each scored application will receive a numerical rating that will reflect your opinion of its merit. The numerical rating is based on a scale from 1.0 for the most meritorious to 5.0 for the least meritorious with increments of 0.1 unit. Reviewers should score the "average" application they customarily review in their Scientific Review Group with a score of 3.0. This practice is designed to have 3.0 be the median.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Foreign Training: In a separate section, describe the scientific advantages of the proposed training in a foreign country and compare it to relevant training opportunities available in this country. Comment on any special talents, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that are not readily available in the United States or that augment existing resources. This consideration should not be factored into your overall recommendation and rating.

Human Subjects: In applications with research proposals involving human subjects, consider the following issues:

Gender, Minority, and Children Subjects: As reviewers of fellowship applications you will determine if human subjects and/or human tissues are involved in the project. If they are, evaluate whether the minority and gender characteristics of the sample are scientifically acceptable and consistent with the aims of the project, using the categories of "1" to "4" as follows. Also examine whether there is appropriate inclusion of children (Also determine whether the research is a Phase-III clinical trial.)

Category	Gender (G)	Minority (M)	Children (C)
1	Both Genders	Minority & non-minority	Children & adults
2	Only Women	Only minority	Only children
3	Only Men	Only non-minority	No children included
4	Gender Unknown	Minority representation unknown	Representation of children unknown

Evaluate acceptability as "A" (acceptable) or "U" (unacceptable). If you rate the sample as "U", consider this feature a weakness or a deficiency in the design of the project reflected in the overall scoring of the project.

NOTE: To the degree that acceptability or unacceptability affects on the investigator's approach to the proposed research, such comments should appear under Research Proposal and should be factored into the score as appropriate.

Animal Welfare: Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the responses to the five required points, especially whether the procedures will be limited to those that are unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research.

Biohazards: Note any materials or procedures that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and indicate whether the protection proposed will be adequate.