(i) The level of formal education (e.g., M.A., Ph.D., M.D., D.N.Sc.) completed by the individual and/or the individual's pertinent experience and expertise;

(ii) The extent to which the individual has engaged in relevant research, the capacities (e.g., principal investigator, assistant) in which the individual has done so, and the quality of such research;

(iii) The extent of the professional recognition received by the individual as reflected by awards and other honors received from scientific and professional organizations outside the Department of Health and Human Services;

(iv) The need of the peer review group to include within its membership experts representing various areas of specialization within relevant scientific and technical fields, or specific health care issues; and

(v) Appropriate representation based on gender, racial/ethnic origin, and geography.

(i) The first part of the report shall consist of a factual summary of the proposed project, including a description of its purpose, scientific approach, location, and total budget.

(ii) The second part of the report shall address the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project with a critique of the proposed project with regard to the factors described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) or (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vii) of this section as applicable. This portion of the report shall include a set of recommendations to the Administrator with respect to the disposition of the application based upon its scientific and technical merit. The peer review panel may recommend to the Administrator that an application:

(iii) For each application recommended for further consideration by the Administrator, the report shall also provide a priority score based on the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project, and make recommendations on the appropriate project period and level of support. The report may also address, as applicable, the degree to which the proposed project relates to AHCPR-announced priorities.

(i) The significance and originality from a scientific or technical standpoint of the goals of the project;

(ii) The adequacy of the methodology proposed to carry out the project;

(iii) The availability of data or the adequacy of the proposed plan to collect data required in the analyses;

(iv) The adequacy and appropriateness of the plan for organizing and carrying out the project;

(v) The qualifications and experience of the principal investigator and proposed staff;

(vi) The reasonableness of the budget and the time frame for the project, in relation to the work proposed;

(vii) The adequacy of the facilities and resources available to the grantee;

(viii) The extent to which women and minorities are adequately represented in study populations;

(ix) Where an application involves activities which could have an adverse effect upon humans, animals, or the environment, the adequacy of the proposed means for protecting against or minimizing such effects; and

(x) Any additional criteria that may be announced by the Administrator from time to time for specific categories of grant applications (e.g., proposed projects for support of research centers) eligible for support under this subpart.

(xi) In addition to the scientific and technical criteria above, peer reviewers may be asked to consider the degree to which a proposed project addresses any special AHCPR priorities that have been announced by the Administrator, as applicable.

(i) The significance of the proposed conference, specifically the importance of the issue or problem being addressed, including methodological or technical issues for dealing with the development, conduct, or use of health services research;

(ii) The qualifications of the staff involved in planning and managing the conference;

(iii) The adequacy of the facilities and other resources available for the conference;

(iv) the appropriateness of the proposed budget, including other sources of funding;

(v) The extent to which the health concerns of women and minorities will be addressed in the conference topic(s), as appropriate;

(vi) The plan for evaluating and disseminating the results of the conference; and

(vii) Any additional criteria that may be announced by the Administrator.

(viii) In addition to the scientific and technical criteria above, peer reviewers may be asked to consider the degree to which a proposed project addresses any special AHCPR priorities that have been announced by the Administrator, as appropriate.

(i) No member of a peer review group (or individual reviewer) may participate in or be present during any review by such group of a grant application in which, to the member's knowledge, any of the following has a financial interest:

(ii) In the event that any member of a peer review group or his or her spouse, parent, child, or partner is currently or expected to be the principal investigator or member of the staff responsible for carrying out any research or development activities contemplated as part of a grant application, that member of the group, or the group, may be disqualified from the review and the review conducted by another group with the expertise to do so. An ad hoc group selected in accordance with § 67.15(a), or § 67.15(b) as applicable, may also be used for the review. Any individual reviewer to whom the conditions of this paragraph apply would also be disqualified as a reviewer.

(iii) No member of a peer review group or individual may participate in any review under this subpart of a specific grant application for which the member has had or is expected to have any other responsibility or involvement (whether preaward or postaward) as an officer or employee of the United States.