center for scientific review center for scientific review the center for scientific review (csr) is the portal for united states national institutes of health (nih) grant applications and their review for scientific merit. the csr organizes the peer review groups or study sections that evaluate the majority (70%) of the research grant applications sent to nih. it also receives all grant applications for nih, as well as for some other components of the united states department of health and human services (dhhs). since 1946, its mission has remained clear and timely: to see that nih grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews—free from inappropriate influences—so nih can fund the most promising research. csr logo csr receives nearly 80,000 applications a year and recruits over 18,000 external experts to review its portion of them in its study sections, which often meet three times during the year. additional scientists serve on other nih advisory councils, which provide a second level of peer review and make funding recommendations based on priorities set by the united states congress, dhhs, and the public. from 1946 to 1997, the csr was known as the division of research grants (drg). directors past directors from 1946 - present portrait director took office left office cassius james van slyke january 1946 december 1, 1959 david e. price md 1948 1950 ernest m. allen 1951 1960 dale r. lindsay 1960 1963 eugene a. confrey october 1963 1969 stephen p. hatchett 1969 august 1976 carl d. douglass august 1976 december 1985 jerome g. green january 1986 june 1, 1995 ellie ehrenfeld january 1997 september 30, 2003 brent stanfield (acting) october 1, 2003 june 30, 2005 antonio scarpa july 1, 2005 september 2, 2011 richard k. nakamura september 18, 2011 april 30, 2018 noni byrnes february 14, 2019 present current initiatives shorten the review process so applicants can revise and resubmit their applications in the next review round if necessary and nih can more timely fund the best research. shortening the review process by 45 days could thus reduce the time to resubmit by four months. recruit and retain the best reviewers so nih and applicants receive the best advice. foster a culture more favorable to innovative applications, so that nih can fund research that promises larger advances in science and health. address the concern that clinical research is not properly evaluated, so this important research is well represented in the nih program. increase the transparency, accountability, and uniformity of nih peer review.