Error message

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in require_once() (line 341 of /srv/nih/includes/module.inc).

Research Evaluation

1. University-funded research

Research proposals which seek financial support from the University should be submitted using the prescribed program/project proposal format (Annex A) and will go through technical and ethical review as shown in the different steps illustrated in Fig. 5 (CHANGED). Proposals are reviewed by the committee in the unit of the proponent for their technical merit, i.e. by the Research Committee of the College of Institute or by a Steering Committee of the Study Group. The recommendation of the head of the unit is necessary before the proposal is submitted to the NIH, through the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research/National Institutes of Health (OVCR/NIH). The technical review thus starts from the departmental or study group level, college or institute level after which the NIH/UPM Technical Review Board (NIH/UPM TRB) acts on it by:

a. Approving the proposal directly (if only a technical review is required), or

b. Referring the proposal to any or all of the following committees: Bioethics, Biosafety, Bioprospecting, when necessary

c. Rating/ranking each proposal using a set of criteria for funding/prioritization.

Research proposals are rated from 1 to 5 (1 being the highest rating and 5 being the lowest rating) and ranked according to relevance. Proposals with the highest rating and whose budget can be supported, are given priority. Budget requirements will be announced at the time of the call of research proposals.

Those not eligible for funding are returned to the proponents with suggestions for revision and further development.

2. College-funded research

When financial support of research projects comes from college-administered funds, the College/Unit is given the authority to approve research proposals. The Research and Ethics Committees of the unit are responsible for the technical and ethical reviews, respectively. In case the unit does not have an Ethics Committee, the proposal should be referred to the UP Manila Ethics Review Board (UPM ERB).

A copy of the approved protocol should be filed with the NIH/UP Manila Research Data Base at the National Telehealth Center, NIH.

3. Externally-funded research

Faculty members are encouraged to seek funding support for research undertakings from external sources.

The review process of the proposals follows the procedures prescribed by the potential funding agency.

Within UP Manila, the following steps should be observed. Proposals submitted to an external agency should have the endorsement of the head of the unit of the proponent, if necessary the Chancellor's endorsement is required by the external agency, the proposal should be coursed through the OVCR/NIH. For a proposal that is developed jointly with other institutions, it needs an ethical review by the unit where it will be implemented.

Research projects that have external funding need not be reviewed technically by the NIH/UPM TRB, but may need to be referred to the NIH/UPM Ethics Review Board, Biosafety and Bioprospecting Committees for clearance as deemed necessary by the OVCR Executive Director. In the case of an ethical clearance, the NIH/UPM ERB may be tapped to conduct the review for a fee.

The OVCR/ED should be given a copy of the protocol or research projects conducted by the different units of UPM which will be forwarded for inclusion in the NIH/UPM Research Data Base.