Presser, Lance - November Review 2013 - CBD

Scoring: Poor = 1.00, Fair = 2.00, Good = 3.00, Excellent = 4.00, Outstanding = 5.00
Category
Score Weight Category Score
Academic and Research Record
Educational background (degrees, transcripts, honor and awards)
3.6 x3 10.8
Previous research experience (including thesis research)
3.97 x2 7.94
Publications and presentations
3.83 x2 7.66

Letters of Reference
4.03 x3 12.09

Scientific Merit of the Proposed Research
Clarity of objectives and methodology
4.53 x2 9.06
Technical/innovative quality of the work plan
4.23 x2 8.46
Feasibility of success in the proposed timeframe
3.97 x1 3.97
Qualifications of the applicant relative to the proposed research
4.1 x2 8.2

Lab/Center Review
Importance of the proposed research to the mission of the laboratory and capacity of the
laboratory to support the research
4 x1 4

Overall assessment of the project
4.07 x2 8.14
Composite Score:
80.32

Reviewers specific comments to applicant
Regular applicants: academic preparation, research experience, and references
Senior applicants: research experience, scholarly productivity, publications and references
Reviewer #1
Dr. Pressers background suggests that he will be a good candidate and is prepared to take on any
scientific challenges as a post-doctoral researcher. As reflected by his transcripts, he was a good
undergraduate and graduate student academically. He has proven to be a strong researcher and his
references all agree that he is an excellent scientist, a critical thinker with a strong work ethic, and
possesses considerable drive to excel at the next level of his development. Numerous reference pointed
out his leadership ability and volunteer work. His publications and presentation record are perhaps the
weakest aspect of his application, with 5 invited talks, 2 posters, and 3 manuscript published.
Reviewer #2
The candidate has a good/very good academic record, with a very good research background in virology
and infectious diseases. He produced two strong first author publications from his thesis research. He
has very good recommendation letters, but a minor concern is that his does NOT have a
recommendation letter from his principal research adviser.
Reviewer #3

Reviewers' specific comments to applicant on proposal
Discussion of the quality, relevance,and feasibility of the proposed research program; evidence of
relevance to laboratory center
Reviewer #1
The proposed research by Dr. Presser, to develop a gold nanorod construct that displays the major
protective antigens of viruses for use as a potential vaccine strategy, is very innovative and relevant to
USAMRIID. In particular, Dr. Pressers extensive experience and background with virology makes him an
ideal candidate for this research project. Although he does not appear to have any background in
nanoetchology, the gold nanorod platforms he has chosen is a well documented synthesis and he should
have the scientific background to follow established recipes. He is well qualified to conduct the
proposed research and his training as a researcher will be only be enhanced by access to the facilities at
USAMRIID. His technical approach is excellent, displaying a deep understanding of the challenges that lie
before him, and should be accomplished with the proposed 1 year time frame. If successful, Dr.
Pressers research will have important implications in the development of new vaccine strategies for
emerging infectious diseases.
Reviewer #2
The proposed study offers an innovative solution to two serious disease threats, Ebola and Marburg
viruses. The proposal is very well written. The objectives, methodologies, and outcomes assessments
are clearly defined. The applicant has carefully thought-out the anticipated outcomes as well as
alternate strategies should pitfalls arise. This reviewer has two minor concerns regarding this project.
The applicant has very limited experience with Au nanoparticles, which may slow the progress of the
study. Also, the dual animal studies in aim 3, (mice and primates) are highly ambitious for the timeline of
the project. It is not clear that both studies can be completed satisfactorily in the allotted time frame.
The supporting research center is excellent.
Reviewer #3