One RCIC reviewer questioned whether or not a CRIS search was conducted. A CRIS search was conducted, and this fact was reflected in the "Related current and previous work" section where related, but non-duplicative regional projects were mentioned (NC-210, NCR-57, NEC-80, NC-1006).
One RCIC reviewer questioned whether or not the W_temp1001 project personnel addressed potential duplication. Again, the reviewer is referred to the "Related current and previous work" section of the W_temp1001 proposal. It should also be noted that the other RCIC reviewer stated "...The program stands on its own and does not duplicate the work of other national projects."
One RCIC reviewer questioned the group's plan to tie together research findings on a regional basis. The section on "Outreach plan" has been revised and expanded to more directly reflect the group's plan.
Both RCIC reviewers questioned the group's lack of extension personnel. However, as pointed out by one of the RCIC reviewers, much of the research proposed in W_temp1001 is basic in nature, and involvement of extension/outreach personnel at this point in time seems premature and unwarranted.
One RCIC reviewer questioned if the group had addressed the concerns raised by peer reviewers. Virtually all concerns raised have been addressed during the revision. For example, all proposed experiments involving humans have been deleted. We understand the peer reviewers' criticism of our objective 1 (no one will ever attain a COMPLETE understanding of ALL mechanisms controlling the developmental biology and underlying biological mechanisms of fertilization and embryonic development); however, our intent was never to attain a complete understanding -- only to make substantial progress toward this understanding so that applications to animal agriculture may be developed which will enhance animal production efficiency. We have declined to revise one area of criticism, as the reviewer apparently was unaware of the paper out of Chandler's laboratory which states that individual ejaculates from bulls do NOT possess a 50-50 ratio of X- and Y-chromosome bearing spermatozoa. One concern raised was if our group was intending, as a primary focus, to benefit biomedical research companies, human fertility clinics, and endangered species survival programs. Clearly, our intent with the proposed research is to focus upon livestock species; however, we would be remiss if we did not also point out the potential secondary benefits that taxpayers may observe from this research with livestock species. Finally, one peer reviewer criticized the proposed research because not all experiments outlined involved collaboration among 2 or more stations. Although on the surface the reviewer's comments might seem accurate, we refute this criticism. One of the experimental designs used by scientists across the world is a balanced incomplete block design. The BIB design, as it is called, enables replicates of an experiment to NOT contain each and every treatment group in each and every replicate. In much the same way, researchers at institution A can be working on a problem related to topic 1 (e.g., oocyte maturation) from a slightly different viewpoint than researchers at institution B. So long as there is a common tie across stations (such as using oocytes from a common source), researchers at each institution can benefit from the research being conducted at the other institution. We also point out that the micofluidic device developed during the last 5-year project would not have been possible if one station (Illinois) had not been given the flexibility to pursue an embryo culture system different from that used by other stations (e.g., Colorado, Iowa).