and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (http://www.nih.gov)
Components of Participating Organizations
Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (http://www.nichd.nih.gov)
Title: Population Research
Infrastructure Program FY09 (R24)
Announcement Type
This is a reissue of RFA-HD-07-009,
which was released on July 13, 2007.
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
Key Dates
Release
Date: June 2, 2008
Letters
of Intent Receipt Date: October 20, 2008
Application Receipt
Date: November 19, 2008
Peer Review Date: March/April 2009
Council Review Date: May 2009
Earliest
Anticipated Start Date: July 1, 2009
Additional
Information to Be Available Date (Url Activation Date): Not applicable
Expiration Date: November 20, 2008
Due Dates
for E.O. 12372
Not
Applicable
Additional
Overview Content
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Part I
Overview Information
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility
Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2.Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and
Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Receipt, Review and
Anticipated Start Dates
1.
Letter of Intent
B. Sending an Application to
the NIH
C. Application Processing
D. Application Assignment
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements and Information
Section V. Application Review
Information
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection Process
A. Additional Review Criteria
B. Additional Review
Considerations
C. Resource Sharing Plan(s)
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration
Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
3. Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/ Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information
- Required Federal Citations
o
Part II
- Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
Purpose
The primary purposes of the Program for Population Research Infrastructure are to provide resources to support and advance research that will improve understanding of the antecedents and consequences of population structure and change, facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration among investigators conducting population-related research and in allied fields, and promote innovative approaches to population research questions. An additional goal is to facilitate interactions among scientists in locations throughout the United States that contribute to the integration and coordination of population research.
Background
The Program for Population Research Infrastructure replaced NICHD’s Population Research Centers P30/P50 program in 2000. Competitions have taken place annually since then and NICHD plans to continue these annual competitions through at least FY2010. Currently, the program provides two types of grants, the Population Research Infrastructure Program (PRIP) and the Population Research Infrastructure Program Short-term Support for Rising Programs (SSRP). The SSRP replaces the Developmental Infrastructure for Population Research (DIPR) Program (see PAR06-362). Both the PRIP and the SSRP use the R24 mechanism to provide infrastructure support to established population research centers doing research in areas within the mission of DBSB as described on the DBSB website (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/cpr/dbs/) and in this FOA (referred to as population research throughout this FOA). Both PRIP and SSRP provide support to both large and small centers and to both broad-based and specialized centers. Both PRIP and SSRP require that applicant centers include at least three active researchers doing research in areas within the mission of DBSB and that at least one center researcher has current or recent grant or contract support from DBSB (see Section III. Eligibility Information, 3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria). No institution may have more than one PRIP, DIPR, or SSRP award at a time.
Major differences between the PRIP and SSRP programs are the following: The PRIP provides infrastructure support to established population research centers that are highly influential, highly productive, and make substantial contributions to advancing population research. The SSRP provides infrastructure support to established population research centers that are becoming increasingly productive and influential, but have not yet developed to the point at which they are competitive for a PRIP award. The goal of SSRP is to provide infrastructure support that will allow the development of resources and mechanism that will facilitate a leap in scientific productivity, scientific impact, and contributions to population research. SSRP centers are expected to be competitive for a PRIP award within three to five years of receiving the award.
In addition to the differences described in the previous paragraph, the PRIP and SSRP grant programs also differ in the following ways.
The PRIP grant funds infrastructure to support a portfolio of population research housed in or coordinated by a center or other research unit (hereafter, research center or center ) at an institution. Through this support, the PRIP grant is intended to:
Scope
The Program for Population Research Infrastructure seeks to advance scientific knowledge in areas related to the mission of the Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch. DBSB is one of three branches of the Center for Population Research of the NICHD. DBSB’s mission is to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, and populations by adding to knowledge about human population dynamics and their causes and consequences. DBSB supports demographic, behavioral and social sciences research on fertility, families, population movement, health and mortality, HIV/AIDS, and population composition. Research on population diversity and change, studies of the consequences of population diversity and change for health and well-being, and research on the interrelationships among individual, family, group, community, and population processes are all central to this mission. To achieve these goals, DBSB fosters innovative and multi-disciplinary research by providing awards to individual investigators and research teams as well as supporting research training and infrastructure in the population sciences. DBSB defines "population" as the aggregate collection of individuals in a defined geographic area and/or social or demographic group. Examples include the residents of New York City, married people in the U.S., and African American children under age five. Aggregates defined by their participation in a study, program, or service are not considered populations under this definition. Further information about DBSB’s mission can be found on DBSB’s website, http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/cpr/dbs/. Illustrative examples of population research topics that fall within the DBSB mission include, but are not limited to, the list that follows:
Centers with strong research programs in areas within the mission of DBSB are encouraged to develop research projects with researchers outside the traditional areas of population research (for instance, anthropology, geography, biological sciences, epidemiology, public health, and medicine) in order to develop innovative interdisciplinary science that addresses important issues in the population research.
Potential applicants seeking information on establishing a new population research center or in refocusing the research activities of currently ineligible research centers so that they become eligible for PRIP support may consult with program staff listed under Section VII. Agency Contact(s).
Applicants responding to this FOA should have in place (or propose in their applications) effective mechanisms for fostering the development of an intellectual community that bridges investigators from different disciplines and different projects and promotes innovation in population research. They must also articulate a clear vision for their research center and its current and future contributions to population research.
Applicants must identify the signature population-related themes of the center. These themes must be relevant to the DBSB mission. Signature themes are defined as research topics that exemplify the applicant center’s most significant current and/or anticipated contributions to population research. The themes should reflect the major strengths of the center, but do not need to encompass all research topics covered by the center’s researchers. Applicants must also articulate a vision for the potential future contributions of the center.
Infrastructure Support
Applicants may request support for three categories: (1) Research Support Cores; (2) Developmental Infrastructure; and (3) Public Infrastructure. Applicants should request the types and levels of support that best suit their needs and objectives; they are not obligated to request support in all categories. The NICHD expects that the types of infrastructure support requested and the amount of funding requested for each type of infrastructure will vary.
The first two categories of infrastructure support are intended to advance the scientific program of the applicant research center. For these categories, applicants must justify the types and amounts of support requested in terms of: (1) the scope, objectives, and current and potential impact of the current and planned research at the applicant's population center; (2) the potential contribution of requested infrastructure to advancing the current and planned research at the applicant’s population center; and (3) the cost-effectiveness of the requested support. Applicants are expected to provide guidelines for determining the eligibility of researchers and research projects to access resources provided through the PRIP program, and guidelines and procedures for allocating these resources. No restrictions on access (e.g., by students, investigators lacking research support, investigators in fields other than population research) are imposed under this announcement. However, applicants must demonstrate that their proposed guidelines and procedures for controlling access to resources provided through the PRIP program are consistent with the goal of effectively advancing the scientific program of the center and the goals of this FOA. Similarly, the announcement imposes no restrictions on how applicants define membership in their center. Applicants are encouraged to develop flexible guidelines for membership that permit the involvement of researchers from all fields relevant for the goals of their research center. Membership in the center and access to resources provided through the PRIP program may be extended to individuals who do not meet the criteria used to define applicant eligibility (see Section III. Eligibility Information, 3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria).
In undertaking any of the infrastructure activities, applicants may propose cooperating with other institutions. Cooperative activities may include the development of research partnerships involving scientists in the applicant's population research center and colleagues in other institutions, and/or joint ventures with other institutions to provide research and/or developmental services. Proposed partnerships must be justified in terms of the advances to be gained through collaboration across institutions relative to those likely to emerge from within-institution partnerships. Partners in a cooperative venture do not need to be from another funded SSRP, DIPR, or PRIP center. Applicants must clearly describe the rights and responsibilities of each proposed partner in the funding, administration, and use of shared resources.
Definitions of Infrastructure Support Categories
Research Support Cores provide shared resources that support the research at the applicant’s population center.
Examples include but are not limited to:
Developmental Infrastructure Cores provide activities that promote the development of new research capabilities.
Such activities may lead to outcomes such as innovative projects and approaches, new interdisciplinary collaborations, the scientific development of junior researchers, or the integration of experienced researchers from other fields into population research.
Examples of potential developmental infrastructure activity cores include but are not limited to:
Public Infrastructure activities differ from the first two categories of infrastructure support because they are not solely intended to advance the research program at the applicant institution, but are instead primarily directed at significant external audiences.
These audiences may include (but are not limited to) the broad community of population researchers or communities concerned with public policy or health or social programs. Applicants may apply for limited infrastructure support that supports only public infrastructure; this type of application will be referred to as PRIP-Public Infrastructure Only (PIO) applications.
Illustrative examples of activities benefiting the broader scientific community include:
Illustrative examples of activities benefiting policy or program audiences include the development of tools for effectively communicating population research findings to relevant audiences and innovative strategies for translating research findings for application to programs designed to improve health and well-being.
Applicants are encouraged to request funds for public infrastructure activities only when they can justify that:
See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal
Citations, for policies related to this announcement.
Section
II. Award Information
1. Mechanism of Support
This funding
opportunity will use the NIH Resource-Related Research
Project (R24) award mechanism. The Project
Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) will be solely responsible for
planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This FOA uses Just-in-Time information concepts. It also uses non-modular budget formats described in the PHS 398 application instructions (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html).
2. Funds Available
The NICHD intends to commit approximately $1.8 million in total costs [Direct plus Facilities and Administrative (F & A) costs] in FY 2009 to fund applications in response to this FOA.
The NICHD anticipates funding one to five new and/or renewal (formerly competing continuation) grants in response to this FOA. New, resubmission, and renewal applications may be submitted in response to this FOA;
Direct costs are limited to no more than $1.0 million per year (plus applicable F&A costs).
Applicants should request a project period of five years and should request support appropriate to the size and impact of their scientific portfolio and to the goals of their infrastructure program.
As a general rule, NICHD expects direct cost budget requests for R24 applications to average approximately $17,000 direct costs for each active program researcher who can provide evidence of research activity directly relevant to the DBSB mission in two or more of the following categories: (1) externally funded research grants or contracts in the past three years; (2) publications in peer-reviewed journals during the past three years; and (3) papers in preparation and future plans for research. See Section III. Eligibility Information, 3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria, below, for further information on these categories of research activity. Count only researchers holding permanent (tenured or non-tenured) appointments; do not count trainees, post-doctoral fellows, or visiting professors.
Applicants may request additional funds beyond the guideline of approximately $17,000 direct costs per active program research (1) to support programs with evidence of exceptionally high impact or productivity or special features; or (2) to support for Public Infrastructure activities (see definition of Public Infrastructure in Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, 1. Research Objectives, above.
The anticipated start date for these awards is July 1, 2009.
Because the nature
and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to application,
it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary.
Although the financial plans of the IC(s) provide support for this program,
awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the
availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious
applications.
Facilities and
administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included in
the direct cost limitation see NOT-OD-05-004.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
1.A. Eligible Institutions
The following
organizations/institutions are eligible to apply:
Although foreign institutions are not eligible to submit applications in response to this FOA, consortium arrangements between foreign and domestic institutions are permitted.
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the PD/PI is invited to work with his/her institution to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
This
program does not require cost sharing as defined in the current NIH
Grants Policy Statement.
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Additional eligibility criteria for applications responding to this FOA include the following:
Applications not meeting the above eligibility criteria will not be reviewed..
Note that the second set of criteria used for center eligibility above (at least three researchers with evidence of research activity in all three categories) differs from the criteria used to define guidelines for requested budgets under Section II. Award Information, 2. Funds Available and to define page limitations for the research activity of program scientists in Section IV. Application and Submission Information: 2. Content and Form of Application Submission.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with program staff listed under Section VII. Agency Contact(s) if they have questions about their center’s eligibility.
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request
Application Information
The PHS 398 application
instructions are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of
the PHS 398. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301)
710-0267, Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
Telecommunications for
the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Applications must be
prepared using the most current PHS 398 research grant application instructions
and forms. Applications must have a D&B Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS) number as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants or
cooperative agreements. The D&B number can be obtained by calling (866)
705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/.
The D&B number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398
form.
The title and number of this funding opportunity must be typed in item (box) 2 only of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be checked.
Applications for Research Infrastructure Awards (R24) should be prepared according to the Application Guidelines below. All instructions and guidelines accompanying the PHS 398 are to be followed, with the exception of the sections modified by these guidelines.
SECTION I. GENERAL INFORMATION
B. DESCRIPTION AND PERSONNEL
Under Key Personnel, list key scientific and technical personnel participating in the grant. Do not list all researchers affiliated with the applicant program. List only those individuals who contribute significantly to the leadership and guidance of the proposed program and infrastructure components. At a minimum, the Principal Investigator and Core Directors must be listed.
C. TABLE OF CONTENTS
In lieu of the preprinted Table of Contents outline on Form Page 3 of PHS 398, a table of contents should be prepared listing major sections and paginated to enable reviewers to find specific information readily. The general form on Form Page 3 of the PHS 398 should be used, but should be modified to reflect the application sections required by this RFA. Under Research Plan, Section A. should be titled Program Overview, Section B should be titled Progress Report, Section C should be titled Research Activities of Program Scientists, and Section D should be titled Infrastructure Core Descriptions.
D. DETAILED BUDGET FOR INITIAL BUDGET PERIOD
Prepare a composite detailed budget table for the Infrastructure Grant and separate detailed budget tables for each infrastructure component (e.g., Administrative Core, Computer Core, Seed Grant Program).
E. BUDGET FOR ENTIRE PROPOSED PERIOD OF SUPPORT
Prepare a composite budget table for the Infrastructure Grant and separate budget tables for each infrastructure component.
F. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
A biographical sketch is required for all key scientific and technical personnel named on Form Page 2 (see Description and Personnel, above), as well as for all active center researchers, as defined in Section II. Award Information, 2. Funds Available. Include active program researchers first, beginning with the Principal Investigator, with others following in alphabetical order. Then provide biographical sketches for all technical personnel involved in infrastructure components of the application in alphabetical order.
G. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH SUPPORT
Present a summary of the research and research support the center receives, by source. For the applicant center as a whole, provide the total funds supporting research and infrastructure in the center for the most recent 12-month period for which the information is available. Indicate the 12-month period for which the data are being provided. Provide the amount of funding received in major categories such as the following: Infrastructure support from NICHD (e.g., a prior NICHD R24 or R21 infrastructure award); other NICHD funding; other NIH funding, NSF funding, funding from foundations; funding from the parent institution. This information may be presented in tabular form.
For the same 12-month reporting period, provide a list of the grants and contracts that provide research or infrastructure support to the center's research program. Include the following information: the Principal Investigator at the applicant center, the project number, the project title, the funding source, the project start and end dates, the total award amount, the award amount for the 12-month reporting period. If the grant or contract is a subcontract to another organization, indicate the Principal Investigator and institution for the overall grant. This information may be presented in tabular form.
For the same 12-month reporting period, list other funds and in-kind support received by the center such as operating budgets provided by the institution, large gifts, dedicated space, direct support of infrastructure core personnel, and dedicated equipment. Include support for research faculty salaries only if support is provided for a research infrastructure-related function such as directing a center, managing a core, and similar activities. This information may be presented in tabular form.
H. RESOURCES
Provide the information required by the PHS 398. In responding to the PHS 398 instructions on capacities, pertinent capabilities, relative proximity, and extent of availability to the project, it is permissible, although not required, for applicants to provide floor plans for the space available to the applicant center, including the location of spaces that are not physically continuous, as continuation pages.
SECTION II - RESEARCH PLAN
Page limitations: The length of the sections devoted to the overall description of the population research center, progress report, research activity, and proposed infrastructure components must not exceed those specified below.
Assurances and Collaborative Agreements. Any arrangements for collaborative and cooperative endeavors or subcontracting should be highlighted in the appropriate section below. Letters of Intent to Collaborate and Letters of Agreement from consultants should be referenced here and included at the end of the appropriate component.
A. PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Use no more than 20 pages for this section. Summarize the center's research program, identifying signature population-related themes that exemplify the center's most significant current and/or anticipated contributions to population research within the mission of DBSB. Address the scientific and practical significance of each research theme. Describe the current and recent research activity in the center that has contributed to the theme, identifying relevant scientific accomplishments and describing their impact. Highlight activities that have produced significant innovation and/or interdisciplinary collaboration. Describe the vision of program scientists for advancing research related to the theme.
Also describe other major contributions the center's active researchers have made to population research related to the mission of DBSB within the last five years. Examples of such contributions include large-scale projects that benefit the field broadly, creation of interdisciplinary collaborations, training and mentoring of junior scientists, scientific leadership of program personnel, and translational activities to improve clinical practice, public intervention programs, and public policy formulation. Do not repeat contributions discussed in the context of signature population-related themes.
Summarize the vision of center researchers for the center's future scientific advances and contributions. Describe strategies the center employs for advancing the quality and innovation of its population research program over the short and long run. Describe how the center fosters the development of an intellectual community that bridges investigators from different disciplines and different projects and promotes innovation in population research. Describe how the center develops and implements its goals. Describe how the center assures the development and success of junior scientists.
Describe the configuration and governance of the center and provide an organizational chart. Include information on the administrative position of the center within the larger institution, the authority of the Center Director (Principal Investigator), and the role of advisory or user committees. Outline the principles and procedures the center uses to determine membership in or affiliation with the center, to allocate resources, and to allow access to core services. If the center employs more than one category of membership or affiliation, explain the selection criteria, privileges and responsibilities associated with each. Describe how the NICHD support would leverage and interact with all other forms of support contributing to the research activities of the program.
Summarize the key features of the proposed infrastructure program and explain how each element will advance the quality, productivity, and innovation of the center's research activities. For Public Infrastructure activities, explain the value and significance of the activities.
B. PROGRESS REPORT
Applicants currently funded under the Population Research Infrastructure Program (R24) or Developmental Infrastructure for Population Research Program (R21) should prepare a progress report as required in the PHS 398.
Do not exceed five pages.
C. RESEARCH ACTIVITY OF PROGRAM SCIENTISTS
Use no more than 26 pages for this section. At the beginning of this section, identify three program researchers who satisfy the second set of criteria in the Other-Special Eligibility Criteria Section. Each of these individuals must have a permanent appointment at the applicant institution and must present evidence of research activities directly related to the mission of DBSB in all three categories (see Section III. Eligibility Information, 3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria for complete details). After that, indicate the center researcher who has the history of NICHD DBSB grant or contract support as defined in the third set of eligibility criteria in the Other-Special Eligibility Criteria Section. For the grant or contract that satisfies the third set of eligibility criteria, provide the grant or contract number, grant or contract title, the name of Principal Investigator and, if the center researcher was not the Principal Investigator of the project, the center researcher’s role on the project. Include a list of all active program researchers, listing the PI first, then following with the other researchers listed alphabetically.
Next, briefly summarize the recent and current research activity of each active program scientist with respect to each of the five points listed below. Use no more than half a page, on average, per active researcher. The total number of pages used to describe the research activities of the program researchers should not exceed the number of program researchers divided by two, with an overall limit on this section of 26 pages. Describe the Principal Investigator's research activity first and that of all other researchers subsequently in alphabetical order.
D. INFRASTRUCTURE CORE DESCRIPTIONS
Describe proposed infrastructure cores, as applicable, in the order listed below. If more than one core is proposed under a given category, assign letters to distinguish the cores (e.g., 1.a; 2.c). For each core, provide the name of the Director and describe procedures used to assure cost-efficiency and high quality administrative and research activities.
Do not exceed five pages in describing each component (core or activity). If any component is described as a collaborative activity (i.e., involving partnership with another institution), applicants may use one additional page to describe how each partner will contribute (e.g., in terms of administration, staffing, and other resources); how each partner will benefit (e.g., in terms of access to services or research productivity); and how decision-making will be shared.
Research Support Cores - Describe the objectives, administrative organization (use organizational chart), staffing (including a Core Director and any professional or technical personnel and their duties), space and physical resources, current and projected services, eligibility for and allocation of services, and cost-sharing arrangements. Briefly describe current or planned research activities that will utilize the core services.
Explain how the proposed research support cores will contribute to advancing the center’s research program and its signature population-related themes and to fostering innovation in the program's research. Describe strategies for assuring that research support services effectively respond to and anticipate the evolving needs of science conducted in the center. Justify the core in terms of scientific impact and cost-effectiveness. Explain what the proposed core services will provide over and above research support that the applicant's institution and specific research projects already provide and why they are essential to meet the needs and goals of the research program.
Developmental Infrastructure Cores - Describe the objectives and administrative organization of each developmental infrastructure core. Describe the impact of the infrastructure core on population research within the center. In describing seed grant programs, provide details on program procedures and policies, including review procedures; priorities for allocating funds; requirements for leveraging funds or preparing research proposals to extend or continue the project; size of awards; length of award periods; number of awards permitted to an individual researcher; mentorship arrangements; and cost-sharing arrangements with the parent institution.
Public Infrastructure Cores - Describe the objective of each core activity and the target audience (e.g., population researchers, program managers, policy makers). Explain the significance of the activity. Discuss the potential of the activity for advancing population research, stimulating innovative or interdisciplinary research, and/or enhancing the effective dissemination and translation of research findings. Describe the unique contribution of the activity compared with other similar activities that already exist. Describe the administrative organization (use organizational chart), staffing, space and physical resources and current or projected services and activities. Describe the plan for disseminating the resources, services, or products to the target audience. Justify the core in terms of cost-effectiveness and describe short- and long-range plans for supporting the activity.
3. Submission Dates and Times
Applications must be
received on or before the receipt date described below (Section
IV.3.A). Submission times N/A.
3.A. Receipt, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
Letters
of Intent Receipt Date: October 20, 2008
Application Receipt Date: November 19, 2008
Peer Review Date: March/April 2009
Council Review Date: May 2009
Earliest
Anticipated Start Date: July 1, 2009
3.A.1.
Letter of Intent
Prospective
applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following
information:
Although a letter of
intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a
subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to
estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed
in Section IV.3.A.
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Rebecca
L. Clark, Ph.D.
Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch
Center for Population Research
The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8B07 MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Telephone: (301) 496-1175
Email: rclark@mail.nih.gov
3.B. Sending an
Application to the NIH
Applications must be
prepared using the forms found in the PHS 398 instructions for preparing a
research grant application. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the
application, including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express
or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service;
non-USPS service)
Personal deliveries
of applications are no longer permitted (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-040.html).
At
the time of submission, two additional copies of the application and all
copies of the appendix material (see NOT-OD-08-031, http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-08-031.html) must be sent to:
Robert Stretch,
Ph.D.
Director,
Division of Scientific Review
Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
6100 Executive
Boulevard, Room 5B01D, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Telephone:
(301) 496-1485
Fax: (301)
402-4104
Email: stretchr@mail.nih.gov
3.C. Application
Processing
Applications must be received on or before the
application receipt date) described above (Section
IV.3.A.). If an application is received after that date, the application
may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed. Upon receipt,
applications will be evaluated for completeness by the CSR and for responsiveness
by the reviewing Institute Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will
not be reviewed.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application, originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an Introduction describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the application.
Information on the status of an application should be checked by the Principal Investigator in the eRA Commons at: https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/.
4. Intergovernmental Review
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental
review.
5. Funding Restrictions
All NIH awards are
subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations
described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The Grants Policy Statement can
be found at NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs
are allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval,
incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the
beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award if such costs: 1) are necessary to conduct the
project, and 2) would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH
prior approval. If specific expenditures would otherwise require prior
approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH
prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days
before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a
competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make
the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made
for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award
costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs
result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not
impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the
approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project
(see NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part6.htm.)
6. Other Submission Requirements and Information
Research Plan Page Limitations
The research plan is limited to 125 pages. See Content and Form of Application Submission for page limits on subsections of the research plan.
Appendix Materials
All paper PHS 398 applications submitted for May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates must provide appendix material on CD only, and include five identical CDs in the same package with the application. Paper applications submitted for due dates prior to May 25, 2008 may voluntarily provide the appendix on five identical CDs; if submitting CDs it is not necessary to include a paper appendix. (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-031.html.)
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations of the Research Plan component. An application that does not observe the required page limitations may be delayed in the review process.
Resource Sharing Plan(s)NIH considers the sharing of unique research resources developed through NIH-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value of, and advance research. When resources have been developed with NIH funds and the associated research findings published or provided to NIH, it is important that they be made readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community. If the final data/resources are not amenable to sharing, this must be explained in Resource Sharing section of the application. See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm.
(a) Data Sharing Plan: Investigators seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year are expected to include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss data-sharing plans with their NIH program contact. See Data-Sharing Policy or http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html.
(b) Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated are expected to include a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organisms and related resources, or state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible. See Sharing Model Organisms Policy, and NIH Guide NOT-OD-04-042.
(c) Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): Regardless of the amount requested, applicants seeking funding for a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. A genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight) or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. For further information see Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088, and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria described below
will be considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications that are complete and responsive to
the FOA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by
an appropriate peer review group convened by NICHD and in accordance with NIH peer review procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/),
using the review criteria stated below.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will:
The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
The
goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological
systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their
written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following
criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have
a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will
be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as
appropriate for each application. Note that an application does not need to be
strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact
and thus deserve a meritorious priority score. For example, an investigator may
propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is
essential to move a field forward.
Peer reviewers will evaluate each application for
overall scientific merit according to the criteria provided below. Reviewers
will also evaluate the merit of proposed infrastructure support cores, the
developmental infrastructure cores, and, if applicable, the infrastructure
activities undertaken with another institution using the criteria provided
below. The size and scope of applicant programs are not review criteria. NICHD
believes that investments of infrastructure resources in small centers of
excellence with focused scientific programs may be highly cost-efficient for
the field. Reviewers are encouraged to take the number of researchers involved
in a program into account in applying the review criteria below, particularly
when evaluating current and potential program impact. While both larger and
smaller programs are expected to demonstrate research activity of high quality,
programs with fewer researchers would not be expected to demonstrate the same
quantity of research productivity and program impact as programs with a greater
number of researchers
There are separate and distinct review criteria for the two main types of PRIP applications, standard PRIP applications and PRIP-Public Infrastructure Only (PIO) applications. In addition, there are also separate and distinct review criteria for research support cores, developmental infrastructure cores, public infrastructure cores, and infrastructure activities undertaken with another institution. These criteria are listed below.
A. Overall review of application Standard PRIP applications
Taking into account the center’s size and scope as measured by the number of researchers and/or the breadth of the science covered, what is the quality of the existing research program and its impact on the field? What are the significance, innovation, and quality of current and recent contributions of center scientists? Considering both the applicant's signature population-related themes and other relevant research, have these contributions produced new knowledge and/or new approaches to research that have significantly expanded, improved or altered the content, methods, and direction of population research? To what extent has the research center contributed to population science through large-scale projects that benefit the field broadly, creation of interdisciplinary collaborations, training and mentoring of junior researchers, scientific leadership by program personnel, and translational activities to improve clinical practice, public intervention programs, and public policy formulation?
What are the potential future contributions of the applicant's research center to population research, as based on the current trajectory of research productivity, innovation, and accomplishments; the applicant's vision for the potential future contributions of the center; the plan for advancing the scientific program; and the applicant's success in contributing to the development of junior researchers?
As other review criteria: What are the quality and potential impact of proposed infrastructure program based on the overall quality, scientific merit, and innovation of the activities to be supported? Based on existing capabilities and proposed activities, what is the likelihood that the proposed program will enhance population research, promote new research directions, facilitate interactions across disciplines and substantive areas of study, or advance theoretical or technical approaches?
What is the research competence of key personnel and other center members, taking into consideration the capability and scientific credentials of the Project Director/ Principal Investigator to direct the program and maintain high standards of research collaboration; the specific qualifications of core directors; and the scientific accomplishments of all participating investigators?
What is the level of institutional commitment as indicated by the nature and level of resource commitment from the institution in which the population research center is housed and any cooperating institutions, taking into account the institutional context? Does the academic and physical environment contribute to the likelihood of success of the research center through research opportunities, space, equipment, and the potential for interaction with scientists from various departments, institutions or disciplines?
How successful has the applicant research center been in creating an active intellectual community that encourages synergy and intellectual exchange among population researchers and advances innovative and/or interdisciplinary research?
B. Overall review of application PRIP-Public Infrastructure Only (PIO) applications
What is the competence of key personnel, taking into consideration the capability and scientific credentials of the Project Director/ Principal Investigator to direct the program and maintain high standards of collaboration; the specific qualifications of core directors; and the accomplishments of all participating investigators?
What is the level of institutional commitment as indicated by the nature and level of resource commitment from the institution in which the population research center is housed and any cooperating institutions, taking into account the institutional context? Does the academic and physical environment contribute to the likelihood of success of the research center through research opportunities, space, equipment, and the potential for interaction with scientists from various departments, institutions or disciplines?
C. Research support cores
Given the size and characteristics of the applicant’s existing research program and the applicant’s vision for potential future contributions, is the research support core appropriate?
Are the services and/or activities cost-effective, and are cost -sharing arrangements with the institution, relevant departments, and other external infrastructure support programs appropriate?
D. Developmental infrastructure cores
Are the services and/or activities cost-effective, and are cost -sharing arrangements with the institution, relevant departments, and other external infrastructure support programs appropriate?
For seed grant programs, are the procedures and policies for administering the program such as guidelines for reviewing applications, priorities for allocating funds, requirements for leveraging funds, and size and length of awards, and other program guidelines appropriate and of high quality?
For competing continuation applications, have seed grant programs succeeded in developing funded research projects relevant to the mission of DBSB?
E. Public infrastructure activities
For public infrastructure activities that are intended to benefit the research community: What are the value and significance of the proposed activity for population researchers and what is its potential for promoting interdisciplinary and/or innovative population research?
For public infrastructure activities directed to policy, program, or other audiences: What are the significance of the proposed activity and its potential for improving the accessibility of population research to significant audiences and enhancing the appropriate application of research findings to activities that improve health and well-being?
Are the services or activities cost effective and are the short- and long-term plans for supporting them (including cost-sharing arrangements) appropriate?
F. Infrastructure activities undertaken with another institution
2.A.
Additional Review Criteria:
In addition to the
above criteria, the following items will continue to be considered in the
determination of scientific merit and the rating:
Resubmission
Applications (formerly revised/amended applications): Are the responses to comments from
the previous scientific review group adequate? Are the improvements in the resubmission
application appropriate?
Protection of Human Subjects from
Research Risk: The involvement of human subjects and protections from research risk
relating to their participation in the proposed research will be assessed (see
the Research Plan section on Human Subjects in the PHS 398 instructions).
Inclusion
of Women, Minorities and Children in Research: The adequacy of plans to
include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and
subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the
research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects
will also be evaluated (see the Research Plan section on Human Subjects in the
PHS 398 instructions).
Care
and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research: If vertebrate animals are to
be used in the project, the five points described in the Vertebrate Animals
section of the Research Plan will be assessed.
Biohazards: If materials or procedures
are proposed that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the
environment, determine if the proposed protection is adequate.
2.B. Additional Review
Considerations
Budget: The reasonableness of the
proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed
research. The priority score should not be affected by the evaluation of the
budget.
2.C.
Resource Sharing Plan(s)
When relevant, reviewers will be instructed to comment on the reasonableness of the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed resource sharing plan(s) into the determination of scientific merit or priority score, unless noted otherwise in the FOA. Program staff within the IC will be responsible for monitoring the resource sharing.
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award
Dates
Not
Applicable
Section
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
After the peer review
of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her
Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
If the application is under consideration for funding,
NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant. For
details, applicants may refer to the NIH
Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards,
Subpart A: General.
A
formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be
provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the grants management
officer is the authorizing document. Once all administrative and programmatic
issues have been resolved, the NoA will be generated via email notification
from the awarding component to the grantee business official (designated in
item 12 on the Application Face Page). If a grantee is not email enabled, a
hard copy of the NoA will be mailed to the business official.
Selection of an application for award is not an
authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the
NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the
extent considered allowable pre-award costs. See Also Section
IV.5. Funding Restrictions.
2. Administrative and National
Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and
cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of
the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II:
Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part4.htm)
and Part II Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and
Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part9.htm).
3.
Reporting
Awardees will be
required to submit the Non-Competing
Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial
statements as required in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated.
We
encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the
opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall
into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants
management issues:
1. Scientific/Research Contacts:
Rebecca L. Clark, Ph.D.
Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch
Center for Population Research
The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8B07 MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892
Rockville,
MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Telephone:
(301) 496-1175
Email: rclark@mail.nih.gov
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Robert
Stretch, Ph.D.
Director,
Division of Scientific Review
Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
6100 Executive
Boulevard, Room 5B01D, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Telephone:
(301) 496-1485
Fax: (301)
402-4104
Email: stretchr@mail.nih.gov
3. Financial
or Grants Management Contacts:
Cecilia E
Bruce
Grants Management Branch
The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, 8A17L, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Telephone: (301) 435-1304
Email: brucec@mail.nih.gov
Section VIII. Other Information
Required Federal Citations
Use of Animals in
Research:
Recipients of
PHS support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply with
PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf)
as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm),
and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm)
as applicable.
Human
Subjects Protection:
Federal
regulations (45CFR46) require that applications and proposals involving human
subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the
adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the
research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained
or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and
Safety Monitoring Plan:
Data and safety
monitoring is required for all types of clinical trials, including physiologic
toxicity and dose-finding studies (phase I); efficacy studies (Phase II);
efficacy, effectiveness and comparative trials (Phase III). Monitoring should
be commensurate with risk. The establishment of data and safety monitoring
boards (DSMBs) is required for multi-site clinical trials involving
interventions that entail potential risks to the participants (NIH Policy for
Data and Safety Monitoring, NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
Sharing Research Data:
Investigators submitting an NIH application seeking
$500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year are expected to include a
plan for data sharing or state why this is not possible (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing).
Investigators
should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to
institutional policies and local IRB rules, as well as local, State and Federal
laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule. Reviewers will consider the
data sharing plan but will not factor the plan into the determination of the
scientific merit or the priority score.
Policy
for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS):
NIH is interested in advancing genome-wide association
studies (GWAS) to identify common genetic factors that influence health and
disease through a centralized GWAS data repository. For the purposes of this
policy, a genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic
variation across the entire human genome that is designed to identify genetic
associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight), or the
presence or absence of a disease or condition. All applications, regardless of
the amount requested, proposing a genome-wide association study are expected to
provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data
repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the
repository is not possible. Data repository management (submission and access)
is governed by the Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or
Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088.
For additional information, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.
Access
to Research Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide public
access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under
some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is
supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and
officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and
effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is
important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH
has provided guidance at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.
Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a
public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the
distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should
include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include
information about this in the budget justification section of the application.
In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent
statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider
use of data collected under this award.
Sharing of Model
Organisms:
NIH is committed to
support efforts that encourage sharing of important research resources
including the sharing of model organisms for biomedical research (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm).
At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to
elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding
pursuant to the Bayh Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm).
All investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal, beginning
with the October 1, 2004 receipt date, are expected to include in the
application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and
distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH
funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will permit
other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public funding.
The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a cost
threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications where
the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Inclusion of Women
And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the
NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be
included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and
compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate
with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This
policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public
Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the
"NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in
Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html);
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical
research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB
standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical
trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and
responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all
applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans
to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender
and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b)
investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses,
as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of
Children as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a
policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) must be included
in all clinical research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are
scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
All
investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the
"NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as
participants in research involving human subjects (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required
Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy
requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all
investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects
and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Human
Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC):
Criteria for
federal funding of research on hESCs can be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-005.html.
Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic
Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov). It is the responsibility
of the applicant to provide in the project description and elsewhere in the
application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s) for the hESC line(s)
to be used in the proposed research. Applications that do not provide this
information will be returned without review.
NIH Public Access Policy Requirement:
In accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html)
investigators must submit or have submitted for them their final, peer-reviewed
manuscripts that arise from NIH funds and are accepted for publication as of
April 7, 2008 to PubMed Central (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/), to be made publicly
available no later than 12 months after publication. As of May 27, 2008,
investigators must include the PubMed Central reference number when citing an
article in NIH applications, proposals, and progress reports that fall under
the policy, and was authored or co-authored by the investigator or arose from
the investigator’s NIH award. For more information, see the Public
Access webpage at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
Standards
for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued final modification to the
"Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health
Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002. The Privacy
Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually
identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the DHHS
Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of
the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR
website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/)
provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text
and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information
on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review,
funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research
contracts can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs in NIH
Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals
for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For
publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, internet addresses
(URLs) must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal
articles. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation,
Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide any other information necessary for the review because reviewers are under no obligation
to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution reviewers that their
anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.
Healthy
People 2010:
The Public
Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease
prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national
activity for setting priority areas. This FOA is related to one or more of the
priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People
2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and
Regulations:
This program is described
in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the
intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or Health
Systems Agency review. Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301
and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and
under Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are
subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations
described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The NIH Grants Policy Statement can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to
provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products.
In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits
smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in
which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early
childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent
with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of
the American people.
Loan
Repayment Programs:
NIH encourages
applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals
who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical,
pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas.
The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the
next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research
career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is
not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications
are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing
the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP awardees
must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week based on a
40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further information, please
see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |
||||||