NIH-Funding

Notice of Cancellation of the October 2018 Receipt Date for RFA-FD-16-043

NIH Funding Announcements - Wed, 12/13/2017 - 12:35
Notice NOT-FD-18-006 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
Categories: NIH-Funding

Academic Research Enhancement Award (Parent R15 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

NIH Funding Announcements - Wed, 12/13/2017 - 12:10
Funding Opportunity PA-18-504 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of the Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) program is to stimulate research in educational institutions that provide baccalaureate or advanced degrees for a significant number of the Nation's research scientists, but that have not been major recipients of NIH support. AREA grants create opportunities for scientists and institutions otherwise unlikely to participate extensively in NIH research programs to contribute to the Nation's biomedical and behavioral research effort. AREA grants are intended to support small-scale research projects proposed by faculty members of eligible, domestic institutions, to expose undergraduate and/or graduate students to meritorious research projects, and to strengthen the research environment of the applicant institution.
Categories: NIH-Funding

Interaction of HIV Infection and Alcohol Abuse on Central Nervous System Morbidity Limited Competition (U01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

NIH Funding Announcements - Wed, 12/13/2017 - 10:13
Funding Opportunity RFA-AA-18-008 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) invites a limited competing renewal of a U01 project to evaluate the cumulative and progressive effects on brain structure and cognitive/behavioral function of combined HIV infection and alcohol abuse. This project has recruited and longitudinally tracked a large cohort of individuals with HIV infection, or alcohol abuse, or the comorbid condition. As members of this cohort are growing older and living well longer due to antiretroviral medications, this project is well suited to address several questions of current interest in the HIV-AIDS research community. These questions include the effects of coinfection with the Hepatitis C virus, the involvement of peripheral neuropathy as a factor in frailty, potential neurotoxic effects of antiretroviral medications, and interactive effects with advancing age on sensory and motor functioning.
Categories: NIH-Funding

Additional Short-Term Administrative Relief to Institutions Impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria

NIH Funding Announcements - Tue, 12/12/2017 - 11:55
Notice NOT-OD-18-114 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Tue, 12/12/2017 - 11:51

NIMH probably had an internal meeting to discuss applications under consideration, pending the budget, and/or determine what could be funded under the CR. If you haven’t already, you could ask your PO now whether you should start working on a resubmission for March (or February, if an A1 application scored the 20). If he tells you to sit tight and not reapply, you have your answer.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: K applicant

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Tue, 12/12/2017 - 11:30

Received a 20 on my K resubmission to NIMH. PO has said he is optimistic, but can offer little certainty until after the budget passes, of course. He mentioned that he would likely have more information after a November 30 meeting – any idea what that meeting might be? Council isn’t until January 2018. Would it be appropriate to check in or should I sit tight and wait to hear from him?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Tue, 12/12/2017 - 10:42

Yes, SRG composition changes with each meeting. You can see the regular members and the years on which they will leave the study section in the main roster and check the flow of ad hoc reviewers from meeting to meeting (for prior meetings – you only get to see specific meeting rosters 30 days in advance of the review date). You can compare your current roster with your prior roster for differences to see if there were significant changes and talk with your PO about the current SRG membership. Your PO goes to meetings – yours wasn’t discussed, of course, but PO might be able to comment on whether current iteration of the panel would be receptive to seeing your application again or if you should try a different SRG (and which to try, if so).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Oreo

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 12/11/2017 - 22:46

Hi Writeedit,

Wanted to get your thoughts on Phase 2 SBIR. Our Phase 2 did not get discussed. The science was pretty much the same from Phase 1, which got an impact score of 21. We met all our phase 1 goals and had great data to back it up. So this came as a surprise.

I noticed that our study group has changed between those 15 months between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Is it common for something like this to happen? We’re looking to resubmit. Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Happy holidays to the group!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SJ

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 12/11/2017 - 16:25

Thanks.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:55

You could ask simply if you should submit a new application (based on your RFA application) for the February receipt date, so you have back-up insurance if the 13th percentile application is not funded (though I would certainly hope it would be, especially for AD). If you would not be ready to submit in February, though, then there is no reason to ask of course. You can watch to see what is happening with the federal budget (CR now extended to Dec 23) – when the budget is signed into law, then it will take another 4-6 weeks before the individual ICs know their final appropriations and can begin considering paylines (so your PO won’t know immediately after the budget is passed, though he’ll have an idea of funding levels).

Categories: NIH-Funding

Request for Information on the Office of Disease Prevention Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 20192023

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:09
Notice NOT-OD-18-118 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
Categories: NIH-Funding

When a Country is Open, Do They Have Strong Science Too?

Rock Talk: NIH Extramural News - Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:09

As no scientist is an island, the overall scientific enterprise grows stronger when people work together. But, an interesting question emerges from this concept for us to explore: how can we quantify the effect of collaboration on productivity and impact on science?

In the October 5 issue of Nature, Caroline Wagner, Ph.D. of the Ohio State University and Koen Jonker’s, Ph.D. of the European Commission Joint Research Center

published an interesting analysis of the association of a country’s “openness” and its scientific productivity. The authors assembled data from the Scopus database—a wealth of information on citations from peer-reviewed scientific journals—and data on workforce mobility from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Drs. Wagner and Jonkers developed an “openness” measure to look at international engagement. This measure is a composite of “numbers of scientists emigrating from, immigrating to, and returning to a country, plus international co-authorships.” These data encompassed activities in 33 countries and included 3-year citation data for 2.5 million calendar year 2013 publications across all scholarly fields.

Fortunately, because the authors shared their data freely, we could easily download it and dive into the numbers. Figure 1 is a reproduction of the figure the authors published in their paper. It shows a reasonably strong association between a country’s openness and the citation impact of its scientific work; the author’s used a field-normalized citation impact measure here because that allowed them to compare different-sized countries and subjects. In a regression model, a country’s openness “explains” 59% of the variance of citation impact (P<0.0001).

Most countries are either “low-openness and low-impact” – in the lower left quadrant (e.g. China and Japan) – or “high-openness and high-impact” – in the upper right quadrant (e.g. Singapore and Switzerland). The authors note that the United States is one of only 4 countries in the upper left quadrant – with relatively low openness but high citation impact.  They suggest this may be “because of the magnitude of its scientific enterprise and its geographic distance from possible collaborators.”

In their essay, the authors note a strong correlation between levels of government funding for research and development and number of publications. Figure 2 shows a log-log plot demonstrating a near-log-linear association (with funding explaining 89% of the variance, P<0.0001).  We use a log-log plot because both funding and number of publications follow skewed distributions; this also follows standards illustrated, for example, by Geoffrey West in his recently published book Scale. The slope of the log-log line is 0.77, a value less than one, consistent with diminishing marginal returns; that is to say, an increase of funding by 10% is associated with a less-than 10% increase in number of publications.

The authors also note that, even though there is a correlation between government expenditures and the number of publications, there is little correlation between funding and citation impact. Figure 3 is a scatter plot which shows the absence of association (in a regression model, funding explains only 5% of the variance, P>0.10).

These findings offer intriguing insights into research inputs and outputs on an international scale. Taken together, they suggest that funding is strongly associated with quantitative output (i.e. number of publications), but that other factors may play a stronger role in citation output – which the authors describe as a signal of “engagement and recognition .”

We congratulate the authors for their analyses and publication. And, separately, we commend them as well for their willingness to share their data with the wider research community. By facilitating this access, information can eventually lead to ground-breaking findings that will improve the health and lives of all Americans and those around the world too.

Categories: NIH-Funding

Using Information Technology to Support Systematic Screening and Treatment of Depression in Cancer (R01 Clinical Trial Optional)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:09
Funding Opportunity PA-18-493 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) encourages research to understand how information technology (IT) can support systematic screening and treatment of depression in cancer patients in a variety of oncology practice settings. The goals of this FOA are to: identify new, IT-enabled delivery models that support systematic screening and treatment of depression in cancer patients; test the feasibility of implementing these new delivery models in a variety of oncology practice settings, especially those serving under-served populations; and test the effectiveness of these new delivery models, and their components, in a variety of oncology practice settings, especially those serving under-served populations.
Categories: NIH-Funding

Using Information Technology to Support Systematic Screening and Treatment of Depression in Cancer (R21 Clinical Trial Optional)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 12/11/2017 - 12:08
Funding Opportunity PA-18-492 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) encourages research to understand how information technology (IT) can support systematic screening and treatment of depression in cancer patients in a variety of oncology practice settings. The goals of this FOA are to: identify new, IT-enabled delivery models that support systematic screening and treatment of depression in cancer patients; test the feasibility of implementing these new delivery models in a variety of oncology practice settings, especially those serving under-served populations; and test the effectiveness of these new delivery models, and their components, in a variety of oncology practice settings, especially those serving under-served populations.
Categories: NIH-Funding