NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Tue, 11/28/2017 - 01:48

Once we see how long the next CR is slated to last, you can ask your PO for an updated timeframe. It not impossible for NCI to fund your application under the CR, but it could be your PO had assumed, given that the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, that the federal budget would be passed by December 8th (in which case NCI would have started making awards in earnest by late January).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Khandan Keyomarsi

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Tue, 11/28/2017 - 00:44

Hello-I submitted a new R01 to NCI that was reviewed in June of 2017 and received a 9th percentile. I was told that the grant will be slated for awarding in January 2018. However, since we are still in CR and based on the comments you have posted on this site, is the payline going to be similar to 2017 (10th percentile) or is it going to be lower than 9th percentile?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 13:48

Of course if your app was not discussed the last 2 sentences are not applicable.

Categories: NIH-Funding

Revision: Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research (Admin Supp)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 12:18
Notice NOT-OD-18-105 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
Categories: NIH-Funding

Notice of NHLBI's Participation in RFA-OD-17-001 "Limited Competition: Research Resource for Human Organs and Tissues (U42)"

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 10:37
Notice NOT-HL-17-566 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
Categories: NIH-Funding

Countermeasures Against Chemical Threats (CounterACT): Opportunities in Opioid Research

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 10:31
Notice NOT-NS-18-019 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 09:24

Not a silly question at all. A 10th percentile R21 would be a sure bet at some ICs but not others (eg, NCI, at least until FY18 budget is signed into law). You should be in good shape for an award, but you can check with your PO when you get your summary statement and ask both about funding likelihood (you could ask if he/she is cautiously optimistic) and whether you should resubmit (as insurance, in case the budget has an unexpected cut). Congrats on submitting such a competitive application your first time out!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 08:09

Since the vast majority of NIH reviewers have an NIH R01 grants inexperienced reviewers is unlikely to be a problem.

I have seen instances where a grant was at an inappropriate study section. But these cases are rare. The impact of your proposed work should be clear to scientists outside your field. For example, your reviewer 3 might be the world’s expert in DNA repair. If your grant is about transcriptional pausing it is up to you to provide them the general context and convince them of the importance of your work. Don’t expect a panel to contain the same 20 folks who travel in your scientific meeting circuit.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 08:03

I would add that since study section rosters are public you should be checking the past few meetings to see who is on the panel and if they have the correct expertise. It is better to raise your concerns to the SRO (and cc: the PO) well before the meeting meets. But, do not expect a panel full of the same 20 people who attend the same circuit of scientific meetings you do. Also, focus on the criticisms in the summary of discussion. These were the issues that were actually discussed (unassuming a good summary statement) and the main drivers of your score.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: maxT

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 04:11

Actually its 10th percentile. My mistake.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: maxT

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 03:53

Hi. Thanks for your great works. I have recently received a score of 10 in R21. What do you think is my chance to get it funded? This is my first proposal and I am nervous. Apology if the question is too silly.

Categories: NIH-Funding

Epidemiology and Prevention in Alcohol Research (R03 - Clinical Trial - Optional)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 02:50
Funding Opportunity PA-18-413 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) encourages the submission of investigator-initiated research grant applications to support research investigating the epidemiology of alcohol use, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorders and the prevention of underage drinking, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorders.
Categories: NIH-Funding

Epidemiology and Prevention in Alcohol Research (R21 - Clinical Trial Optional)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 02:50
Funding Opportunity PA-18-391 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) encourages the submission of investigator-initiated research grant applications to support research investigating the epidemiology of alcohol use, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorders and the prevention of underage drinking, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorders.
Categories: NIH-Funding

Epidemiology and Prevention in Alcohol Research (R01 - Clinical Trial Optional)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 02:50
Funding Opportunity PA-18-390 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) encourages the submission of investigator-initiated research grant applications to support research investigating the epidemiology of alcohol use, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorders and the prevention of underage drinking, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorders.
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/27/2017 - 00:37

You are absolutely correct not to appeal. Since this is a renewal, your PO will understand your concerns with the summary statement, so I would certainly recommend that you work with him/her on next steps. If this is the right study section for your science, then check to see how many regular vs temporary reviewers were on your panel (and consider whether the regular members would provide a more qualified review – if so, you can make this request of the SRO). If you are being reviewed by the same SRG that looked at your Type 1 application, your PO can comment on whether another study section might be better, since SRGs do change over the years (ie, the panel for your Type 2 application might have drifted in terms of interests and expertise from your Type 1 SRG). You can also use RePORTER to see what applications reviewed by this SRG are receiving awards to determine if your science matches these (especially Type 2 applications).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SadScientist

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sun, 11/26/2017 - 23:43

ScienceStuff – this is a systemic problem. Inappropriate and inexperienced people reviewing grants – perhaps inexperienced staff running review panels? If there is a way to contact you I’d like to discuss because I am experiencing a similar situation – perhaps worse.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: ScienceStuff

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sun, 11/26/2017 - 17:16

I am a fairly senior investigator whose competitive renewal just got triaged. While a minority of the comments pointed out reasonable issues of grantsmanship, many/most of the comments were just wrong with apparent lack of fundamental knowledge and clear lack of perspective/experience. Are there any potentially successful strategies to avoid repeat reviewers for the A1 that were seemingly very inexperienced and probably not qualified to review the initial submission? Or successful strategies for switching study sections? In my experience telling reviewers that they are wrong is not a successfully strategy for bringing them around to your side. Help!

Categories: NIH-Funding