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

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sun, 11/26/2017 - 12:25

All ICs must be extremely conservative during the CR since they are operating on 90% of their FY17 appropriation, so paylines are necessarily lower than FY17 levels, and do not know what the FY18 appropriation will look like, so do not want to risk posting a payline they may not be able to sustain. Congress was supporting a slight increase for the NIH, but that could change if the tax cut bill passes since they must pay for the cuts. Council does not set or change paylines – the IC Director does this based on the final appropriation received, the number of applications scoring in a given percentile or score range, and IC programmatic priorities (ie, setting aside more or less $ for special initiatives, select pay, etc.). The paylines will be set/changed when the FY18 budget passes (and will be retroactive to the beginning of the FY, so applications that don’t make the interim payline will be picked up later – including any ESI payline extensions).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Stellar

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sat, 11/25/2017 - 17:44

Hello, I have heard rumblings that the NCI pay line during continuing resolution will be = or< 8% . Anyone else heard this? when do the council decisions "change" from the 10% current for established R01 to the "new" 2018 / CR pay lines?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sat, 11/25/2017 - 08:52

Don’t panic yet – the PO is getting lots of emails from lots of PIs who just got their scores. Yours is probably a little high to be competitive, so your PO is probably concentrating on those who need to take steps for an award, such as JIT (for cycle 1 applications). Next week, try one more email asking if you should resubmit, which I suspect is likely, and a good time to talk about resubmission strategy. You might get back a happy note that you could be in line for funding, but mainly, you will communicate to your PO that you understand your situation and are seeking his/her help moving forward.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: HY

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sat, 11/25/2017 - 01:45

Hi writedit, Thank you very much for such valuable information. I am an ESI, submitted an R03 in June and got 19% percentile and impact score 35 on Oct 27. Summary statement is released on Nov 17. I requested primary institute to be NIGMS, however it was assigned to the secondary institute NHGRI. I emailed my PO on Nov 7, and again on Nov 20, but did not hear back. What would you suggest me to do next? Thank you!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 23:53

I do not know NIMH’s funding range for K01s, but this would not be out of range for some ICs. You will need to wait for your summary statement before following up with the PO – which you absolutely want to do (both to learn about your chances of funding and strategy for resubmission, if needed, since your PO would likely have attended the SRG meeting at which your application was discussed). Summary statements can take up to 6-8 weeks to be released, depending on the SRO’s workload. There is no reason to panic or rush – you would be resubmitting in March if needed, and you should have your summary statement in time to talk with your PO in December, which would give you a couple of months to prepare an A1 application if needed.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 23:47

I am not sure what you mean by “invoking” a COI as the basis of an appeal, nor do I understand the scenario you are trying to describe. First, a PI can only appeal a factual error in a summary statement on objective grounds (not perceived bias or subjective difference of opinion). The PI has no idea which reviewers were assigned to his/her application, so the PI cannot claim there was conflict of interest involved in the review (and certainly not as the basis for an appeal). If the PI (applicant) has a co-investigator on the panel, the PI can indicate this conflict in his/her cover letter, and/or that co-investigator can recuse him/herself from the review and discussion. Now, if you are suggesting a competitor is a co-investigator with Dr. X on the SRG and therefore Dr. X has a COI that led to a negative review – again, this is a stretch, since you can only point to a factual error sufficient to sway the opinion of the entire review panel enough to alter the score. Before you “invoke” any sort of appeal, you should discuss the matter with your PO, who, having the facts, will be able to advise you on what to do. If the PO readily recognizes an objective problem, the PO should take steps to address the situation, if possible, without an official appeal to Council to approve a second review of the application as submitted. Otherwise, if the appeal is accepted, what happens is the exact same application is re-reviewed (after Council approves of this re-review – a huge time delay with no new science submitted). There is no change of score until the next review cycle following Council, and the application could receive a worse score or not be discussed, at which point you are out of options accept to resubmit (after a year or so of delay – you cannot submit a revised application during the re-review process but must wait until after the appeal and second review of the original application).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: DenDritic

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 22:26

Thanks again for this valuable resource. I have a question with regard to “conflict of interest” as a basis to appeal peer-review outcomes. It is not clear to me how this could work post-review because of the risk that the reviewer looses their anonymity. If one invokes c-o-i with Dr. X on the review panel and PO/SRO/Council concur and accept the appeal, does that not expose Dr. X as the reviewer? Thank you in advance

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: eh

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 14:24

Hello, my K01 to NIMH was scored on October 31st. I have yet to receive the summary statements. My score was a 27 on the first submission. Any ideas on the range of typical scores that are funded at NIMH? Also, my impression was it was about 2 weeks for summary statements to come in. Is it worth following up with PO? Thanks so much!

Categories: NIH-Funding

Mentored Quantitative Research Development Award (Parent K25 - No Independent Clinical Trials)

NIH Funding Announcements - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:38
Funding Opportunity PA-18-396 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of the Mentored Quantitative Research Career Development Award (K25) is to attract to NIH-relevant research those investigators whose quantitative science and engineering research has thus far not been focused primarily on questions of health and disease. The K25 award will provide support and "protected time" for a period of supervised study and research for productive professionals with quantitative (e.g., mathematics, statistics, economics, computer science, imaging science, informatics, physics, chemistry) and engineering backgrounds to integrate their expertise with NIH-relevant research.
Categories: NIH-Funding

Mentored Quantitative Research Development Award (Parent K25 - Clinical Trial Required)

NIH Funding Announcements - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:35
Funding Opportunity PA-18-395 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of the Mentored Quantitative Research Career Development Award (K25) is to attract to NIH-relevant research those investigators whose quantitative science and engineering research has thus far not been focused primarily on questions of health and disease. The K25 award will provide support and "protected time" for a period of supervised study and research for productive professionals with quantitative (e.g., mathematics, statistics, economics, computer science, imaging science, informatics, physics, chemistry) and engineering backgrounds to integrate their expertise with NIH-relevant research.
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:19

No, you can confirm with your PO about a specific institution to be sure, but foreign organizations are not eligible for either phase of K99/R00 applications.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:13

Your PO won’t know about your R01 until the FY18 federal budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until next year (which is why your PO does not want you to wait before getting a resubmission ready). More broadly, an application can be considered for funding for as long as it is administratively active, which I believe is 2-3 years after submission. However, essentially, an application will be considered until the end of the FY in which it is submitted (Sept 30) and only rarely in the next FY (eg, if the original application from the prior FY has a better score than the resubmission & the IC wants to fund it). So, you should know by late next summer (August) whether your 14th percentile will be funded, though probably sooner, depending on the timing of the FY18 budget passage.

Categories: NIH-Funding

Advancing the Science of Multipurpose Technology for the Prevention of HIV and Unintended Pregnancy (R41/R42)

NIH Funding Announcements - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:06
Funding Opportunity RFA-HD-18-101 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of this initiative is to invite STTR applications to stimulate new and innovative multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) through the development of new combinations of agents and delivery systems to prevent HIV infection and unintended pregnancy among adolescent girls and young women. HIV and unintended pregnancy are two major public health problems affecting young women globally. Combination prevention modalities may be more desirable and lead to better adherence in the end user, especially among younger populations. A viable and effective combination prevention modality would be ideal and critical for these young women who are at risk for HIV and who desire protection against pregnancy.
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:04

Hmm. I would suggest calling the eRA Help desk and your PO about changing this. I believe this can be adjusted by someone at the eRA Commons, but I do not have specific instructions.

Categories: NIH-Funding

Advancing the Science of Multipurpose Technology for the Prevention of HIV and Unintended Pregnancy (R43/R44)

NIH Funding Announcements - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:04
Funding Opportunity RFA-HD-18-102 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of this initiative is to invite SBIR applications to stimulate new and innovative multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) through the development of new combinations of agents and delivery systems to prevent HIV infection and unintended pregnancy among adolescent girls and young women. HIV and unintended pregnancy are two major public health problems affecting young women globally. Combination prevention modalities may be more desirable and lead to better adherence in the end user, especially among younger populations. A viable and effective combination prevention modality would be ideal and critical for these young women who are at risk for HIV and who desire protection against pregnancy.
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:03

The PO does not talk at the Council meeting but advocates for applications in the gray zone after Council meets during internal (to the IC) meetings where paylists are discussed. Each PO will have a handful of applications that he or she thinks should be considered for select pay and explains why the proposed science is of special interest to the IC and how the concerns raised at peer review can be addressed in implementing the research approach. Each IC is different, but Jeremy Berg gave some insight as to what happens at NIGMS: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2011/01/the-funding-decision-process/

Categories: NIH-Funding

Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (Parent K24 - Clinical Trial Required)

NIH Funding Announcements - Wed, 11/22/2017 - 12:30
Funding Opportunity PA-18-393 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of the NIH Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (K24) is to provide support to mid-career health-professional doctorates for protected time to devote to patient-oriented research (POR) and to act as research mentors primarily for clinical residents, clinical fellows and/or junior clinical faculty.
Categories: NIH-Funding