NIH-Funding

Limited Competition: RCMI Research Coordination Network (RRCN) (U54)

NIH Funding Announcements - Fri, 11/17/2017 - 02:33
Funding Opportunity RFA-MD-18-001 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The RCMI Research Coordination Network (RRCN), formerly known as the RCMI Translational Research Network (RTRN), was established in 2007 to enhance collaboration across RCMI institutions. The network is designed to engage all stakeholders in the RCMI institutions, increase the quality and efficiency of basic biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research, facilitate study participant recruitment and retention, and increase the efficiency of the implementation and dissemination of research advances to improved health outcomes among minority and health disparity populations. Maintaining the longstanding networking and collaboration with the RCMI grantee community is key to the continued success of this program.
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Andrew

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 19:16

Thank you for your previous helpful replies to my posts. Your time and effort on this blog are valuable to the community and the mission. I have another question: Although it is fairly clear how Study Sections work (for better or worse), it is very unclear to me how programmatic review works. Sorry if the question is naive but do they meet in a room? Do they “score” applications based on programmatic criteria? Is programmatic review a horizontal institute-wide affair (where one application competes with thematically unrelated applications at even footing) or is it organized in a compartmentalized fashion (i.e., a genomics app will compete with other genomics apps)? Importantly, are the chances of a particular application dependent on the “clout” of the designated PO- or is this a multi-level review? Thanks again

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Mika 6787

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 18:19

Thank you very much for your answer! Very helpful. When we know NIH final decision: funded or not funded for this current 14th one

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 18:08

It sounds like your PO will work on getting your application considered for funding (especially if you are ESI) but that you should resubmit for insurance, so you don’t risk not getting funding for a competitive application. The 14th percentile application could get funded while your resubmission is under consideration (or even after it is reviewed), so don’t assume this application is dead yet. Just be safe and get another proposal in for consideration next March.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Mika 6787

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 15:50

with a 14% score RO1 at NCI, Summary is very very positive, PO looks like it? ! I emailed a brief responses of the comments to PO, PO replied will look opportunities, but suggested to prepare for resubmission. Any positive new I can expect……or forget about it?

Categories: NIH-Funding

Why Project Outcomes Matter in your Interim and Final RPPR

Rock Talk: NIH Extramural News - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 14:42

The next time you are filling out your interim or final Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) for your NIH grant, pay special attention to writing the project Outcomes section (Section I). That’s because any project outcomes submitted on or after Oct. 1, 2017 will be made available to the general public via NIH’s Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORTER).

You may wonder why the scientific community needs to report on outcomes and why we are making the outcomes available to the public. Reviewing reported outcomes is part of our stewardship of the public’s investment in research. Publicly posting grant outcomes provides transparency and lets the taxpayer understand what they have paid for (We informed you that outcomes would be made public in Guide Notices NOT-OD-17-085, NOT-OD-17-037 and NOT-OD-17-022). Therefore, it is important for grantees to write the outcomes for the public appropriately. Keep the description of outcomes concise and crisp, written for the layman in clear and comprehensible language. Do not include any proprietary or confidential information or trade secrets. Aim for Grade 10, so that even a 15 to 16-year-old will be able to understand the results of your research (see our pointers on using plain language to communicate the value of your research).

To help the research community understand what is an acceptable report, I wrote up a specific example from my time at the Cleveland Clinic on the outcome of a R01 funded study from 2001-2004 on ‘Heart Rate Recovery and Mortality.’ It wasn’t easy to break it down into non-scientific speak. I ran my first attempt through a readability checker and it reflected a Grade 12 understanding. I tried again and eventually succeeded in getting it down to a Grade 10 level.

Note that NIH will publish outcomes exactly as they are submitted by the grantee. So, it is critical that this item in the report is written for the lay person. While NIH program officials (POs) will review this item in the Final RPPR or Interim RPPR for elements such as relevancy (i.e. it is a description of project outcome and not unrelated comments that the grantee would not want to see on the Internet), they will not edit the text submitted.  POs may contact PIs to submit revised project outcomes, using the capability in eRA Commons to submit additional materials for interim and final RPPRs (see Guide Notice NOT-OD-18-103). But it is imperative that the PI provide the text (in the web form, not as an attachment) exactly as the PI would like it to appear to the general public on RePORTER. What you write in that web form is what the public will see!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 14:13

Not a crude question at all – one we are always asking. At this point, everything is still up in the air. As of right now (on paper), Congress will increase the NIH appropriation slightly for FY18, but their ability to do so might hinge on what happens with health care and taxes (which requires pay-as-you-go cuts to discretionary spending). The continuing resolution set to expire on Dec 8th will almost certainly be extended to next February or March (with or without a government shutdown first), which means we won’t have much clarity for some time.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: AO

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 13:00

Sorry if this is a crude question, but would the proposed budget cut likely to affect NIH’s budget and attendant NIH paylines ?

Categories: NIH-Funding

Behavioral Interventions for Prevention of Opioid Use Disorder or Adjunct to Medication Assisted Treatment-SAMHSA Opioid STR Grants (R21/R33)

NIH Funding Announcements - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 10:21
Funding Opportunity RFA-AT-18-002 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of this FOA is to solicit applications to examine the impact of behavioral interventions within the context of states plans for use of the SAMHSA Opioid STR grant funds authorized under the 21st Century Cures Act. Applications are encouraged for studies that examine the impact of interventions such as mindfulness meditation, cognitive behavioral therapy, or multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for primary or secondary prevention for opioid use disorder (OUD) or as an adjunct to medication assisted treatment (MAT) of OUD. Applications that emphasize treatment of the comorbidity of OUD and chronic pain are of particular interest.
Categories: NIH-Funding

Getting to Zero: Understanding HIV Viral Suppression and Transmission in the United States (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

NIH Funding Announcements - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 10:13
Funding Opportunity PAR-18-411 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to support grants to improve measurement and understanding of viral suppression and HIV transmission in the United States (U.S.) using population-level epidemiology and novel tools from Big Data science approaches and m/eHealth. The outcome of this research will uncover new knowledge from data to build more effective and context-specific HIV control strategies for the U.S. epidemic.
Categories: NIH-Funding

Notice of Upcoming Webinar for the Strong Heart Study (SHS) - Coordinating Center (CC) Solicitation

NIH Funding Announcements - Thu, 11/16/2017 - 04:28
Notice NOT-HL-17-562 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 23:07

Not this grapevine … I talked with a PO visiting BICO about it a few months ago, and he said the details on implementation were still being worked out. Unlike something like the Public Access Policy, there won’t be an NIH-wide mandate, since each IC has the autonomy to implement the initiative as they see fit within the constraints of their appropriation. The idea will be to even out the proportion of ESI compared with established funded investigators rather than a single hard ESI payline across the NIH. As long as ICs meet their goals in that regard, whether they have a single higher payline or accomplish it through more select pay across a larger span of scores will likely be up to them. The ICs will shift funding from established to ESI, so it is a real initiative – but it will be, as they say, precision NGRI vs herd NGRI – and it probably will now wait until the NIH is sure their appropriation emerges from the chaos in DC intact.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: lucien

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 22:29

Thanks so much, writedit! I will wait for my summary statement and then talk to my PO.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Andrew

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 18:26

Thank you for the comments. BTW, what is happening with NGRI? Will there be official guidance for implementation? Will the whole thing be conditional upon the budget (they made it seem that it would not be). Have any ESI’s benefited in FY17? There were the bombastic announcements in June and August and then radio silence. Anything from the grapevine?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 18:04

Yes, still a chance (since these awards are made on more than just score), but you won’t know how good of a chance until your summary statement arrives, at which point you can talk with the PO about next steps (rebuttal, resubmission for regular R01, etc.).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 18:02

When you receive your summary statement, talk with your PO at NLM about whether you should resubmit. If you are ESI, your case would be stronger, too. Program has a lot of say in what is funded, and your PO will want to see the summary statement first. Your PO might wait to make any judgment until the federal budget is a bit more clear, but hopefully we’ll have an idea of what the NIH appropriation might look like (right now, FY18 should be as good or better than FY17) closer to the CR deadline in December, which would still give you plenty of time to prepare a resubmission, if necessary.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Celtics

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 17:54

Hi,

We recently received a score of 30 (no percentile) for an NCI’s provocative questions R01 application (A0). I am an ESI. Does this application still have a chance to get funded?

Thanks.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Wed, 11/15/2017 - 17:52

Hmm. If it really is an issue with the junior status of your mentor, your PO should be able to help make the case that your team will help mentor the junior mentor (so a win-win for you both). It sounds like you did all the right things – I am never sure how reviewers expect more junior investigators to grow as mentors if they aren’t allowed to mentor K awardees (what, they’re okay to practice on grad students & postdocs for a while?), especially in the setting of team mentorship where everyone learns.

Categories: NIH-Funding