NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Tue, 11/14/2017 - 00:22

It sounds like you should be okay with the A1, especially if you can provide your PO with a response to not the dissenting reviewer’s critique in detail but whatever was highlighted in the summary of discussion (you could even send a 1-page response draft in advance of talking with him/her). The fact that you have been talking with your PO all along is great, as is the significant improvement in score – all of which NCI will take into account (plus your ESI status). Even if NCI does not reach the 25th percentile for NGRI, which is doubtful (but not impossible, depending on their FY18 appropriation), they will make exceptions for select pay, and your PO should be able to make a good case for you. Just be prepared with a response and any science updates when you next communicate with your PO.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Zhuoli Zhang

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 16:51

thank you very much

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Andrew

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 16:30

My R01- A1 was recently reviewed and was awarded a percentile in the low 20’s (NCI is the IC). I am an ESI. There was difference in opinion during the discussion with 2 reviewers giving high-impact scores for significance/ innovation/ approach and one reviewer dissenting. Strong significance/ innovation was also recorded in the A0 and the resubmission improved the score by greater than 10 percentile points. I think my PO likes the project based on our post- A0 discussion but I have not spoken to them yet. I would be grateful for your feedback on what my options are. The dissenting reviewer’s critique did not expose a fatal flaw or anything- it seemed more due to myopic vision than anything else. As such, I am not sure it can be improved by resubmission (virtual A2) as it was of philosophical nature. I am within the NGRI bracket but then again, this is NCI. Would be grateful for your thoughts.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: trying

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 14:59

Thank you writedit for your response! I will make sure to follow up here with whatever happens so others can include it in their estimation of chances too.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 13:54

Listen to your PO. Resubmit. You need PO support to get a 13% funded at NCI and even then there is no guarantee.

NCI Funding Policy for RPG Awards FY2017

“Most Traditional (R01) applications with scores up to and including the 10th percentile and Exploratory Development (R21) applications with scores up to an including the 7th percentile will be funded without additional review.”

https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/FinalFundLtr.htm

Categories: NIH-Funding

NINDS Research Education Programs for Residents and Fellows in Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R25 - Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 11:03
Funding Opportunity PAR-18-346 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The NIH Research Education Program (R25) supports research education activities in the mission areas of the NIH. The over-arching goal of this National Insitute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke R25 program is to support educational activities that complement and/or enhance the training of a workforce to meet the nations biomedical, behavioral and clinical research needs. To accomplish the stated over-arching goal, this FOA will support creative educational activities with a primary focus on research experiences, designed to foster the development of physicians as research scientists in areas relevant to the NINDS mission. The research experiences will prepare clinicians to successfully compete for individual NIH mentored career development awards, or where appropriate, independent research awards. This FOA will also support educational activities such that participants of the R25 are expected to attend and participate in an annual workshop specific to this FOA to present their work, discuss progress and plans towards transitioning to the next career stage and to network with other researchers and leaders in their fields. Such success will facilitate their transition from resident/fellow to physician-scientist, and will thus foster retention of a cadre of physician-scientists who will conduct research into the mechanisms of, etiology, and treatment of neurological diseases.
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Zhuoli Zhang

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 10:51

RO1 application was assigned to NCI and reviewed on Sep. 26-27, 2017. The proposal received a 13-percentile score. Is it possible to be funded in current application? PO asked to plan resubmission. How should i deal it with?

Categories: NIH-Funding

Exploratory/Developmental Bioengineering Research Grants (EBRG) (R21 Clinical Trial Optional)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 10:51
Funding Opportunity PA-18-286 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The purpose of this FOA is to encourage submission of Exploratory/Developmental Bioengineering Research Grants (EBRG) applications which establish the feasibility of technologies, techniques or methods that: 1) explore a new multidisciplinary approach to a biomedical challenge; 2) are high-risk but have high impact; and 3) develop data that may lead to significant future research. An EBRG application may propose hypothesis-driven, discovery-driven, developmental, or design-directed research and is appropriate for evaluating unproven approaches for which there is minimal or no preliminary data.
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 08:42

You should demand to see the Summary Statement from the A1 review.. If they do produce it ask why it is so late. If they can’t, keep demanding it and asking what the problem is. You might cc: your PO too. This is very strange.

Categories: NIH-Funding

Pathogenesis of Age-Related HIV Neurodegeneration (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 03:09
Funding Opportunity RFA-AG-18-023 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. NeuroHIV is at an inflection point, with an urgent need to understand the mechanisms that cause and modulate the CNS impairment in the era of antiretroviral therapies.
Categories: NIH-Funding

NIDCD Clinical Trials in Communication Disorders (R01-Clinical Trial Required)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 02:48
Funding Opportunity PA-18-334 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The NIDCD is committed to identifying effective interventions for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of communication disorders by supporting welldesigned and wellexecuted clinical trials. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) supports investigator initiated low risk clinical trials addressing the mission and research interests of NIDCD. Clinical trials must meet ALL the following criteria: meet the budget limits of this FOA, not require FDA oversight, are not intended to formally establish efficacy and have low risks to potentially cause physical or psychological harm. It is advisable that only one clinical trial be proposed in each NIDCD Clinical Trials in Communication Disorders R01 application. High risk clinical trials not meeting all the criteria above are referred companion U01 FOA PAR-18-340, NIDCD Cooperative Agreement for Clinical Trials in Communication Disorders.
Categories: NIH-Funding

NIDCD Cooperative Agreement for Clinical Trials in Communication Disorders (U01-Clinical Trial Required)

NIH Funding Announcements - Mon, 11/13/2017 - 02:48
Funding Opportunity PAR-18-340 from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. The NIDCD is committed to identifying effective interventions for the treatment or prevention of communication disorders by supporting welldesigned and wellexecuted clinical trials. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) supports a cooperative agreement between an NIDCD Project Scientist and an investigator to support a clinical trial that meets ANY of the following criteria: requires FDA oversight, has annual direct costs equal to or greater than $500,000, that is intended to formally establish efficacy, or has a higher risk to potentially cause physical or psychological harm. These investigator-initiated clinical trials are perceived to benefit from close interaction, oversight, and guidance resulting from a cooperative agreement. Only one clinical trial may be proposed in each NIDCD Clinical Trials in Communication Disorders U01 application. Low risk clinical trials not meeting any of the criteria above are referred to the companion NIDCD Clinical Trials in Communication Disorders (R01-Clinical Trial Required) PA-18-334
Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sun, 11/12/2017 - 18:06

Did the SRO back you up on your explanation that you had withdrawn it at his suggestion? I believe, strictly speaking, he was correct about the summary statement: this is why you cannot submit an A1 application before receiving the A0 summary statement (application is still considered under review until then). If no summary statement was added to your eRA Commons account, the application should not have been considered reviewed – but I am not sure if different rules are used to determine A1/A2 status (ie, panel completion is sufficient to trigger A1 designation). Did your status change to SRG review completed when the SRO pulled the application? What did your eRA status say? I would suggest talking with the SRO (if you have not) and your PO about the A1 and whether it can simply be converted to an A0 by removing the Introduction/response to the prior review – and submitting the same application as an A0 in Feb (if they won’t let you convert the A1 to an A0 for Oct submission).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sun, 11/12/2017 - 17:54

Strictly speaking, no – but another IC would need to agree to accept the A1 (you can’t just submit it without talking with a PO who is willing to accept it). With the SRG, again, you probably want to check with the SRO of the new SRG to be sure your science is appropriate. In your submission, you would need to justify the need for different expertise if it is not clear why the original SRG is not appropriate (otherwise, CSR might send it back to the original SRG). You might want to consider just an A0 to the new IC and SRG rather than trying an A1 based on the prior summary statement. Your current PO and PO in the new IC can give better advice based on your particular situation.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Sun, 11/12/2017 - 17:48

Congress only passed a budget framework – not the actual federal budget. The government is still operating under a continuing resolution (90% of FY17 levels) and will probably be extending the CR when it ends in December unless they can quickly deal with tax reform and the budget bill. Paylines should go up once the federal budget is passed and signed into law, at which point they will be used retroactively to fund applications in limbo due to the CR.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: P S

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Fri, 11/10/2017 - 18:59

I have a question regarding the federal budget process and their impact on paylines, both interim and final. On Oct 5, NIAID set their interim FY2018 payline at 9th percentile (lower than 11th percentile last year). Would the budget that congress passed in late October have had any meaningful info that would impact this interim score, or interim scores that other institutes may be planning? Or do things remain in flux regardless of the budget congress passed until the president signs it into law? Thanks for this wonderful resource.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: john chandler

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Fri, 11/10/2017 - 17:25

Wondering if anyone has experience with this – does a resubmission have to go to the same institute & study section? I will like to change both if it is allowed.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Robert Visalli

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Fri, 11/10/2017 - 14:42

I need some advice or comments. This scenario is unbelievable.

Renewal application submitted 6/2015 received score of 25. Final pay lines not set until 8/2016 – not funded

Resubmitted application as A1 2/2017 received score of 41. SRO calls prior to release of summary statements (7/2017) offering opportunity to withdraw and resubmit. Perhaps due to absence of progress report or ? – was never completely clarified. Something odd must have happened at that review. No summary statements will be issued if I chose to resubmit. I thought this a bit odd that the opportunity was offered after panel review but he assured me the review was considered incomplete without issuing a summary statement.

Worked my butt off revised and submitted 10/2017. Application gets posted as an A2. That immediately worried me but since the same SRO was listed I figured it would get switched to A1 based on the conversation in July. NIH just withdrew my application because I cannot submit an A2. Of course I know that but this was supposed to be the A1 re-submission. They refuse to honor the advice given to me by I the SRO. App is dead.

Considering prep time this went from 3/2015 through 11/2017 – over 2-1/2 year at one time scoring a 25 and missing funding by what I estimate as 1%.

I wonder what options I have – appeals? legally? This is unbelievable …..and I’m completely exhausted.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog - Fri, 11/10/2017 - 09:19

A 20 should be competitive, and the fact that this is your last chance for submission should be taken into consideration as well (as will any rebuttal to the summary statement that assures NIMH you can address any concerns raised). Fingers crossed that the summary statement and PO hold good news for you.

Categories: NIH-Funding