WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog

Syndicate content
Customized Customer Support for Biomedical Researchers
Updated: 9 hours 49 min ago

By: writedit

Sat, 01/13/2018 - 21:03

Yes, the R21 is eligible … no, you do not need to prepare a justification for the NIH. The link to exercise your extension (notifying your IC) will appear in eRA Commons 90 days before the project end date. You will need to tell your institution that you want to extend your award period one year, and your authorized signing official sends the electronic notification. Your university/institution will let you know what information they need prior to submitting the notification.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: J

Fri, 01/12/2018 - 18:49

Thank you very much

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: NCE

Fri, 01/12/2018 - 12:52

Dear Writedit,

I have a naive question on no-cost extension. Is R21 eligible for NCE? For the first request, do I need to prepare any justification for the request? Or it is automatically approved upon submitting the request on eRA Commons by the SO?

Thanks!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Fri, 01/12/2018 - 10:59

I expect the delays are due to the delay in the federal budget, but if you haven’t checked in since November, you can certainly ask the PO or GMS for an update now. If you need to start spending money, you can additionally ask if it would be appropriate (ie, you are within 90 days of NOA) to start pre-spending (your institution would need to set up account).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: J

Thu, 01/11/2018 - 15:52

Dear Writedit,

Many thanks for your useful notes. I am a K99/R00 awardee. I just started a faculty position in January 1 and my R00 application was submitted in October and requested that the R00 phase of the grant can be activated in January 1, 2018 with my starting date.

No NOA yet. Should I contact the PO or Wait?

I spoke with my PO in November because of minor errors in the application and we fixed the problems.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Tue, 01/09/2018 - 15:39

Your application would have been discussed internally at NIDDK, not at the Council meeting (Council only discusses applications with controversial reviews and a few other special instances). Council would have approved your application to be considered for funding, and then the NIDDK leadership needed to decide which applications to fund based both on score and programmatic interest. I am a little unclear as to what you are saying happened, but it sounds as though your application was not selected for special pay (above payline), which means you will need to submit an A1 application in March (or next July). If that is the case, you will want to work with your PO to be sure your amended application addresses NIDDK priorities in the manner of most interest to them, if you can make adjustments that improve how the NIDDK leadership views your proposal (your PO will know whether you can make any such adjustments). You have already addressed the reviewer critiques (for NIDDK) – you can also ask if the rebuttal you prepared for your PO can be used for the A1 application (PO also would have attended the study section meeting & heard the discussion of your application).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Tue, 01/09/2018 - 14:21

It isn’t uncommon for PARs to only have 1 or 2 submission dates per year. My guess it that they didn’t want these to go to the first Council of the Fiscal Year (October).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Mika 6787

Tue, 01/09/2018 - 12:10

Dear Writdit,
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-16-044.html, for this specific RO1, submission dates are without Feb. cycle?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Trista

Tue, 01/09/2018 - 11:52

Sorry, what I mean was my application was not in the priority category.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Trista

Tue, 01/09/2018 - 11:30

I submitted a K01 application (A0) to NIDDK last year, and received an impact score of 30. Although I was able to submit the response to weakness to the Program Officer before the council meeting, but at last my application was not discussed at the council meeting. I heard from the Program Officer that they fund up to impact score of 32, 33, if the applications falls into the priority category, which I guess my application was there.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Teco

Tue, 01/09/2018 - 10:05

Hi writedit, thank you very much for your answer. I will wait to see the updates.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Mon, 01/08/2018 - 17:22

This is very positive. First, a 12th percentile ESI application should be in funding range (though you might need to wait for final budget & so have a delayed start). Also, the PO would not go to these lengths (seeking JIT & rebuttal, making suggestions on your aims & comments) if he did not think there was a reasonable chance you would receive an award. Plus, he put off a decision about resubmitting, another good sign – I am not sure if he was waiting for some internal word or the next update on the federal budget (probably another CR though). You can sit tight & feel positive until the PO can provide an update in a week or so – and even if he suggests that you prepare a resubmission, you can still receive an award (just that your PO does not want to take a chance with your career in terms of putting off resubmission in case something disastrous happened with the federal budget out of his control).

With regard to the summary statement, the resume & summary of discussion is most important – the individual reviewers’ critiques may no longer be valid if the discussion resolved some of the concerns they raised (& the summary statement comments may not have been updated after study section met). Your PO would have been at the meeting and heard the discussion, too, which is why his suggestion to make specific changes is relevant. If he ignored certain individual reviewer comments, you can, too.

Your score is such that Council will (and may have already) approve it electronically en bloc in advance of the actual meeting. There would be no need for Council to discuss your application, so no worries there.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Teco

Mon, 01/08/2018 - 15:35

Hi writedit,

My A1 R01 got 12 percentile in NIMH. I am an ESI. My PO has requested the JIT and a formal response to reviewer’s comments. The PO also discussed with me and suggested to change a subaim. I had written a letter to address the concerns. Can I say this is positive? I asked if I should re-submit a new application in the Fed cycle. The PO replied, ” I hope to have a better idea by early next week”. Can not see if it is positive.

In addition, my reviewer’s individual comments and scores seem not very supported, but the summary of statement indicated “overall the panel was enthusiastic for this project and its potential impact on the field.” I think this is why my score is good. If my case goes to the council meeting, will the council members question about the “alignment between the scores and the reviewer’s comments”? Thank you very much.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Dandan Xu

Fri, 01/05/2018 - 15:49

Thanks writedit for maintaining this blog, it’s been very helpful! We just got our NIGMS SBIR R44 / Phase II funded. I think we were incredibly fortunate and lucky. Here was our timeline:

12/20/2017 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
11/15/2017 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
06/28/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
04/13/2017 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
04/05/2017 Application entered into system

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: XKong

Thu, 01/04/2018 - 23:12

Dear writedit, Thank you so much for the very helpful information!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Thu, 01/04/2018 - 22:49

Only NINR can be assigned to the PA specific to that institute (with no other participating ICs). I would suggest you talk with the PO at NINR for his/her advice.

FIC is extremely limited in its budget and what it will fund and generally has FIC-specific FOAs (they do not participate in the parent R21 PA). You would definitely want to talk with a PO there to see if they would be interested in your work.

NEI will also have specific priorities for what they will fund, so, again, I would suggest you check their FOAs (not parent, though they do participate) and communicate with a PO there.

These are all ICs with small appropriations, so they will be more concerned with using their limited funding to address key programmatic priorities. Establishing a relationship with a PO who is interested in your science will be very beneficial, though.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: XIANGRONG KONG

Thu, 01/04/2018 - 22:19

Dear Writeedit,
I am submitting a R21 that fits a specific PA that only NINR participates. The grant potentially could also be of interest to FIC and NEI. In this case, shall I submit the grant under the specific PA or better under the parent PA? For grants submitted to a specific PA, would non-participating ICs be considering them?

Thank you very much, and Happy New Year!
Best,
Talaci

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Tue, 01/02/2018 - 21:28

Your PO won’t know about funding likelihood until the federal budget passes, which could be in a few weeks – or the CR could be continued again (timeline unknown). Without knowing NCI’s appropriation for FY18, he won’t have any new information for you. If your PO did not indicate whether you should prepare a new application (resubmission of your A1), assuming you are still eligible, then you might ask him if you should submit an application in February for insurance. If he says yes, that doesn’t mean the A1 won’t be funded but that he agrees you should not lose time waiting for Congress to pass a budget … if he says no, then you can feel more positive about getting an award (though no guarantees).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: JW

Tue, 01/02/2018 - 19:12

Hi writedit, happy new year!

I got an impact score of 25 for my revised K99 for NCI, checked with PO in November, and he told me “somewhat good chance”. No updates from him, any advice what I can do now? Is it proper to send another email to followup? Thanks!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Tue, 01/02/2018 - 13:01

Happy new year to you, too – best wishes for a productive 2018 to everyone!

You can change the font (e.g., Arial for changes, Georgia for unchanged text) or typeface (italic, underlined, bold) of the updated text, but this makes reading less pleasant for reviewers. Instead, you should simply note in the Introduction that changes have not been marked and summarize your changes/additions. Often this is a better strategy so as not to have reviewers focus on whether they like the changes vs whether they like the science overall. And in fact, current OER guidance says the same thing: “individual changes do not need to be identified within other application attachments (e.g., do not need to bold or italicize changes in Research Strategy)” (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/amendedapps.htm)

Categories: NIH-Funding