WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog

Syndicate content
Customized Customer Support for Biomedical Researchers
Updated: 5 hours 56 min ago

By: writedit

Sun, 11/19/2017 - 11:56

You can ask your NIEHS PO, but you will probably want to resubmit for insurance no matter what (can be withdrawn if A0 is awarded). If your NIEHS PO is doubtful about funding, you can then also ask him/her about relinquishing to NHLBI. This would be most feasible if you have a relationship with a PO at NHLBI who is interested in your science and would be willing to accept your application (accepting secondary applications is selective and based on programmatic priority since every IC has more competitive primary applications than they can fund). However, you wouldn’t know any of this until after your submission window passes, which is why you want to ask your PO about resubmitting first.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Sun, 11/19/2017 - 11:23

If you have unforeseen expenses, you can talk with your PO about submitting an administrative supplement (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-16-287.html), but you should not apply if your PO is not supportive.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Sun, 11/19/2017 - 11:13

In addition to SaG’s excellent response, I’ll point you to Jeremy Berg’s description of the process at NIGMS (you can also follow the link to learn more about what happens “at Council”): https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2011/01/the-funding-decision-process/

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SBIR PI

Sun, 11/19/2017 - 08:57

Dear Writedit – We are considering submitting multiple Phase I SBIR applications to the same study section at NCI for the upcoming January 5th deadline. The applications aim to develop completely different technologies. Is this a ok or a bad idea to have multiple applications at the same study section?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Timothy Diggs

Sat, 11/18/2017 - 04:21

I am an established investigator. A new R01 of mine (NIEHS) (to be reviewed in January 2018 council) received a PS of 30 (15.0 percentile). The summary statement shows no major weaknesses and is considered excellent. There is no established payline for NIEHS, but it has been 10 percentile in recent years, and they do go outside the payline in some cases. My grant is dual assigned to NHLBI and NCI. NHLBI funds up to 15 percentile.

I have not yet talked with my NIEHS PO.
I have the privilege of continuous submission, so I can submit A1 until December 16.

Should I ask the PO if they will be able to pick up my application. I know they will not give me any guarantees, but should I re-submit in December?

How do dual assignments work. Since NHLBI funds up to 15.0, can I request that the grant be transferred to NHLBI so it becomes primary? Can it be done after IRG review and before council?

Please advise.

Thanks

Tim

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 15:19

The quick answer is sure. Working out the money division will take some work but companies can apply for NIH grants.

Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
Eligible Organizations
For-Profit Organizations

Small Businesses
For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: alessaycy

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 14:16

Dear Writedit – I have received my score for the R01 application, and plan to resubmit in March. The problem is my co-investigator has left the institute. We have been working together for the past 2 years and published papers. My Aim 3 relies heavily on his expertise. He is now a scientific laboratory director in a big biotech company, but has told me several times that he still wants to work with me on this project and his company will also allow him to do so. At his new position, he actually has much better resource for the work that I want to do. My question: is it possible to keep him as a co-investigator on my grant even if he works for industry? If not, I will have to find a new collaborator…

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 08:58

It varies quite dramatically depending on the Institute. For instance, NIAID funds few apps outside their paylines so there isn’t much wiggle room for programmatic review. NIAID funds certain areas of research via RFAs instead. NCI is similar though they get a bit more wiggle room for funding apps out of order based on things like portfolio balance (do we really need to fund another anti-cancer drug screening app?). NIGMS has more latitude and they consider things like how much money does the lab currently have(over $750k hard to get a new grant funded), is the PI an ESI, portfolio balance etc… Essentially, any factors besides scientific merit might lead to skipping a grant or reaching for it. Other Institutes might base it on other priorities, for example Alzheimers research at NIA.

How it is done also varies a lot. At small Institutes it would be institute wide. At large ones it might be by branch or Division. Some might score some might rank in other ways..

I think it is less PO clout (though the Director of an institute gets final say about which apps are funded or not. If Tony Fauci wants an unscored app funded he can do it.) and more how interested and willing a PO is willing to push to fund an app that is outside a payline. POs are human though so politics and clout likely play a role.

NIH funds thousands of R01s each year. So, most of the funding decisions are automatic. Only the hopes of a small fraction depend on PO interest or politics.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: ZPI

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 08:25

Hi Writedit – I have an active Phase II SBIR from NCI. Is it possible to request more money from NCI (above and beyond what has already been awarded) – perhaps in the form of a supplemental award?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Andrew

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

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

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

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

By: writedit

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

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

By: writedit

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

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

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

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

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