WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog

Syndicate content
Customized Customer Support for Biomedical Researchers
Updated: 3 hours 35 min ago

By: chemchem

Fri, 10/27/2017 - 16:03

Dear writedit, I applied for the NIGMS R35 ESI MIRA this month and the status on the eRA commons changed to ‘pending IRG review’ today. Does this mean my application has passed the initial review for responsiveness to NIGMS’s mission?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Donald Perry

Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:31

I am an established investigator and just received an impact score of 30 (11 percentile) for a new R01. The NIEHS (primary institute has a payline of 10 for 2017, could be the same in 2018. My grant is dual assigned to NCI and NHLBI. NCI (I heard may fund up to 12 percentile) and NHLBI funds up to 15 percentile. How likely is it that the NIEHS may fund (slightly above payline). If not, cam it get funded by NCI or NHLBI. Do you know how secondary institutes could pick up applications? Please advise

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Donald Perry

Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:30

I am an established investigator and just received an impact score of 30 (11 percentile). The NIEHS (primary institute has a payline for 2017, could be the same in 2018. My grant is dual assigned to NCI and NHLBI. NCI (I heard may fund up to 12 percentile) and NHLBI funds up to 15 percentile. How likely is it that the NIEHS may fund (slightly above payline). If not, cam it get funded by NCI or NHLBI. Do you know how secondary institutes could pick up applications? Please advise.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 15:16

You might ask the Foundation if they can be flexible and fund you to do a piece of the work not proposed in the R01 — something you would have liked to have done but couldn’t work it in the R01 budget or time frame. Most Foundations can be flexible in what they fund, since they are usually more focused on the concept and end goal vs specific science, whereas the NIH IC can only fund what was peer reviewed (so you can’t ask them to fund a new/different aim in place of what the Foundation covers). Alternatively, you could do preliminary work toward a shared aim in both proposals on the Foundation’s dime – and then if need be use these data to get the resubmitted R01, in case the 24th percentile isn’t funded (though you should be in good shape). Both the Foundation and the NIH should be happy to see you leverage each other’s support, so long as you are not getting paid twice for the same work. If the Foundation can’t be flexible, then you could accept their award to fund your first aim (or whatever their award would cover), and then your NIH award would be reduced by this amount, unless you can negotiate to do additional work (e.g., number of repetitions/replicates, larger sample, etc.) that falls under the science that was reviewed by the SRG. Hard to get specific, but you could start with the Foundation.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: LNS

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 14:33

Ok, thank you!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 14:07

It depends on where you ranked among the other apps reviewed. I would imagine that it also depends on the PQ you asked. If several other apps picked the same PQ and score better than you your odds of funding are probably low. If you were the only one to address a specific PQ Program might want to fund it. You will ask to ask your PO.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: R01 vs foundation

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 14:03

We submitted an R01 (as an ESI), and shortened the application substantially and submitted it for a small foundation grant as well, hoping we’d get one at least. Ended up getting the foundation grant and the R01 scored 24 percentile, with prior year paylines at 25. We’d like to accept the foundation grant, even though it’s not a lot of money, since it starts much earlier than the R01 would get awarded (if it does). We’re wondering if accepting the foundation award will affect the chances of getting funded on the R01 given the overlapping aims and our borderline score, as we’d have to list it as awarded or pending on any future JIT request? And thanks for running this comment board. It’s been really helpful!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: LNS

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 10:48

We submitted a “Revision Application” to supplement a current NCI-funded R01 to specifically address NCI’s provocative questions. I am unfamiliar with this mechanism. We received a 37 (no percentile). Normally, I would assume this is not fundable, but I have no frame of reference for this type of funding. Do you have any insight? Thank you!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Wed, 10/25/2017 - 22:43

There are no breaks during the review process or award decisions (eg, review & payline is the same for all applicants). Specific R03 PARs are limited to K awardees in certain ICs, so those R03s get special consideration, but otherwise, no. The goal is to get new investigators to put their time and energy into R01 applications, which do have review and payline breaks plus bigger budgets and the potential for renewal (and are hence the platform on which to establish an independent research career, not an R21 or R03).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Question

Wed, 10/25/2017 - 19:12

Is early investigator status noted or relevant for R21 and R03 grants? That is, do early investigators get a boost for R21/R03 grants, or just R01s? Thanks for your help.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SkinDoc

Wed, 10/25/2017 - 16:02

We’re investigating blood vessel-nerve interactions in hypertensives so it went to NHLBI and CICS…my other R01s have gone to NIAMS but haven’t had any luck there even getting scored.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Wed, 10/25/2017 - 13:24

As SaG said, this will be FY18, and you should be in good shape, even though there is no break for NI applicants – only ESI. The initial paylines will be very conservative, but by the time your application comes up for funding, the federal budget should be in place … and even if not, higher paylines later in the FY are retrospective to the prior cycles.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Wed, 10/25/2017 - 12:47

FY2018. According to the current House and Senate NIH Bills I would expect a similar payline in 2018 as 2017. Assuming no changes in NHLBI funding policies. Of course this begs the question of why skindoc isn’t applying to NIAMS……

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SkinDoc

Wed, 10/25/2017 - 10:12

I submitted an R01 in June 2017. It was sent to NHLBI and CICS study section. CICS met last week and my application received an impact score of 31 and was in the 9th percentile. NHLBI posted FY 2017 paylines are 15% so I think I’m in a good position…but, since council does not meet until January 2018 and the grant would not begin until April 2018 at the earliest, will my grant fall under FY 2017 or FY 2018? NHLBI has not posted their 2018 paylines (probably due to lack of a federal budget).
Should I be optimistic that my R01 will be funded? I’m a new investigator but not ESI (not sure that NI status does much for me).

Thanks for the input. This is a great site with great information.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Tue, 10/24/2017 - 23:18

During the Continuing Resolution, the NIH operates at 90% of the FY17 budget levels, and the ICs do not know how much they will get in FY18, so yes, they are all extremely cautious until the future funding situation looks clear. Your PO needs to see the reviewer comments to determine how the internal discussion will go about your application (fellowships do not go to Council). After you get your summary statement, your PO will be able to advise whether to submit again for insurance (if that is possible for you to do) and also whether, if it looks unlikely that his/her IC will fund your application, whether he/she will release it to the PO in IC B for consideration for funding (though none of this would happen until after FY18 budget is passed – all very hypothetical). Hopefully your PO, after seeing the summary statement, will tell you to sit tight until the FY18 appropriation reaches IC A.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Student123

Tue, 10/24/2017 - 09:46

Got my F32 impact score back and it is 28. It was reviewed at Institute A where they don’t publish the paylines. PO said to contact them when I have the summary statement back. The secondary institute that it was assigned to has published paylines and it is within their funding range. I’ve also been reading on here that all institutes are cautious at funding applications, until the FY18 is established. So I’m thinking I will not know for a while? Beginning of next year? Should I be cautiously optimistic or move on with my postdoc?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Tue, 10/24/2017 - 07:56

Here the guidance given to reviewers. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/Reviewer_Guidance_on_Rigor_and_Transparency.pdf

How well they follow it can vary……

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Tue, 10/24/2017 - 07:52

It depends on what you work out with the other PI. It could move with him and you get a subcontract or you become the contact PI and it stays at your school (the easiest). The contact PI has to be at the institution that receives the grant. How you divide the money could be tricky but again that is up to you two to decide. What does your Multi-PI leadership plan say? If I was your Chair or Dean I might insist on keeping the grant since you are remaining.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Mon, 10/23/2017 - 22:30

I believe the “premise” is a bit more than the significance of the scientific concept and rationale for pursuing the work in that it includes the scientific basis of your objectives and approach. That is, the work may be broadly significant (eg, we need a vaccine for XYZ), but the scientific articles on which you base your hypothesis and approach may not be optimal (eg, papers cited are outdated, not appropriate for your proposed approach, wrong/different animal model used, relevant papers left out, etc.), so the premise of your specific project is weakened. I believe the goal is to hold PIs accountable for really understanding whether the literature they are citing is appropriate and genuinely supportive of/progressing toward their proposed work (vs just in the same scientific ballpark). And actually, Mike Lauer specifically addresses premise: https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2016/01/28/scientific-premise-in-nih-grant-applications/ (preliminary data also considered in assessing premise). However, I too would be curious as to whether/how SRGs have been addressing premise in their discussions.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Mon, 10/23/2017 - 21:45

Your share of the award should stay the same. How much the other PI can take with him/her depends on how much of the work can be done at the new institution (ie, if the current institution or new institution is worse, as good, or better for conducting the work proposed). All this (including who is contact PI) will get worked out during the award negotiations as part of JIT, assuming the other PI has moved before JIT is requested and the award terms are prepared.

Categories: NIH-Funding