and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (NICHD) |
|
Funding Opportunity Title |
Gamete Quality in Natural and Assisted Reproduction (R01) |
Activity Code |
R01 Research Project Grant |
Announcement Type |
New |
Related Notices |
|
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
PA-11-326 |
Companion FOA |
None |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.865, 93.113 |
FOA Purpose |
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), issued by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), is to encourage applications from the scientific community to support outstanding research in the area of female and male gamete quality. For both natural and assisted reproduction, a focal point of the initiative is on the production, identification, and use of healthy gametes. In this regard, the identification and validation of biomarkers that assess gamete quality is critical. Additional areas of interest are the impact of nutrition, environmental exposures, disease states, and aging on oocyte and sperm quality. |
Posted Date |
September 1, 2011 |
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date) |
September 5, 2011 |
Letter of Intent Due Date |
Not Applicable |
Application Due Date(s) |
Standard dates apply, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Not Applicable |
Scientific Merit Review |
Standard dates apply |
Advisory Council Review |
Standard dates apply |
Earliest Start Date(s) |
Standard dates apply |
Expiration Date |
January 8, 2014 |
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), issued by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), is to encourage applications from the scientific community to support outstanding research in the area of female and male gamete quality. For both natural and assisted reproduction, a focal point of the initiative is on the production, identification, and use of healthy gametes. In this regard, the identification and validation of biomarkers that assess gamete quality is critical. Additional areas of interest are the impact of nutrition, environmental exposures, disease states, and aging on oocyte and sperm quality.
Defining and assessing high quality human gametes is difficult, yet such knowledge is critically important for both natural and assisted reproduction. Approximately 10% of reproductive age couples in the United States are infertile, negatively affecting quality of life from physiological, financial, and psychological perspectives. Fertility is affected in both males and females, to approximately equal extents. There are now convincing data indicating that environmental exposures, poor nutrition, and aging are specifically correlated with inferior gamete quality, leading to defects in the resulting offspring which may be transgenerational. Although artificial reproductive technologies such as Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) can circumvent poor gamete quality and lead to offspring, it does not represent a panacea. The less-than-optimal gametes that are used in these techniques may be compromised even further during gamete/embryo culturing and cryopreservation. In addition, genetic mutations that affect gamete quality could be passed down to subsequent generations.
For both sperm and eggs, the characteristics that define good gametes have not been precisely enumerated, nor have non-invasive biomarkers been identified that can be used to evaluate gamete quality. For the male, semen quality has been assessed in andrology clinics by sperm concentration, motility, and morphology, features that can be easily observed and quantified. Yet, although high sperm concentrations are associated with an increased probability of conception, men with low sperm numbers can be fertile. Conversely, men with high semen concentrations may be infertile or subfertile. For the female, age is critical because the number of eggs that are available for fertilization decreases over time, concomitant with an increase in aneuploidy. Furthermore, morphological analysis of oocytes and pre-implantation embryos are subjective parameters, at best.
Finally, certain disease states such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and obesity are associated with male and female infertility, suggesting that the fertility of the individual may be predictive of one’s general health and the health of the resulting offspring.
Factors that are important in contributing to gamete and pre-implantation embryo quality and development include:
Nutrition: Male and female fertility is dependent on nutritional status. In the male, diet-induced obesity results in a significant reduction in infertility. Men with high folate intake have lower overall frequencies of sperm aneuploidy. Folate may also effect DNA methylation of the sperm epigenome. Higher intake of soy foods and soy isoflavones is associated with lower human sperm concentration. Sperm need a high polyunsaturated fatty acid content to provide the plasma membrane with fluidity at fertilization.
Similar to the male, maternal obesity has adverse effects in the oocyte and pre-implantation embryo, which may contribute to morbidity in the offspring. A high fat diet-induced obesity causes lipotoxicity in granulosa cells and the cumulus-oocyte complex and contributes to reduced pregnancy rates. Maternal dietary folate has effects on epigenetic modifications of DNA methylation. Finally, maternal nutrition can have adverse effects on offspring metabolism, insulin resistance and cardiovascular health.
Dietary supplements are a large and expanding market geared toward improving the general well-being of the population. However, supplements are not a magic cure of diseases, and the evidence of great benefit for many supplements remains inconclusive. It has been suggested that reproductive outcomes may be enhanced by various supplements such as: 1) anti-oxidants, e.g., glutathione and vitamin E to decrease sperm DNA damage; 2) folic acid to sustain DNA methylation of sperm and oocytes, and 3) zinc to increase sperm concentration and promote oocyte maturation by promoting its exit from meiosis. Although the use of dietary supplements is potentially exciting, additional studies are warranted before firm conclusions can be made regarding improvements in gamete quality.
Epigenetics: Until recently, the extent of the paternal contribution during early embryonic development leading to the generation of healthy offspring was considered limited to simply providing the male genome to the female egg. This view held that much of the regulation required for successful fertilization and development was controlled by the egg. However, the sperm epigenome is the result of chromatin changes during spermatogenesis, e.g., DNA methylation, histone modifications, and the histone-to-protamine replacement, and overlays the DNA blueprint. This sperm epigenome is now seen as being critical to successful fertilization and pre-implantation embryo development. Yet, there is limited data available that allow the sperm epigenome to be assessed. The importance of the epigenetic contribution to healthy progeny is demonstrated by a recent report of a non-genetic intergenerational transmission of metabolic sequelae of high fat diet from father to female offspring in the rat. In this study, altered expression and methylation of genes in the offspring was shown.
An epigenetic blueprint is also generated during oocyte maturation; among other processes, a small number of genes are imprinted and one X chromosome is randomly inactivated. After fertilization, the maternal and paternal pronuclei exhibit asymmetric epigenetic patterns involving DNA methylation and the post-translational modifications of histones. These profiles must be eliminated so that the fertilized zygote becomes totipotent. Culturing of mouse preimplantation embryos leads to the biallelic expression of the imprinted H19 gene. In addition, such culturing results in significant long-term alterations in behavior. These results suggest that inferior culture conditions leads to specific epigenetic changes in the imprinting of pre-implantation embryos that later lead to effects on the developing fetus.
Environmental Toxicants: There is a significant body of evidence indicating that exposure to environmental toxicants is associated with reproductive toxicology. One cause for the decline in sperm and oocyte quality has been enhanced exposure to environmental chemicals that act as endocrine disruptors. These disruptors can lead to abnormalities of the male and female reproductive tract and impaired fertility overall. For example, a large amount of work has recently focused on the effects of bisphenol-A, a suspected potent endocrine disruptor, on gamete quality in both sexes.
Aging: The negative effect of age on oocyte quality and fertilization is well known. Unlike women, men can continue to produce sperm and father children well into later life. Yet, advancing paternal age has been implicated in a number of abnormal reproductive outcomes including reduced semen quality, reduced fertility, increased prevalence of autosomal dominant diseases e.g., Apert syndrome, and several diseases of complex etiology such as schizophrenia. Recent work indicates that aging may be detrimental to spermatogonial stem cell function.
The factors discussed above emphasize the need to greatly improve our knowledge of how human oocytes and sperm properly develop into high quality gametes, resulting in normal fertilization and the development of healthy offspring. The scope of this initiative will include studies on gamete quality in the context of both natural and assisted reproduction. To achieve the aims of the initiative, studies using mammalian and non-mammalian oocytes and sperm are considered appropriate. Analysis will focus on genetic, epigenetic, molecular, physiological, and morphological aspects of gametes, as well as the offspring derived from these gametes.
Possible research topics that may be addressed in response to this FOA include, but are not limited to, the following:
The NIEHS is interested in both human and laboratory-based studies to examine the influence of environmental exposures on gamete quality and associated health impacts, including but not limited to:
Funding Instrument |
Grant |
Application Types Allowed |
New |
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards |
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations, and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. |
Award Budget |
Application budgets are not limited, but need to reflect actual needs of the proposed project. |
Award Project Period |
The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum period of support is 5 years. |
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Governments
Other
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations
as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply
for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following
registrations.
All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD/PIs) must
also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA Commons
or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA Commons
account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant
organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at
least four (4) weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources
necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director/Principal
Investigator (PD/PI) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an
application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic
groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply
for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple
Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key
Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. Resubmission applications may be submitted, according to the NIH Policy on Resubmission Applications from the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, mandatory and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate optional components.
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies; GWAS) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Appendix
Do not use the appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Foreign (non-US) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit in advance of the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications via Grants.gov, the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
Important
reminders:
All PD/PIs must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential
field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF 424(R&R) Application
Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI
Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an
electronic application to NIH.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA
Commons and for the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Additional
information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more
tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact NIH program staff at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Significance
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Investigator(s)
Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Innovation
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Approach
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be
managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of
human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members
of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms
of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Environment
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46,
the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human
subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For
additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to
the Human
Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Biohazards
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Resubmissions
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
Renewals
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Revisions
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS). .
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical
merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), in accordance with NIH peer
review policy and procedures, using the stated review
criteria. Review assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate National Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided
to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by
the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via
email to the grantee’s business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS,
CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award
Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
Not Applicable
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
Grants.gov
Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and
submission, downloading or navigating forms)
Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
TTY 301-451-5936
Email: [email protected]
eRA Commons Help Desk(Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
TTY: 301-451-5939
Email: [email protected]
Stuart B. Moss, PhD
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Telephone: 301-435-6979
Email: [email protected]
Caroline H. Dilworth, PhD
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Telephone: 919-541-7727
Email: [email protected]
Rebecca B. Costello, PhD
Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS)
Telephone: 301-435-2920
Email: [email protected]
Examine your eRA Commons account for review assignment and contact information (information appears two weeks after the submission due date).
Mr. Ted Williams
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Telephone: 301-435-6996
Email: [email protected]
Molly Puente, PhD
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Telephone: 919-541-1373
Email: [email protected]
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||