Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov).
Components of Participating Organizations
National Cancer Institute (NCI) (http://www.cancer.gov/)
Title: National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Education and Career Development Program (R25)
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is a reissue of PAR-06-511.
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
Program Announcement (PA) Number: PAR-10-165
Notice: Applications submitted in response to the Funding Opportunity Announcement
(FOA) for Federal assistance must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) forms and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
APPLICATIONS MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED IN PAPER FORMAT.
This FOA must be read in conjunction with the application guidelines included with this announcement in Grants.gov/Apply for Grants (hereafter called Grants.gov/Apply).
A registration process is necessary before submission and applicants are highly encouraged to start the process at least four (4) weeks prior to the grant submission date. See Section IV.
A compatible version of Adobe Reader is required for download. For assistance downloading this or any Grants.gov application package, please contact Grants.gov Customer Support at http://grants.gov/CustomerSupport.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s)
Release/Posted Date: April 12, 2010
Opening Date: April 25, 2010 (Earliest date an application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Letters of Intent Receipt Date: A letter of intent is not required for this grant mechanism
NOTE: On-time submission requires that applications be successfully submitted to Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization).
Application Submission Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
AIDS Application Submission/Receipt Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#AIDS
Peer Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Council Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Additional Information To Be Available Date (URL Activation Date): Not Applicable
Expiration Date: (Extended to September 8, 2013 per NOT-CA-13-008), Original Date May 8, 2013
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Additional Overview Content
Table of Contents
Part I Overview Information
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Education Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Submission, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Submitting an Application Electronically to the NIH
C. Application Processing
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements
Section V. Application Review Information
2. Review and Selection Process
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information - Required Federal Citations
1. Research Objectives
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) represents the continuation of the Cancer Education and Career Development Program (CECDP) established by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of the CECDP is to support the development and implementation of institutional curriculum-dependent predoctoral/postdoctoral programs in the areas of cancer prevention and control, behavioral and population sciences research, nutrition, epidemiology, and/or biostatistics.
The NCI piloted its first "Education Programs in Cancer Prevention and Control" in 1991 supported by the NIH Education Grant (R25) mechanism. The original and subsequent program announcements were highly successful in developing a large portfolio of programs that successfully competed for renewal. However, NCI studies in later years revealed a national shortage of cancer prevention and control, behavioral and population sciences research, nutrition, epidemiology, and/ or biostatistics. Several NCI Cancer Prevention R25 programs followed in subsequent years, with the advent of the first NCI Cancer Education and Career Development Program (CECDP) in 1999.
The NCI realized that a team science approach with a focus on interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary didactic and laboratory research educational activities was the best way to address the dire need for cancer prevention and control researchers. Preparing junior and more experienced basic research scientists and clinicians for this new type of research environment requires research education and career development experiences in highly inter-disciplinary and collaborative cancer research settings that are integrated with a specialized curriculum. These experiences will require access to multiple scientific disciplines and methodologies, involve mentors from more than one discipline, and will need to be tailored to the individual research education needs of the investigator. Due to the likely breadth of the science involved, these experiences will frequently require facilitation and coordination across departments, schools, centers, and institutions; concerted management; and dedicated time of interdisciplinary faculty.
As of the end of FY2009, the NCI supported 43 funded R25 programs at a total cost of $18.8M. Included among these R25 programs were four new programs and 39 existing programs.
Specific Research Objectives of this FOA
This FOA provides opportunities for continued support of these successful CECDPs and for the development of new programs.
Individuals completing an appointment to the CECDP have several options in seeking further support:
The award provides support to institutions for up to 5 years for the PD/PI and an Advisory Committee to manage, coordinate, and evaluate the Program; for faculty to design, develop, implement, and continually refine the program curriculum; for the salaries of predoctoral and post-doctoral CECDP participants; and for other program-related research costs. These programs should provide curriculum-based, multi-disciplinary, and interdisciplinary didactic and cancer-related collaborative education and research career development experiences for predoctoral and/or postdoctoral individuals. The programs should also allow the participants to acquire the research and communication skills to conduct cancer research in an inter-disciplinary and highly collaborative team research setting.
These programs should provide individualized education and research career development experiences to accommodate the needs of predoctoral or postdoctoral individuals with different backgrounds and different levels of research experience. (See Core Requirements.) The expectation of the NCI is that candidates will enter the CECDP with different backgrounds that, initially, may satisfy some of the Core Requirements. Under these circumstances, they would be provided only with those additional didactic and research experiences that fully meet the overall research education objectives of the CECDP and that prepare them to conduct research in a highly collaborative research team setting.
The participating institution(s) must have well-established research programs and faculty qualified in curriculum development, implementation, and program evaluation to serve as faculty for the Program. The research environment should be team-oriented and highly collaborative with a strong potential for a dynamic two-way exchange of information and ideas within and across diverse and disparate disciplines, such as the physical, biomedical, behavioral, population, and quantitative (mathematics, computer sciences, etc.) sciences. The research environment should also be capable of supporting the rapid translation of research outcomes into reductions in cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Finally, institutional commitment is necessary to provide sustained leadership and dedicated faculty time to the development and implementation of the Program as well as a commitment to the development of junior investigators as productive, independent investigators.
Additional NCI-Specific Requirements:
The CECDP should not be used to achieve research education and career development objectives that can be achieved using more traditional training mechanisms, such as the Ruth L. Kirchstein NRSA Institutional Training Grant (T32) mechanism.
The CECDP cannot significantly overlap, in total or in part, with any other institutional training or research career development programs (e.g., T32, R25, K12) available at the institution(s) and receiving Federal support.
The CECDP needs to include the development of a specialized curriculum not otherwise available at the participating institution(s) that is linked in an essential manner to the research education and career development goals of the CECDP.
The administrative organization of the CECDP needs to include a permanent multidisciplinary Advisory Committee (AC) representing all of the disciplines, departments, schools, etc. involved in the CECDP.
The CECDP needs to include didactic and laboratory research core components that a candidate is expected to complete before leaving the CECDP.
The CECDP must have a clear cancer focus. This should be reflected in the overall objective of the proposed program, the research support of the PD/PI and faculty, and in the didactic and laboratory components of the core curriculum.
The proposed CECDP must require more than one mentor for each predoctoral or postdoctoral participant during the course of his or her multidisciplinary research education and career development program.
The CECDP needs to require that each predoctoral or postdoctoral participant engage in multi-year long-term (at least 2 years) research experiences. The CECDP is not a grant that is to be used to support the types of short-term experiences in research provided by the NCI Cancer Education Program.
As part of the research education and career development experience, the CECDP needs to require that each post-doctoral CECDP participant who is near the end of his/her tenure prepare a mock application to the NIH, following the instructions provided in the PHS Form 398/SF424 (R&R). The faculty must provide (i.e., conduct) a simulated peer review of that mock application.
The CECDP must include a detailed diversity recruitment and retention plan. Competing renewal applications must detail experiences in recruiting and retaining individuals from underrepresented groups during the previous award period.
See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal Citations, for policies related to this announcement.
1. Mechanism of Support
This FOA will use the NIH Research Education Grant (R25) award mechanism. The Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed research education program.
This FOA uses just-in-time concepts (see SF424 (R&R) Application Guide). It also uses the non-modular budget format. Applicants must complete and submit budget requests using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) Budget Component found in the application package for this FOA.
Research education grant support is renewable. It is recommended that applicants contact the scientific/research contact listed in Section VII concerning the submission of a competing renewal (formerly “competing continuation”) application. Only one resubmission (formerly “revisions/amendments”) of a previously reviewed research education grant application may be submitted. See NOT-OD-09-003 and NOT-OD-09-016.
2. Funds Available
Because the nature and scope of the proposed research education program will vary from application to application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary. Although the financial plans of the NCI provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
The total project period for an application submitted in response to this funding opportunity may not exceed 5 years. Although the size of award may vary with the scope of the research education program proposed, the direct costs per annum requested in application will stay below $500,000. In addition, the direct cost for year one of new (i.e., Type 1) applications, during which no participant costs are allowed, must stay below $100,000.
Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs requested by consortium participants are not included in the direct cost limitation. See NOT-OD-05-004.
Allowable Costs: Allowable costs must be consistent with NIH policy and be reasonable, allocable, well documented and fully justified for the research education program proposed in the application. Grant funds may not be used to supplant funds otherwise available at the applicant institution, nor can they be used to circumvent or supplement funds provided to individuals supported by Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) programs.
Personnel: These requested expenses must be itemized in Sections A and B, as appropriate, of the Research & Related Budget. Individuals (PD/PIs) designing, directing, and implementing the research education program may request salary and fringe benefits appropriate for the person months devoted to the program. Salaries requested may not exceed the levels commensurate with the institution's policy for similar positions and may not exceed the congressionally mandated cap. (If mentoring interactions and other activities with students/participants are considered a regular part of an individual's academic duties, then any costs associated with the mentoring and other interactions with students/participants are not allowable costs from grant funds).
Each Program involves a Program Leader (i.e., Program Director/Principal Investigator or PD/PI), faculty, and a permanent multidisciplinary Advisory Committee representing all the disciplines and institutions involved in the Program. The PD/PI may receive salary support for leadership, management, coordination, and evaluation of the Program. Research and salary support may also be provided to faculty critical to the design, development, implementation and refinement of the specialized curriculum essential to the research education and didactic needs of the Program.
Other Program-Related Expenses: These expenses must be itemized, as appropriate, in Sections C. (Equipment), D. (Travel), and F. (Other Direct Costs) of the Research & Related Budget. Consultant costs, equipment, supplies, travel for key persons, and other program-related expenses must be justified as specifically required by the proposed research education program and must not duplicate items generally available for educational programs at the applicant institution
Participant Costs : Participants are those individuals who benefit from the proposed research education program. Participant costs must be justified as specifically required for the proposed research education program. Participant costs must be itemized in Section E. (Participant Support Costs) of the Research & Related Budget.
Beginning with the May 25, 2010 submission date, participant costs will not be allowed for the first year of any new (i.e., Type 1) application. Year 1 funds for new (Type 1) applications may be requested for curriculum and program planning only. The direct cost for year one of new (i.e., Type 1) applications must stay below $100,000.
The institution may supplement the NIH contribution to an appointee's salary to a level that is consistent with the institution's salary scale. Institutional supplementation of a salary must not require extra duties or responsibilities that would interfere with the purpose of the award.
Because this is an educational and not a training mechanism, non-U.S. citizens may participate in this program. However, requests for participation of non-U.S. citizens under the auspices of this FOA should be made with the understanding that this mechanism is not to be used to circumvent or supplement NRSA training mechanisms. Unless strongly justified on the basis of exceptional relevance to the NIH/IC mission, research education programs should be used primarily for the education of U.S. citizens. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact Program staff (see Section VII) to discuss the appropriate utilization of this mechanism with respect to the eligibility, appointment, and participation of non-U.S. citizens. The NCI requires that at least 75% of the participants salaried on an NCI-supported R25 grant be U.S. citizens or Alien Registration Receipt Card Holders (1-151/ 1-551).
Individuals supported by NIH training and career development mechanisms (K, T, or F awards) may receive, and indeed are encouraged to receive, educational experiences supported by the R25 mechanism, as participants, but may not receive salary or stipend supplementation from a research education program.
Within the $500,000/year direct cost budget cap, the NCI will support up to $100K per year in direct costs to cover the following expenses:
1. To the PD/PI to provide leadership, management, coordination and evaluation of the Program
2. To faculty critical to the design, development, implementation and refinement of the specialized curriculum essential to the research education and didactic needs of the Program
3. To a curriculum coordinator.
4. For advertising and recruitment in order to attract the best possible candidates to the Program but NOT for any entertaining. Consult with the appropriate Scientific/Research Contact if there are questions about the use of these funds.
Any unspent funds may not be carried over from one year to the next.
The NCI will support up to $5K per year in direct costs to help defray the expenses of the External Advisory Committee.
This specialized R25 (CECDP) grant, as administered by the NCI, is not subject to the Streamlined Non-competing Application Process (SNAP). In general, this means that all reporting of budgetary information and Program progress is provided in greater detail. While the CECDP is subject to expanded authorities, the one exception is that carryover of funds from one fiscal year to the next must be approved by the NCI Grants Administration staff (see INQUIRIES).
Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs: F&A costs for the applicant organization and consortium participants will be reimbursed at 8 percent of modified total direct costs (exclusive of tuition, fees, and equipment).
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.
Foreign institutions are not eligible to apply in response to this FOA.
In many cases, it is anticipated that the proposed research education program will complement other ongoing research training occurring at the applicant institution and that a substantial number of program faculty will have active research projects in which participants may gain relevant experiences consistent with their research interests and goals. Institutions with existing Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) institutional training grants (e.g., T32) or other federally funded training programs may apply for a research education grant provided that the proposed research educational experiences are distinct from those training programs receiving NIH support. Moreover, the R25 mechanism is not intended to support long-term training by NRSA-eligible individuals and may not be used to circumvent or supplement Ruth L. Kirschstein NRSA research training mechanisms.
If multiple sites are involved in the research education program, the applicant institution must be the primary site for the program. The need for and use of multiple sites must be justified.
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research education program as the 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.
The PD/PI should be an established investigator in the scientific area in which the application is targeted and capable of providing both administrative and scientific leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed research education program. The NCI requires that the PD/PI have active, cancer-focused, peer-reviewed R01 or equivalent funding. The PD/PI will be expected to monitor and assess the program, submitting annual reports as required. (See Section VI.3. “Reporting”)
More than one PD/PI (i.e., multiple PDs/PIs), may be designated on the application for projects that require a team science approach and therefore clearly do not fit the single-PD/PI model. Additional information on the implementation plans and policies and procedures to formally allow more than one PD/PI on individual research projects is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi. All PDs/PIs must be registered in the NIH electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons prior to the submission of the application (see http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm for instructions).
The decision of whether to apply for a grant with a single PD/PI or multiple PDs/PIs grant is the responsibility of the investigators and applicant organizations and should be determined by the scientific goals of the project. Applications for grants with multiple PDs/PIs will require additional information, as outlined in the instructions below. When considering the multiple PD/PI option, please be aware that the structure and governance of the PD/PI leadership team as well as the knowledge, skills and experience of the individual PDs/PIs will be factored into the assessment of the overall scientific merit of the application. Multiple PDs/PIs on a project share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically. Each PD/PI is responsible and accountable to the grantee organization, or, as appropriate, to a collaborating organization, for the proper conduct of the project or program, including the submission of required reports. For further information on multiple PDs/PIs, please see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
This program does not require cost sharing as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy Statement.
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Sponsoring Institution: The sponsoring institution must assure support for the proposed research education program. Appropriate institutional commitment to the program includes the provision of adequate staff, facilities, and educational resources that can contribute to the planned research education program. The application must have a strong research program in the area(s) proposed for research education and should include a letter explaining the institutional commitment to the proposed research education program.
Program Faculty: Program faculty (mentors) must have independent research support and experience in conducting collaborative, team-oriented research. The NCI requires that at least 50 percent of mentors must have independent R01 or equivalent cancer research support.
Participants: Describe who the intended participants are, and the eligibility and/or specific educational background characteristics that essential for participation in the proposed research education program. Identify the career levels essential for participation in the planned program.
Participants may be at the predoctoral or post-doctoral stages of their career. The NCI recommends that no more than 25% of the individuals supported on new NCI-supported R25 grants be at the pre-doctoral level. Exceptions to this requirement may be requested by contacting the staff of the NCI Cancer Training Branch. Renewal applications for existing research education programs that have traditionally supported a higher percentage of pre-doctoral participants can seek an exception to this 25% limitation and/or negotiate a transition plan with the staff of the NCI Cancer Training Branch.
Participants may be citizens or non-citizen nationals of the U.S., or must have been lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence (e.g., in possession of a currently valid Alien Registration Receipt Card I-551, or other legal verification of such status). Non-citizen nationals are generally persons born in outlying possessions of the U.S. (i.e., American Samoa and Swains Island). Individuals on temporary visas normally are not eligible.
The NCI requires that at least 75% of the participants salaried on an NCI-supported R25 grant be U.S. citizens or Alien Registration Receipt Card Holders (1-151/ 1-551).
Participants may be former or current NIH Small Grants (R03s) or Exploratory/ Developmental Grants (R21s) PD/PIs: candidates receiving these grants can be appointed to R25 grants.
Former or current PD/PIs on NIH research project grants (R01s), FIRST Awards (R29s), sub-projects on Program Project Grants (P01s) or on center grants (P50s) and the equivalent are NOT ELIGIBLE Participants unless specifically approved in writing by NCI. Participants who have been supported on NIH or non-NIH career development awards are NOT ELIGIBLE.
Participants must be appointed for at least 2 years and can be supported for up to 5 years.
Number of Applications: Applicants may submit more than one application, provided each application is scientifically distinct.
Resubmissions: Applicants may submit a resubmission application, but such application must include an Introduction addressing the previous peer review critique (Summary Statement). See new NIH policy on resubmission (amended) applications (NOT-OD-09-003, NOT-OD-09-016).
Renewals: Renewal applications are allowed for this research education program.
To download a SF424 (R&R) Application Package and SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for completing the SF424 (R&R) forms for this FOA, go to http://www.grants.gov/applicants/apply_for_grants.jsp and follow the directions provided on that Web site.
Appropriate registrations with Grants.gov and eRA Commons must be completed on or before the due date in order to successfully submit an application. Several of the steps of the registration process could take four weeks or more. Therefore, applicants should immediately check with their business official to determine whether their organization/institution is already registered with both Grants.gov and the Commons. All registrations must be complete by the submission deadline for the application to be considered “on-time” (see 3.C.1 for more information about on-time submission).
A one-time registration is required for institutions/organizations at both:
PDs/PIs should work with their institutions/organizations to make sure they are registered in the eRA Commons.
Several additional separate actions are required before an applicant institution/organization can submit an electronic application, as follows:
1) Organizational/Institutional Registration in Grants.gov/Get Registered http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp
3) Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) Registration in the NIH eRA Commons: Refer to the NIH eRA Commons System (COM) Users Guide.
Both the PDs/PI(s) and AOR/SO need separate accounts in the NIH eRA Commons since both are authorized to view the application image.
Note: The registration process is not sequential. Applicants should begin the registration processes for both Grants.gov and eRA Commons as soon as their organization has obtained a DUNS number. Only one DUNS number is required and the same DUNS number must be referenced when completing Grants.gov registration, eRA Commons registration and the SF424 (R&R) forms.
1. Request Application Information
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application forms and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for this FOA through Grants.gov/Apply.
Note: Only the forms package directly attached to a specific FOA can be used. You will not be able to use any other SF424 (R&R) forms (e.g., sample forms, forms from another FOA), although some of the "Attachment" files may be useable for more than one FOA.
For further assistance, contact GrantsInfo -- Telephone 301-435-0714, Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
Telecommunications for the hearing impaired: TTY: (301) 451-5936
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Prepare all applications using the SF424 (R&R) application forms for this FOA through Grants.gov/Apply and in accordance with the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm).
The SF424 (R&R) Application Guide is critical to submitting a complete and accurate application to NIH. Some fields within the SF424 (R&R) application components, although not marked as mandatory, are required by NIH (e.g., the “Credential” log-in field of the “Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile” component must contain the PD/PI’s assigned eRA Commons User ID). Agency-specific instructions for such fields are clearly identified in the Application Guide. For additional information, see “Frequently Asked Questions – Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.”
The SF424 (R&R) application has several components. Some components are required, others are optional. The forms package associated with this FOA in Grants.gov/APPLY includes all applicable components, required and optional. A completed application in response to this FOA includes the data in the following components:
SF424 (R&R) (Cover component)
Research & Related Project/Performance Site Locations
Research & Related Other Project Information
Research & Related Senior/Key Person
PHS398 Cover Page Supplement
PHS398 Research Plan
SF 424 Research & Related Budget
PHS398 Cover Letter File
Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s) Form
Applications with Multiple PDs/PIs: When multiple PDs/PIs are proposed, NIH requires one PD/PI to be designated as the "Contact” PI, who will be responsible for all communication between the PDs/PIs and the NIH, for assembling the application materials outlined below, and for coordinating progress reports for the project. The contact PD/PI must meet all eligibility requirements for PD/PI status in the same way as other PDs/PIs, but has no other special roles or responsibilities within the project team beyond those mentioned above.
Information for the Contact PD/PI should be entered in item 15 of the SF424(R&R) Cover component. All other PDs/PIs should be listed in the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component and assigned the project role of “PD/PI.” Please remember that all PDs/PIs must be registered in the eRA Commons prior to application submission. The Commons ID of each PD/PI must be included in the “Credential” field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component. Failure to include this data field will cause the application to be rejected.
All projects proposing Multiple PDs/PIs will be required to include a new section describing the leadership of the project.
Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan: For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, a new section of the Research Plan, entitled “Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan”, must be included. A rationale for choosing a multiple PD/PI approach should be described. The governance and organizational structure of the leadership team and the Research Plan should be described, and should include communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, and procedures for resolving conflicts. The roles and administrative, technical, and scientific responsibilities for the project or program should be delineated for the PDs/PIs and other collaborators.
If budget allocation is planned, the distribution of resources to specific components of the program or the individual PDs/PIs should be delineated in the Leadership Plan. In the event of an award, the requested allocations may be reflected in a footnote on the Notice of Award.
Applications Involving a Single Institution: When all PDs/PIs are within a single institution, follow the instructions contained in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applications Involving Multiple Institutions:
If multiple sites are involved in the research education program, the applicant institution must be the primary site for the program. The need for and use of multiple sites must be justified.
3. Submission Dates and Times
See Section IV.3.A for details.
3.A. Submission, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
Opening Date: April 25, 2010 (Earliest date an application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Application Submission Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
AIDS Application Submission Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#AIDS
Peer Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Council Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
3.A.1. Letter of Intent
A letter of intent is not required for the funding opportunity.
3.B. Submitting an Application Electronically to the NIH
To submit an application in response to this FOA, applicants should access this FOA via http://www.grants.gov/Apply and follow steps 1-4. Note: Applications must only be submitted electronically. PAPER APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. All attachments must be provided to NIH in PDF format, filenames must be included with no spaces or special characters, and a .pdf extension must be used.
Applications may be submitted on or after the opening date and must be successfully received by Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization) on the application due date(s). (See Section IV.3.A. for all dates.) If an application is not submitted by the due date(s) and time, the application may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed. All applications must meet the following criteria to be considered “on-time”:
Please visit http://era.nih.gov/electronicReceipt/app_help.htm for detailed information on what to do if Grants.gov or eRA system issues threaten your ability to submit on time.
Submission to Grants.gov is not the last step – applicants must follow their application through to the eRA Commons to check for errors and warnings and view their assembled application!
3.C.2 Two Day Window to Correct eRA Identified Errors/Warnings
IMPORTANT NOTE! NIH has eliminated the error correction window for due dates of January 25, 2011 and beyond. As of January 25, all corrections must be complete by the due date for an application to be considered on-time. See NOT-OD-10-123.
Once an application package has been successfully submitted through Grants.gov, NIH provides applicants a two day error correction window to correct any eRA identified errors or warnings before a final assembled application is created in the eRA Commons. The standard error correction window is two (2) business days, beginning the day after the submission deadline and excluding weekends and standard federal holidays. All errors must be corrected to successfully complete the submission process. Warnings will not prevent the application from completing the submission process.
Please note that the following caveats apply:
3.C.3 Viewing an Application in the eRA Commons
Once any eRA identified errors have been addressed and the assembled application has been created in the eRA Commons, the PD/PI and the Authorized Organization Representative/Signing Official (AOR/SO) have two weekdays (Monday – Friday, excluding Federal holidays) to view the assembled application before it automatically moves forward to NIH for further processing.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed.
There will be an acknowledgement of receipt of applications from Grants.gov and the Commons. The submitting AOR/SO receives the Grants.gov acknowledgments. The AOR/SO and the PI receive Commons acknowledgments. Information related to the assignment of an application to a Scientific Review Group is also in the Commons.
Note: Since email can be unreliable, it is the responsibility of the applicant to check periodically on the application status in the Commons.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial merit review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. The NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. However, the NIH will accept a resubmission application, but such application must include an Introduction addressing the critique from the previous review.
4. Intergovernmental Review
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
5. Funding Restrictions
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. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award if such costs: 1) are necessary to conduct the project, and 2) would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project. See theNIH Grants Policy Statement.
The NCI has developed a policy that will require Data Safety and Monitoring Guidelines for clinical studies and trials when they are a component of the proposed research and education experiences. The policy requires that studies be monitored commensurate with the degree of potential risk to study subjects and the complexity of the study. The components of the policy relevant to a CECDP (R25) can be found at: http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/conducting/dsm-guidelines/page4. All funded applicants will be expected to adhere to the new policy.
PD/PI Credential (e.g., Agency Login)
The NIH requires the PD(s)/PI(s) to fill in his/her Commons User ID in the “PROFILE – Project Director/Principal Investigator” section, “Credential” log-in field of the “Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile” component.
The applicant organization must include its DUNS number in its Organization Profile in the eRA Commons. This DUNS number must match the DUNS number provided at CCR registration with Grants.gov. For additional information, see “Frequently Asked Questions – Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.”
PHS 398 Research Plan Component Sections
A CECDP application must include:
1. A description of the proposed core education curriculum, developed by the PD/PI together with Program faculty, not otherwise available at participating institution(s). Explain how the development and implementation of this curriculum are critically linked to the purpose and objectives of the CECDP and to the research career development of individual candidates. Explain how this curriculum is distinguished from other curricula within the existing educational infrastructure and framework of the applicant/participating institution(s).
2. A description of the composition and function(s) of a permanent multidisciplinary Advisory Committee (AC), These functions may include:
a. The implementation and evaluation of recruitment strategies;
b. The recruitment and selection of candidates for the Program;
c. The establishment, implementation and evaluation of specialized curriculum;
d. The approval of the individual research education plans (e.g., curriculum, research experiences, mentors) for each candidate;
e. Interim monitoring and evaluation of each candidate's progress with recommendations for changes in the plan including a determination of when they have successfully completed the Program. If necessary, termination of a candidate who is not making adequate progress;
f. The review of mock grant applications;
g. Monitoring and evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the Program.
h. The AC must also provide a summary report with each annual progress report (See “Reporting” below)
3. A description of the core requirements that each candidate is expected to complete before meeting the Program's research education objectives. These requirements should include the following:
a. A core didactic component (the specialized curriculum, and other formal courses such as biostatistics, informed consent, lecture and seminar series); and
b. A core research component defining the different kinds of disciplinary research experiences each candidate must complete under different mentors to meet the requirements of the Program.
4. Individual candidate education and research career development Plans. Provide actual plans or examples of individual plans that the CECDP will employ or has been able to achieve that allow it to provide a unique education and research career development experience for predoctoral/postdoctoral participants, preparing them to design, implement and participate in highly inter-disciplinary, collaborative cancer research. Provide plans for conducting the required mock grant application and review process for each post-doctoral candidate.
5. A description of the procedure to be used to conduct a simulated peer review of a mock research grant application prepared by the CECDP postdoctoral participants.
6. A recruitment plan detailing the pool of candidates as well as the effort made to recruit, in the case of post-doctoral candidates, outside the limits of participating institution(s). Ideally, these multidisciplinary research education programs should be unique enough to attract post-doctoral candidates from the entire country; and (b) a separate strategic diversity recruitment plan for recruiting individuals from underserved and underrepresented groups, as defined by the institution, must be included together with an explanation on how this plan will be implemented. Address the issue of possible competition from other institutional programs, and describe strategies for addressing this competition.
7. A statement from the sponsoring institution committing to provide the sustained leadership and faculty time necessary to develop and implement the CECDP and to the development of junior investigators as productive, independent investigators.
8. A progress report (for competitive renewal applications)describing:
a. The achievements of the predoctoral/postdoctoral CECDP participants during the past 5 years. Provide:
A. The name of the participant;
B. The names of the participant’s mentor(s);
C. Full citations of publications resulting directly from the CECDP;
D. Descriptive titles of clinical trials developed and/or implemented by the participant as a direct result of the CECDP, including the trial type (Phase I, Phase, II, Phase III), and the role of the participant in the trial (PD/PI, co-PI, etc.), if applicable.
b. The progress made toward achieving the objectives of this CECDP;
c. Record of recruitment and retention of predoctoral/postdoctoral participants from underserved/underrepresented groups.
d. The activities and actions of the Advisory committee (AC).
9. Required R25 CECDP Tables
Provide the information described below as an attachment to Item 9 and, where appropriate, in a tabular format. Suggested tabular formats for this information: as a Word document (http://www.cancer.gov/images/Documents/beb3f7a5-8f60-4c10-b196-0ab3d2379ab6/r25ttable.doc) or as a pdf file (http://www.cancer.gov/images/Documents/beb3f7a5-8f60-4c10-b196-0ab3d2379ab6/r25ttable.pdf )
For New Competing applications: provide recruitment statistics indicating the number of minority individuals meeting the CECDP eligibility requirements who applied to the participating departments/units in each of the past 5 years. Give the number of minority candidates offered admission and the number who entered the participating departments/units.
For Competing Renewal applications: provide recruitment statistics indicating the number of minority individuals meeting the CECDP eligibility requirements who applied to the CECDP Program and/or participating departments/units in each of the past 5 years:
Page limitations must be followed as outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
All application instructions outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm) are to be followed, with the following requirements for R25 applications:
Research Education Program Plan (Item 3): The Research Education Program Plan must be uploaded using the Research Strategy section, and must include the following components:
Proposed Research Education Program (Component of Item 3): While the proposed research education program may complement ongoing research training and education occurring at the applicant institution, the proposed educational experiences must be distinct from those research training and research education programs currently receiving federal support. When research training programs are on-going in the same department, the applicant organization should clearly describe the distinction between the intended participants in the proposed research education program and the research training supported by the training program. The information should include a description of the education and/or career levels of the planned participants. Although CECDP
Institutional Environment and Commitment (Component of Item 3): Describe the institutional environment, including facilities and educational resources, that can contribute to the planned Research Education Program. Evidence of institutional commitment to the research educational program is required. A letter of institutional commitment must be attached at line item 14 (Letters of Support). Appropriate institutional commitment should include the provision of adequate staff, facilities, and research educational resources that can contribute to the planned research education program. List all thematically related sources of support for research training and education following the format for Current and Pending Support. Generally describe the funded research activities and methodologies offered by the mentors participating in the CECDP and how the interactive nature of the research environment will meet and sustain the needs and objectives of this CECDP. Briefly describe the research infrastructure, access to patient populations, community populations, etc., and facilities that are available and accessible to this CECDP. Include collaborating sites, if appropriate. If multiple sites are involved in the research education program, the applicant institution must be the primary site for the program. A justification must be included for sites other than the applicant institution in the program narrative.
Program Director/Principal Investigator (Component of Item 3): For multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan, see instructions for the Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan section of the Research Plan. Describe arrangements for administration of the program, provide evidence that the Program Director is actively engaged in research and/or teaching in an area related to the mission of the NCI, and can organize, administer, monitor, and evaluate the research education program, as well as evidence of institutional and community commitment and support for the proposed program. Key Personnel must include the PD/PI (or multiple PDs/PIs, if applicable) as well as any other key persons (such as those involved in developing, implementing, directing, monitoring, evaluating, etc., who are integral to the proposed research education program) participating in the research education program. Describe the qualifications and role of the PD/PI to provide leadership and coordination of the Program.
Program Faculty/Staff (Component of Item 3): Describe the characteristics and responsibilities of the participating faculty; provide evidence that the participating faculty and preceptors are actively engaged in research or other scholarly activities related to the mission of the NCI. For each mentor participating in the CECDP, include a description of their track record in training cancer scientists.
Program Participants (Component of Item 3): Provide details about the pool of proposed participants, their qualifications, recruitment strategies and sources of applicant pool, etc. For participants, the following information should be provided:
Diversity Recruitment and Retention Plan (Component of Item 3): Provide a detailed diversity recruitment and retention plan for the research education program. Renewal applications must detail experiences in recruiting and retaining individuals from underrepresented groups during the previous award period. To accomplish this, include a table that for each academic year indicates the total number of individuals who applied, the number accepted, the number matriculated, and the total number of individuals participating in the program. This table should also list specifically for underrepresented racial and ethnic individuals the number who applied, the number accepted, and the number who matriculated; and for individuals with disabilities and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, the table should list the number participating in the program each year. For those programs where individuals are not participating, e.g. a program requesting support to develop a curriculum, the PD/PI should indicate that this requirement is not applicable.
The NIH recognizes a unique and compelling need to promote diversity in the biomedical, behavioral, clinical and social sciences research workforce. The NIH expects efforts to diversify the workforce to lead to the recruitment of the most talented researchers from all groups; to improve the quality of the educational and training environment; to balance and broaden the perspective in setting research priorities; to improve the ability to recruit subjects from diverse backgrounds into clinical research protocols; and to improve the Nation's capacity to address and eliminate health disparities.
Accordingly, the NIH continues to encourage institutions to diversify their student and faculty populations and thus to increase the participation of individuals currently underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences such as: individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; individuals with disabilities; and individuals from socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds that have inhibited their ability to pursue a career in health-related research. Institutions are encouraged to identify candidates who will increase diversity on a national or institutional basis. The NIH is particularly interested in encouraging the recruitment and retention of the following classes of participants:
A. Individuals from racial and ethnic groups that have been shown by the National Science Foundation to be underrepresented in health-related sciences on a national basis (see data at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showpub.cfm?TopID=2&SubID=27 and the report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2007, p. 262). The following racial and ethnic groups have been shown to be underrepresented in biomedical research: African Americans, Hispanic Americas, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, Hawaiian Natives, and natives of the US Pacific Islands. In addition, it is recognized that underrepresentation can vary from setting to setting; individuals from racial or ethnic groups that can be convincingly demonstrated to be underrepresented by the grantee institution should be encouraged to participate in this program
B. Individuals with disabilities, who are defined as those with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
C. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who are defined as:
1. Individuals who come from a family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds. These thresholds are based on family size; published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census; adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index; and adjusted by the Secretary for use in all health professions programs. The Secretary periodically publishes these income levels at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml. For individuals from low income backgrounds, the institution must be able to demonstrate that such participants have qualified for Federal disadvantaged assistance or they have received any of the following student loans: Health Professions Student Loans (HPSL), Loans for Disadvantaged Student Program, or they have received scholarships from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Scholarship for Individuals with Exceptional Financial Need.
2. Individuals who come from a social, cultural, or educational environment such as that found in certain rural or inner-city environments that have demonstrably and recently directly inhibited the individual from obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to develop and participate in a research career.
Recruitment and retention plans related to a disadvantaged background (C1 and C2) are most applicable to high school and perhaps to undergraduate candidates, but would be more difficult to justify for individuals beyond that level of academic achievement. Under extraordinary circumstances the PHS may, at its discretion, consider an individual beyond the undergraduate level to be from a disadvantaged background. Such decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, based on appropriate documentation.
Peer reviewers will separately evaluate the diversity recruitment and retention plan after the overall score has been determined. Reviewers will examine the strategies to be used in the recruitment and retention of individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and individuals from socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. If the diversity recruitment and retention plan is judged to be unacceptable, funding will be withheld until a revised plan (and report) that addresses the deficiencies is received. Staff within the NCI, with guidance from the appropriate national advisory committee or council, will determine whether amended plans and reports submitted after the initial review are acceptable.
Applications without a diversity recruitment and retention plan will be considered incomplete and may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed. An award cannot be made if an application lacks this component.
Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research (Component of Item 3): Every participant supported by this Research Education grant must receive instruction in the responsible conduct of research. All Applications must include a plan to provide such instruction. The plan must address five components (format; subject matter; faculty participation; duration of instruction; and frequency of instruction) as detailed in NOT-OD-10-019. Renewal (Type 2) applications must, in addition, describe changes in formal instruction over the past project period and plans for the future that address any weaknesses in the current instruction plan. All participating faculty who served as course directors, speakers, lecturers, and/or discussion leaders during the past project period must be named in the application.
Applications lacking a plan for instruction in responsible conduct of research will be considered incomplete and may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed. An award cannot be made if an application lacks this component. The background, rationale and more detail about instruction in the responsible conduct of research can be found in NOT-OD-10-019.
An award cannot be made if an application lacks this component.
If such instruction is not appropriate for the proposed research education program, then the PD/PI must provide a strong justification for its exclusion.
(a) Data Sharing Plan: Regardless of the amount requested, investigators are expected to include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss data-sharing plans with their NIH program contact (see Data-Sharing Policy or http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html.)
(b) Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all applications in which the development of model organisms is anticipated are expected to include a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organisms and related resources, or state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible (see Sharing Model Organisms Policy, and NIH Guide NOT-OD-04-042.)
(c) Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): Regardless of the amount requested, applicants seeking funding for a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. A genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (e.g., blood pressure or weight) or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. For further information see Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (NOT-OD-07-088) and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.
(d) Research education programs: These programs are not generally expected to generate research resources. However, applications are expected to include a software dissemination plan if support for development, maintenance, or enhancement of software is requested in the application. There is no prescribed single license for software produced. However, the software dissemination plan should address, as appropriate, the following goals:
The initial review group will comment on the appropriateness of the proposed software dissemination plan. Program staff will also consider the adequacy of the software dissemination plan as one of the criteria for award.
The proposed sharing plan, after negotiation with the applicant when necessary, will be made a condition of the award. Evaluation of annual non-competing progress reports will include assessment of the dissemination practice by the grantee. The adequacy of the resources sharing plan and any related data sharing plans (if applicable) will be considered by Program staff of the funding organization when making recommendations about funding applications. The effectiveness of the resource sharing will be evaluated as part of the administrative review of each Non-Competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590). See Section VI.3., “Reporting.”
Appendix (Item 16): Applicants must follow the specific instructions on Appendix materials as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm).
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations. An application that does not comply with the required page limitations may be delayed in the review process.
SF 424 Research & Related Other Project Information
Item 9 (Facilities & Other Resources): Describe the research educational environment, including the facilities, laboratories, participating departments, computer services, and any other resources to be used in the development and implementation of the proposed program. List all thematically related sources of support for research training and education following the format for Current and Pending Support.
SF 424 Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile
Key Personnel must include the PD/PI (or multiple PDs/PIs) as well as any other key persons (such as those involved in developing, implementing, directing, monitoring, evaluating, etc., who are integral to the proposed research education program) participating in the research education program.
Research & Related Budget
Complete for each budget period requested.
G. Budget Justification: provide a detailed justification for each category for which funds are requested. For Section E, itemize each category of support costs per participant and justify.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process:
2. Review and Selection Process
The mission of the NIH is to support science in pursuit of knowledge about the biology and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. As part of this mission, applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Applications that are complete will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by the NCI and in accordance with NIH peer review procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/), using the review criteria stated below.
As part of the initial merit review, all applications will:
The goals of NIH-supported research training, education, and career development programs are to help ensure that a diverse pool of highly trained scientists is available in adequate numbers and in appropriate scientific areas to address the Nation’s biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research needs. The goals of NIH-supported science education projects at science centers and museums are to provide public education and outreach on NIH-supported research at these institutions.
Research education program grant applications submitted in response to this funding opportunity announcement should be characterized by innovation, scholarship and responsiveness to the priorities and/or changing needs of the NCI in meeting its objectives. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact NCI program staff for current information about targeted priorities and policies before preparing an application (see Section VII).
Overall Impact: Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the research education program to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the activities involved, in consideration of the following five scored review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the proposed program).
Scored Review Criteria: Reviewers will consider each of the five 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 proposed research education program address an important problem or critical question in research education or other critical issues as outlined in this funding opportunity announcement (FOA)? How will implementation of the proposed program advance the objectives of this FOA? If the aims of the education program are achieved, will they achieve the intended purpose of this FOA? Is there a statement of applicability justifying the unique use of this specialized R25 research education mechanism instead of traditional research training mechanisms, such as the Ruth L. Kirschstein NRSA Institutional Training Grant, for achieving the education and career development objectives of the proposed program? Is there overlap with other existing training programs? How adequate is the justification provided of the need for the proposed R25 program relative to other ongoing education, and research training/career development activities within the institution(s)?
Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers appropriately trained and well suited to the proposed research education program? Is the PD/PI an established investigator in the scientific area in which the application is targeted and capable of providing both administrative and scientific leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed research education program? If Early Stage Investigator or New Investigator, does the PD/PI have appropriate experience to lead the program? 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? Is there evidence that an appropriate level of effort will be devoted by the program leadership to ensure the program's objectives? Do the proposed PD/PIs have R01 or R01-like independent research support in cancer? What is the adequacy of the faculty’s independent research support, including appropriateness to the goals of the R25 program and experience in conducting collaborative/ team-oriented research? What is the mentor’s experience in training individuals in highly collaborative and team-oriented research environments? What is the quality of the Advisory Committee concerning its critical functions in recruitment of candidates, assignment of mentors, establishment and monitoring of individual research education plans, evaluating the R25 program and recommending midcourse corrections as needed be assessed?
Innovation. Is the proposed research education program characterized by innovation and scholarship? Does the proposed program challenge and seek to shift current research education paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Are the proposed concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies novel for this area? Does this proposed program duplicate, or overlap with, existing research education, training and/or career development activities currently supported at the applicant institution or available elsewhere? Adaptations of existing research education programs may be considered innovative under special circumstances, e.g., the addition of unique components and/or a proposal to determine portability of an existing program.
Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the proposed research education program? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the program is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If called for in the FOA, is the proposed plan for evaluation and/or dissemination of the education program sound and likely to provide data on the effectiveness of the education program? Is there evidence that the program is based on sound research concepts and educational principles? Is the approach feasible and appropriate to achieve the stated research education goals? If the proposed program will recruit participants, are the recruitment, retention, and follow-up activities adequate to ensure a highly qualified and diverse participant pool? If the program 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?
What is the merit of the proposed specialized curriculum including the didactic and research core requirements, for developing multi- and interdisciplinary investigators in the proposed field? Are the plans for recruiting high quality prospective program participants adequate? Are the plans to ensure a supply of high quality candidates for the Program from different scientific disciplines adequate? What is the adequacy Are the specific measures proposed or taken for recruitment of candidates from underserved and underrepresented groups adequate? This does not include Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) supplements to the R25 program.
Environment. Will the scientific/educational environment in which the proposed research education program will be conducted contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional commitment and support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the program benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of appropriate collaboration among participating programs, departments, and institutions? If multiple sites are participating, is this adequately justified in terms of the research education experiences provided? Are adequate plans provided for coordination and communication between multiple sites (if appropriate)?
What are the quality, sufficiency, and multi-disciplinary nature of the research environment provided by participating institution(s) for the program to meet its goals of developing future multi- and interdisciplinary investigators? . What is the sufficiency of the research environment to support the areas outlined in the FOA?
Is the statement of institutional commitment to provide sustained leadership and dedicated faculty time to the development and implementation of the program adequate? Is the statement of institutional commitment to the development of junior investigators as productive, independent researchers adequate?
Additional Review Criteria:
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific merit, 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.
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.
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, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/VASchecklist.pdf.
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.
Resubmission Applications: When reviewing a Resubmission application (formerly called an amended application), 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 program.
Renewal Applications: When reviewing a Renewal application (formerly called a competing continuation application), the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period. In addition, the committee will consider the following:
Additional Review Considerations
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will address 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.
Diversity Recruitment and Retention Plan: Reviewers will examine the strategies to be used in the recruitment and retention of individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and individuals from socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.
Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research: Reviewers will evaluate plans for instruction in responsible conduct of research as well as the past record of instruction in responsible conduct of research, where applicable. Reviewers will specifically address the five Instructional Components (Format, Subject Matter, Faculty Participation, Duration and Frequency) taking into account the characteristics of the proposed Research Education program. Plans and past record will be rated as ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE. Applications with unacceptable plans will not be funded until the applicant provides an acceptable, revised plan.
Applications from Foreign Organizations: Foreign applications are not allowed for this FOA.
Select Agents Research: When applicable, 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 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm); 2) Sharing Model Organisms (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-042.html); 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html); and 4) Research education programs: If support for development, maintenance, or enhancement of software is requested in the application, the reviewers will comment on the appropriateness of the proposed software dissemination plan.
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 education program and the number of proposed participants.
Applications submitted in response to this funding opportunity will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
1. Award Notices
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 NIH eRA Commons.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant. For details, applicants may refer to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General.
Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the Notice of Award (NoA) are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs. See Section IV.5., “Funding Restrictions”
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document. Once all administrative and programmatic issues have been resolved, the NoA will be generated via email notification from the NCI to the grantee business official.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NCI will request at the appropriate time additional information from the applicant. This information will include the NCI “Special Institutional Statement Regarding Human Subjects Research Under K12 or R25 support” and may also include updated OTHER SUPPORT and IRB approvals. For details, applicants may refer to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part4.htm.)
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Carryover of unobligated balances requires prior approval of NCI grants administration staff.
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.
Termination of Award: When a grantee institution plans to terminate an award, program and grants management staff at the NIH funding component must be notified in writing as soon as possible.
Change of Institution: CECDP award research education programs may not be transferred from one institution to another.
Consultation with the NCI program staff is strongly encouraged when a change of institution is being considered. In reviewing a request to transfer a grant, NIH will consider whether there is a continued need for the grant-supported project or activity and the impact of any proposed changes in the scope of the project. A change may be made without peer review, provided the PD/PI plans no significant change in the original objectives, and the facilities and resources at the new organization will allow for successful performance of the project or activity. If these conditions or other programmatic or administrative requirements are not met, the NCI may require peer review or may disapprove the request and, if appropriate, terminate the award.
The applicant must provide the following information to the NCI for review:
Change of Program: Awards are made for a specific program under the guidance and leadership of a particular PD/PI. A change in any of these parameters requires prior approval by the responsible program officer in the NIH funding component. A rationale must be provided for any proposed changes in the aims of the original, peer-reviewed program. If the new program does not satisfy this requirement, the award will be terminated.
Change of PD/PI: If change of the PD/PI is necessary, support of the award is not automatic but may be continued with prior written approval by the NIH funding component, provided that the following conditions are met. The current PD/PI or the grantee institution must submit a written request for the change, signed by the appropriate institutional business official, to the responsible program officer of the NIH funding component that describes the reasons for the change. The Biographical Sketch of the proposed PD/PI, including a complete listing of active research grant support, must be provided. The information in the request must establish that the Specific Aims of the original peer-reviewed CECDP application will remain unchanged under the direction of the new PD/PI and that the new PD/PI has the appropriate research and administrative expertise to lead the program. This request must be submitted sufficiently in advance of the requested effective date to allow the necessary time for review.
Special Leave: Leave to another institution of an appointee, including a foreign laboratory, may be permitted if directly related to the purpose of the award. Only local, institutional approval is required if such leave does not exceed 3 months. For longer periods, prior written approval of the NCI is required. To obtain prior approval, a written request must be submitted to NCI by the PD/PI on behalf of the participant. A copy of a letter or other evidence from the institution where the leave is to be taken must be submitted to assure that satisfactory arrangements have been made. Support from the award will continue during such leave. NCI Program staff should be contacted prior to submitting the request for leave.
Leave without award support may not exceed 12 months. Such leave requires the prior written approval of the NCI and will be granted only in unusual situations. Support from other sources is permissible during the period of leave. Parental leave will be granted consistent with the policies of the NCI and the grantee institution.
Awards made in response to this FOA, as administered by the NCI, are not subject to the Streamlined Non-competing Application Process (SNAP). Awards made in response to this FOA remain under "Expanded Authorities," except that carryover of funds from one fiscal year to the next requires approval by the NCI grants administration staff.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Progress Report should provide information on the development and implementation of the proposed CECDP (including education in the responsible conduct of research), modifications to the CECDP as originally proposed, details about the applicant pool and the participants including their career level, updates on the evaluation of the research education program and dissemination activities (if applicable), and a list of any publications and/or other materials arising from the research education program. To facilitate and standardize reporting, programs that involve participants should complete a Training Diversity Report, and report on education in the responsible conduct of research, The Progress Report should also contain a Summary Report of the Advisory Committee activities including a description of the committee's actions, and that discusses the progress of the Program including evaluation of areas of strengths and weaknesses.
Evaluation: In carrying out its stewardship of human resource-related programs, the NIH may request information essential to an assessment of the effectiveness of this program. Accordingly, award recipients are hereby notified that they may be contacted during and after completion of this award for periodic updates on various aspects of program development, implementation, dissemination, and other information helpful in evaluating the impact of this program.
Publication and Sharing of Research Results: Investigators are encouraged to submit reports of their findings for publication to the journals of their choice. For each publication that results from this award, NIH support should be acknowledged by a footnote in language similar to the following: “This project was supported by NIH grant number ________. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.”
Final Reports: A final Progress Report and Financial Status Report are required when an award is terminated. Evaluation results should be included as part of the Final Progress Report.
We encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants management issues:
Susan Perkins, Ph.D.
Cancer Training Branch, Center for Cancer Training
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
National Institutes of Health
Branch Telephone: (240) 276-5630
Peer Review Contacts:
Examine your eRA Commons account for review assignment and contact information (information appears two weeks after the submission due date).
Financial or Grants Management Contacts:
Grants Management Specialist
Office of Grants Administration
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
National Institutes of Health
Required Federal Citations
Use of Animals in Research:
Recipients of PHS support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply with PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf) as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm), and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm) as applicable.
Human Subjects Protection:
Federal regulations (45 CFR 46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and Safety Monitoring Plan:
Data and safety monitoring is required for all types of clinical trials, including physiologic toxicity and dose-finding studies (Phase I); efficacy studies (Phase II); efficacy, effectiveness and comparative trials (Phase III). Monitoring should be commensurate with risk. The establishment of data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) is required for multi-site clinical trials involving interventions that entail potential risks to the participants (“NIH Policy for Data and Safety Monitoring,” NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
Sharing Research Data:
Investigators submitting an NIH application seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year are expected to include a plan for data sharing or state why this is not possible (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing). Investigators should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local institutional review board (IRB) rules, as well as local, State and Federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule.
Policy for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS):
NIH is interested in advancing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify common genetic factors that influence health and disease through a centralized GWAS data repository. For the purposes of this policy, a genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire human genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight), or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. All applications, regardless of the amount requested, proposing a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. Data repository management (submission and access) is governed by the Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088. For additional information, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/
Sharing of Model Organisms:
NIH is committed to support efforts that encourage sharing of important research resources including the sharing of model organisms for biomedical research (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm). At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Beginning October 1, 2004, all investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal are expected to include in the application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Access to Research Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are: (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds; and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm. Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award.
Inclusion of Women And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research” (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html); a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm. The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials consistent with the SF424 (R&R) application; and updated roles and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of Children as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) must be included in all clinical research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC):
Criteria for Federal funding of research on hESCs can be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-116.html. Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov/). It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide in the project description and elsewhere in the application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s) for the hESC line(s) to be used in the proposed research.
NIH Public Access Policy Requirement:
In accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy, investigators funded by the NIH must submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central (see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/), an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication. The NIH Public Access Policy is available at (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html). For more information, see the Public Access webpage at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002. The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/) provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review, funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research contracts can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, Internet addresses (URLs) or PubMed Central (PMC) submission identification numbers must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal articles. Publicly accessible on-line journal articles or PMC articles/manuscripts accepted for publication that are directly relevant to the project may be included only as URLs or PMC submission identification numbers accompanying the full reference in either the Bibliography & References Cited section, the Progress Report Publication List section, or the Biographical Sketch section of the NIH grant application. A URL or PMC submission identification number citation may be repeated in each of these sections as appropriate. There is no limit to the number of URLs or PMC submission identification numbers that can be cited.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This FOA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and Regulations:
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372. 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. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Loan Repayment Programs:
NIH encourages applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical, pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas. The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week based on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov/.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.