National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Funding Opportunity Title
Collaborative Interdisciplinary Team Science in NIDDK Research Areas (R24)
R24 Resource-Related Research Projects
Reissue of PAR-08-182
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s)
Collaborative Interdisciplinary Team Science Awards will foster the application of interdisciplinary, integrative and/or paradigm-shifting approaches to address complex challenges in biomedical research relevant to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The NIDDK supported R24 grant mechanism is designed to apply the flexibility of the Research Resource Project Grant mechanism (R24) to accommodate many forms of approaches including discovery-based or resource-generating and hypothesis-driven or hypothesis-generating science. Information regarding the mission of NIDDK and its constituent Extramural Scientific Divisions, including Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases (DEM), Digestive Diseases and Nutrition (DDN), and Kidney, Urology and Hematologic Diseases (KUH) may be found at: http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/default.htm .
June 2, 2011
Letter of Intent Due Date
Application Due Date(s)
November 15, 2011, November 15, 2012, and November 15, 2013
AIDS Application Due Date(s)
Scientific Merit Review
February/March 2012, February/ March 2013, and February/March 2014
Advisory Council Review
May 2012, May 2013, and May 2014
Earliest Start Date(s)
July 1, 2012, July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014
November 16, 2013
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. While some links are provided, applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Looking ahead: NIH is committed to transitioning all grant programs to electronic submission using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) format and is currently investigating solutions that will accommodate NIH’s multi-project programs. NIH will announce plans to transition the remaining programs in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts and on NIH’s Applying Electronically website.
|Note: A new version of the paper PHS 398 application form and instructions (revised 6/2009) must now be used. Download the new application form and instructions from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm.|
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The complexity of biomedical science often requires the input and expertise of multiple collaborating investigators working as an investigative team. Currently, support for collaborative research may take the form of a large R01 with a Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) and one or more key personnel and/or collaborators; a multi-PD/PI R01 where credit and responsibility for a project are shared; a Program Project grant (P01) with 3 or more individual and independent projects, with cores, centered on a common theme; or a Center supporting a focused set of resource-related activities. While the R01, P01 and Centers mechanisms can foster certain kinds of collaborations, their structures cannot always readily accommodate interdisciplinary team science that synergizes around a single, critically important research challenge; for example, an unanswered, critical question or construction of a unique resource. In recognition of the need to provide a flexible mechanism to support interdisciplinary team science, the current initiative will support a Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research Program designed to provide flexible support for research teams focused on innovative approaches to a single research challenge relevant to understanding biology that falls within the research mission of the NIDDK. This includes, for example, research related to diabetes, endocrine and metabolic diseases, digestive diseases and nutrition, and kidney, urologic and hematologic diseases and the development of new approaches to prevent, treat and cure these diseases. Collaborative interdisciplinary teams could support basic, or integrated basic and clinical studies that have a potential to move forward the NIH agenda on translation.
The Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research program is designed to support: (a) A team of independent investigators with complementary expertise that will develop a synergistic approach to investigate a single, critically important research challenge; (b) Research projects of high scientific quality supported by strong preliminary data; and that might include the development or use of unique resources.
Investigators, who are considering pursuing a collaborative approach to their research problem, are strongly encouraged to contact NIDDK program staff prior to the projected receipt date to discuss a potential application. The discussion could include relevance of the topic to the NIDDK mission, the scope and approach of the project, and the choice of funding mechanism.
Funding decisions will be based on criteria for programmatic relevance and scientific quality. Successful research should have a major impact on areas relevant to the mission of NIDDK. A description of NIDDK scientific program areas can be found at http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/default.htm .
Teams that are at a formative stage and are addressing studies in the research areas of Kidney, Urology and Hematologic Diseases (KUH) have the opportunity to submit a "Seeding R24". For details of this mechanism, follow this link to the KUH webpage (http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/KUH/KUHHome/default.htm).
Application Types Allowed
The OER Glossary and the PHS398 Application Guide provide details on these application types.
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations, and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Applications that are submitted in response to this FOA must have budgets greater than or equal to $500,000 in direct costs per year. Facilities and administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included in the direct cost limitation, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-004.html.
Award Project Period
The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period (the maximum project period for an R24 award is five years). As it is anticipated that the underlying science will change over time, only one competitive renewal is allowed. Thus, the maximum project period for these R24s is 10 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions:
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For profit Organizations
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are eligible to be represented by members of a collaborative team but may not apply for funding under this FOA.
Foreign (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations as described in the PHS398 Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following registrations.
All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD/PIs) must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at least four (4) weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
The R24 is a flexible “R” type grant mechanism that can be used to encourage a multi-disciplinary, team based approach to complex challenges in biomedical science in ways that are not often the case with the traditional R01. The PD/PI will submit the R24 from his/her institution (hereby termed applicant institution). Other members of the team may serve as co-investigators; or as a group of multiple-PDs/PIs. For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the PHS398 Application Guide. Funding to PDs/PIs at institutions other than the applicant institution will be administered according to the guidelines of a consortium. The Program Director/Principal Investigator of an R24 grant may be located at one institution while other members of the collaborative team may be located at the same, affiliated, or other institutions. Members of the team need not have interacted previously on this, or other problems.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. Resubmission applications may be submitted, according to the NIH Policy on Resubmission Applications from the PHS398 Application Guide and must include an introduction addressing the previous peer review critique from the Summary Statement.
Applicants may submit Renewal applications for up to a total of 10 years of support.
Institutions may submit more than one application.
Individual PDs/PIs may submit one application.
Applicants are required to prepare applications according to the current PHS 398 application forms in accordance with the PHS 398 Application Guide.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research
grant application forms and instructions for preparing a research grant
application. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application,
including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
At the time of submission, two additional paper copies of
the application and all copies of the appendix must be sent to:
Dr. Francisco Calvo
Chief, Review Branch
Division of Extramural Activities
National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752, MSC 5452
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
(for express/courier service: Bethesda, MD 20817)
All page limitations described in the PHS398 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
All instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
A clear plan of operation should be provided for the administrative structure and proposed interactions among the investigators. Research related to any resources that are needed to enhance the capabilities of the team should be clearly articulated. The coordinated use of shared resources that could increase the efficiency of the entire team, as well as facilitate the use of new technologies and the pursuit of new lines of investigation should be defined. The plan for development and use of resources should help to promote the interdisciplinary and collaborative research around which the team has formed. Shared research resources and activities can include services (e.g., cell isolations, patient recruitment, statistical or bioinformatics support); equipment (e.g., confocal microscope, scanning electron microscope); or other types of key facilities, cores, or reagents (e.g., use of transgenic facilities, access to batch preparation of reagents, clinical research resources), as needed by the collaborative team. Since the overall goal of the R24 is to bring together investigators from varied disciplines to attack a single research challenge in a coherent fashion, the justification for drawing investigators from varied disciplines (e.g., chemistry, physics, biological computation, imaging, molecular biology, physiology, etc) should be well defined. The role(s) for each member of the team and how the team will provide the requisite synergies for answering the complex problem should be clearly articulated. These activities should significantly enhance the investigators' existing capabilities and introduce new approaches to the research aims of the objective of the collaborative team. The collaborative research plan must facilitate a synthesis of information that would not be possible otherwise.
This mechanism is not intended to support core facilities or ongoing resources. Furthermore, it is not designed to support groups of investigators at the same institution who would normally interact and collaborate in the absence of a collaborative grant.
See Administrative Guidelines for R24 Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Team Science (Research Resource) Grants at the following link: http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/ApplicantGuidelines/CollaborativeR24
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) as provided in the PHS398 Application Guide.
Do not use the appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix (please note all format requirements) as described in the PHS398 Application Guide
Foreign (non-US) organizations must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign organizations described throughout the PHS398 Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates.
Information on the process of receipt and determining if
your application is considered “on-time” is described in detail in the PHS398
Applicants may track the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost
principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be postmarked on or before the due dates in Part I. Overview Information.
If an application is received after that date, it will not be
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review , NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
Applicants should include a plan for the collaborative team science approach under the Research Strategy Section of the application, including plans for enhancing communication between and among members of the team. For purposes of evaluating the suitability of the R24 and the strengths of the collaborative team science approach to the central problem, the following criteria will apply in addition to those defined in the enhanced peer review criteria:
1) Does the team that has been assembled have the appropriate mix of expertise necessary to achieve the objectives of the work proposed?
2) Does the team apply appropriate and state-of-the-art approaches to the problem in such a way as to create a level of synergy that will significantly enhance the outcome?
3) Has an administrative organization been delineated, including plans for a) the coordination of ongoing research, b) the establishment and maintenance of internal communication and cooperation among investigators, c) the prioritization of usage of shared resources?
4) Are the proposed budgets appropriate for the work to be done? Is there an appropriate institutional commitment to the program, including lines of accountability regarding management of the R24 grant?
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact NIH program staff at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the PHS398 Application Guide.
The Program Director/Principal Investigator must include a cover letter with the application that identifies the program staff member and Institute or Center that has agreed to accept assignment of the application. An application received without indication of prior staff concurrence and identification of program staff contacted will be returned to the applicant without review. See the following link for detailed instructions: http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-004.html
It is strongly encouraged that applicants contact program staff early in the process (6 to 9 months ahead of application due date). Discussions could include appropriateness of the R24 mechanism, budgetary considerations, and programmatic relevance and are beneficial to both the applicant as well as program staff for planning purposes.
These instructions apply to all new, renewal, and resubmission applications.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
This R24 is not intended to support more traditional investigator-initiated and highly focused studies best supported through the R01 or P01 mechanisms. Nor is it intended to provide core type infrastructure for the R24 application or for already existing and funded projects.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? Does the application address a significant research topic that fills a gap in the current knowledge ?
Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? Is the proposed research topic best addressed by an interdisciplinary approach as presented by this particular team? Do team members have other research support as well as a publication record that supports their particular expertise and field of research? Team Science: Does the team that has been assembled have the appropriate mix of expertise necessary to achieve the objectives of the work proposed?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? Is the planned research substantially different from that already being pursued in the laboratories of team members or elsewhere?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?
If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy
establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? Are paradigm-shifting approaches and/or technologies being used to address the problem? Are the unique strengths of each team member being appropriately used to address the question? Synergy: Does the team apply appropriate and state-of-the-art approaches to the problem in such a way as to create a level of synergy that will significantly enhance the outcomes?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Has a plan been developed to facilitate the interaction of PD/PIs and key personnel at different institutions? Will data and resources be easily shared in order to address the application in an integrated, interdisciplinary way? Administration organization: Does the administrative organization reflect a coordination of ongoing research and establish and maintain internal communication and cooperation among investigators? Are mechanisms to prioritize the usage of shared resources provided?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
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.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the resubmitted application, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period and justification for continuing need for support using the R24 as opposed to other grant mechanisms. Only a single renewal will be allowed for an R24 project.
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical
merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) , in accordance with NIH
peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review
criteria. Review assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center and will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS, CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
Investigators who are considering pursuing a collaborative approach to their research problem, are strongly encouraged to contact NIDDK program staff at least 9 months prior to the projected receipt date to discuss a potential application. The discussion should include the choice of funding mechanism, relevance of the topic to the NIDDK mission and the scope and approach of the project. Further information on the NIDDK R24 Collaborative Team Science award is available at http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/ApplicantGuidelines/CollaborativeR24.
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
eRA Commons Help Desk(Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 687
Bethesda, MD 20892-5460
Chris Mullins, Ph.D.
Director of Basic Cell Biology Programs
Division of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases
NIDDK, National Institutes of Health
2 Democracy Plaza, Room 637
6707 Democracy Blvd.
Bethesda, MD 20892-5458
Edward Doo, M. D.
Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 651
Bethesda, MD 20892
Dr. Francisco Calvo
Chief, Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752, MSC 5452
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
(for express/courier service: Bethesda, MD 20817
Grants Management Specialist
6707 Democracy Blvd, Room 726
Bethesda, MD 20892-5456 (Fedex use zip 20817)
Phone: (301) 594-7794
Fax: (301) 594-9523
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Office of Extramural
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.