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. Information related to the assignment
of an application to a Scientific Review Group is also 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. This does not preclude the submission of an application already reviewed with substantial changes, but such application must include an Introduction addressing the previous critique. Note such an application is considered a "resubmission" for the SF424 (R&R).
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 award if such costs: are necessary to conduct the project
and 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 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 the NIH
Grants Policy Statement.
6. Other Submission Requirements
The NIH requires the PD/PI 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.
Renewal (formerly competing continuation or Type 2 ) applications are not permitted.
All application instructions outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (MS Word or PDF) are to be followed, with the following requirements for R21 applications:
- R21 applications submitted in response to this FOA will use the modular budget format and the "Just-in-Time" concepts, with direct costs requested in $25,000 modules, up to the total direct costs limitation of $150,000 per year (maximum of six modules at $25,000 each per year), and the project period cannot exceed three years.
- Items 2-5 of the Research Plan of the R21 application may not exceed 15 pages including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts.
- Introduction (required for a resubmission application) is limited to one page.
- Background and Significance: The applicant should identify concisely the fundamental research and/or technology or tool to be developed, its innovative nature, its relationship to presently available capabilities, and its expected impact on biomedical research.
- Specific Aims: Because the goal of the R21 is to develop novel radioligands for PET and SPECT imaging in preclinical or clinical studies or innovative technologies for radioligand development, hypothesis testing per se may not be the driving force in developing such a proposal, and therefore, may not be applicable.
- Preliminary Data: The project must be based on a strong rationale, and the applicant should provide evidence of feasibility. Preliminary data are not required but may be included if available.
- R21 appendix materials should be limited, as is consistent with the exploratory nature of the R21 mechanism. The following materials may be included in the Appendix:
- Up to five publications, manuscripts (accepted for publication), abstracts, patents, or other printed materials directly relevant to this project. Do not include manuscripts submitted for publication.
- Publications in press: Include only a publication list with a link to the publicly available on-line journal article or the NIH PubMed Central (PMC) submission identification number. Do not include the entire article.
- Manuscripts accepted for publication but not yet published: The entire article may be submitted electronically as a PDF attachment.
- Manuscripts published but a publicly available online journal link is not available: The entire article may be submitted electronically as a PDF attachment.
- Surveys, questionnaires, data collection instruments, clinical protocols, and informed consent documents.
- Graphic images of gels, micrographs, etc. provided that the image (may be reduced in size) is also included within the 15-page limit of Items 2-5 of the Research Plan. No images may be included in the Appendix that are not also represented within the Research Plan.
- Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations of the Research Plan. An application that does not observe these limitations may be delayed in the review process.
Note: While each section of the Research Plan needs to be uploaded separately as a PDF attachment, applicants are encouraged to construct the Research Plan as a single document, separating sections into distinct PDF attachments just before uploading the files. This approach will enable applicants to better monitor formatting requirements such as page limits. 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.
Other Budgetary Requirements. A one-time meeting of all investigators funded through this program will be held to share progress and research insights that may lead to further progress in the program. Applicants should request travel funds in their budgets for the PD/PI and one additional senior investigator to attend this meeting.
Intellectual Property Management
No formal intellectual property management plan is required for R21 applications. Nevertheless, applicants are directed to the NIH policy on the dissemination of biological research resources ( research tools ) at http://www.ott.nih.gov/policy/rt_guide_final.html for guidelines pertinent to any future intellectual property commercialization plans they may consider.
Plan for Sharing Research Data
All applicants must describe their plans for disseminating information
about, and providing access to the technology developed under this grant support.
For example, the technology might be made available as a fee-for-service,
through sale of instruments and/or reagents, through collaboration, through
publication and posting of results, plans and methods, or by other means.
Applicants should include a brief one paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. The specific nature of the data to be collected will determine whether or not the final dataset may be shared. If the final data are not amenable to sharing, for example, if they are proprietary, this must be explained in the application.
Applicants are encouraged to discuss their data-sharing plan with the Institute/Center (IC) staff likely to accept assignment of their application.
The precise content of the data-sharing plan will vary,
depending on the data being collected and how the investigator is planning
to share the data. Applicants who are planning to share data may wish to describe
briefly the expected schedule for data sharing, the format of the final dataset,
the documentation to be provided, whether or not any analytic tools also will
be provided, whether or not a data-sharing agreement will be required and,
if so, a brief description of such an agreement (including the criteria for
deciding who can receive the data and whether or not any conditions will be
placed on their use), and the mode of data sharing (e.g., under their own
auspices by mailing a disk or posting data on their institutional or personal
Web site, through a data archive or enclave). Investigators choosing to share
under their own auspices may wish to enter into a data-sharing agreement.
References to data sharing may also be appropriate in other sections of the
application.
All applicants must include a plan for sharing research data in their
application. All investigators responding to this funding opportunity should
include a description of how final research data will be shared, or explain
why data sharing is not possible.
It is expected that the PD/PI’s data sharing plan will include the following elements: (1) mechanisms by which all protocols, procedures, methodologies, toxicology information, unlabeled PET or SPECT precursors, IND filing info are widely distributed to qualified investigators in the scientific community; (2) a protocol and criteria for wide dissemination of these data, information, and materials; and (3) a timetable for distribution.
Applicants are invited to utilize NIH supported repositories such as the NIMH Chemical Synthesis and Drug Supply Program (http://nimh-repository.rti.org/) or the NIDA Drug Supply Program to make unlabeled PET and SPECT ligands widely available to the scientific community.
Applicants are invited to utilize NIH supported databases such as the NIMH/Society for Non-Invasive Imaging in Drug Development (SNIDD) Tracer Database (http://kidb.bioc.cwru.edu/snidd/) or the NIH Roadmap Molecular Imaging and Contrast Agent Database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=micad.TOC&depth=2) to enable centralized access to and dissemination of imaging radiotracer information (e.g., protocols, methodologies, toxicology, safety, dosimetry, IND-filing) prior to or at the time of publication.
The reasonableness of the data
sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data will be assessed
by the reviewers. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data sharing
plan into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score. For
more information on data sharing, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/.
The data sharing plan as approved, after negotiation with the applicant
when necessary, will be a condition of the award.
Sharing Research Resources
NIH policy requires that grant awardee recipients
make unique research resources readily available for research purposes to
qualified individuals within the scientific community after publication (NIH
Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part7.htm#_Toc54600131).
Investigators responding to this
funding opportunity must include a plan to share protocols, procedures,
unlabeled PET and SPECT ligands, analytical tools, IND filing information,
and other materials that may be developed in the course of the project with
the scientific community.
The adequacy of the resources sharing plan and any
related data sharing plans will be considered by IC program staff 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.
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria (Update: Enhanced review criteria have been issued for the evaluation of research applications received for potential FY2010 funding and thereafter - see NOT-OD-09-025).
Only the review criteria described below will
be considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications submitted for this funding opportunity
will be assigned to the ICs on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines.
Appropriate scientific review groups convened in accordance
with the standard NIH peer review procedures (http://www.csr.nih.gov/refrev.htm)
will evaluate applications for scientific and technical merit.
As part of the initial merit review, all applications
will:
- Undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific merit, generally the top half of applications under review, will be discussed and assigned a priority score.
- Receive a written critique.
- Receive a second level of review by the appropriate national advisory council or board.
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:
- Scientific merit of the proposed project as determined by peer review.
- Availability of funds.
- Relevance to program priorities.
The NIH R21 exploratory/developmental grant is a mechanism for supporting novel scientific ideas or new model systems, tools, or technologies that have the potential to significantly advance our knowledge or the status of health-related research. Because the Research Plan is limited to 15 pages, an exploratory/developmental grant application need not have extensive background material or preliminary information as one might normally expect in an R01 application. Accordingly, reviewers will focus their evaluation on the conceptual framework, the level of innovation, and the potential to significantly advance our knowledge or understanding. Reviewers will place less emphasis on methodological details and certain indicators traditionally used in evaluating the scientific merit of R01 applications, including supportive preliminary data. Appropriate justification for the proposed work can be provided through literature citations, data from other sources, or, when available, from investigator-generated data. Preliminary data are not required for R21 applications; however, they may be included if available.
The goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application.
- Significance
- Approach
- Innovation
- Investigator
- Environment
Note that an application does not need to be strong in
all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus
deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to
carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential
to move a field forward.
Significance: Does this study address an important scientific health
problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific
knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these
studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative
interventions that drive this field?
Approach: Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?
Investigators: Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the PD/PI and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?
Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
2.A. Additional Review Criteria:
In addition to the above criteria, the following
items will continue to be considered in the determination of scientific merit
and the priority score:
Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk: The involvement of human subjects and protections from research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research will be assessed. See item 6 of the Research Plan component of the SF424 (R&R).
Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children in Research: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders,
all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate
for the scientific goals of the research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment
and retention of subjects will also be evaluated. See item 7 of the
Research Plan component of the SF424 (R&R).
Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research: If
vertebrate animals are to be used in the project, the five items described
under item 11 of the Research Plan component of the SF424 (R&R) will be
assessed.
Biohazards: If materials or procedures are proposed that are potentially
hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, determine if the proposed
protection is adequate.
2.B. Additional Review Considerations
Budget and Period of Support: The reasonableness of the proposed budget
and the appropriateness of the requested period of support in relation to
the proposed research may be assessed by the reviewers. Is the number of person
months listed for the effort of the PD/PI appropriate for the work proposed?
Is each budget category realistic and justified in terms of the aims and methods?
2.C. Sharing Research Data
Data Sharing Plan: The reasonableness of the data sharing plan or the rationale
for not sharing research data may be assessed by the reviewers. However, reviewers
will not factor the proposed data sharing plan into the determination of scientific
merit or the priority score. The funding organization will be responsible
for monitoring the data sharing policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/).
2.D. Sharing Research Resources
NIH policy requires that grant awardee recipients
make unique research resources readily available for research purposes to
qualified individuals within the scientific community after publication (see
the NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part7.htm#_Toc54600131).
Investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a plan
for sharing research resources addressing how unique research resources will
be shared or explain why sharing is not possible.
Program staff will be responsible
for the administrative review of the plan for sharing research resources.
The adequacy of the resources sharing plan and any
related data sharing plans will be considered by Program staff of the funding
organization when making recommendations about funding applications. Program
staff may negotiate modifications of the data and resource sharing plans with
the awardee before recommending funding of an application. The final version
of the data and resource sharing plans negotiated by both will become a condition
of the award of the grant. 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."
Model Organism Sharing Plan: Reviewers are asked to assess the sharing plan in an administrative note. The sharing plan itself should be discussed after the application is scored. Whether a sharing plan is reasonable can be determined by the reviewers on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the organism, the timeline, the applicant's decision to distribute the resource or deposit it in a repository, and other relevant considerations. For the R21 mechanism, the presence or adequacy of a plan should not enter into the scoring of the application.
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Not Applicable
Section VI. Award Administration
Information
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.
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 awarding component to the grantee business official.
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. See Section IV.5.,
Funding Restrictions.
2. Administrative and National
Policy Requirements
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.
3. Reporting
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.
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:
1. Scientific/Research Contacts:
Linda Brady, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science
National Institute of Mental Health, NIH
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 7204
Bethesda, MD 20892-9641
Telephone: (301) 443-3563
FAX: (301) 402-4740
Email: [email protected]
Debra Babcock, M.D., Ph.D.
Systems and Cognitive Neuroscience
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 2108
Bethesda, MD 20892-9639
Telephone: (301) 496-0779
FAX: (301) 402-2060
Email: [email protected]
Susan Molchan, M.D.
Program Director, AD Neuroimaging Initiative
Neuroscience and Neuropsychology of Aging Program
National Institute on Aging, NIH
Gateway Bldg., Suite 350
7201 Wisconsin Ave.
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205
Telephone:(301) 496-9350
FAX: (301) 496-1494
Email: [email protected]
Antonio Noronha, Ph.D.
Division of Neuroscience and Behavior
National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIH
5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2061, MSC 1705
Bethesda, MD 20892-1705
Telephone: (301) 443-1705
FAX: (301) 594-0673
Email: [email protected]
John Anderson, Ph.D.
Program Director
Division of Applied Science and Technology
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, NIH
6707 Democracy Blvd. Suite 200
Bethesda, MD 20892-5649
Telephone: (301) 594-9754
FAX: (301)-480-1614
Email: [email protected]
Steven Grant, Ph.D.
Division of Clinical Neuroscience and Behavioral Research
National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3170
Bethesda, MD 20892-9551
Telephone: (301) 443-4877
FAX: (301) 443-6814
Email: [email protected]
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Not applicable
3. Financial or Grants Management Contacts:
Dawn Walker
Grants Management Branch
Division of Extramural Activities
National Institute of Mental Health, NIH
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6118
Bethesda, MD 20892-9605
Telephone: (301) 443-3858
FAX: (301) 443-6885
Email: [email protected]
Section VIII. Other Information
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 (45CFR46) 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 IRB rules, as well as
local, state and federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule.
Reviewers will consider the data sharing plan but will not factor the plan
into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score.
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.
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
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm).
All investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal, beginning
with the October 1, 2004, receipt date, 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.
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); 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-02-005.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. Applications that do not provide this information
will be returned without review.
NIH Public Access Policy:
NIH-funded investigators are requested to submit to
the NIH manuscript submission (NIHMS) system (http://www.nihms.nih.gov)
at PubMed Central (PMC) an electronic version of the author's final manuscript
upon acceptance for publication, resulting from research supported in whole
or in part with direct costs from NIH. The author's final manuscript is defined
as the final version accepted for journal publication, and includes all modifications
from the publishing peer review process.
NIH is requesting that authors submit manuscripts
resulting from (1) currently funded NIH research projects or (2) previously
supported NIH research projects if they are accepted for publication on or
after May 2, 2005. The NIH Public Access Policy applies to all research grant
and career development award mechanisms, cooperative agreements, contracts,
Institutional and Individual Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service
Awards, as well as NIH intramural research studies. The Policy applies to
peer-reviewed, original research publications that have been supported in
whole or in part with direct costs from NIH, but it does not apply to book
chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings. Publications resulting
from non-NIH-supported research projects should not be submitted.
For more information about the Policy or the submission
process please visit the NIH Public Access Policy Web site at http://PublicAccess.nih.gov/ and
view the Policy or other Resources and Tools including the Authors' Manual.
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable
Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
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 DHHS 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) must be used for publicly
accessible on-line journal articles. Unless otherwise specified in this
solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide
any other information necessary for the review because reviewers are
under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution reviewers
that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet
site.
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 or Health Systems Agency review. 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 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® |
||||||