Appendix material should be limited. 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 25-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.
The milestones proposed in the application should be well described, quantifiable, and scientifically justified to allow program staff to assess progress in the R21 phase. The milestones will be considered in evaluating the approach proposed by the investigator. A discussion of the milestones relative to the progress of the R21 phase and the implications of successful completion of the milestones for the R33 phase should be included. Applications lacking this information, as determined by the NIH staff, will be returned to the applicant without review. The clarity and completeness of the R21/R33 application with regard to specific goals and feasibility milestones are critical.
Prior to funding an application, the Program Officer will contact the applicant to discuss the proposed milestones and any changes suggested by the review panel as indicated in the Summary Statement. The Program Officer and the applicant will negotiate and agree on a final set of milestones. These will be the basis for judging the success of the R21 work. For funded applications, the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) will submit a progress report to the Program Officer upon completion of the R21 milestones. Receipt of this progress report will trigger an administrative program review that will determine whether or not the R33 should be awarded. The release of R33 funds will be based on successful completion of negotiated scientific milestones, on program priorities, and on the availability of funds.
The R21 and R33 cannot be funded in the same fiscal year.
1. In the Research & Related Other Project Information Component (item 6 Project Summary/Abstract ):
As part of the Summary/Abstract attachment, 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.
2. In the Research & Related Budget Component Section K ( Budget Justification ):
For the R21 phase of the application, direct costs are limited to a maximum of $150,000 per year. For the R33 phase of the application, direct costs are limited to less than $500,000 per year. R21 budgets can only exceed this cap to accommodate Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs of subcontracts to the project. The combined R21/R33 application is limited to five years in duration and neither the R21 nor the R33 phase can be longer than three years.
The application should provide a detailed budget for each Budget Period of the R21 phase and the R33 phase. All budgets should include a written justification Section K, Budget Justification. In Section K of each Budget Period, the application should indicate whether it is the R21 or the R33 phase. The modular budget format is not permitted for this funding opportunity.
An annual meeting of all investigators funded through this program will be held to share progress and research insights that may further progress in the program. For this purpose, applicants should request travel funds for the PD/PI and one additional senior investigator to attend a two-day meeting each year, the location of which will be announced. Applicants should also include a statement in their applications indicating their willingness to participate in such meetings and to cooperate with other researchers.
3. In the PHS398 Research Plan Component Research Plan Attachments:
Item 1: Introduction to Application (Resubmission or Revision only). Use only if you are submitting an SF424 (R&R) Resubmission or Revision (Cover Page Item 8).
All Resubmission (previously known as revision or amendment ) or Revision (previously known as competing supplements ) applications must include an Introduction.
The Introduction should not exceed three pages for a resubmission application. The Introduction is excluded from the 25 page limit of the Research Plan.
Item 2: Specific Aims.
A specific section labeled Milestones should appear at the beginning of the Specific Aims attachment. The advantage of the combined R21/R33 mechanism is that it offers a seamless transition between the exploratory phase and the development phase of a project. Milestones should be well described, quantifiable, and scientifically justified. Applicants should write the milestones assuming that scientifically literate program officers who may not be active researchers in the specific specialty being evaluated will use them to evaluate the progress that has been achieved. Milestones should not be simply a restatement of the specific aims or a timeline. Applications lacking this information will be returned to the applicant without review.
Include headers titled R21 Phase Specific Aims and R33 Phase Specific Aims. Under each header, state the specific objectives of the research and development effort, including the technical questions you will try to answer to determine the feasibility of the proposed approach. Since the goal of the R21 phase of this FOA is the development of novel radioligands for PET and SPECT imaging in preclinical and 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. For the R21 portion of the grant application, preliminary data are not required, although they should be included when available.
Item 3: Background and Significance
Elaborate on the innovative nature of the proposed research. Clarify how the fundamental tools or technologies to be developed will result in a significant improvement over existing approaches. Explain the potential of the proposed technology for having an impact on a compelling area of biomedical research. Clearly identify how the project, if successful, will result in new capabilities for biomedical research, the immediacy of the opportunity, and how any proposed technologies or tools differ from existing technologies or tools.
Item 4: Preliminary Studies
While preliminary data are not required for submission of the R21 phase, this section should provide current thinking or evidence in the field that substantiates the feasibility of the R21 phase. If the applicant does have preliminary data, it should be presented in this section.
Item 5: Research Design and Methods
Follow the instructions in the SF424 Application Guide. Include headers titled R21 Phase Research Design and Methods and R33 Phase Research Design and Methods, and address the research design and methods for the R21 and R33 phases in the appropriate sub-section.
Plan for Sharing Research Data
It is the NIH policy that the research resources developed through this
FOA become readily available to the research community for further research,
development, and application, in the expectation that this will lead to knowledge
of benefit to the public.
Applications must include a plan to share data that may be gathered in the course of the project with the scientific community. 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.
Reviewers will assess the adequacy of the proposed plan as detailed in the review criteria section. The sharing plan as approved, after negotiation with the applicant when necessary, will be a condition of the award.
A separate section labeled "Milestones" should be included at the end of the Research Plan of the R21 phase of the application. The Milestones will be used as criteria to make objective evaluations of progress at the end of the R21 phase. In addition to well-defined, quantifiable Milestones, the suitability of the proposed Milestones for assessing the success of the R21 phase and the implications of successful completion of these Milestones for the proposed R33 study should also be discussed. Examples of quantifiable Milestones could include: identification and synthesis of a lead compound with characteristics suitable for PET or SPECT imaging; radiolabeling of lead compound(s) for in vivo imaging; in vivo imaging in rodents and/or primates to assess biodistribution and physicochemical properties of the radioligand; use of animal models to assess pharmacokinetic properties of the radioligand (binding potential, sensitivity to displacement by agonists or antagonists at the target site); determination of preclinical toxicology and pathology for the submission of an exploratory IND (Investigational New Drug) or IND application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); or IRB approval for clinical studies.
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/.
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 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.
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 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. However, to meet the goals of this FOA, Innovation will be given additional weight in the review process.
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:
Milestones
Are the milestones quantitative? Are the proposed
milestones appropriate for judging the success of the R21 work? Are
the proposed milestones appropriate in determining whether the R33 phase should
be awarded? Do the milestones establish feasibility for all aspects
of the proposed R33 work?
For the R21/R33 Phased Innovation Award application, the initial review group will evaluate the specific goals for each phase and the feasibility milestones that would justify expansion to the R33 phase. A single priority score will be assigned to each scored application. As with any grant application, the initial review group has the option of recommending support for a shorter duration than that requested by the applicant and basing the final merit rating on the recommended portion of the application. For the R21/R33 application, this may result in a recommendation that only the R21 phase be supported, based on concerns related to the application's specific goals and the feasibility milestones justifying expansion to the R33 phase. Deletion of the R33 phase by the review panel or presentation of inadequate milestones in the application may affect the merit rating of the application.
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 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."
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]
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]
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® |
||||||