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 that 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 Tips and Tools for Navigating Electronic Submission on the front page of 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 R03 applications:
- R03 applications will use the modular budget format and Just-in-Time concepts, with direct costs of up to two $25,000 modules, or $50,000 per year, may be requested for up to two years (i.e., a maximum of $100,000 over two years in four modules of $25,000 each).
- Items 2-5 of the PHS398 Research Plan component of the R03 application may not exceed 10 pages, including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts.
- "Introduction (required for a resubmission application) is limited to one page.
- Preliminary data are not required but may be included if available.
- R03 Appendix materials may include graphic images of gels, micrographs, etc. provided that the image (may be reduced in size) is contained within the 10-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. No publications or other printed material, with the exception of pre-printed questionnaires or surveys, may be included in the Appendix.
- 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.
Applications for studies that are ancillary to ongoing CTN trials must document the approval of the NIDA CCTN Director and CTN Executive Committee as well as the cooperation of the Lead Investigator(s) of the affected trial(s). (Refer to the CTN website at http://www.nida.nih.gov/CTN/Research.html for details on ongoing CTN trials and their Lead Investigators.)
Plan for Sharing Research Data
Not applicable.
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 sharing
research resources plan addressing how unique research resources will be shared
or explain why sharing is not possible.
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 of program priorities.
The NIH R03 small grant is a mechanism for supporting discrete, well-defined projects that realistically can be completed in two years and that require limited levels of funding. Because the research plan is restricted to 10 pages, a small grant application will not have the same level of detail or extensive discussion found in an R01 application. Accordingly, reviewers should evaluate the conceptual framework and general approach to the problem, placing 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 from investigator-generated data. Preliminary data are not required, particularly in applications proposing pilot or feasibility studies.
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 comments, 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. The scientific review group will address and consider each of these criteria in assigning the application's overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application.
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 percent effort
listed for 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
Not applicable.
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 sharing
research resources plan 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.
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 R03 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:
Health Services Research:
Richard A. Denisco, MD, MPH
Division of Epidemiology, Services
and Prevention Research
National Institute on Drug Abuse/NIH/DHHS
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 5185, MSC 9589
Bethesda, MD 20892-9589
Telephone: (301) 443-6504
Fax: 301-443-6815
Email: [email protected]
Center for the Clinical Trials Network (CCTN):
Harold I Perl, PhD
Center for the Clinical Trials
Network
National Institute on Drug Abuse/NIH/DHHS
6001 Executive Blvd, Room 3127
Bethesda, MD 20892-9557
Telephone: 301/443-9982
Fax: 301/443-2317
Email: [email protected]
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Not applicable.
3. Financial or Grants Management
Contacts:
Edith Davis
Grants Management Specialist
Grants Management Branch
National Institute on Drug Abuse/NIH/DHHS
6101 Executive Boulevard, Room 270, MSC 8403
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: (301) 443-6710
FAX: (301) 594-6849
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 the 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). Beginning October 1, 2004, all investigators submitting
an NIH application or contract proposal are expected to include in the application/proposal
a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model
organism research resources generated using NIH funding or state why such
sharing is restricted or not possible. This will permit other researchers
to benefit from the resources developed with public funding. The inclusion
of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a cost threshold in any
year and is expected to be included in all applications where the development
of model organisms is anticipated.
Inclusion of Women And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and
their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research
projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating
that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects
or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization
Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing
clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women
and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html);
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical
research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new
OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical
trials consistent with the SF424 (R&R) application; and updated roles
and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a)
all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description
of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender
and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators
must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate,
by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of Children as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age
of 21) must be included in all clinical research, conducted or supported by
the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read
the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as
participants in research involving human subjects (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants
for all investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human
subjects and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available
at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC):
Criteria for Federal funding of research on hESCs can be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp
and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-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.
HIV/AIDS Counseling and Testing Policy for the National Institute on Drug
Abuse: Researchers funded by NIDA who are conducting research in community
outreach settings, clinical, hospital settings, or clinical laboratories and
have ongoing contact with clients at risk for HIV infection, are strongly
encouraged to provide HIV risk reduction education and counseling. HIV counseling
should include offering HIV testing available on-site or by referral to other
HIV testing service for persons at risk for HIV infection including injecting
drug users, crack cocaine users, and sexually active drug users and their
sexual partners. For more information see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-DA-01-001.html.
National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse Recommended Guidelines for the Administration of Drugs to Human Subjects: The National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse recognizes the importance of research involving the administration of drugs to human subjects and has developed guidelines relevant to such research. Potential applicants are encouraged to obtain and review these recommendations of Council before submitting an application that will administer compounds to human subjects. The guidelines are available on NIDA's Home Page at www.nida.nih.gov under the Funding, or may be obtained by calling (301) 443-2755.
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 PA 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 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 Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms
and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the
NIH Grants Policy
Statement.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free
workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public
Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities
(or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine
education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development
services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission
to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Loan Repayment Programs:
NIH encourages applications for educational loan repayment from qualified
health professionals who have made a commitment to pursue a research career
involving clinical, pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities
related areas. The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit
and retain the next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing
a research career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that
an NIH grant is not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and
LRP applications are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award
may overlap providing the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time
and effort, as LRP awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least
20 hours per week based on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research.
For further information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
 |
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||