Department of Health and Human
National Institutes of Health (NIH),
Components of Participating Organizations
National Institute on Drug Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov)
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov)
Title: Economics of Treatment and Prevention Services for Drug & Alcohol Abuse (R03)
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is a reissue of PA-06-320
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
NOTICE: Applications submitted in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for Federal assistance must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) forms and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
APPLICATIONS MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED IN PAPER FORMAT.
This FOA must be read in conjunction with the application guidelines included with this announcement in Grants.gov/Apply for Grants (hereafter called Grants.gov/Apply).
A registration process is necessary before submission and applicants are highly encouraged to start the process at least four (4) weeks prior to the grant submission date. See Section IV.
Program Announcement (PA) Number: PA-08-172
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s)
Release/Posted Date: June 6, 2008
Opening Date: September 16, 2008 (Earliest date an application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Letters of Intent Receipt Date(s): Not Applicable
NOTE: On-time submission requires that applications be successfully submitted to Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization).
Application Due Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see
AIDS Application Due Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#AIDS.
Peer Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Council Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Additional Information To Be Available Date (URL Activation Date): Not Applicable
Expiration Date: September 8, 2011
Dates for E.O. 12372
Additional Overview Content
Table of Contents
1. Mechanism of Support
2. Funds Available
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Submission, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Submitting an Application Electronically to the NIH
C. Application Processing
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements and Information
Section V. Application Review Information
2. Review and Selection Process
A. Additional Review Criteria
B. Additional Review Considerations
C. Resource Sharing Plan(s)
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information - Required Federal Citations
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) issued by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), encourages grant applications on the economics of treatment and prevention services for drug and alcohol abuse. The NIDA Services Research and the Prevention Research Branches of the Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research support economic research within the scope of their scientific areas. Likewise, the NIAAA Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research and Division of Treatment and Recovery Research support economic research on the treatment and prevention of alcohol abuse
SCOPE: The common characteristic of the small grant is provision of limited funding for a short period of time. Examples of the types of projects that ICs support with the R03 include, but are not limited to, the following:
The NIH encourages applications to conduct research related, but not limited to: (1) financing and purchasing of drug and alcohol treatment and prevention services, including studies of health insurance and payment mechanisms; (2) economic incentives used to improve the quality and economic efficiency of treatment and prevention services (3) alternative delivery systems and managed care; (4) cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility analyses; (5) service costs, production, and economic efficiency; and (6) research to develop or improve methods to be used in the economic study of drug and alcohol services.
A broad array of applied, theoretical, and econometric research is sought including, but not limited to, that involving experimental and quasi-experimental designs, analyses of natural experiments, secondary analyses of existing data sources, dynamic simulation models, and descriptive studies that will facilitate the development of economic theory, empirically-testable hypotheses, or future experimental research. Multidisciplinary economic and financing research, integrating burden concepts, tools, and methods from more than one discipline, is also encouraged.
Drug and alcohol disorders are costly to society. Drug disorders, for example, were estimated to generate an economic burden of $180.9 billion in 2002, driven by health care expenditures (treatment for drug abuse disorders and their medical consequences), productivity losses (from death, job problems, incarceration, crime careers, and those incurred by victims of crime), and juvenile and adult criminal justice expenditures (ONDCP, 2004). Similarly, alcohol abuse and dependence were estimated to generate an economic burden of about $185 billion in 1998. As part of those costs, governments, the private sector, and individuals spend substantial sums on prevention and treatment and enforcement of laws related to alcohol and drug use in an attempt to attenuate their negative consequences. For example, in Fiscal Year 2008, the Federal government budgeted $4.9 billion for drug and alcohol abuse prevention, treatment, and associated research (ONDCP, 2008). In 2003, State and local governments spent more than $5 billion on drug and alcohol abuse treatment services, private insurance about $2 billion, and individuals paying out of pocket almost the same amount (Mark et al., 2007). In that same year, prevention funding flowing through Single State Substance Abuse Agencies totaled some $560 million (ONDCP, 2006). Understanding the costs of drug and alcohol abuse, and how best to allocate treatment and prevention resources to address them, are important questions that can be informed by economic analysis.
In addition to causing a substantial economic drug and alcohol treatment services are delivered and organized differently than other health care services making them especially interesting and important to study from an economic perspective. An individual seeking treatment faces a bewildering array of options. Services are provided in a variety of settings (including specialty substance abuse treatment facilities, mental health facilities, private practitioners offices, churches, hospitals, prisons and jails) using different types and combinations of interventions (including several different types, intensities, and combinations of behavioral, pharmaceutical, 12 step-based, and spiritual interventions) and by providers with many different levels and types of education and credentials (including recovered or recovering addicts, certified addiction counselors, licensed clinical social workers, pastoral counselors, psychologists, primary care physicians, and addiction psychiatrists). Economic research can help explain how economic factors influence which types of treatment an individual receives. It can also help examine how the structure of treatment programs, organizations, and systems affect their efficiency and success in meeting the societal goals of reducing the effects of drug and alcohol disorders, and also design and test alternative models that may enhance their ability to do so.
The financing of treatment services, and the population being covered, are also different than those of most other health care services, which suggests both that research results based on the general health care sector may not apply and that there may be distinct research questions possibly requiring tailored methods. For example, although much of the funding for both health care sectors comes from similar sources (e.g. Federal, state, and local governments, private insurance, client fees, and donations), the proportion of expenditures paid by the various sources for alcohol and other drug treatment is much different than that of general health care (Mark et al, 2007). For example, private insurance reimbursed approximately 37% of total health care spending in 2003, but only 10% of drug and alcohol abuse treatment spending. Conversely, states and localities account for only 7% of total health care spending, but 40% of drug and alcohol abuse treatment spending, (excluding their contributions to Medicaid). Each of these sources of funds has its own eligibility rules, regulations, benefit designs, reimbursements, payment mechanisms, and other characteristics. The effect of this level of complexity on the quality of care in, and the efficiency and financial health of, drug and alcohol treatment organizations has received scant attention. And, although interest among these funders in using payment mechanisms such as pay-for-performance systems and vouchers to drive quality and efficiency improvements is burgeoning research on designing, implementing, and testing such systems in the drug and alcohol abuse treatment sector is sparse. Finally there is insufficient information on the benefits of treatment, especially for various subgroups, the nature, quality, and economic costs of services received and their variations, the influences of treatment on social costs, and the economic efficiency of these systems for policymakers to make optimal decisions. Economic research can help fill these gaps.
Similar to treatment services, prevention is delivered in a variety of settings (including schools, community centers, law enforcement, and summer camps, using different types and combinations of strategies (including parent training, psycho-educational approaches, brief interventions, recreational activities, and media campaigns) and by providers with many different levels and types of education and credentials (including childcare workers, educators, human service workers, licensed clinical social workers, psychologists, nurses, primary care physicians, paraprofessionals, and volunteers). There are three basic types of programs, universal, selective, and indicated, each of which target different audiences utilizing a number of distinct, research-based approaches (see for example ). Funding comes from a variety of sources, including all levels of and many different departments in government. In addition to research gaps similar to those described above the for the treatment system, the literature on prevention services is also lacking basic information on the level of prevention funding, where it comes from, and how it is spent. Furthermore, because staff retention is a continuing challenge in prevention, it is important to understand what conditions promote staff retention and maximize investment in training.
In both treatment and prevention, the lack of basic information on implementation costs of research-based interventions may be a factor in their slow diffusion. Therefore, basic information on implementation costs, as well as information on how new interventions can be most efficiently implemented, may move the field forward. In general, descriptive studies should be part of a project that also proposes specific economic studies with testable hypotheses or that describe specific hypotheses for economic studies that may become the basis for future research.
Blue Ribbon Task Force on Health Services Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse
In May 2003, NIDA convened the Health Services Research Blue Ribbon Task Force to review the portfolio of health services research and to produce a report advising the Institute on strategies for increasing its relevance and facilitating the utilization of research-based treatment and prevention interventions into practice and policies (NIDA 2004). Researchers have responded to the Task Forces recommendations in many ways, but gaps in economic research in all areas continue. Areas in which there has been a substantial generation of new knowledge in treatment services include managed care and behavioral healthcare organizations and the development of new methods for economic evaluation. Contributions have also been made to the study of the effects of different methods of financing drug and alcohol abuse treatment services, evaluation of performance-contracting models, the costs of treatment in the criminal justice system, casemix and risk adjustment and in including cost studies earlier in the intervention design and testing process. Less attention has been paid to the remaining Task Force recommendations including the efficiency of drug treatment produced in various service delivery settings and with differing populations, the effects of financial factors on differences in drug and alcohol abuse treatment programs, approaches to rationing services in the drug and alcohol abuse treatment system, determining the minimum funding required to efficiently and effectively deliver and maintain evidence-based practices, and the development of outcome and cost benchmarks.
In the area of prevention research, the Task Force identified a need for an increase in the number of studies fully dedicated to economic issues. The Task Force recommended more studies examining topics such as the following: financial flows; economic incentives; the level of prevention financing; implementation costs for those programs that have shown promising outcomes; quantifications of cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility associated with those prevention interventions that emphasize long-term outcomes, particularly for high-risk individuals; financial decision-making about prevention practices; allocation of funds for such services; decision-making processes and how decisions influence program quality and sustainability. Although researchers responded to some of these questions, there is still substantial work to be done in all of these areas.
Research infrastructures supported by NIDA, including NIDA's Clinical Trials Network (CTN) and the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS), can be useful platforms upon which to conduct economics research. These programs study the impact of evidence-based practices in diverse settings and populations. Examples of relevant studies might include cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility studies of the trial interventions, as well as studies assessing the effects of different financing mechanisms and levels on the sustainability of the intervention beyond the trial period. Likewise, outcomes research supported by NIAAA such as , a multisite trial which tested a series of a priori hypotheses on how patient-treatment interactions relate to outcome, can be useful platforms on which to conduct economic research.
Cross-Cutting Themes: HIV/AIDS and Health Disparities
HIV/AIDS as it relates to the treatment and prevention of drug and alcohol use, abuse, and dependency continues to represent high public health priorities for these Institutes. The catastrophic medical expenses and premature disability due to AIDS can have a devastating impact on the well being of the afflicted individual. Society also experiences numerous negative consequences from the HIV/AIDS and some nations are experiencing health system failures. Furthermore, persons with HIV/AIDS also face other blood borne infections of which hepatitis C (HCV) is a particular concern.
Public health experts maintain that in order to achieve declines in AIDS incidence and deaths, HIV-infected persons must seek testing earlier in the course of their disease, receive and adhere to treatment, and follow prevention guidelines. Research to achieve these goals must involve an economic component concerned with the economic behavior of consumers, providers, government agencies, and third party payers. Applications are sought that would apply economic analysis to pressing problems in the financing and delivery of HIV/AIDS services and drug and alcohol abuse treatment and/or prevention services.
Substantial disparities exist in the distribution of health services to various populations in the United States. Research on the economics of health disparities is needed to expand the theoretical and conceptual basis as well as to improve how health disparities are measured. Considerable work is also needed in health care financing, service distribution, and the concept of health equity. This research would include whether, and if so how, financing schemes differentially affect subpopulation access and/or responsiveness to various treatments and programs in both treatment and prevention services delivery. Economic research may improve our knowledge about contextual factors affecting how marketing and the supply of drugs and alcohol affect both treatment seeking and patient relapse. In addition economic research may help identify causes of drug and alcohol abuse and addiction among all racial/ethnic groups, recognizing diversity by gender, socioeconomic status, and other factors affecting racial/ethnic populations. Economic research might also focus on treatment and prevention services provided to racial/ethnic groups at highest risk for abuse or addiction and the medical consequences of drug and/or alcohol abuse in these populations.
Researchers are encouraged to develop rigorous, theory-based, hypothesis-driven designs for studying the economics of treatment and prevention services for drug and/or alcohol abuse. The following are illustrative scientific areas that may be addressed under this announcement. The examples are not exhaustive, and applications that address additional questions or entirely different research topics related to economics and drug and alcohol treatment and prevention are welcome. Investigators considering a response to this announcement are encouraged to discuss their concepts with the program official identified below.
Financing of Treatment and Prevention Services for Drug and/or Alcohol Abuse
As mentioned above, the unique distribution of sources of funding for treatment, the level of complexity in the system, and the relative dearth of research on these topics, make research related to the financing of drug and alcohol abuse treatment and prevention important. Financing issues are complex, and in addition to analytical studies, descriptive studies that identify the sources of funding and their relationship to the organization, delivery, quality, and efficiency of treatment and prevention services may also be appropriate. Examples of research topics in this broad area include the following:
Public Funding. As mentioned earlier, the public sector funds a large portion of drug and alcohol services provided in the United States. Knowledge gained by economic research could help policymakers and administrators improve the allocation of these funds. Examples of topics, include, but are not limited to, the following:
Health Insurance. A substantial number of individuals are covered by private- and publicly-sponsored health insurance coverage. The extent of insurance coverage for drug and alcohol treatment and prevention services may affect access to and utilization of those services as well as their availability, quality, efficiency, and costs. Examples of research may topics include, but are not limited to, the following:
Economic Incentives. As mentioned above, despite the dearth of scientific research, public and private funders of drug abuse treatment services are developing economic incentive schemes they hope will improve the quality and efficiency of the treatment system. Such incentives may profoundly affect the treatment system in ways both hoped for and unintended. Examples of research that might inform and evaluate the implementation of economic incentive schemes include, but is not limited to, the following:
Alternative Delivery Systems and Managed Care
Drug and alcohol abuse treatment services are frequently delivered in managed behavioral health care organizations that combine insurance and delivery functions. Although there is research in this area, additional information is needed on access to, and the utilization, quality, efficiency, and costs of services delivered in alternative or capitated payment environments, as well as additional information on the various models by which these service are provided. Examples of such research topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Cost and Production of Treatment and Prevention Services for Drug and Alcohol Abuse
As purchasers of health care require more accountability regarding expenditures, additional economic research is needed on the costs of producing efficient and effective treatment and prevention services. Research is also needed on the reasons for the observed variability in costs including the effects of the differences in clients served, relevant program characteristics, and other factors. Although substantial advances have been made in costing drug and alcohol abuse treatment and prevention services over the past decade there is still work to be done. For example, consensus has not yet developed on a conceptual and measurement framework for determining economic costs. This type of research is needed to support comparable cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost function analyses of treatment and prevention programs and services. Production function studies, allowing direct estimation of the production process, are also needed. Cost and production topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Cost-Utility, Cost-Effectiveness, and Cost-Benefit Analysis
The continued development of new medical and behavioral interventions, many of which are informed by the explosion of knowledge of the neurobiological effects of drug and alcohol abuse, and the increased emphasis on accountability necessitate continued cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses of programs and innovations. This type of research has traditionally been pursued in conjunction with effectiveness studies. Examples of relevant areas for cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility studies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Research is encouraged that will develop and test the application of new methods or comparisons of existing methods of economic analysis in substance abuse health services research. Examples include the following:
HIV/AIDS Counseling and Testing Policy for the National Institute on Drug Abuse: In light of recent significant advances in rapid testing for HIV and in effective treatments for HIV, NIDA has revised its 2001 policy on HIV counseling and testing. NIDA-funded researchers are strongly encouraged to provide and/or refer research subjects to HIV risk reduction education and education about the benefits of HIV treatment, counseling and testing, referral to treatment, and other appropriate interventions to prevent acquisition and transmission of HIV. This policy applies to all NIDA funded research conducted domestically or internationally. For more information see
National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse Recommended
Guidelines for the Administration of Drugs to Human
Subjects: The National Advisory Council on
Drug Abuse (NACDA) recognizes the importance of research involving the
administration of drugs with abuse potential, and dependence or addiction
liability, to human subjects. 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 Web site at
Mark TL, et al. (2007). National Expenditures for Mental Health Services and Substance Abuse Treatment, 1993-2003. SAMHSA Publication No. SMA 07-4227. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2008. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2006). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President (Publication No. NCJ 216918)
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2004). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President (Publication No. 207303).
Mark TL, et al. (2007). . SAMHSA Publication No. SMA 07-4227. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2006). Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations: A Research-Based Guide. NIH Publication No. 06-5316. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2004).
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2003). NIH Publication No. 04-4212(A).
National Institute on Drug Abuse (1999) . NIH Publication No. 99-4180
See Section VIII, Other
Information - Required Federal Citations, for policies related to this
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
This FOA will use the R03 award mechanism. The Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This FOA uses Just-in-Time information concepts see SF424 (R&R) Application Guide). It also uses the modular as well as the non-modular budget formats (see the Modular Applications and Awards section of the NIH Grants Policy Statement. All applications submitted in response to this FOA must use the modular budget format. Specifically, if you are submitting an application with direct costs in each year of $250,000 or less (excluding consortium Facilities and Administrative [F&A] costs), use the PHS398 Modular Budget component provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Package and SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (see specifically Section 3.4, Modular Budget Component, of the Application Guide).
U.S. applicants requesting more than $250,000 in annual direct costs and all foreign applicants must complete and submit budget requests using the Research & Related Budget component.
Competing renewal (formerly competing continuation) applications will not be accepted for the R03 grant mechanism. Small grant support may not be used for thesis or dissertation research. Applicants may submit a resubmission, but such applications must include an Introduction addressing issues raised in the previous critique (Summary Statement).
For specific information about the R03 programs, see: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm.
Because the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary. Although the financial plans of the NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
A project period of up to two years and a budget for direct costs of up to two $25,000 modules, or $50,000 per year, may be requested (i.e., a maximum of $100,000 over two years in four modules of $25,000 each). Commensurate Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs are allowed.
costs requested by consortium participants are not included in the direct cost
limitation. See NOT-OD-05-004, November 2, 2004.
Section III. Eligibility Information
1.A. Eligible Institutions
The following organizations/institutions are eligible to apply:
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the PD/PI is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
More than one PD/PI (i.e., multiple PDs/PIs), may be designated on the application for projects that require a team science approach and therefore clearly do not fit the single-PD/PI model. Additional information on the implementation plans and policies and procedures to formally allow more than one PD/PI on individual research projects is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi. All PDs/PIs must be registered in the NIH electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons prior to the submission of the application (see http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm for instructions).
The decision of whether to apply for a grant with a single PD/PI or multiple PDs/PIs grant is the responsibility of the investigators and applicant organizations and should be determined by the scientific goals of the project. Applications for grants with multiple PDs/PIs will require additional information, as outlined in the instructions below. When considering the multiple PD/PI option, please be aware that the structure and governance of the PD/PI leadership team as well as the knowledge, skills and experience of the individual PDs/PIs will be factored into the assessment of the overall scientific merit of the application. Multiple PDs/PIs on a project share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically. Each PD/PI is responsible and accountable to the grantee organization, or, as appropriate, to a collaborating organization, for the proper conduct of the project or program, including the submission of required reports. For further information on multiple PDs/PIs, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi.
Cost Sharing or Matching
This program does not require cost sharing as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy Statement.
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Applicants may submit a resubmission application, but such application must include an Introduction addressing issues raised in the previous critique (Summary Statement).
Applicants may not submit a renewal application.
Applicants may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
download a SF424 (R&R) Application Package and SF424 (R&R) SBIR/STTR
Application Guide for completing the SF424 (R&R) forms for this FOA, use
the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or link to http://www.grants.gov/Apply/ and follow
the directions provided on that Web site.
A one-time registration is required for institutions/organizations at both:
PDs/PIs should work with their institutions/organizations to make sure they are registered in the NIH eRA Commons.
Several additional separate actions are required before an applicant SBC can submit an electronic application, as follows:
1) Organizational/Institutional Registration in Grants.gov/Get Registered
3) Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) Registration in the NIH eRA Commons: Refer to the NIH eRA Commons System (COM) Users Guide.
Both the PD(s)/PI(s) and AOR/SO need separate accounts in the NIH eRA Commons since both are authorized to view the application image.
Note that if a PD/PI is also an NIH peer-reviewer with an Individual DUNS and CCR registration, that particular DUNS number and CCR registration are for the individual reviewer only. These are different than any DUNS number and CCR registration used by an applicant organization. Individual DUNS and CCR registration should be used only for the purposes of personal reimbursement and should not be used on any grant applications submitted to the Federal Government.
Several of the steps of the registration process could take four weeks or more. Therefore, applicants should immediately check with their business official to determine whether their institution is already registered in both Grants.gov and the Commons. The NIH will accept electronic applications only from organizations that have completed all necessary registrations.
Note: Only the forms package directly attached to a specific FOA can be used. You will not be able to use any other SF424 (R&R) forms (e.g., sample forms, forms from another FOA), although some of the Attachment files may be useable for more than one FOA.
For further assistance contact GrantsInfo -- Telephone 301-710-0267, Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
for the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Prepare all applications using the SF424 (R&R) application forms and in accordance with the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
The SF424 (R&R) Application Guide is critical to submitting a complete and accurate application to NIH. There are fields within the SF424 (R&R) application components that, although not marked as mandatory, are required by NIH (e.g., the Credential log-in field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile component must contain the PD/PIs assigned eRA Commons User ID). Agency-specific instructions for such fields are clearly identified in the Application Guide. For additional information, see Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
The SF424 (R&R) application is comprised of data arranged in separate components. Some components are required, others are optional. The forms package associated with this FOA in Grants.gov/APPLY will include all applicable components, required and optional. A completed application in response to this FOA will include the following components:
SF424 (R&R) (Cover component)
Research & Related Project/Performance Site Locations
Research & Related Other Project Information
Research & Related Senior/Key Person
PHS398 Cover Page Supplement
PHS398 Research Plan
PHS398 Modular Budget or Research & Related Budget, as appropriate (See Section IV.6., Special Instructions, regarding appropriate required budget component.)
PHS398 Cover Letter File
Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s) Form
Organizations (Non-domestic [non-U.S.] Entities)
NIH policies concerning grants to foreign (non-U.S.) organizations can be found in the NIH Grants Policy Statement at: https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm#_Toc54600260.
Applications from Foreign organizations must:
Proposed research should provide special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the United States (U.S.) or that augment existing U.S. resources.
Applications with Multiple PDs/PIs
When multiple PDs/PIs are proposed, NIH requires one PD/PI to be designated as the "Contact PI, who will be responsible for all communication between the PDs/PIs and the NIH, for assembling the application materials outlined below, and for coordinating progress reports for the project. The contact PD/PI must meet all eligibility requirements for PD/PI status in the same way as other PDs/PIs, but has no other special roles or responsibilities within the project team beyond those mentioned above.
Information for the Contact PD/PI should be entered in Item 13 of the SF424 (R&R) Cover component. All other PDs/PIs should be listed in the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component and assigned the project role of PD/PI. Please remember that all PDs/PIs must be registered in the eRA Commons prior to application submission. The Commons ID of each PD/PI must be included in the Credential field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component. Failure to include this data field will cause the application to be rejected.
All projects proposing Multiple PDs/PIs will be required to include a new section describing the leadership plan approach for the proposed project.
Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan: For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, a new section of the research plan, entitled Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan, must be included. A rationale for choosing a multiple PD/PI approach should be described. The governance and organizational structure of the leadership team and the research project should be described, and should include communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, and procedures for resolving conflicts. The roles and administrative, technical, and scientific responsibilities for the project or program should be delineated for the PDs/PIs and other collaborators.
If budget allocation is planned, the distribution of resources to specific components of the project or the individual PDs/PIs should be delineated in the Leadership Plan. In the event of an award, the requested allocations may be reflected in a footnote on the Notice of Award (NoA).
Applications Involving a Single Institution
When all PDs/PIs are within a single institution, follow the instructions contained in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applications Involving Multiple Institutions
When multiple institutions are involved, one institution must be designated as the prime institution and funding for the other institution(s) must be requested via a subcontract to be administered by the prime institution. When submitting a detailed budget, the prime institution should submit its budget using the Research & Related Budget component. All other institutions should have their individual budgets attached separately to the Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s) Form. See Section 4.8 of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for further instruction regarding the use of the subaward budget form.
When submitting a modular budget, the prime institution completes the PHS398 Modular Budget component only. Information concerning the consortium/subcontract budget is provided in the budget justification. Separate budgets for each consortium/subcontract grantee are not required when using the Modular budget format. See Section 3.4 of the Application Guide for further instruction regarding the use of the PHS398 Modular Budget component.
3. Submission Dates and Times
See Section IV.3.A. for details.
3.A. Submission, Review, and
Anticipated Start Dates
Opening Date :September 16, 2008(Earliest date an application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Application Due Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
AIDS Application Due Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#AIDS
Peer Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Council Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
3.A.1. Letter of Intent
A letter of intent is not required for the funding opportunity.
3.B. Submitting an Application
Electronically to the NIH
To submit an application in response to this FOA, applicants should access this FOA via http://www.grants.gov/Apply and follow Steps 1-4. Note: Applications must only be submitted electronically. PAPER APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
3.C. Application Processing
Applications may be submitted on or after the opening date and must be successfully received by Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization) on the application due date(s). (See Section IV.3.A. for all dates.) If an application is not submitted by the due date(s) and time, the application may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed.
Once an application package has been successfully submitted through Grants.gov, any errors have been addressed, and the assembled application has been created in the eRA Commons, the PD/PI and the Authorized Organization Representative/Signing Official (AOR/SO) have two weekdays (Monday Friday, excluding Federal holidays) to view the application image to determine if any further action is necessary.
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.
Note: Since email can be unreliable, it is the responsibility of the applicant to check periodically on their application status in the Commons.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial merit review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. The NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. 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
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: 1)
are necessary to conduct the project, and 2) would be allowable under the
grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures would
otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before
incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred
more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a
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 NIH Grants Policy Statement https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm.
6. Other Submission Requirements
PD/PI Credential (e.g., Agency Login)
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 Registration FAQs Important Tips -- Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
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.
PHS398 Research Plan Component Sections
All application instructions outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide are to be followed, with the following requirements for R03 applications:
Applicants must follow the specific instructions on Appendix materials as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm).
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations. An application that does not comply with the required page limitations may be delayed in the review process.
Resource Sharing Plan(s)
NIH considers the sharing of unique research resources developed through NIH-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value and further the advancement of the research. When resources have been developed with NIH funds and the associated research findings published or provided to NIH, it is important that they be made readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community. If the final data/resources are not amenable to sharing, this must be explained in the Resource Sharing section of the application (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm.)
(a) Data Sharing Plan: Regardless of the amount requested, investigators are expected to include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss data-sharing plans with their NIH program contact (see Data-Sharing Policy or https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html.)
(b) Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated are expected to include a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organisms and related resources or state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible (see Sharing Model Organisms Policy, and NOT-OD-04-042.)
(c) Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): Regardless of the amount requested, applicants seeking funding for a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. A genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (e.g., blood pressure or weight) or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. For further information see Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (go to, and .)
Foreign Applications (Non-domestic [non-U.S.] Entities)
Indicate how the proposed project has specific relevance to the mission and objectives of the NIH/IC and has the potential for significantly advancing the health sciences in the United States
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.
Review and Selection Process
A pplications submitted for this funding opportunity will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the ICs for funding consideration.
Applications that are complete will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate scientific review group(s) in accordance with NIH peer review procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/) using the review criteria stated below.
As part of the initial merit review, all applications will:
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:
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 component is restricted to 6 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 meritorious impact/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.
Overall Impact. Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Core Review Criteria. Reviewers will consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Significance: Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Investigator(s): Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Innovation: Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Approach: Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Environment: Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Additional Review Criteria
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children. When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children.
Vertebrate Animals. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia.
Resubmission Applications. When reviewing a Resubmission application (formerly called an amended application), the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
Renewal Applications. When reviewing a Renewal application (formerly called a competing continuation application), the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Revision Applications. When reviewing a Revision application (formerly called a competing supplement application), the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
Biohazards. Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Additional Review Considerations
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will address each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Budget and Period Support. Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Select Agents Research. Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Applications from Foreign Organizations. Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Resource Sharing Plans. Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm); 2) Sharing Model Organisms (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-042.html); and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html). 2.C. Resource Sharing Plan(s)
When relevant, reviewers will be instructed to comment on the reasonableness of the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed resource sharing plan(s) into the determination of scientific merit or impact/priority score, unless noted otherwise in the FOA. Program staff within the IC will be responsible for monitoring the resource sharing.
Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access the Summary Statement (written critique) via the NIH eRA Commons.
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.
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.
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
1. Scientific/Research Contacts:
Sarah Q. Duffy, Ph.D.
Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Building 6001 Executive Blvd. Rm 5195
Bethesda, MD 20892-NNNN
Telephone: (301) 451-4998
Fax: (301) 443-2636
Division of Treatment and Recovery Research
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2049, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304
2. Peer Review Contacts:
3. Financial or Grants
Grants Management Branch
National Institute on Drug Abuse
6010 Executive Boulevard, Room 260
Bethesda, MD 20892-8403
Chief, Grants Management Branch
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3023
Bethesda, MD 20892-9304
Recipients of PHS support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply with PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf) as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (https://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.
Federal regulations (45 CFR 46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and Safety
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, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
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 (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing). Investigators should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local institutional review board (IRB) rules, as well as local, State and Federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule. Reviewers will consider the data sharing plan but will not factor the plan into the determination of the scientific merit or the impact/priority score.
Policy for Genome-Wide
Association Studies (GWAS):
NIH is interested in advancing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify common genetic factors that influence health and disease through a centralized GWAS data repository. For the purposes of this policy, a genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire human genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight), or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. All applications, regardless of the amount requested, proposing a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. Data repository management (submission and access) is governed by the Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088. For additional information, see
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 https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm). At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Beginning October 1, 2004, all investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal are expected to include in the application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Access to Research Data through the Freedom of Information
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 https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm. Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children:
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 (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html); a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at https://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
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 (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject
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 https://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 https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-116.html. Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov/). It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide in the project description and elsewhere in the application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s) for the hESC line(s) to be used in the proposed research.
NIH Public Access Policy Requirement:
In accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy, investigators funded by the NIH must submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicines PubMed Central (see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/), an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication. The NIH Public Access Policy is available at (). For more information, see the Public Access webpage at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002. The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/) provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review, funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research contracts can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html
in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, Internet addresses (URLs) or PubMed Central (PMC) submission identification numbers must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal articles. Publicly accessible on-line journal articles or PMC articles/manuscripts accepted for publication that are directly relevant to the project may be included only as URLs or PMC submission identification numbers accompanying the full reference in either the Bibliography & References Cited section, the Progress Report Publication List section, or the Biographical Sketch section of the NIH grant application. A URL or PMC submission identification number citation may be repeated in each of these sections as appropriate. There is no limit to the number of URLs or PMC submission identification numbers that can be cited.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This OA 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 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
Office of Extramural
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.