and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) |
|
Funding Opportunity Title |
NIDDK Program Project Applications (P01) |
Activity Code |
P01 Research Program Projects |
Announcement Type |
New |
Related Notices |
|
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
PAR-11-043 |
Companion FOA |
None |
Catalog of Federal Domestics Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.847 |
FOA Purpose |
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) issued by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) invites submission of investigator-initiated Program Project Applications. The proposed programs should address scientific areas relevant to the NIDDK mission including diabetes, endocrine and metabolic diseases, digestive diseases and nutrition, and kidney, urologic and hematologic diseases, as well as new approaches to prevent, treat and cure these diseases, including clinical research. A description of NIDDK scientific program areas can be found at http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/default.htm. |
Posted Date |
November 22, 2010 |
Letter of Intent Due Date |
Not Applicable |
Application Due Date(s) |
Standard dates apply. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Standard dates apply. |
Scientific Merit Review |
Standard dates apply. |
Advisory Council Review |
Standard dates apply. |
Earliest Start Date(s) |
Standard dates apply. |
Expiration Date |
(Now Expired July 9, 2013 per issuance of PAR-13-266), Originally January 8, 2014 |
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. While some links are provided, applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Looking ahead: As part of the Department of Health and Human Services' implementation of e-Government the NIH will gradually transition each research grant mechanism to electronic submission through Grants.gov and the use of the SF 424 Research and Related (R&R) forms. For more information and an initial timeline, seehttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-06-035.html. NIH will announce each grant mechanism change in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html).
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
New biologic knowledge will come from sole investigators following their vision and from teams of scientists sharing their expertise. Some complex biomedical problems require a multidisciplinary vantage point to discover an innovative solution. The P01 program project award supports research that has multiple distinct but synergistic projects built around a unifying central theme relevant to the NIDDK.
Currently the NIDDK supports collaborative research in the form of:
A central theme or well-defined major objective is the foundation of a P01 program project. Compared to the more narrow thrust of a traditional R01 research project, a program project is directed toward a range of scientific questions that elucidate various aspects of the central theme. Compared to the Collaborative Team Science R24 grants, each research project of the program project could be an independent project. In addition, one or more shared research cores is required. Administrative cores, except in special, well-justified circumstances, will not be allowed.
The collaborating scientists should be established investigators with strong records of innovative research and independent funding support. Thus, support of one senior investigator and postdoctoral or research associate-level scientists as project leaders is not appropriate. In addition, the program project grant is not intended to be a vehicle for departmental research support.
The research of the program projects should advance the mission of the NIDDK to develop new knowledge relevant to understanding diabetes, endocrine and metabolic diseases, digestive diseases and nutrition, and kidney, urologic and hematologic diseases, and to develop new approaches to prevent, treat and cure these diseases.
Investigators, who are considering pursuing a collaborative approach to their research problem, are strongly encouraged to contact NIDDK program staff at least 9 months prior to the projected receipt date to discuss a potential application. The discussion could include the choice of funding mechanism, relevance of the topic to the NIDDK mission and the scope and approach of the project. Further information on the NIDDK Program Project award is available at http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/GrantReview/P01Guidelines.
Funding Instrument |
Grant |
Application Types Allowed |
New The OER Glossary and the PHS398 Application Guide provide details on these application types. |
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards |
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations, and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. |
Award Budget |
Applications that are submitted in response to this FOA must have budgets greater than or equal to $500,000 in direct costs per year. New (Type 1) and renewal (Type 2) program project applications cannot request more than $6.25 million in direct costs over 5 years. The indirect costs related to the subcontracts will be excluded from the requested direct cost levels prior to application of the cap. |
Award Project Period |
The maximum project period for these awards is 5 years. Starting with new and renewal P01 grants reviewed and funded in fiscal year 2011, only one more renewal will be allowed. |
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions:
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For profit Organizations
Governments
Other
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are eligible to apply. Foreign (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations as described in the PHS398 Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following registrations.
All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD/PIs) must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at least four (4) weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the PHS398 Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. Resubmission applications may be submitted, according to the NIH Policy on Resubmission Applications from the PHS398 Application Guide.
Applicants are required to prepare applications according to the current PHS 398 application forms in accordance with the PHS 398 Application Guide.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research
grant application forms and instructions for preparing a research grant
application. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application,
including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
At the time of submission, two additional paper copies of
the application and all copies of the appendix files must be sent to:
Dr. Francisco Calvo
Chief, Review Branch
Division of Extramural Activities
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752, MSC 5452
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
(for express/courier service: Bethesda, MD 20817)
Telephone: 301-594-8897
Email: [email protected]
All instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
The Overall Program Project Research Strategy section, including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts, is limited to 12 pages.
For Individual Research Projects the Research Strategy section, including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts, is limited to 12 pages.
For Cores the Core Services Strategy section, including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts, is limited to 6 pages.
More detail is provided in the NIDDK guidelines for preparing P01 applications, see http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/GrantReview/P01Guidelines.
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) as provided in the PHS398 Application Guide.
Appendix
Do not use the appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix (please note all format requirements) as described in the PHS398 Application Guide.
Foreign (non-US) organizations must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign organizations described throughout the PHS398 Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates.
Information on the process of receipt and determining if
your application is considered on-time is described in detail in the PHS398
Application Guide.
Applicants may track the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants
administration.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost
principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy
Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
Applications must be postmarked on or before the due dates
in Part I. Overview Information.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review , NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
Potential applicants must carry out the following steps:
1) Contact the NIDDK program staff at least 9 months before submitting the
application, i.e., as plans are being developed for the proposal;
2) Obtain agreement from the NIDDK that the Institute will accept the application. More information on requesting NIDDK approval can be found at http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/GrantReview/P01Guidelines.htm#II. The pre-approval request must be received by a minimum of 12 weeks (3 months) before the application receipt date.
3) Include a cover letter with the application that identifies NIDDK and the staff member who agreed to accept assignment of the application.
These instructions apply to all new, renewal, revision, or resubmission applications.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered
in the review process. As part of the NIH mission,
all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral
research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer
review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
The relationship and contributions of each research component and core (excluding those recommended for no further consideration) to the overall theme of the program project will be discussed and evaluated; these points must be clearly and specifically outlined in the summary statement. This should be a separate consideration which is not determined exclusively by the scores of the individual projects. Although projects that are not scored are removed from consideration as part of the overall program project, the inclusion of such projects will reflect on the leadership capabilities of the principal investigator/program director.
The overall program project application is evaluated considering the impact/priority-scored projects, supporting cores, and the administrative structure. For a program project to receive an impact/priority score, it must consist of at least three scored individual projects for the duration of the project period. Each core must provide essential functions or services for at least two of these projects.
Specific factors to be evaluated in the consideration of the overall program project are as follows:
1. Scientific merit of the program as a whole, as well as that of individual projects, and its potential impact on the field;
2.Cohesiveness and multidisciplinary scope of the program and the coordination and interrelationship of all individual research projects and cores to the common theme;
3. The evaluation of the overall program in terms of significance, investigators (including leadership and scientific ability of the PD/PI and his or her commitment and ability to develop a well-defined central research focus), innovation, approach, and environment;
4. Scientific gain of combining the component parts into a program project (beyond that achievable if each project were to be pursued separately);
5. Past accomplishments of the program or a demonstrated ability in mounting similar programs.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit. 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, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
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?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and
safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46,
the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human
subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For
additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to
the Human
Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
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. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
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.
Resubmissions
For Resubmissions, 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.
Renewals
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Revisions
For Revisions, 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 for recommended 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.
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
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, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
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?
The review criteria for the individual cores are given below. Cores receive merit descriptors rather than numeric scores, and individual criterion scores are not provided.
1. Utility of the core to the program project; each core must provide essential facilities or service for two or more projects judged to have substantial scientific merit;
2. Quality of the facilities or services provided by this core (including procedures, techniques, and quality control) and criteria for prioritization of usage;
3. Qualifications, experience, and commitment of the personnel involved in the core;
4. Appropriateness of the timetable in relation to the scope of the proposed research support.
5. If human subjects, vertebrate animals, or biohazards are to be used in the core, the adequacy of these sections must be assessed and will be considered in determining the score of the individual core.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical
merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) (assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons), in accordance with NIH peer
review policy and procedures, using the stated review
criteria.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center and will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council . The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided
to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by
the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via
email to the grantee business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS,
CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award
Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. . More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Not Applicable.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
Investigators, who are considering pursuing a collaborative approach to their
research problem, are strongly encouraged to contact NIDDK program staff at
least 9 months prior to the projected receipt date to discuss a potential
application. The discussion could include the choice of funding mechanism,
relevance of the topic to the NIDDK mission and the scope and approach of the
project. Further information on the NIDDK Program Project award is available
at http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/GrantReview/P01Guidelines.
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
TTY 301-451-5936
Email: [email protected]
eRA Commons Help Desk(Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
TTY: 301-451-5939
Email: [email protected]
Louis Martey
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases
(DEM)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 687
Bethesda, MD 20892-5460
Telephone: 301- 594-7733
FAX: 301-435-6047
Email: [email protected]
Edward Doo, M.D.
Director, Liver Disease Research Program
Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition (DDN)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 651, MSC 5450
Bethesda, MD 20892-5450
Telephone: 301-451-4524
FAX: 301-480-8300
Email: [email protected]
Christian J. Ketchum, Ph.D.
Division of Kidney, Urology and Hematology (KUH)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 647, MSC 5458
Bethesda, MD 20892-5458
Telephone: 301-402-1411
FAX: 301-480-3510
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Francisco Calvo
Chief, Review Branch
Division of Extramural Activities
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752, MSC 5452
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
(for express/courier service: Bethesda, MD 20817)
Telephone: 301-594-8897
Email: [email protected]
Robert Pike
Chief, Grants Management Branch
Division of Extramural Affairs
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 731, MSC 5452
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
(for express/courier service: Bethesda, MD 20817)
Telephone: 301-594-8854
Email:[email protected]
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||