and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Institute on Aging (NIA) |
|
Funding Opportunity Title |
Limited Competition: A Consortium to Study Genetics of Longevity (U19) |
Activity Code |
U19 Research Program Cooperative Agreements |
Announcement Type |
New for resubmitted Renewal application |
Related Notices |
None |
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
PAR-11-101 |
Companion FOA |
None |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.866 |
FOA Purpose |
This limited competition Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) issued by the National Institute on Aging invites resubmission of the Renewal application for the Longevity Consortium. The Longevity Consortium is designed to identify genetic variants that contribute to exceptionally healthy human longevity through collaboration among laboratory scientists, biostatisticians and clinical investigators. |
Posted Date |
January 14, 2011 |
Letter of Intent Due Date |
Not Applicable |
Application Due Date(s) |
March 18, 2011 |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Not applicable. |
Scientific Merit Review |
June-July 2011 |
Advisory Council Review |
August 2011 |
Earliest Start Date(s) |
September 2011 |
Expiration Date |
March 19, 2011 |
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.
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
Research Objectives
Identifying genetic and other factors that contribute to long and healthy life
can lead to improved interventions that can help delay or prevent the onset of
age-related disease and disability and can increase the time that older persons
spend in good health. Studying a group of exceptional survival outcomes such as
exceptional longevity and exceptional health span can provide insights into
protective factors that can improve healthy survival in the general population.
Recognizing that the study of genes associated with human healthy aging and longevity requires a broad understanding of genetic, epidemiologic and biological principles and interdisciplinary interactions among investigators in these areas, the National Institute on Aging funded the Longevity Consortium (LC) in 2004. The LC consists of investigators from several large scale studies working in collaboration with individual basic biological aging researchers identify genetic variants that predispose to human longevity and/or protect against multiple age-related diseases and disabilities, and provides infrastructure, including ten of the largest epidemiologic studies on aging, for basic and epidemiologic researchers to continuously interact with each other through discovery and confirmatory studies and shared specialized cores.
In the LC's first phase, the investigators used an association based approach involving data from large epidemiologic populations to detect mild to moderate effects of common alleles and environmental factors on healthy survival. They investigated candidate genes in pathways believed to be important to longevity.
The goal of the second phase of the LC is to continue coordinating the efforts of laboratory scientists, biostatisticians and clinical investigators to identify common and rare genetic variants that lead to exceptionally healthy survival to extreme old age, by employing new genomics technologies and statistical genetics approaches.
NIA encourages the following directions in Renewal applications:
Funding Instrument |
Cooperative Agreement: A support mechanism used when there will be substantial Federal scientific or programmatic involvement. Substantial involvement means that, after award, scientific or program staff will assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in project activities. |
Application Types Allowed |
Renewal |
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 |
Application budgets are not limited, but need to reflect actual needs of the proposed project. |
Award Project Period |
Up to five years |
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 not eligible to apply. Foreign (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not 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.
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:
Ramesh Vemuri, PhD.
Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212
Bethesda, MD 20892 (For Fedex use, MD 20814)
VermuriR@mail.nih.gov
All page limitations described in the PHS398 Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional requirements:
All instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
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, with the following modifications:
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.
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 postmarkedr on or before the due dates in Part I. Overview Information. If an application is received after that date, it will not be reviewed.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact NIH program staff at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the PHS398 Application Guide.
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.
Overall Impact
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the overall program 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).
Scored Review Criteria
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 overall program projectt 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? What is the added value to scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice of the program project considered as a whole compared to the separate impact of the individual subprojects? How important is the program project structure to the prospects for success of the individual subprojects?
Investigator(s)
Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the program projectt? 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? How compelling are the program project’s principal investigator’s skills, research record and prior leadership experience? Has the program project principal investigator devoted sufficient effort to accomplish the goals of the program project? Do the investigators on the separate subprojects and cores show evidence of collaborating to advance the goals of the overall program 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? How much does combining the different cores and subprojects into a single overall program project enhance innovation or increase the originality of the proposed work?
Approach
Are the overall strategy,
methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the
specific aims of the program 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? Do the different approaches taken in the
cores and subprojects create a synergy that itself enables new knowledge and/or
clinically relevant findings? Are the approaches of the different subprojects
consistent? Do they provide additive value beyond their individual strengths?
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? Does the environment encourage collaborative work among the project investigators?
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
Not applicable
Additional Review Considerations
As applicable for the program 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
Not applicable.
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.
Subprojects
Scored Review Criteria - Subprojects
Overall Impact:
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood that the subproject will exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five core (central) review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the subproject proposed).
Central 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 subproject that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Significance:
Does the subproject address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims 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 investigators, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the subproject? 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 subproject is collaborative, 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 subproject? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the subproject is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the subproject 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 subproject proposed? Will the subproject benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Additional Review Criteria
As applicable for the subproject 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. 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
subproject 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 Human Subjects
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.
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 subproject.
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:
Not applicable.
Additional Review Considerations
As applicable for the subproject 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/priority score.
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:
Not applicable.
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 (http://grants.nih/gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm); 2) Sharing Model Organisms (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-042.html); and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html).
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.
Cores
Overall Impact:
Reviewers will provide an adjectival rating of high, moderate, or low enthusiasm
Central Review Criteria: Reviewers will consider each of the four review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit. As cores are generally resources to enable or to advance research, Innovation is not considered routinely as an independent review criterion for cores. Innovative cores may be valuable and that value will be assessed under Significance or Approach as appropriate.
Significance:
Does the core address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims 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? What is the value of the core to the overall program project and to the individual subprojects? Can the core support at least two subprojects?
Investigator(s):
Are the investigators, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the core? 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 core is collaborative, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the core? Administrative Core: Do the core leader’s administrative, management, and leadership capabilities provide for the following activities: Internal quality control of ongoing research; Management of day-to-day program activities: Management of contractual agreements; Fair, effective communications and cooperation among program leaders and/or program investigators; Resolution of disputes; Development of scientific meetings; Allocation of funds. Scientific Core: Are the skills of the core leader and key personnel appropriate to manage the core?
Approach:
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the core? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the core is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the core 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?
Administrative Core: Are the operational plan and organizational structure well justified? Is the core adequate to support and encourage optimal interactions among participants of the overall program? Scientific Cores: Are the methodologies used in the core and the resources of the core most appropriate to the needs of the subprojects? Do they fully address these needs?
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 proposed core? Will the core benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Does the environment enhance integration of the cores and subprojects? Does it facilitate interactions between cores and subprojects?
Additional Review Criteria
As applicable for the core proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit.
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 core 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 Human Subjects 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.
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 core.
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:
Not applicable
Additional Review Considerations
As applicable for the core proposed, reviewers will address each of the following items.
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:
Not applicable.
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 (http://grants.nih/gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm); 2) Sharing Model Organisms (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-042.html); and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html)
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.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical
merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the National Institute on Aging Scientific Review Branch (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 submitted in response to this FOA . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Advisory Council on Aging. . 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.
The following special terms of award are in addition to, and
not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is
applicable when State and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other
HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.
The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the
cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an
"acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic
involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the
activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and
stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working
jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume
direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities.
Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility
resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks
and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.
The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable OMB administrative guidelines, HHS Grant Administration Regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 and other HHS, PHS, and NIH Grant Administration policy statements.
The administrative and funding mechanism used for this program is a cooperative agreement (U19), an assistance mechanism (rather than an acquisition mechanism) in which substantial NIH scientific and/or programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during performance of the activity. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and/or stimulate the recipient's activity by working jointly with the award recipient in a partner role, but it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility or a dominant role in the activity. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility for the activity resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities in carrying out the collaborative aspects will be shared among the awardees and the designated NIA Program Coordinator.
The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:
Awardee will have primary authorities and responsibilities to define objectives and approaches, and for participant recruitment and follow-up, quality control, data analyses and interpretation, and for preparation of publications for their projects. Awardee shall retain custody of, and primary rights to, the site-specific data developed under the award, subject to Government rights of access, consistent with current HHS, PHS, and NIH policies. The Awardee agrees to provide the information as follows:
"Within six months of the award start date, the Awardee will provide the NIA and the Observational Safety Monitoring Board (described below) with a Manual of Operations that details the structure of the Consortium and how all of the components interact with the others. This includes the role of the Cores, the role of the approved studies, the role of the participating cohorts that are not currently a part of the approved studies, the process for review and approval of projects proposed by Longevity Consortium Members for the use of Scientific Opportunity Funds, and other decision making bodies and processes of the Longevity Consortium.
"Within six months of the award start date, the Awardee will provide the NIA and the Observational Safety Monitoring Board (described below) with a detailed data management plan that will provide detailed guidance on issues related to data quality, data transfer, and quality control, including methods for analyzing quality control of data used in replication studies, secondary analyses, and applications of novel analytical methods. The plan will also include methods for overseeing recoding/calibration of similar measures that are collected across various participating cohort studies.
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
An NIA Project Scientist will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below.
The project scientist will participate in the monitoring of issues related to data management and control, will assist in the development and/or adjustment of Longevity Consortium policies/procedures, and will serve as a member of the Steering Committee.
An NIA Program Official will be responsible for the normal programmatic stewardship for this grant, including receiving and approving progress reports. The Program Official may also serve as the NIA Program Coordinator.
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
A Steering Committee will be the governing body of the Consortium to coordinate the studies and meetings across the Consortium. It will also administer a Scientific Opportunity Fund. The membership includes the Principal Investigator of the Longevity Consortium, the principal investigators of each of the projects and cores, and the NIA Porject Scientist. Investigators will accept the policies of the SC.
An independent Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB), appointed by the NIA, and reporting to the NIA Director, will review the project on a semiannual basis and report their findings to the NIA Program Official.
A formal review process for the distribution of Scientific Opportunity Funds will be established. Proposed projects from Longevity Consortium investigators to use Scientific Opportunity Funds will be reviewed and approved by the Steering Committee, reviewed by an independent Scientific Review Committee designated by the Awardee and approved by the NIA, and approved by the OSMB and the NIA.
Dispute Resolution:
Any disagreement that may arise on scientific/programmatic matters (within the scope of the U19 award), between U19 awardees and the NIA may be brought to arbitration. An arbitration panel will composed of three members: one selected by the Steering Committee (without NIH representatives voting) or by the individual U19 awardee in the event of an individual disagreement; a second member selected by the NIA; and, a third member selected by the two prior selected members. For U19 awardees, this special arbitration procedure will in no way affect the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action in accordance with PHS regulation at 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D, and HHS regulations at 45 CFR Part 16.
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.
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
TTY 301-451-5936
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov
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: commons@od.nih.gov
Winifred K. Rossi
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Telephone: 301-496-3836
Email: rossiw@mail.nih.gov
Examine your eRA Commons account for review assignment and contact information (information appears two weeks after the submission due date).
Linda Whipp
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Telephone: 301-496-3836
Email: Whippl@mail.nih.gov
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® Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |
||||||