and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Institute on Aging (NIA) |
|
Funding Opportunity Title |
Biodemography of Aging (R03) |
Activity Code |
R03 Small Grant Program |
Announcement Type |
New |
Related Notices |
|
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
PAR-12-080 |
Companion FOA |
PAR-12-078, R01 Research Grant |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.866 |
FOA Purpose |
Biodemography, the integration of demographic and biological theory and methods, provides an innovative tool for understanding the impact of aging on health and longevity. This FOA encourageapplications for research combining demographic and life-science approaches for expanding the current understanding of aging/senescence, frailty and mortality. Applications should include evolutionary and life history theories as a framework for investigating individual and population-level factors that underlie changes in lifespan and healthy life expectancy, including sex and population differentials in late-life frailty and mortality. |
Posted Date |
January 13, 2012 |
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date) |
February 13, 2012 |
Letter of Intent Due Date |
February 13, 2012, February 1, 2013, February 3, 2014 |
Application Due Date(s) |
March 13, 2012, March 1, 2013, March 3, 2014, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Not applicable |
Scientific Merit Review |
|
Advisory Council Review |
|
Earliest Start Date(s) |
December 2012; December 2013; December 2014 |
Expiration Date |
March 4, 2014 |
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF 424 (R&R) 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. 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 the 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
Sixty years ago, Peter Medawar’s essay An Unsolved Problem in Biology introduced an influential evolutionary theory of senescence, with a central role for the accumulation of harmful mutations in the presence of exogenous mortality risks and declining selection pressure at older ages. George C. Williams amended the model with a more active role for pleiotropy, with selection favoring genes with harmful effects late in life that are outweighed in terms of fitness by beneficial effects early in life. But laboratory studies of invertebrate species, studies of aging in the wild, and increasingly, studies of mortality at oldest ages in human populations began to challenge the simple mathematical model of Gompertzian mortality that was linked to the evolutionary theory of senescence. The arguments were well summarized in a volume published by the National Academy of Sciences (Wachter and Finch, 1996). The picture has been further complicated in recent years by empirical research and mathematical modeling incorporating mortality plateaus at older ages and arguments against the relatively simple decline of the force of selection posited by Medawar. Newly available data on the demography of human populations at two extremes of development, those with virtually no access to modern medicine and those living in favorable conditions, make possible new tests of theories of life-history tradeoffs involving both behavioral and physiological mechanisms.
The field of biodemography has thus made a good start in addressing some key questions about life history, health and aging. These include: What are the key mechanisms by which senescence operates? Are there characteristics of aging, frailty and mortality that are universal across populations and/or species? What factors have shaped the unique life history of humans? How does aging at different rates of bodily systems aggregate to characteristic age profiles of disability and mortality at population levels? Various approaches have been used, from the empirical and mechanistic to high-level modeling and theory; but consensus on these questions would be premature. Particularly with the development of new data on aging in the wild and aging of human populations subject to heavy burdens of infectious and parasitic disease, new understanding of genomics and new insights into mechanisms whereby life history tradeoffs could operate, there is a renewed need for interdisciplinary research to take on these questions.
In a recent handbook chapter reviewing the field, Carey and Vaupel lay out an emerging research agenda for biodemography, calling for advances at many levels of biological organization from molecular to the ecological (Carey and Vaupel, 2006, esp. table 21.1). This FOA encourages research especially at population levels, described by Carey and Vaupel as:
Individual-, cohort- and kinship-level biodemography" (that is, individualor inter-individual dynamics related to, e.g., birth, life events, aging, or mortality). Lifecourse approaches dealing with linkages between early-, mid- and late-life health and life history characteristics (such as trade-offs between reproduction and mortality) are encouraged.
Population, ecological, and evolutionary biodemography" (that is, population phenomena related to factors such as vital rates, life histories, or population genetics). Research of a comparative nature (cross-population or cross-species) is encouraged.
Research incorporating mechanisms operating at molecular, cellular or organ system levels is encouraged here only to the extent it is designed to elucidate population-level characteristics or test hypotheses informed by demographic tools and concepts. Animal models are also encouraged, to the extent that they inform human biodemography.
Applications are encouraged to draw upon theory and methods from demography and one or more other fields, including but not limited to: behavioral ecology, biological anthropology, evolutionary biology, genetics/genomics, gerontology/geriatrics, human biology and physiology, mathematics, molecular and cellular biology, population genetics, and social epidemiology. Research that emphasizes interdisciplinary communication and diverse technical expertise is encouraged.
Useful approaches/frameworks can include, but are not limited to:
Comparative studies of human populations (either contemporary or historical populations), including those subject to very different disease burdens and/or natural environments;
Comparative studies of other species, either observational or experimental, and including animal populations in the wild, to elucidate effects of social stratification, hierarchies, and other social processes and influences on health and aging;
Population genetics (effects of demographic history on distribution of alleles in modern human populations) and study of gene-environment interactions;
Modeling of late-life mortality, based on stable population theory or on models of heterogeneous frailty; including differences by sex and population.
Modeling of evolutionary forces shaping patterns of senescence, morbidity and mortality.
Development and empirical tests of evolutionary theories of lifespan, life histories, and the role of sociality, intergenerational transfers, kin selection and other potentially adaptive behaviors in the evolution of characteristic life histories.
Empirical, experimental and theoretical studies of post-reproductive lifespan in both females and males.
Study of important characteristics of mortality and healthy lifespan distributions, including not only measures of central tendency (e.g. life expectancy at various ages) but also measures of dispersion of age at onset of disability or death.
Social epidemiologic, empirical studies of senescence and late-life health using a cross-cultural or cross-national research design.
Secondary data analysis for comparing biodemographic characteristics within or across populations.
Integration of existing models of senescence, including optimization and mutation accumulation models; could include genetic, epigenetic data.
References:
Carey JR and JW Vaupel (2006). Biodemography. In DL Poston and M Micklin, eds. Handbook of Population. Springer, NY: 625-658.
Wachter KW and CE Finch, eds. (1997). Between Zeus and the Salmon: The Biodemography of Longevity. National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Funding Instrument |
Grant |
Application Types Allowed |
New |
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 |
The total project period for an application submitted in response to this funding opportunity may not exceed two years. Direct costs are limited to $100,000 direct costs over the R03 2 year period, with no more than $50,000 in direct costs allowed in a single year. |
Award Project Period |
Scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum period is 2 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 Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to
apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations
as described in the SF 424 (R&R) 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 Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s))
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 4-6 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 Program Director(s)/Principal
Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) 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 PD(s)/PI(s), visit the Multiple
Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) Policy and submission details in
the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF 424 (R&R)
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 SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) 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.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
John G. Haaga
Division of Behavioral and Social Research
National Institute on Aging
Gateway Bldg. suite 533
7201 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda Maryland 20892
phone 301-496-3131
fax 301-402-0051
[email protected]
The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, mandatory and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate optional components.
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) 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 SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Appendix
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following modification:
Foreign (non-US) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit in advance of the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications via Grants.gov, the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
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 submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
Important
reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the
Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF
424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and
to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the
successful submission of an electronic application to NIH.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA
Commons and for the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Additional
information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more
tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
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.
For this particular announcement, note the following:
The R03 small grant supports discrete, well-defined projects that realistically can be completed in two years and that require limited levels of funding. Because the research project usually is limited, an R03 grant application may not contain extensive detail or discussion. Accordingly, reviewers should evaluate the conceptual framework and general approach to the problem. 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.
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(s)/PI(s), 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(s)/PI(s), 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
Not Applicable
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 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.
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.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), convened by the Center for Scientific Review,, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Review assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications 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 appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD(s)/PI(s) 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’s 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.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
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 the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
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.
Grants.gov
Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and
submission, downloading or navigating forms)
Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]
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]
John G. Haaga, PhD
National Institute on Aging
Telephone 301-496-3131
Email: [email protected]
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
Telephone: 301-402-7731
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® |
||||||