It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (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

The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to encourage grant applications for investigator-initiated exploratory clinical trials to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). The trials must address questions within the mission and research interests of the NINDS and may include Phase 1 and 2 studies of drugs and biologics, feasibility studies of devices, and early studies of surgical, behavioral or rehabilitation therapies. All exploratory trials must contribute to the justification for, and provide some of the data required to inform a future trial to establish efficacy (such as a Phase 3, Phase 4 or Pivotal trial).

Applicants should take note of the following special requirements and considerations:

(1) Scope of this FOA: NIH defines a clinical trial as "a research study in which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions (which may include placebo or other control) to evaluate the effects of those interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes." Note the following:

• For purposes of this FOA, the proposed study should be intended to clinically develop the interventions to prevent or treat a neurological disorder.
• An application involving a clinical experiment that is not directly intended to develop a preventative or therapeutic intervention is not suitable for this FOA. This would include, for instance, an experiment where the objective is to elucidate the pathogenesis of the disease or identify potential therapeutic targets for future exploratory trials.
• NINDS will not accept investigator-initiated clinical trial grant applications except under this FOA and other NINDS-specific FOAs that specifically allow clinical trials (see NOT-NS-16-034: NINDS Policy for Submission of Applications Containing Clinical Trials). The only exceptions are for exploratory IND studies as defined by the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm078933.pdf) and early feasibility studies of devices as defined by the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm279103.pdf).
• NINDS will accept under this FOA Renewal applications to request additional years or funds to complete the original scientific aims of the exploratory clinical trial.

A wide range of trials at different stages of development are allowed under this FOA, including (but not limited to) first-in-human (as defined by the Food and Drug Administration), Phase 1 and 2 single-site studies, Phase 2b multicenter studies, and single- or multi-site feasibility studies of devices. Applications should aim to generate data that inform further clinical development of the proposed intervention. The earliest studies should be designed to provide important initial information regarding the intervention (e.g., safety, tolerability, dosing). When appropriate, later-stage studies should include randomization and blinding and should yield data that allow a clear go/no-go decision regarding whether the intervention should proceed to an efficacy trial.

Examples of appropriate studies include, but are not limited to, those designed to:

• Evaluate and optimize the dose, formulation, safety, tolerability or pharmacokinetics of an intervention in healthy volunteers or the target population.
• Evaluate whether an intervention produces sufficient evidence of short-term activity (e.g., biomarker activity, target engagement, dose-response trends, pharmacodynamic response) in a human proof of concept trial.
• Select or rank the best of two or more potential interventions or dosing regimens to be evaluated in a subsequent trial, based on tolerability, biological activity, or preliminary clinical efficacy (e.g., futility trials).
• For devices: Establish proof-of-principle and optimize techniques, operation, and usability of a device; inform the final device design decisions; and estimate the magnitude of treatment effect.

(2) Devices: NINDS recognizes that devices can differ greatly in terms of basic form and function, physiological bases for therapy, degree of invasiveness, etc. Due to the broad scope of possible medical devices and the varied nature of the regulatory path, investigators considering applications to evaluate devices are strongly encouraged to contact Scientific/Research staff as early as possible to discuss these issues and determine the suitability of their project for this funding mechanism.

(3) NeuroNEXT: NINDS has a network called NeuroNEXT specifically designed to implement multicenter exploratory clinical trials (see http://www.neuronext.org/) and when appropriate, it is strongly preferred that such trials be performed within this network. Therefore, before submitting an application to this exploratory clinical trials FOA, an applicant should follow the instructions on the above website to obtain feedback on the suitability of their trial for NeuroNEXT. An important advantage of NeuroNEXT is that it can provide clinical, statistical and logistical expertise in developing study protocols as well as a standing national network of experienced clinical sites prepared to enroll study participants.

(4) StrokeNet: NINDS has a network called StrokeNet specifically designed to implement multicenter exploratory and efficacy trials in stroke prevention, treatment and rehabilitation (see https://www.nihstrokenet.org/). NINDS requires that all large stroke trials including five or more sites be considered for StrokeNet. Only under exceptional circumstances will NINDS consider funding such trials outside of the StrokeNet program (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-NS-14-043.html). An important advantage of StrokeNet is that it can provide clinical, statistical and logistical expertise in developing study protocols as well as a standing national network of experienced clinical sites prepared to enroll study participants.

(5) Efficacy: This FOA is not intended to support the conduct of a clinical trial where the primary aim is to establish or confirm definitive efficacy. Applications to implement definitive efficacy trials (e.g., Phase 3 trials of drugs or Pivotal device trials) should be submitted to PAR-17-102, NINDS Efficacy Clinical Trials. While an exploratory clinical trial may examine clinical outcomes or biomarker outcomes as measures of "preliminary efficacy" as a secondary aim, it is important that it not appear to be an underpowered efficacy trial.

(6) Effect Size: A trial will not be considered for funding under this FOA when its primary objective is to estimate intervention effect size to be used in power calculations for a future efficacy clinical trial. Effect size estimates based on small or short-term studies are often unreliable. Power for an efficacy trial should be based on the smallest clinically meaningful effect size, which is often determined by surveying physicians or patients, or by comparison to the effect produced by existing interventions.

(7) Secondary Aims: Issues of study feasibility and refinement of study procedures may be addressed as secondary aims in an exploratory clinical trial, but not as the primary aim. Examples of such secondary aims include:

• Determining the optimal outcome measure (endpoint), its variability, and/or the optimal timing of outcome evaluations in the context of the intervention.
• Collecting information on the utility of questionnaires, rating scales, or biomarkers.
• Developing and refining data collection procedures.
• Optimizing the administration of the study intervention.
• Developing and refining standardized methods of assessing outcome.
• Optimizing methods for identifying, recruiting, and retaining study participants.
• Creating clinical trial infrastructure.

(8) Multiple Trials: There may be several questions to be answered before an efficacy trial can be designed and conducted. The proposed study is not required to address all potential questions but the applicant should clearly detail the overall clinical development plan for the intervention, which could involve more than one exploratory trial.

(9) Study Rationale: The rationale for a clinical trial must be based on (i) an unmet medical need; (ii) a plausible biological mechanism; and (iii) robust supporting data, e.g., from non-clinical (in vivo and/or in vitro data) studies or preliminary clinical studies that demonstrate there is an adequate scientific foundation to justify the proposed trial. The scientific premise for the trial should be based on preclinical and/or clinical data from rigorously performed studies (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-103.html). If previous research does not meet the rigor criteria outlined to an acceptable degree, applicants should address how the current study design addresses the deficiencies.

(10) Adaptive Designs: The use of innovative and efficient study designs is encouraged, such as adaptive dose-finding designs, designs incorporating plans for sample size recalculation, and futility designs. Applications for Phase 1 trials in the patient population are encouraged when appropriate, as are applications that encompass Phase 1 and Phase 2a studies (early proof of mechanism or proof of concept). Applications for seamless Phase 2/3 trials should be submitted under PAR-17-102, NINDS Efficacy Clinical Trials. For medical devices, Traditional Feasibility study designs may include, for example, single-arm studies, on-off interventions (patients as their own controls), device-device comparisons, device-drug comparisons, comparisons to historical controls, comparisons to performance criteria/goals, adaptive designs, and Bayesian designs.

(11) Pharmacometrics: Applications seeking to obtain data needed for pharmacometric modeling are encouraged, with the ultimate aim of enabling the optimal design of a future efficacy trial of an intervention.

(12) Ancillary studies: Ancillary studies, defined as research undertaken to address scientific questions relevant to the parent study and that require access to data or records from the parent study, and/or involve collection of additional data, specimens, or records, are not permitted within the clinical trial application. Applicants are advised to discuss their ideas with Scientific/Research staff for direction on an appropriate funding mechanism.

(13) Biomarkers:

• Applications are encouraged that evaluate preliminary efficacy based on early signals of activity on biomarkers or clinical endpoints, or that mechanistically test the activity of an intervention in terms of its presumed target(s).
• This FOA is not appropriate for applications primarily intended to discover or validate biomarkers.

(14) Rare Diseases: Trials in rare diseases are encouraged, and it is recognized that available patient pools may necessitate innovative trial designs to allow for the most efficient evaluation of the limited subjects available for study.

(15) Relationships with Patient Groups: Applicants are strongly encouraged to establish relationships with patient groups and solicit their input on recruitment, the clinical meaningfulness of the question under study, the relevance of the proposed clinical outcomes, and approaches to minimizing the burden on study subjects.

(16) Inclusion of Minorities and Women in Clinical Trials: NIH policy requires that women and minorities be included in clinical trials, unless it is not scientifically justifiable (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm). Biological variables such as age, sex/gender, race and ethnicity should be factored into the research design and analysis.

(17) IRB documentation: IRB approval of the protocol and informed consent is not required at the time of application submission, but is required prior to funding. As such, NINDS encourages investigators to begin these processes as early as possible. NINDS also will require documentation of any other necessary regulatory approvals (e.g., Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee) prior to funding.

(18) NIH Resources: As appropriate, applicants are encouraged to make use of the following resources for clinical research including:

• Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program (https://www.ctsacentral.org);
• NeuroQOL (http://www.neuroqol.org);
• NIH Toolbox (http://www.nihtoolbox.org);
• PROMIS (http://www.nihpromis.org); and
• NINDS Common Data Elements (http://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov).

(19) Mobile Technologies: Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing (at least experimentally) mobile technologies to facilitate data collection and protocol adherence on the part of research participants and study site staff.

(20) Consultation with NINDS: Applicants are encouraged to consult with Scientific/Research staff in the Office of Clinical Research as plans for an application are being developed (see Section VII, Agency Contacts), and no later than 12 weeks prior to the anticipated application submission date. This early contact will provide an opportunity to clarify NINDS policies and guidelines as well as to discuss how to develop an appropriate project timeline and milestone plan, which is subject to peer review. Scientific/Research staff are also available to discuss strategies for recruitment and inclusion of women and minorities.

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

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

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

o Hispanic-serving Institutions

o Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

o Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)

o Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions

o Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)

For-Profit Organizations

• Small Businesses
• For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Governments

• State Governments
• County Governments
• City or Township Governments
• Special District Governments
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)
• Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government
• U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

• Independent School Districts
• Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
• Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
• Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
• Regional Organizations
• Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions)

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

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

• Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) - All registrations require that applicants be issued a DUNS number. After obtaining a DUNS number, applicants can begin both SAM and eRA Commons registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly CCR) Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• eRA Commons - Applicants must have an active DUNS number and SAM registration in order to complete the eRA Commons registration. Organizations can register with the eRA Commons as they are working through their SAM or Grants.gov registration. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active DUNS number and SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

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 PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (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.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see NOT-OD-11-101).

Buttons to access the online ASSIST system or to download application forms are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, including Supplemental Grant Application Instructions 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.

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed. The following are additional instructions:

Facilities and Other Resources: A specific statement should be included regarding how Clinical and Translational Science award (CTSA) program (https://ctsacentral.org) resources will be leveraged, if applicable. Describe what CTSA services will be used at each participating CTSA site and how the use of the CTSA impacts the trial budget.

As applicable, there should be statements regarding how the following resources for clinical research will be utilized:

• NeuroQOL (http://neuroqol.org);
• NIH Toolbox (http://www.nihtoolbox.org);
• PROMIS (http://nihpromis.org); and
• NINDS Common Data Elements (http://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov)

Other Attachments: The following documents must be included in the application in the order listed below:

1. Clinical Protocol. The full clinical protocol must be included or the application will be deemed incomplete and will not be reviewed. At the time of this writing, the FDA and NIH had developed a draft Clinical Trial Protocol Template for Phase 2 and 3 IND/IDE Studies (http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-clinical-research-and-bioethics-policy/clinical-research-policy/clinical-trials), which should be modifiable to any type of clinical trial.

2. Informed consent forms (ICFs) and, if applicable, assent form(s). The applicant should consider including language in the ICF to allow broad data and specimen access for subsequent research in order to maximize the value of subject samples and data and accelerate progress beyond the trial itself. (See http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/clinical_research/toolkit/model_informed_consent.pdf for suggested ICF language).

3. Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). This document should provide details on the analyses described in the protocol, including a detailed description of how the statistical analysis of the primary, secondary and other endpoints will be performed, how the sample size was determined, how missing data will be handled, plans for interim analyses for safety, efficacy and futility, plans for recalculation of the sample size midway through the trial (if applicable), etc. If computer simulations were used to investigate the operating characteristics of complex clinical trial designs (such as adaptive designs), to choose between alternative outcome measures, or to determine sample size, by taking into account the impact of noncompliance, missing data, subject eligibility criteria, etc., sufficient details about the simulations should be provided if the SAP. See the article, "The design of simulation studies in medical statistics", by Burton et al., Statist. Med. 2006: 25-4279-4292 for guidance on how to document a simulation study. It is particularly important to discuss the range of conditions that were considered in the simulation and why this range was considered appropriate, how robust the findings were across the range of conditions considered, and how the study will adjust for any design deficiencies (e.g., bias, loss of power) the simulations revealed.

4. Clinical and Data Monitoring Plans. For the clinical monitoring plan include an overall description of the monitoring plan to ensure adherence to protocol and consenting process, who is responsible for monitoring, frequency of planned monitoring activities, and the plan for handling deficiencies. For the data monitoring plan, describe methods and systems for data collection and quality control, and for ensuring data confidentiality and privacy, and the process for locking the final dataset and sharing.

5. List of participating clinical sites, pharmacies and laboratories.

6. Investigator's Brochure (IB) or equivalent for the intervention, if the intervention is a drug or biologic.

7. Material Safety Data Sheets, as appropriate.

8. Documentation of availability of interventional agent(s) or device(s) as well as plans and support for acquisition and distribution of interventional agent(s) or device(s).

9. Regulatory Approvals. If the intervention is a drug, biologic, or device, applicants must provide documentation from the FDA providing information on one of the following scenarios:

(a) The protocol has been submitted under an open IND and the IND is not under full or partial hold. Under this scenario, applicants must provide documentation such as a "may proceed" email or letter from the FDA.

(b) The protocol has been submitted as an original IDE or as a new study under an open IDE, and FDA has fully approved the IDE or IDE supplement. Under this scenario, applicants must provide documentation of an IDE or IDE supplement full approval letter from the FDA.

(c) The protocol has been submitted under an IND and is on full or partial hold. Under this scenario applicants must provide full documentation from the FDA on the reasons for hold and the FDA recommendations. Applicants should discuss how they intend to address the hold issues and when they believe they will have FDA approval to proceed with trial implementation.

(d) The protocol has been submitted as an original IDE or as a new study under an open IDE, and FDA has conditionally approved the IDE or IDE supplement. Under this scenario applicants must provide full documentation from the FDA on the conditions of approval. Applicants should discuss how they intend to address these conditions and when they believe they will have FDA approval to proceed with trial implementation.

(e) The protocol is exempt from an IND. Under this scenario applicants must provide a copy of the exemption letter from the FDA.

(f) The protocol is either exempt from the IDE regulations or does not require IDE approval because it is determined to be nonsignificant risk. Under this scenario applicants must provide either an IDE exemption letter or a copy of the risk determination letter from the FDA.

Applications that do not include this information will be withdrawn and not reviewed. Prior to grant award, awardees who do not have an exemption from the FDA must provide any additional FDA correspondence regarding the status of the protocol to the NINDS, especially if the trial has been placed under full or partial hold.

10. Documentation of availability of eligible subjects at clinical sites, presented in tabular format.

11. Milestone Plan. Applicants are required to provide detailed project performance and timeline objectives. The proposed milestones must include achievable goals for the start-up stage, feasibility stage, and completion stage of the project as follows:

• Completion of start-up activities (finalization of protocol, contracting of sites, registration in ClinicalTrials.gov, completion of any final regulatory approvals, etc.)
• Enrollment of the first subject
• Enrollment of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the projected recruitment for all study subjects, including women, minorities and children (as appropriate)
• Completion of data collection time period
• Completion of primary endpoint and secondary endpoint data analyses
• Completion of final study report
• Publication of primary study results
• Reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov
• Submission of final public use dataset to NINDS
• Adaptive designs, allowed under this mechanism, should include a pre-specified adaptation plan that allows for clear go/no-go decisions.

Milestones and timelines will be refined and finalized in consultation with Program staff at the time of award.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed. The following are additional instructions:

The clinical trial must be directed by PD(s)/PI(s) with experience in the conduct of clinical trials and expertise in the disease area. Such experience must be documented, including timely submission of primary publications from previous trials, ideally within one year of completion of subject follow-up. The application should also indicate the prior experience of other study team members in clinical trial design and implementation.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed. The following are additional instructions:

Applicants should budget for the services of a Medical Safety Monitor (who should be independent of the study investigators) to provide timely review of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). Additionally, if it is anticipated that the NINDS will decide to appoint a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), applicants should expect an annual one-day, in-person meeting of the DSMB and should budget to allow up to 6 persons from the investigator team to attend. (The travel expenses of DSMB members and the meeting room rental will be handled by NINDS.)

If some trial costs are to be borne by sources other than NIH, these contributions must be presented in detail in the budget justification. These costs borne by third parties do not constitute cost-sharing as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy Statement and should not be presented as part of the requested budget.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Specific Aims: The hypotheses and specific aims of the trial must be clearly and concisely stated. The primary and secondary outcomes to be measured must be defined. The inclusion of secondary aims should be justified by describing the importance of the supportive or explanatory data.

Research Strategy: The scientific rationale and preliminary data supporting the proposed clinical trial, including results from preclinical and clinical studies, and an overview of the current status of therapeutics for the disease, must be included in the application. Applicants should ensure that the data supporting the proposed trial meet the NIH scientific rigor guidelines (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-103.html). If a proposed trial plans to study the intervention(s) based upon preclinical mechanistic studies, results from such studies should be summarized and referenced. If preclinical data (e.g. animal studies) do not meet the rigor guidelines, the applicant should discuss the limitations of those data and any plans to address those gaps in knowledge through the current study design.

Significance and Biological Relevance: The significance of the proposed clinical trial must be clearly stated, and a discussion of the costs and benefits should be included. It is particularly important to discuss how the trial will test the hypotheses proposed and how results of the trial (positive or negative) will advance the field. The application should explain why the proposed trial is necessary to inform the design of a subsequent clinical trial for efficacy.

Preliminary Studies: The major findings of the preclinical and clinical studies that led to the proposed clinical trial should be presented and discussed in the context of the NIH rigor guidelines. Data from previous studies that support the proposed hypotheses and the feasibility of the trial should also be included. Study conceptualization and planning must be at a stage sufficient to allow for an assessment of the likelihood of trial success.

Approach: A concise summary of the proposed research plan should include:

• A description and rationale for the selected trial design.
• A description of the study population and why it is an appropriate group to answer the question under study.
• A list of subject inclusion/exclusion criteria, or of group eligibility criteria for group-randomized trials
• Subject recruitment and retention plans, including a discussion of the availability of subjects for the proposed study and the ability of sites to recruit and retain the proposed number of subjects, including women and minorities. Data supporting recruitment and retention estimates must be provided. Evidence should be provided that relevant stakeholders (e.g. potential subjects, referring and treating physicians, patient groups) have equipoise, view the question to be important and consider the study acceptable. This evidence may be supported by letters from stakeholders (e.g., professional organizations or patient groups).
• A plan to enroll women and minorities as appropriate for the aims of the study. Considerations that may contribute to successful inclusion are: appropriate site-selection, patient or community engagement for the major elements of the project, use of focus groups to address barriers to inclusion, etc.
• A description of the intervention to be tested and how it will be administered.
• A description of all assessments including clinical, laboratory, physiological, behavioral, patient-centered, or other outcomes addressing the primary and secondary research questions. Use of patient reported outcomes, including those available through PROMIS and NeuroQoL, as well as non-traditional data collection approaches (e.g., telephone, mobile devices or web-based systems) should be considered.
• A discussion of potential biases and/or challenges in the protocol and how they will be addressed. A discussion of statistical methods and plans should be presented in the Statistical Analysis Plan included in the application as an "Other Attachment."
• A discussion of the data management and quality assurance should be addressed, including methods for monitoring compliance with the protocol-specified intervention, data collection, data quality control, training and certification of clinical site staff, site monitoring, endpoint adjudication, and policies and methods for ensuring binding of study results, data confidentiality and subject privacy.
• A discussion of plans to utilize the NINDS Common Data Elements should be described (http://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/).
• A brief summary of specific plans for future clinical development of the intervention in the event the exploratory trial yields promising results. Later-stage exploratory studies should list clear go/no-go criteria for proceeding with a subsequent efficacy clinical trial.

Study Organization and Administration:

• Describe the organization of the study and how the trial will be managed.
• Describe the role of any advisory committees, including the role of the medical safety monitor.
• Discuss the oversight, responsibilities and coordination of any centers or cores.
• Describe any sub-contracts or service agreements for personnel or facilities.

Protection of Human Subjects: Assurance of the protection of human participants and the biohazard safety of employees (if applicable) must be provided for the overall study and for each clinical site. The applicant must discuss any issues which might lead to concern for the welfare of participants. Additionally, the human subjects section of the application must address data security measures and confidentiality.

Letters of Support: If there will be subcontracts or service agreements for personnel or facilities, include documentation of such commitments, co-signed by a business official and the investigator at the participating center.

If there are agreements with collaborating industry partners, include documentation of the agreements, co-signed by a business official and an appropriate official at the company.

If CTSA resources will be utilized, include letter of support from each site CTSA program officer concurring with the specific plan for using these resources.

If some trial costs are to be borne by sources other than NIH, include documentation of this support, signed by individuals who have the authority to make a commitment on behalf of the organization they represent.

Applicants are encouraged to include letters from patient organizations or other supporting documentation to show that patients were included as partners in the concept development and design of the trial.

Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with the following modification:

All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.

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.

When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to 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. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date 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 SF424 (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. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Guidelines for Applicants Experiencing System Issues. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

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 SF424(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. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.

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 System for Award Management. 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 and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete or non-compliant will not be reviewed.

Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact a Scientific/ Research Contact 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 SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy.

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 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.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is there a strong scientific premise for the project? 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?

• How adequate and scientifically rigorous is the body of preclinical and/or clinical research supporting the study rationale?
• How compelling is the justification for the development of the proposed intervention in terms of potential advances in clinical practice, public health, and/or patient quality of life?
• How convincing is the evidence that equipoise exists in the medical and patient communities and the intervention is ready for clinical development?
• How essential is the proposed exploratory trial to inform the design and implementation of subsequent steps in the evaluation of the intervention?
• What is the potential of the proposed trial to advance the field (e.g., by elucidating critical aspects of the pathogenesis of the disease or by breaking ground for future trials in this area) even if (a) the proposed study design, methods, and intervention are not innovative, or (b) the results of the trial indicate that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted?
• Are there any ethical concerns?
• For Renewal applications to complete the aims of the original trial: Has the rationale or significance of the trial changed (e.g., recent relevant findings or new treatments that would alter the trial impact)?

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those 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?

• Has the PD/PI led projects of similar scientific and administrative complexity?
• Have the primary results of prior trials, if any, been submitted for publication promptly after completion of subject follow-up?
• If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers:
• How strong is the evidence of adequate support from the other members of the investigative team?

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?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? 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? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

• How appropriate are the primary and secondary outcome measures?
• How appropriate are the eligibility criteria, randomization plan (if applicable), methods of blinding, sample size, study power, data management plans, and plans for training of site personnel?
• How clear and reasonable are the go/no-go criteria for future clinical development of the intervention?
• How well does the application outline specific plans for future clinical development in the event of a 'go'?
• Is there evidence that the study drug or device will be available in sufficient quantities?
• How appropriate is the proposed plan for inclusion or exclusion of sex/gender and racial/ethnic groups for the scientific objectives of the study?
• How convincingly does the application document availability of sufficient eligible subjects at the participating clinical sites?
• How appropriate are the plans for subject outreach, recruitment, retention and follow-up?
• How well does the application show evidence of involvement of patient groups in study design and recruitment plans?
• Has appropriate consideration been given to utilizing the NINDS Common Data Elements?
• How appropriate are the milestones?
• How likely is the clinical trial to be completed within the project period?
• How adequate are the study documents (e.g., protocol, consent, investigator's brochure) to allowing the implementation of a high quality study?
• Do the study documents comply with Good Clinical Practice (GCP)?
• How well does the project leverage the use of existing NIH tools, NINDs networks, and/or other resources, including partnership with existing research networks?
• For renewal applications to complete the aims of the original trial:
• Has the administration of the trial to date been appropriate?
• Has recruitment proceeded at the expected rate, and if not, are the plans to reach the desired sample size appropriate?
• Is the trial as designed and executed likely to achieve the stated aims?

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?

Have agreements with industry partners, if necessary, been established?

Is there evidence of commitment of subcontractors, consultants, and/or service agreements for personnel and facilities?

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 score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

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 Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of children to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.

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.

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.

For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.

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 score.

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.

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).

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) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

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 CSR, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:

• May undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
• Will receive a written critique.

Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines 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:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

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. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

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.

During the execution of the project, Program staff will assess progress toward and achievement of milestones. Release of funding for each year of the award will be contingent upon achieving the stated milestones; failure to achieve these milestones may lead to award restrictions or study termination.

Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this 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.

Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person’s race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.

For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA. HHS provides general guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/laws/revisedlep.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/about/rgn-hqaddresses.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

Not Applicable

When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) 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.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 Award Term and Conditions for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, post submission issues)
Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact)

Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission, downloading forms and application packages)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726

Email: [email protected]

GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and process, finding NIH grant resources)
Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact)

Telephone: 301-710-0267

Peter Gilbert, ScM
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-0870
Email: [email protected]

Samuel Edwards, Ph.D.
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Telephone: 301-435-1246
Email: [email protected]

Tijuanna Decoster, PhD
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-9231
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 Part 75.