Part 1. Overview Information

Key Dates

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts).

Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the NOFO) 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.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

1. Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
2. Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
   
   
3. Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.



Table of Contents
Part 1. Overview Information
Key Dates
Part 2. Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Other Award Budget 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

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section I. Funding Opportunity Description

The overarching goal of this UE5 program is to support educational activities that encourage individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in the biomedical and behavioral sciences, to pursue further studies or careers in research.

The over-arching goal of this NIDCR UE5 program is to support educational activities that encourage early career investigators from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in the biomedical, behavioral and clinical sciences, to pursue careers in dental, oral, and craniofacial (DOC) research.

The NIH recognizes a unique and compelling need to promote diversity in the NIH funded biomedical, behavioral, clinical, and social sciences' workforce. Here and throughout the NOFO, diversity should be interpreted broadly to encompass multiple dimensions (e.g., educational background, geography, area of scientific interest). See Notice of NIH’s Interest in Diversity, NOT-OD-20-031.

To accomplish the stated over-arching goal, this NOFO will support creative educational activities with a primary focus on:

• Mentoring Activities The proposed program should establish national mentoring network(s). Within the context of the mentoring network, activities are expected to provide mentoring in scientific, technical, and professional research career development, and to develop grant writing skills leading to the successful submission of a NIH grant application.  Proposed activities must address the development of mentor-mentee relationships and peer mentoring among the cohort of participants (mentees). Mentoring activities may provide other advice, insight and skills that advance the research career goals of the participants (mentees) and may include, but are not limited to: developing individual development plans (IDPs) that align with research needs and experiences of the participant, coaching scholarly writing, advising on the preparation and successful career transitions, managing work-life balance and academic/professional service, identifying potential collaborators, building professional relationships, and leadership development. Mentoring activities may be performed on an individual and cohort level.  Activities of the program are expected to strengthen the cadre of mentors dedicated to developing the research careers of a diverse pool of early career investigators, including those from underrepresented groups, and to enhance the diversity of the DOC research workforce. 
• Courses for Skills Development: Courses and workshop activities for participants (mentees) may include, but are not limited to, training or guidance on NIH grant writing and peer review, scientific writing and communication, negotiating a job offer, establishing and managing a lab and budget, hiring staff, achieving tenure and promotion, mentoring, developing team science skills and collaborations,  and other activities that may contribute to the participants' independent research career success.

Programmatic Features of the NIDCR Mentoring Network

The NIDCR seeks to provide research training opportunities that address the range of needs of the DOC research workforce. It is envisioned that this program will develop a mentoring network to prepare postdoctoral researchers from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in the biomedical, behavioral and social sciences, to transition into an independent investigator position and early career investigators (program participants or mentees).  The program is intended to provide emerging scientific talent with a pathway to successful NIDCR/NIH research grant support and research career independence.

The objectives of this mentoring network program are to: (1) advance the participants' research career trajectories by strengthening grant writing and scientific publishing knowledge and skills, and through interactions with potential collaborations and partnerships; (2) improve the participants' retention and advancement in research careers; and (3) promote diversity and inclusion in a research workforce that is highly trained in research areas aligned with the NIDCR mission and research priorities.

Mentoring networks may be national and designed to partner with one or more complementary institutions/organizations including national scientific professional organizations. Applicants may consider leveraging any existing mentoring resources, (such as the Common Fund initiative, National Research Mentoring Network [NRMN]), or other similar resources to enhance the proposed mentoring activities.

A cohort of eight to ten participants per year are expected to be selected and engaged in the mentoring network program activities and for no less than one year while maintaining regular contact with mentors and peers within the network during that time. Continued and sustained engagement among mentors and mentees, and among peer cohorts of mentees beyond each participant's initial selection to the program is strongly encouraged.

The proposed mentoring network is expected to include a combination of innovative individualized mentoring, small group discussions and didactic training through, for example, workshops or seminars. Both formal and informal professional interactions among mentors and participants, and among participants (mentees) are expected. Mentoring plans can be designed for online, virtual, and/or in-person interactions, and are encouraged to take advantage of contemporary communication strategies (e.g., social media), as appropriate, to achieve the goals of the network. A proposed network is expected to provide new opportunities beyond any ongoing mentoring, networking, or research education activities within academic programs, institutions, or existing networks or educational collaborations among institutions.  Dedicated time for peer mentoring activities and experiences are to be included. It is anticipated that applicants will propose at least one in-person meeting or workshop to facilitate these experiences, which could be held in conjunction with a national scientific conference.  It is expected that this activity will involve experienced investigators who can mentor on NIH grant writing, and additional scientific experts will be recruited, as needed, to facilitate an NIH mock study section. Mentoring network participants are expected to submit subsequent grant applications for R01 (or equivalent) support, other Research Project Grants (RPGs), or for mentored career development awards (e.g., NIDCR K01), depending on the participant’s career level and research goals. In addition, mentoring network in-person meetings may be used to provide courses/workshops on relevant topic areas, or to provide time for focused mentoring. Mentoring activities may include identifying appropriate funding opportunities, providing review and feedback on draft research plans or grant applications, and discussing progress on funded and ongoing research projects.

An expected outcome of the mentored NIH grant writing experience is submission of a grant application to the NIDCR/NIH within two years after a participant's completion of their initial year of engagement in the mentoring network. Through a sustained period of mentorship augmented by the development of grant writing and an array of research career skills, participants will develop enhanced professional career capabilities in DOC sciences and will be better prepared to develop a high quality and independently funded research program.

Other desired program outcomes include mentees' progression in their academic research careers as demonstrated by: authorship of peer-reviewed scientific publications, scientific presentations, career advancement or promotion in DOC research or research-related academic or other professional positions, and independent research grant support by NIDCR/NIH or other funding source(s). Applications submitted in response to this UE5 funding opportunity must include an evaluation plan to assess the participants' progress and professional research career accomplishments, and to assess achievement of overall mentoring network program goals and other accomplishments.

Applicants are encouraged to develop a participant tracking and evaluation system to establish baseline metrics and for follow-up with program participants for the duration of the UE5 project period. The tracking system may include, but is not limited to, the following metrics: career outcomes; research accomplishments and contributions; peer-reviewed publications; scientific presentations; honors/awards; leadership positions in current institution and/or professional organization because of this award, subsequent grants, and additional training and/or mentoring as a result of this award. Wherever appropriate, applicants must obtain feedback from participants to help identify program strengths and weaknesses; areas for improvement on  program content, delivery and administration; to indicate the likelihood of the participant's use of the knowledge and/or skills gained for future research career development; to provide suggestions for future programming to improve program success; and to describe any programmatic changes developed from such feedback.  Individuals within the organization with evaluation experience are encouraged to serve as the consultants. See Evaluation Plan section for the specific expectations of program assessment.

NIH's Interest in Diversity (NOT-OD-20-031)

Every facet of the United States scientific research enterprise—from basic laboratory research to clinical and translational research to policy formation–requires superior intellect, creativity and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. NIH’s ability to help ensure that the nation remains a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation is dependent upon a pool of highly talented scientists from diverse backgrounds who will help to further NIH's mission. Research shows that diverse teams working together and capitalizing on innovative ideas and distinct perspectives outperform homogenous teams. Scientists and trainees from diverse backgrounds and life experiences bring different perspectives, creativity, and individual enterprise to address complex scientific problems. There are many benefits that flow from a diverse NIH-supported scientific workforce, including: fostering scientific innovation, enhancing global competitiveness, contributing to robust learning environments, improving the quality of the research, advancing the likelihood that underserved or health disparity populations participate in, and benefit from health research, and enhancing public trust.

In 2024, the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director (ACD) endorsed a report prepared by the ACD Working Group on Re-envisioning NIH-Supported Postdoctoral Training aimed toward improving the biomedical workforce with a focus on identifying and understanding the critical factors and issues related to a decline in postdoctoral fellows and recommendations to address the identified factors. The report identified the important role of quality mentorship and professional development opportunities and the need for community building.   Recommendations provided by this Working Group are in alignment with the recommendations defined by the 2012 ACD Working Group on Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce which were to support the research career development of postdoctorates and junior faculty, including those from underrepresented groups, highlight culturally appropriate mentoring, mentorship networks, and the development of mentee grant writing skills facilitated by established, well respected scientists to enhance the mentees' ability to advance in their research career and successfully compete for research funding.

NIH and NIDCR has undertaken a number of efforts to facilitate the career transition of postdoctoral scientists with diverse backgrounds into the professorship including the transitional career development awards such as K99/R00s, research supplements to promote diversity in health-related research, and re-entry into DOC research careers. These efforts have supported the development of highly trained dentist scientists from diverse backgrounds who have the necessary knowledge and skills to pursue independent careers in the DOC research workforce. 

Mentorship, including mentorship by senior and junior academic mentors, scientific mentors, and peers has been shown to be an effective intervention for supporting junior clinician-scientists, particularly among women and underrepresented minorities in their career development, career transition, academic achievements, and retention in academic research (Byington et al., 2016; Kuhn and Castaño 2016; Mayer et al., 2014;Harawa et al., 2017).

The activities proposed in this NOFO are based on these data and recommendations. 

NIDCR's Interest in Diversity

The NIDCR is committed to promoting a diverse and inclusive DOC research workforce.Research shows that teams with members from diverse backgrounds are more likely to generate innovative ideas than teams made up of members from similar backgrounds. Recruiting prospective scientists from underrepresented groups is essential if NIDCR is to realize its mission and strategic plan. The Institute is committed to enhancing the pool of grant applications from people from underrepresented groups, fostering mentoring relationships, and offering other forms of support as scientists rise to senior faculty and leadership positions. See, https://extramural-diversity.nih.gov/ic-pages/national-institute-of-dental-and-craniofacial-research.

NIDCR's mission is to conduct and support research, research training, health information dissemination, and other programs concerning to dental, oral and craniofacial health and disease. This UE5 program is designed to strengthen a cadre of highly competent investigators with the appropriate skills to conduct oral health research in an increasingly complex environment and help promote diversity and inclusion throughout the research workforce. NIDCR is committed to i) improving the recruitment of prospective researchers from groups underrepresented in the research workforce, including those with disabilities, those from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and those with expertise in disciplines minimally represented in dental and oral health; ii) cultivating and sustaining future leaders in clinical and translational research, and iii) developing researchers with interdisciplinary skills to address multipronged issues in oral health. This includes the support of biomedical, behavioral, science research concerning the etiology, epidemiology, prevention, detection, diagnosis, and treatment of dental, oral and craniofacial disorders and diseases. In this context, the NIDCR emphasizes research on caries and periodontal diseases; oral infections (viral, fungal, and bacterial), host-responses to oral infections (e.g., innate and adaptive immune responses), biofilms and microbial ecology, genomics and proteomics; data and computational science, oral complications of HIV/AIDS infection and other systemic diseases; head and neck cancers; craniofacial development, physiology and malformations; orofacial pain and other oral sensory and motor dysfunctions; salivary gland biology and disorders such as Sjögren's Disease; temporomandibular joint disorders; and restoration and regeneration of dental, oral and craniofacial structures. 

Research education programs may complement ongoing research training and education at the applicant institution. However,, the proposed educational experiences must be distinct from those training and education programs currently receiving Federal support. UE5 programs may augment institutional research training programs (e.g., T32, T90) but cannot be used to replace or circumvent Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) programs.

For the purpose of this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO), applicants are encouraged to recruit prospective participants nationally from a diverse pool of early career investigators, including those from groups that are underrepresented in the biomedical sciences (see NOT-OD-20-031). 

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

Note: Applicants may choose to address one or more of the activities listed above.

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

Section II. Award Information

Other Award Budget Information

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

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:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• 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)

Local 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)

Federal Governments

• U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

• Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
• Faith-based or Community-based Organizations

The sponsoring institution must assure support for the proposed program. Appropriate institutional commitment to the program includes the provision of adequate staff, facilities, and educational resources that can contribute to the planned program.

Institutions with existing Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) institutional training grants (e.g., T32) or other Federally funded training programs may apply for a research education grant provided that the proposed educational experiences are distinct from those training programs receiving federal support. In many cases, it is anticipated that the proposed research education program will complement ongoing research training occurring at the applicant institution.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are not eligible to apply

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF424 (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. Failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications for additional information.

• System for Award Management (SAM) – 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.
• Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) – A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their Grants.gov registration; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. 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 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 their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities, NOT-OD-22-019. 

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.

The PD/PI should be an established investigator in the scientific area in which the application is targeted and capable of providing both administrative and scientific leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed program. The PD/PI will be expected to monitor and assess the program and submit all documents and reports as required.

NIDCR encourages multiple PDs/PIs, particularly when each brings a unique perspective and skill set that will enhance the mentoring network, training, and career development activities. At least one of the PDs/PIs must be an established investigator with scientific leadership and background in NIDCR research areas, as evidenced by peer reviewed scientific publications,  a record of peer-reviewed research support, and must be actively engaged in DOC research and be capable of providing both administrative and scientific leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed mentoring network program. Any of the PDs/PIs may serve as the contact PD/PI who will be expected to monitor and assess the program and submit all documents and reports as required. Additional PDs/PIs, including individuals with experience in the science of education, relevant social science disciplines, program evaluation, mentoring, and grant administration may be included to achieve the program goals. If a PD/PI team is proposed, at least one PD/PI must have experience and leadership in mentoring and should have a strong record of providing inclusive mentorship and professional research career education experiences. For example, a PD/PI with strong scientific experience and expertise could partner with a PD/PI who has mentorship and leadership experience to fulfill the requirements for leadership of this program.

2. Cost Sharing

This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 1.2 Definition of Terms..

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time per NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application. 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 NIH Grants Policy Statement 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications).

Program Faculty

Researchers from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups , persons with disabilities, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds and women are encouraged to participate in the mentoring network program as mentors, course instructors or scientific experts. Individuals may have more than one role in the program. Program faculty should have research expertise and experience in areas relevant to the proposed program, and in areas of their proposed role(s) in the program.

Program PD(s)/PI(s) are expected to recruit mentors and other program faculty nationally. Program faculty should be established investigators defined by a history of active or recent peer reviewed research funding (e.g., R01 or equivalent) and a record of peer reviewed research publications in scientific areas that align with the proposed program. Mentors should have experience mentoring postdoctorates and/or early career faculty who have continued in research intensive careers. Mentors must be committed to continue their involvement throughout the total period of the mentee’s participation in this award and to participate in formal mentor training as organized by the awardee.

Participants

Unless strongly justified on the basis of exceptional relevance to NIH, research education programs should be used primarily for the education of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Participants for this award must have a research and/or health-professional doctoral degree or equivalent. The candidates must have postdoctoral research experience and be committed to developing an independent DOC research career. Candidates may be in postdoctoral or  early career faculty positions. Tenured faculty are not eligible for the program.

Eligible participants include:

• Current and former postdoctoral F32 fellows and postdoctoral trainees appointed to institutional T32 or T90 training grants;
• Current and former PDs/PIs on NIH individual career development awards (e.g., K01, K08, K22, K23, K25, K99); scholars appointed to K12 and KL2 programs, or the equivalent; and
•  
• Current and former PDs/PIs of an NIDCR Small Grant (R03).

In planning their mentee pool, applicants to this NOFO should note that potential mentees must submit a letter of support from their department chair or dean that includes (1) a commitment to provide protected time for mentee participation in the program, and (2) financial support to help defray the cost of participation the mentoring network program activities.

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide, except where instructed in this Notice of Funding Opportunity 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 will not be reviewed.

Letter of Intent

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:

• Descriptive title of proposed activity
• Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institution(s)
• Number and title of this funding opportunity

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Yun Mei, MD
Telephone: 301-827-4639
Fax: 301-480-8303
Email: yun.mei@nih.gov

All page limitations described in the How to Apply - Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the How to Apply - Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.

Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with the following additional modifications:

Facilities & Other Resources. Describe the educational environment, including the facilities, laboratories, participating departments, computer services, and any other resources to be used in the development and implementation of the proposed program. List all thematically related sources of support for research training and education following the format for Current and Pending Support. Appropriate institutional commitment should include the provision of adequate staff, facilities, and educational resources that can contribute to the planned research education program.

If some of the program activities will take place at other institutions and locations, for example, in partnership with national professional society meetings, provide a brief overview of the usual format for the meeting, resources available for the anticipated activities, and meeting location e.g., convention center, hotel or other area.  For other institutions, provide a description of the facilities and other resources at those institutions as noted above.

Other Attachments.

An Advisory Committee is not a required, but a highly recommended component of a research education program.  , If an Advisory Committee is intended, provide a plan for the appointment of an Advisory Committee to monitor progress of the mentoring network program. The composition, roles, responsibilities, and desired expertise of committee members, frequency of committee meetings, and other relevant information should be included. Describe how the Advisory Committee will evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program. Proposed Advisory Committee members should be named in the application if they have been invited to participate at the time the application is submitted.  Renewal applications with Advisory Committees should include the names of all committee members during the past project period.   Please name your file “Advisory_Committee.pdf”.

The filename provided for each “Other Attachment” will be the name used for the bookmark in the electronic application in eRA Commons.

Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with the following additional modifications:

• Include all personnel other than the PD(s)/PI(s) in the Other Personnel section, including clerical and administrative staff.

Training and Research & Related (R&R) Budget

Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with the following additional modifications:

• Both the Training Budget Component and the R&R Budget Component are required for a complete application.
• Include all personnel other than the Training PD(s)/PI(s) in the Other Personnel section, including clerical and administrative staff.
• Use the section on Participant/Trainee Support Costs to include all allowable categories of funds requested to support participants in the program.

Research & Related (R&R) Budget

Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with the following additional modifications:

• Use the “Other Personnel” section to submit costs for salary support for administrative staff.
• Use the “Travel” section to submit costs for key personnel and faculty travel including the annual network meeting.
• Use the “Participant/Trainee Support Costs” section to submit costs for Participants  and  mentoring network-related program expenses.
• Participant costs must be itemized in the Research & Related Budget

Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

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

Research Strategy

Research Strategy section must be used to upload the Research Education Program Plan, which must include the following components described below:

• Proposed Research Education Program
• Program Director/Principal Investigator
• Program Faculty
• Program Participants
• Institutional Environment and Commitment
• Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity
• Training Plan in Methods to Enhance Reproducibility
• Plan for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research
• Evaluation Plan
• Dissemination Plan

Research Education Program Plan

Proposed Research Education Program. While the proposed research education program may complement ongoing research training and education occurring at the applicant institution, the proposed educational experiences must be distinct from those research training and research education programs currently receiving federal support. When research training programs are on-going in the same department, the applicant organization should clearly distinguish between the activities in the proposed research education program and the research training supported by the training program. 

 Applicants should propose a program that includes mentoring and interactive opportunities in areas of professional research career development and progression, along with potential scientific areas, as the framework for the proposed mentoring network. Describe the rationale for the proposed mentoring model, the professional development areas, and scientific areas chosen, and the relationship of the scientific areas to the NIDCR mission and NIDCR Strategic Plan. The proposed content areas should be of sufficient breadth to ensure the ability to recruit a high-quality pool of potential participants annually and to ensure that a critical mass of mentors and participants is involved in the mentoring network. The network should enhance the participants' professional development, career advancement, and foster their career trajectories towards independent DOC health research.

Describe the framework for, and the components of, the proposed mentoring network, e.g., the rationale, the grounding in experience and pedagogical theory, and the justification in terms of the long-term goals of the proposed mentoring network.

Describe the proposed structure of the network. It is expected that a combination of didactic interactions such as workshops, seminars, and/or regularly occurring webinars, one-on-one, and small group discussions are likely components of any proposed mentoring network. Both formal and informal interactions between mentors and participants, and among participants (peers) are expected. Applicants are encouraged to take advantage of contemporary communication strategies, e.g., online, teleconference, and social media, as appropriate for the goals of their network.

Describe how state-of-the-art approaches to mentoring, professional academic research career development and scholarship will be employed in the network. Describe how an annual mentored NIH grant writing and mentored peer review experience will be accomplished. Describe the processes to facilitate and develop sustained mentor-participant interaction and engagement over the mentoring network program project period and beyond.

Describe how the network complements existing training or didactic opportunities (as appropriate). Provide topic areas and programmatic detail on the specific activities proposed, e.g., workshops, seminars, curricula, involvement in hands-on mentoring/professional research career skills activities at the home institution or other institution/organization. A sample schedule of annual activities for each cohort of participants is recommended, along with a description of specific activities that may be extended over multiple years of the program to enhance sustained mentorship and engagement of the participants.

If multiple institutions/organizations are involved in the mentoring network, the applicant institution must be one of the sites involved in program activities. The need for and use of multiple sites must be justified. All institutions/organizations participating in a single collaborative multi-site application should be clearly involved in the planning, implementation, and assessment of the program.

Describe expected processes for: (a) planning and implementing the proposed mentoring and skill development activities, (b) selecting mentors, (c) selecting participants, (d) mentor mentee matching (each participant must have a primary mentor, and co-mentors or mentoring teams are encouraged), (e) developing participant (peer) interactions/networks, (f) recruiting and selecting scientific experts for the mentored grant application writing and mock NIH style peer review activities, and (g) if applicable, coordinating among existing training or research activities available at a site or across multiple sites.

There should be a clear “value added” from the proposed UE5-supported mentoring network. Describe how the mentoring network may be modified over time depending upon the outcome of initial progress and participant feedback and/or new developments in the field, to ensure that the mentoring and skills development education experiences continue to be cutting edge.

If applicable, provide a brief overview of the mentoring network advisory committee and how it will provide guidance to the PD(s)/PI(s) in meeting the goals of the program. Specific details should be included in the Advisory Committee attachment and should not be repeated here.           

Program Director/Principal Investigator. Describe arrangements for administration of the program.  Provide evidence that the Program Director/Principal Investigator is actively engaged in research and/or teaching in an area related to the mission of NIH, and can organize, administer, monitor, and evaluate the research education program. For programs proposing multiple PDs/PIs, describe the complementary and integrated expertise of the PDs/PIs, their leadership approach, and governance appropriate for the planned project.

PDs/PIs should be actively engaged in research that will advance the objectives of the NIDCR Strategic Plan. Provide evidence that the PD/PI has a strong track record as a leader, educator and/or mentor in an area relevant to the scientific focus and activities in the proposed mentoring network. If a PD/PI team or multiple PDs/PIs are proposed, their roles must be clearly defined and justified.

Program Faculty.  Describe the recruitment and selection of program faculty. Programs are encouraged to build, through means consistent with applicable law, a diverse team of mentors that includes, for example, faculty at different career stages (i.e., early career stage tenured investigators as well as senior faculty). When identifying program faculty, programs should include faculty who are committed to training, mentoring, and providing inclusive, safe, and supportive research environments.  Please note that the race, ethnicity, or sex of program faculty will not be considered in the application review process or when making funding decisions consistent with applicable law.

Faculty should have research expertise and experience relevant to the proposed program and demonstrate a history of, or the potential for, their intended roles. Program faculty should be active investigators in DOC research as demonstrated by recent publications and peer reviewed research support from NIDCR/NIH or other sources.

All program faculty should have a mentoring philosophy appropriately tailored to the needs of potential mentees that ensures mentees will receive the personalized mentorship needed to develop skills and advance their career.  Program faculty should also have sufficient time to commit to mentoring given their other professional obligations.

Describe the responsibilities of the participating faculty. Program faculty may have one or more mentoring roles as course instructor, one-on-one mentor or co-mentor, and scientific expert mentor for mock peer review of NIH style grant applications. Describe the anticipated number of individuals (instructors, mentors, scientific experts) who will participate in the mentoring network, their anticipated qualifications, and recruitment and selection strategies from institutions or other organizations.

 Applications must describe the intended participants, and address the eligibility criteria and/or specific educational background characteristics that are essential for participation in the proposed research education program. Identify the career levels for which the proposed program is planned.  Please note that the race, ethnicity, or sex of program participants will not be considered in the application review process or when making funding decisions through means consistent with applicable law.

Provide details about recruiting and selecting up to ten (and no less than eight) new participants per year over the duration of the program. Describe the pool of expected participants, including academic and/or health professional degree characteristics and career levels, qualifications, and sources of this pool. Applications may also address how participation by the intended participants would further the goals of this NIDCR mentoring network program. Provide strategies for recruiting participants nationally and for recruitment of an applicant pool that is predominantly composed of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Describe plans for announcing and advertising the network opportunities, application procedures, and criteria for the evaluation and selection of participants. Include information about plans to recruit and select participants whose research interests align with the strategic objectives of the NIDCR.

It is expected that each participant's home institution will be strongly committed to the participant's research career success and involvement in the program. As such, as part of the recruitment and selection process, include plans to obtain a letter from the mentee's institution describing commitment to providing protected time and financial support for the mentee's participation in the program. The letter must be from the department chair or dean. The amount of the financial commitment requested of a participant's home institution to help defray the cost of participating in program activities should be communicated in the recruitment process.     

Institutional Environment and Commitment. Describe any additional aspects of the Institutional Environment and Commitment not addressed under “Facilities & Other Resources” or the required “Institutional Commitment Letter of Support,” described below. Appropriate institutional commitment should include the provision of adequate staff, facilities, and educational resources that can contribute to the planned research education program. This section should not duplicate information provided elsewhere.

Describe the development of, and commitment to the promotion of a culture in which the highest standards of safety, responsible conduct, scientific rigor, and reproducibility are advanced among all individuals throughout the organization.

Evidence of institutional commitment to the research educational program is required. A letter of institutional commitment must be attached as part of Letters of Support (see below). In addition, the letter should address commitment to a positive, supportive and inclusive research and training environment for individuals from all backgrounds; describe procedures and oversight in place to prevent discriminatory harassment and other discriminatory practices, and processes for timely responses to allegations of such discriminatory practices, including providing any required notifications to NIH (e.g., requesting a change of PD/PI status; see NOT-OD-19-056.  Application should describe the remediation or removal of Participating faculty from the program who are poorly performing mentors.  Describe how all individuals at the organization are made aware of these commitments and resources.

If multiple institutions/organizations are participating in a single application, the applicant institution must document the requisite administrative/technical capacity and support for the management of a collaborative multi- site mentoring network program.

In a multi-site application, each of the collaborative sites must include a letter of institutional commitment that provides, as appropriate, the names of program faculty involved in the program, a description of facilities and educational resources available for the proposed program, and a letter of institutional commitment to the mentoring network program. These letters must be attached as part of the Letters of Support.

Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity (NOT-OD-20-031):

Applicant must provide a recruitment plan to enhance diversity. Include outreach strategies and activities designed to recruit prospective participants from diverse backgrounds, e.g., those from underrepresented groups described in the Notice of NIH's Interest in Diversity (See NOT-OD-20-031 ). Describe the specific efforts to be undertaken by the program and how the proposed plan reflects past experiences in recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups. 

.

Applications lacking a Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity will not be reviewed.

Plan for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research. All applications must include a plan to fulfill NIH requirements for instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR).  The plan must address the five, required instructional components outlined in the NIH policy: 1) Format - the required format of instruction, i.e., face-to-face lectures, coursework, and/or real-time discussion groups (a plan with only on-line instruction is not acceptable); 2) Subject Matter - the breadth of subject matter, e.g., conflict of interest, authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety, research misconduct, research ethics; 3) Faculty Participation - the role of the program faculty in the instruction; 4) Duration of Instruction - the number of contact hours of instruction, taking into consideration the duration of the program; and 5) Frequency of Instruction – instruction must occur during each career stage and at least once every four years. See also NOT-OD-10-019 and NOT-OD-22-055. The plan should be appropriate and reasonable for the nature and duration of the proposed program. Renewal (Type 2) applications must, in addition, describe any changes in formal instruction over the past project period and plans to address any weaknesses in the current instruction plan. All participating faculty who served as course directors, speakers, lecturers, and/or discussion leaders during the past project period must be named in the application.

Applications lacking a plan for instruction in responsible conduct of research will not be reviewed.

Evaluation Plan. Applications must include a plan for evaluating the activities supported by the award. The application must specify baseline metrics (e.g., numbers, educational levels, and the diverse backgrounds of participants), as well as measures to gauge the short or long-term success of the research education award in achieving its objectives. Applicants are encouraged to obtain feedback from participants to help identify weaknesses and to provide suggestions for improvements.

The evaluation plan should include a timeline and specific and detailed plans for evaluation of both the program mentees and program faculty. The plan is expected to evaluate the following:

1) effectiveness in outreach and dissemination of research education opportunities;

2) mentee progress and satisfaction during the course of their participation in the program;

3) effectiveness of participating faculty mentoring; and

4) mentees receiving subsequent research awards from NIH and/or other sources.

The evaluation should also include a plan for assessing whether the program overall performance and its environments are achieving the proposed goals, inclusive, safe and supportive for participants while participating in the program. Applicants are expected to propose how they will implement their evaluation plan and ensure that lessons learned are applied throughout the grant period. 

Dissemination Plan. A specific plan must be provided to disseminate nationally any findings resulting from or materials developed under the auspices of the research education program, e.g., sharing course curricula and related materials via web postings, presentations at scientific meetings, workshops.

Letters of Support

A letter of institutional commitment must be attached as part of Letters of Support (see section above: "Institutional Environment and Commitment.") The letter can come from a President, Provost, Dean, or similar key institutional or organizational leader that describes the activities and resources provided by the institution, along with the institutional environment, that will ensure the success of the program and of all individuals participating in the program.

In a multi-site application, each of the collaborative sites must include a letter of institutional commitment that provides, as appropriate, the names of program faculty involved in the program, a description of facilities and educational resources available for the proposed program, and a letter of institutional commitment to the mentoring network program. These letters must be attached as part of the Letters of Support. 

Resource Sharing Plan
Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, a Data Management and Sharing Plan is not applicable for this NOFO.

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:

When relevant, applications are expected to include a software dissemination plan if support for development, maintenance, or enhancement of software is requested in the application. There is no prescribed single license for software produced. However, the software dissemination plan should address, as appropriate, the following goals:

• Software source code should be freely available to biomedical researchers and educators in the non-profit sector, such as institutions of education, research institutions, and government laboratories. Users should be permitted to modify the code and share their modifications with others.
• The terms of software availability should permit the commercialization of enhanced or customized versions of the software, or incorporation of the software or pieces of it into other software packages.
• To preserve utility to the community, the software should be transferable such that another individual or team can continue development in the event that the original investigators are unwilling or unable to do so.

Appendix

Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow the instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If you answered “Yes” to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start). All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 2. 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

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. 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 Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications.

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 How to Apply - Application Guide.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

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 Section 7.9.1 Selected Items of Cost.

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

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 How to Apply – Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. 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 form. 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 unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier 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 and responsiveness by NIDCR, NIH. Applications that are incomplete and non-compliant will not be reviewed.

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

Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.

Section V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

For this particular announcement, note the following: The over-arching goal of this NIDCR UE5 program is to facilitate and provide opportunities for structured interactions among investigators (mentors) who are committed to mentoring postdoctoral fellows and junior faculty (mentees)  from diverse backgrounds, including those who are from groups underrepresented in the biomedical, behavioral, and social sciences), to enhance the mentees’ grants writing skills, professional development, and successful pursuit of dental, oral, and craniofacial (DOC) research careers.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to strongly advance research education by fulfilling the goal of this research education program, 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.

Significance

Does the proposed program address a key audience and an important aspect or important need in research education? Is there convincing evidence in the application that the proposed program will significantly advance the stated goal of the program?

Assess the likelihood that implementation of the proposed program will enhance the professional development of the participants and foster their career trajectories towards independent DOC health research through the proposed mentoring network and activities?

Investigator(s)

Is the PD/PI capable of providing both administrative and scientific leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed program? Is there evidence that an appropriate level of effort will be devoted by the program leadership to ensure the program's intended goal is accomplished? If applicable, is there evidence that the participating faculty have experience in mentoring students and teaching science? If applicable, are the faculty good role models for the participants by nature of their scientific accomplishments? 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?

Evaluate if the caliber of program leadership and participating faculty, in terms of their research expertise, independent research funding, record of mentorship, and research education leadership in the areas of the proposed program area appropriate for their roles on the project?

Does the program leadership team demonstrate the ability to develop and implement metrics for meaningful evaluation of program activities and of short and long-term outcomes? 

Innovation

Taking into consideration the nature of the proposed research education program, does the applicant make a strong case for this program effectively reaching an audience in need of the program’s offerings? Where appropriate, is the proposed program developing or utilizing innovative approaches and latest best practices to improve the knowledge and/or skills of the intended audience?

Are the proposed mentoring concepts and strategies utilizing innovative approaches and latest best practices for the intended program participants (mentees)?

Approach

Does the proposed program clearly state its goals and objectives, including the educational level of the audience to be reached, the content to be conveyed, and the intended outcome?  Is there evidence that the program is based on a sound rationale, as well as sound educational concepts and principles? Is the plan for evaluation sound and likely to provide information on the effectiveness of the program?  If the proposed program will recruit participants, are the planned recruitment, retention, and follow-up (if applicable) activities adequate to ensure a highly qualified participant pool?

Evaluate the quality of the plan for providing mentees with effective mentoring experiences. 

How achievable are the plans for recruiting experienced program faculty/mentors with relevant scientific backgrounds?

If an Advisory Committee is planned, is the member composition and committee’s role appropriate to the program?

Are the methods, including networking strategies, group and one-on-one interactions, and didactic activities appropriate and likely to achieve the program objectives?

Is sufficient interaction planned among program faculty and participants to achieve the goals of the network? 

Are commitments from the host institutions, any collaborating partners, and faculty/mentors' willingness and commitment to participate in the NIDCR mentoring network program well documented and supportive?

Does the application include a plan to track mentees’ subsequent outcomes for the duration of the project period?

Environment

Will the scientific and educational environment of the proposed program contribute to its intended goals? Is there a plan to take advantage of this environment to enhance the educational value of the program? Is there tangible evidence of institutional commitment? Is there evidence that the faculty have sufficient institutional support to create a sound educational environment for the participants? Where appropriate, is there evidence of collaboration and buy-in among participating programs, departments, and institutions?

Are adequate plans provided for coordination and communication among multiple sites (if applicable)?

Are the facilities, environment, and resources adequate for the proposed program?

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.

Protections for Human Subjects

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the 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 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.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan

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 individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) 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.

Vertebrate Animals

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following three points: (1) a complete description of all proposed procedures including the species, strains, ages, sex, and total numbers of animals to be used; (2) justifications that the species is appropriate for the proposed research and why the research goals cannot be accomplished using an alternative non-animal model; and (3) interventions including analgesia, anesthesia, sedation, palliative care, and humane endpoints that will be used to limit any unavoidable discomfort, distress, pain and injury in the conduct of scientifically valuable research. Methods of euthanasia and justification for selected methods, if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, is also required but is found in a separate section of the application. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals Section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals 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.

Training in Methods for Enhancing Reproducibility

Does the Instruction in Methods for Enhancing Reproducibility plan describe how participants  will be instructed in principles important for enhancing research reproducibility including, at a minimum, evaluation of foundational research underlying a project (i.e., scientific premise), rigorous experimental design, consideration of relevant biological variables such as sex, authentication of key biological and/or chemical resources, data and material sharing, record keeping, and transparency in reporting? Are the rigor and transparency components sufficiently well integrated into the overall curriculum? Are they taught at multiple stages of participant  development and in a variety of formats and contexts? Does the teaching synergize with elements of the curriculum designed to enhance participant s' abilities to conduct responsible research? Is there evidence that all program faculty reiterate and augment key elements of methods for enhancing reproducibility when participants  are performing mentored research in their laboratories?

Resubmissions

Not Applicable 

Revisions 

Not Applicable  

Renewals 

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

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.

Evaluation Plan

How robust is the proposed evaluation plan that will document the achievement of the program's objectives and demonstrate attainment of the program's goals? Are the evaluation plan and timeline adequate for determining outcomes and assessing if the program is achieving its goals and objectives? Is the proposed evaluation plan adequate for obtaining feedback from mentees to measure the quality and effectiveness of the program activities?

Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity 

Peer reviewers will separately evaluate the recruitment plan to enhance diversity after the overall score has been determined. Reviewers will examine the strategies to be used in the recruitment of prospective participants from underrepresented groups. The review panel’s evaluation will be included in the summary statement. Plans will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable, and the summary statement will provide the consensus of the review committee.

Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research

Taking into account the specific characteristics of the proposed research education program, the level of participant experience, the reviewers will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed RCR training in relation to the following five required components: 1) Format - the required format of instruction, i.e., face-to-face lectures, coursework, and/or real-time discussion groups (a plan with only on-line instruction is not acceptable); 2) Subject Matter - the breadth of subject matter, e.g., conflict of interest, authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety, research misconduct, research ethics; 3) Faculty Participation - the role of the program faculty in the instruction; 4) Duration of Instruction - the number of contact hours of instruction, taking into consideration the duration of the program; and 5) Frequency of Instruction –instruction must occur during each career stage and at least once every four years.  See also: NOT-OD-10-019 and NOT-OD-22-055. The review panel’s evaluation will be included in the summary statement. Plans will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable, and the summary statement will provide the consensus of the review committee.

Applications from Foreign Organizations

Not Applicable

Select Agent Research

Generally not applicable. Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific Review Officer.

Resource Sharing Plans

Reviewers will comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable. If support for development, maintenance, or enhancement of software is requested in the application, the reviewers will comment on the proposed software dissemination plan.

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 NIDCR, in accordance with NIH peer review policies and practices, 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 will receive a written critique.

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.

 Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Advisory Dental & Craniofacial Research Council. 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.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

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 Section 2.4.4 Disposition of Applications.

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

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 recipient’s business official.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. 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 NOFO 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.

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: Generaland Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities, including of note, but not limited to:

• Federalwide Standard Terms and Conditions for Research Grants
• Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
• Acknowledgment of Federal Funding

If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

If a recipient receives an award, the recipient must follow all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The recipient agrees to this when registering in SAM.gov. The recipient must also submit an Assurance of Compliance (HHS-690). To learn more, see the HHS Office for Civil Rights website.

HHS recognizes that NIH 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 NOFO.

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 2 CFR Part 200.206 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.” This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.”

The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) grant administration regulations at 2 CFR 200, and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies. 

The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the recipients is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below. 
 

The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:

• All administrative, programmatic and evaluation aspects of the mentoring network program.
• Determining programmatic approaches to developing a mentoring network, and developing coursework, workshops, seminars or other activities for professional skills development.
• Selecting internal Program Faculty and developing collaborations with external Program Faculty involved in the Mentoring Network program.
• Developing, organizing and implementing (1) an annual in person meeting with program faculty and participants (mentees) for professional research career development activities; and (2) a NIH mock peer review session, preferably including NIH/NIDCR H Scientific Review Officers to run the meeting.
• Developing specific benchmarks and milestones for key activities, along with a timeline of activities and criteria for evaluation.
• Conducting evaluations of the program, including participant follow-up and data collection.
• Making appropriate changes to the program based ongoing feedback from UE5 Program Faculty, Participants, along with feedback from the NIDCR Project Collaborator and Program Officer.
• Obtaining prior written approval of the NIDCR Grants Management Specialist, in consultation with the NIDCR Program Officer, for changes in any of the key personnel identified in the Notice of Grant Award.
• Awardees will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies.

NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:

An NIDCR Project Collaborator will be substantially involved in this project above and beyond the normal stewardship of an NIDCR Program Official by providing technical assistance, advice, and other program actions supporting the conduct of the program. However, the role of the Program Collaborator will be to facilitate, but not to direct the program activities.

The Program Collaborator's responsibilities are described as follows: 

• Collaborate with PD(s)/PI(s) in identifying program faculty and program participants for the mentoring network that aligns with the goals of the mentoring network NOFO.
• Monitor recruitment goals and provide technical assistance on issues regarding participant selection. NIDCR staff cannot make decisions on eligibility of mentees.
• Lend relevant expertise and overall knowledge of NIH sponsored research related to early career investigators in relevant program activities.
• Assist with developing meeting agendas and program content relating to an annual meeting and Mock Study Section, for mentorship on the NIH grants process.
• Lend relevant expertise and overall knowledge of NIH sponsored research to assist in the selection of Program Faculty/scientific experts for participate in the annual meeting for mentorship on the NIH grants process.
• Participate on committees, as needed, to help guide the development of short-term and long-term program goals, relevant data to inform program outcomes and evaluation metrics.
• The NIH reserves the right to withhold funding or curtail the program activities in the event of (a) substantive changes in the agreed upon work scope with which NIH cannot concur, (b) substantive shortfall in participant recruitment of eligible applicants, (c) or project not progressing well. 
• Additionally, a NIDCR program official will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice.

Areas of Joint Responsibility include:

• None, all responsibilities are divided between PD(s)/PI(s)  and NIH staff as described above.

Arbitration Process:

Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.

3. Data Management and Sharing

Consistent with the 2023 NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.

4. Reporting

NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 2 CFR 200.301.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as amended (FFATA), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreementsare required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over the threshold. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

Failure by the recipient institution to submit required forms in a timely, complete, and accurate manner may result in an expenditure disallowance or a delay in any continuation funding for the award.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 2 CFR Part 200, 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 2 CFR Part 200 – Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

Other Reporting Requirements 

Provide a PDF that includes the following items for each participant (mentee) selected for participation in the mentoring network in each budget period over the duration of the project period (the list will be cumulative over time):

• Participant name
• Degree(s)
• Year of initial selection and acceptance into the program
• Career stage or position and rank (e.g., career stage: postdoctoral, junior faculty; position and rank: Research Assistant Professor-tenure track, Clinical Assistant Professor)
• Home institution
• A description of the participant's active research project
• Current support, e.g., individual Fellowship (F), career development award (K), support under an Institutional Training Grant or Career Development Award (e.g., T32, T90, K12, KL2). Provide the grant number and dates of the award. Or provide other sources, e.g., Institutional salary or fellowship, or foundation, or other public or private source etc.
• Mentor(s) (First Name, Last Name, degree(s), Institution, research area

If additional reporting requirements need to be added, please insert a comment indicating what reporting requirements are desired. Note that additions likely will require approval by OER.

A final RPPR 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.

5. Evaluation

In carrying out its stewardship of human resource-related programs, the NIH may request information essential to an assessment of the effectiveness of this program from databases and from participants themselves. Participants may be contacted after the completion of this award for periodic updates on various aspects of their employment history, publications, support from research grants or contracts, honors and awards, professional activities, and other information helpful in evaluating the impact of the program.

Within ten years of making awards under this program, NIDCR will assess the program’s overall outcomes, gauge its effectiveness in enhancing diversity, and consider whether there is a continuing need for the program.  Upon the completion of this evaluation, NIDCR will determine whether to (a) continue the program as currently configured, (b) continue the program with modifications, or (c) discontinue the program.

The overall evaluation of the program will be based on metrics that will include, but are not limited to, the following:

For Research Experience and Mentoring Programs Involving the Following Group:

Postdoctorates and Early Career Investigators:

• Subsequent participation in a formal research training or career development program in a STEM field
• Subsequent participation in research or employment in a STEM field
• Authorship of scientific publications in a STEM field

Subsequent independent research grant support from NIH or another source 

Section VII. Agency Contacts

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, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online: https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-480-7075

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov

SBA Company Registry (Questions regarding required registration at the SBA Company Registry and for technical questions or issues)
Website to Email: http://sbir.gov/feedback?type=reg

Shoba Thirumangalathu, Ph.D.
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone:301-594-0652
Email: shoba.thirumangalathu@nih.gov

Yun Mei, M.D.
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: 301-827-4639
Email: yun.mei@nih.gov

Gabriel Hidalgo, M.B.A.
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: 301-827-4630
Email: gabriel.hidalgo@nih.gov

Section VIII. Other Information

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 and 2 CFR Part 200.