Part 1. Overview Information

Key Dates

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide,except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ).

Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.

Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Background

Disorders of complex brain function such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, anxiety disorders, tic disorders and autism exact a very high toll in care and lost productivity in the United States. However, progress in understanding the causes and developing effective treatments has been slow, in part because these brain disorders currently do not have well-defined biological signatures of pathology that could be utilized in experimental neuroscience paradigms or targeted for intervention. Recently, there has been substantial progress in identifying statistically significant common and rare disease-associated genetic variants that confer risk for mental illnesses. In parallel, there are now a wide array of novel technologies available to probe brain biology at high resolution and sensitivity and across different molecular, cellular and circuit scales. This provides leverage for neuroscientists to identify cellular, molecular, and circuit processes that may be differentially affected in these disorders. Although the questions posed may not be mature from the perspective of hypothesis testing for disease relevance, nurturing the initial stages of discovery and hypothesis generation is critical for advancing our understanding of the factors that contribute to disorders of complex brain functions.

To gain a broader understanding of complex brain disorders, it is important to understand the biology of the multiple factors associated with disease risk and the context in which they act (e.g., when, where, individually or in combination) at a molecular, cellular and circuit level. For example, filling knowledge gaps in gene ontology (i.e., molecular functions, cell type selectivity and biological processes and relationships) will benefit the study of genetic contributions to disease by increasing the accuracy and reliability of gene and protein network analyses for tissue and cell-specific processes. Such studies will ultimately facilitate the identification of biological processes/pathways affected by disease risk and targets of therapeutic intervention.

Relevant measures at these biological scales include intracellular signaling mediated by second messengers, neuromodulators, neurotrophins and ion channels downstream of receptors; protein synthesis, modification, trafficking and degradation; membrane and organelle dynamics; bioenergetics; metabolic, immunological and neuroinflammatory mechanisms; alterations in cell architecture, polarity and/or synaptic connectivity; synaptic transmission and regulation of the co-release of multiple transmitters from individual neurons, mechanisms of bidirectional signaling between neurons, glia and epithelial cells; homeostatic scaling; gut-brain interactions; changes that target sensitive periods of developmental plasticity or perturbations in circuit dynamics such as excitatory/inhibitory balance and oscillatory activity.

Research Objectives

This FOA encourages research on the biology of high confidence risk factors associated with complex brain disorders, with a focus on the intracellular, transcellular and circuit substrates of neural function. For the purposes of this FOA, the term complex can refer to a multifactorial contribution to risk (e.g., polygenic and/or environmental) and/or highly distributed functional features of the brain disorder. Studies may be either hypothesis-generating (unbiased discovery) or hypothesis-testing in design and may utilize in vivo, in situ or in vitro experimental paradigms, e.g., model organisms or human cell-based assays. While behavioral paradigms and outcome measures can be incorporated into the research design to facilitate the characterization of intracellular, transcellular and circuit mechanisms, these are neither required nor expected. Studies should not attempt to model disorders but instead should aim to elucidate the neurobiological impact of individual or combined risk factor(s), such as the affected molecular and cellular components and their relationships within defined biological process(es). This can include the fundamental biology of these factors, components and processes. The resulting paradigms, component pathways and biological processes should be disseminated with sufficient detail to enrich common and/or federated data resources (e.g., those contributing to the Gene Ontology, Synaptic Gene Ontology, FAIR Data Informatics) in order to bridge the gap between disease risk factors, biological mechanism and therapeutic target identification. See Section IV, Application and Submission Information, Data and Resource Sharing.

Investigators are strongly encouraged to take advantage of novel technologies (e.g., from the BRAIN Initiative) and other resources (e.g., genetically modified organism repositories, NIMH Repository and Genomics Resource) that will facilitate the consideration of genetic background/strain differences, sex as a biological variable, sample size and other aspects of experimental/statistical rigor.

Examples of relevant research include, but are not limited to:

• Analysis of gene(s) where variants have been associated with disease risk at genome-wide significance, but where the basic biology of those genes is poorly understood (e.g., where functional analysis would enrich gene ontology). Applicants are encouraged to incorporate state of the art methods for testing the functional effects of genes and gene variants (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing or newly emerging temporal / spatial control technologies).
• Investigations of mechanisms by which high confidence environmental risk factors influence molecular, cellular or circuit-level processes, alone or by interaction with genetic risk factors.
• Studies of the mechanistic impact on brain of brain-periphery interactions (e.g., neuro-immune, neural-gut) as they relate to high confidence risk factors associated with mental illness.
• Incorporation of the developmental trajectory of biological processes into experimental designs, including designs that identify developmentally critical / sensitive periods to environmental influence.
• Optimization and implementation of novel cell-based experimental systems such as induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, including those that are derived from human patients or engineered to carry disease-associated genetic variants, in order to characterize disease-relevant mechanisms. Applicants are encouraged to request access to the NIMH Repository and Genomics Resource List of Studies or iPS cell collection to determine if source cells for reprogramming or existing iPS cell lines are already available. Applicants proposing to derive new iPS cell lines should refer to instructions in Section IV. Application and Submission Information, Resource Sharing.
• Development/optimization of new biological tools or scalable technologies for reporting or manipulating the activity levels and neurobiological functions of brain signaling / effector molecules relevant to complex brain disorders.
• Inclusion of computational approaches to analyze large unbiased datasets and identify specific, common or convergent pathways (molecular, cellular, synaptic, circuit) affected by variation associated with disease risk factors; identification of causal linkages across these biological scales; identification of potential therapeutic targets from such analysis.
• Evaluation of how data obtained from the chosen paradigm compares by secondary analysis with existing human anatomical, histological or systems-level data, or data from other physiologically relevant paradigms. Investigators are encouraged to explore data, tools and resources being developed under the NIH BRAIN Initiative, BrainSpan, PsychENCODE Human Brain Development Atlas, Human Connectome Project, or related efforts which if utilized could further enrich study design and interpretation.

Non-Responsive Topics

The following research topics are not responsive to this FOA and will be withdrawn prior to review:

• Development or use of a model of a disease (e.g., based on purported face validity and interpretation of behaviors as symptoms);
• Research premised on candidate risk genes that are not identified by well-powered, statistically significant genome-wide association;
• Research premised on candidate environmental risk factors that are not based on well-powered, statistically significant epidemiological data;
• A primary focus on phenotyping human subjects or clinical populations, which is more appropriate for other FOAs (except for those with a strong focus on cell or tissue-based assays, including generation and/or characterization of iPS cells, which is appropriate for this FOA);
• A primary or sole focus on behavioral paradigms/measures, pharmacology or drug discovery, which are more appropriate for other FOAs.

Applicants are strongly advised to consult with NIMH institute staff early when developing their projects to ascertain that their proposed study is aligned with the FOA purpose. Applicants are also strongly encouraged to align projects according to (1) the NIMH Strategic Plan, along with NIMH guidance on (2) the use of model organisms for disease-relevant research and (3) biological investigations of genes associated with disease risk. The following links provide relevant information:

• Funding Strategy for Research Grants
• A Hypothesis-Based Approach: The Use of Animals in Mental Health Research
• NOT-MH-19-053
• Guidance for Applicants Following the Report of the National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Genomics

The present announcement (R01 activity code) can be used for applications to further develop lines of inquiry where feasibility or proof-of-concept has been established.

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

Section II. Award Information

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

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

• Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government
• U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

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

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.

Applicant organizations

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

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

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

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

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

2. Cost Sharing

This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

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

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

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

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 FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

R&R or Modular Budget

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

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

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

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

The primary focus of applications responding to this announcement is on the biology of high confidence risk factors associated with complex brain disorders, with a focus on the intracellular, transcellular and circuit substrates of neural function. For the purposes of this FOA, the term complex can refer to a multifactorial contribution to risk (e.g., polygenic and/or environmental) and/or highly distributed functional features of the brain disorder. Studies may be either hypothesis-generating (unbiased discovery) or hypothesis-testing in design and may utilize in vivo, in situ or in vitro experimental paradigms, e.g., model organisms or human cell-based assays. While behavioral paradigms and outcome measures can be incorporated into the research design to facilitate the characterization of intracellular, transcellular and circuit mechanisms, these are neither required nor expected. Studies should not attempt to model disorders but instead should aim to elucidate the neurobiological impact of individual or combined risk factor(s), such as the affected molecular and cellular components and their relationships within defined biological process(es). This can include the fundamental biology of these factors, components and processes.

The research strategy should:

• Define the current state of the art as a benchmark against which the new study will be developed and executed;
• Provide a clear rationalization for studying any risk factors, with a focus only on those supported by rigorous, unbiased, sufficiently powered studies (e.g., genome-wide association or environmental risk epidemiology);
• Develop or exploit novel tools, technologies, resources and reference datasets (e.g., those developed by the BRAIN Initiative, found in the NIMH Repository and Genomics Resource or in clinical or genomic data archives) to improve the sophistication, robustness or reproducibility of the design. Alternatively, it should bring a unique conceptualization of analytic approaches being applied to the study;
• Address the contribution of genetic background (e.g., human donor diversity, mouse strain differences) where appropriate to the questions being asked, in order to account for modifiers of the risk factor(s);
• If proposing a discovery-based, hypothesis-generating approach, focus on designs that will generate unambiguous, highly interpretable data used to generate new hypotheses and broadly advance the field at large;
• Define key aspects of experimental rigor (as appropriate) and how they will be addressed in the study, including but not limited to:
  • Issues of statistical, computational and/or experimental robustness and reproducibility;
  • Primary and secondary statistical and/or experimental outcomes to be assessed (e.g., gene fold change, variance explained) and clearly state how these relate to proposed objectives;
  • Number of experimental and control groups;
  • The 'experimental unit' in the analysis and the implications thereof (e.g., there is a difference between N samples from one cell line, as distinct from one sample from each of N cell lines, or combining samples from multiple lines);
  • The number of 'experimental units' in each experimental group;
  • The total number of 'experimental units' to be measured;
  • The number of times each 'experimental unit' will be measured;
  • The number of independent replications of each experiment;
  • Steps taken to minimize the effects of bias (e.g., batch effects, blinding, randomization) or an explanation of why this would not be appropriate;
  • Having effect sizes clearly calculated and justified how they are biologically relevant;
  • Demonstration that statistical power calculations are grounded in justifiable and explicit assumptions about both anticipated effect size and variability of the experimental effects;
  • If statistical power calculations cannot reasonably be applied, providing a principled explanation of the choice of numbers (explanations based solely in terms of 'usual practice' or with reference solely to previously published data will not be considered adequate).

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

The following modifications also apply:

• All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.
• The plan should describe how resulting paradigms, component pathways and biological processes will be disseminated with sufficient detail to enrich common and/or federated data resources. Examples include those contributing to Gene Ontology (http://geneontology.org/docs/contributing-to-go/) or Synaptic Gene Ontology (https://syngoportal.org/submit.html).
• Applicants are expected to register resources supported by this FOA in FAIR Data Informatics (https://scicrunch.org/) and use Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) assigned by (http://scicrunch.com/resources) in any publication supported by this FOA.
• NOT-MH-13-002 outlines the expectation that investigators who propose to generate human subject-derived reprogrammed cells in their NIMH-funded research will ensure that both the source biospecimen cells and reprogrammed derivatives (e.g., iPS cells) are made available to the research community through the NIMH Repository and Genomics Resource. Investigators are expected to discuss plans with Program staff early in the planning stage and prior to submitting an application. Depending on the details of the plan, Program staff may require that applicants propose and budget in their application for iPSC derivation to be done as a fee-for-service by the NIMH Repository Stem Cell Core Facility. Sharing plans consistent with this policy will be finalized prior to the release of, and specified in, the Notice of Award.
• NOT-MH-19-033 outlines the expectation that researchers who are funded by NIMH for human subject recruitment studies will deposit all raw and analyzed data (including, but not limited to, clinical, genomic, imaging, and phenotypic data) from experiments involving human subjects into the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). Applicants should review the instructions within this Notice when preparing their sharing plan.

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.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

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

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.

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

Foreign Institutions

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

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

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

4. Submission Dates and Times

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

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

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.

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 Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Requests of $500,000 or more for direct costs in any year

Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact a Scientific/ Research Contact at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

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

Section V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Sharing Plan and Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) as part of the Resource Sharing Plan will not be evaluated at time of review.

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 primary focus of applications responding to this announcement is on the biology of high confidence risk factors associated with complex brain disorders, with a focus on the intracellular, transcellular and circuit substrates of neural function. For the purposes of this FOA, the term complex can refer to a multifactorial contribution to risk (e.g., polygenic and/or environmental) and/or highly distributed functional features of the brain disorder. Studies may be either hypothesis-generating (unbiased discovery) or hypothesis-testing in design and may utilize in vivo, in situ or in vitro experimental paradigms, e.g., model organisms or human cell-based assays. While behavioral paradigms and outcome measures can be incorporated into the research design to facilitate the characterization of intracellular, transcellular and circuit mechanisms, these are neither required nor expected. Studies should not attempt to model disorders but instead should aim to elucidate the neurobiological impact of individual or combined risk factor(s), such as the affected molecular and cellular components and their relationships within defined biological process(es). This can include the fundamental biology of these factors, components and processes.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

How well does the proposal define the current state of the art as a benchmark against which the new study will be developed and executed?

How clear is rationalization for studying the risk factor(s), and to what extent does it focus only on those supported by rigorous, unbiased, sufficiently powered studies (e.g., genome-wide association or environmental risk epidemiology)?

Investigator(s)

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Innovation

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

How well does the project develop or exploit novel tools, technologies, resources and reference datasets (e.g., those developed by the BRAIN Initiative, found in the NIMH Repository and Genomics Resource or in clinical or genomic data archives) to improve the sophistication, robustness or reproducibility of the design? Alternatively, does it bring a unique conceptualization of analytic approaches being applied to the study?

Approach

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

To what extent does the design address the contribution of genetic background (e.g., human donor diversity, mouse strain differences) if appropriate to the questions being asked, in order to account for modifiers of the risk factor(s)?

If proposing a discovery-based, hypothesis-generating approach, to what extent does the design generate unambiguous, highly interpretable data that can be used to generate new hypotheses and broadly advance the field at large?

How well does the proposal define key aspects of experimental rigor (as appropriate) and how they will be addressed in the study?

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

Environment

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact 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 criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.

Biohazards

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Resubmissions

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Renewals

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

Revisions

For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Applications from Foreign Organizations

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.

Select Agent Research

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Resource Sharing Plans

Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).

• How well does the plan describe how data on paradigms, component pathways and biological processes will be disseminated with sufficient detail to enrich common and/or federated data resources (e.g., those contributing to the Gene Ontology, Synaptic Gene Ontology, FAIR Data Informatics or other relevant archive)?
• How well does the plan describe how resources produced during the project are disseminated broadly to the community, including the use of centralized repositories?
• If the project proposes the derivation or modification of human subject-derived reprogrammed cells (e.g., iPS cells), how well does the plan ensure that both the source biospecimen cells and reprogrammed or genetically modified derivatives are made available to the research community through the NIMH Repository and Genomics Resource, or provide sufficient justification for why alternative arrangements must be made?

Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources:

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

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.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the Center for Scientific Review, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. 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.

• 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

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official.

Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to 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: Grantee 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 awardee 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: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.

Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex. This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html.

HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA.

• Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/fact-sheet-guidance/index.html and https://www.lep.gov. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.
• Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html.
• HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html; https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html; and https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/upload/fs-sex.pdf. For information about NIH's commitment to supporting a safe and respectful work environment, who to contact with questions or concerns, and what NIH's expectations are for institutions and the individuals supported on NIH-funded awards, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/harassment.htm.
• Recipients of FFA must also administer their programs in compliance with applicable federal religious nondiscrimination laws and applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws. Collectively, these laws prohibit exclusion, adverse treatment, coercion, or other discrimination against persons or entities on the basis of their consciences, religious beliefs, or moral convictions. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religious-freedom/index.html.

Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.

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

Not Applicable

Data Management and Sharing

Note: The NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing is effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023.

Consistent with the 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.

3. Reporting

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

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

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: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (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: [email protected] (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-637-3015

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]

David Panchision, Ph.D.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Telephone: 301-443-5288
Email: [email protected]

Carole Jelsema, Ph.D.
Center for Scientific Review
Telephone: 301-435-1248
Email: [email protected]

Tamara Kees
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Telephone: 301-443-8811
Email: [email protected]

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.