and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating
Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov)
Components of
Participating Organizations
National Institute on Aging (NIA), (http://www.nia.nih.gov )
Title: Regional and International Differences in Health and Longevity at Older Ages (R01)
Announcement Type
New
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
Request for Applications (RFA) Number: RFA-AG-11-004
NOTICE: Applications submitted in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for Federal assistance must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) forms and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
APPLICATIONS MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED IN PAPER FORMAT.
This FOA must be read in conjunction with the application guidelines included with this announcement in Grants.gov/Apply for Grants (hereafter called Grants.gov/Apply).
A registration process is necessary before submission and applicants are highly encouraged to start the process at least four (4) weeks prior to the grant submission date. See Section IV.
Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance Number(s)
93.866
Key Dates
Release/Posted
Date: June 22, 2010
Opening Date: September 14, 2010 (Earliest date an application may be
submitted to Grants.gov)
Letters of Intent Receipt
Date(s): September 14, 2010
NOTE: On-time submission requires that applications be successfully
submitted to Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant
institution/organization).
Application Due Date(s): October 14, 2010
Peer Review Date(s): February/March 2011
Council Review Date(s): May
2011
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): July
1, 2011
Additional Information To Be
Available Date (Activation Date): Not Applicable
Expiration Date: October
15, 2010
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Additional
Overview Content
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Part I Overview Information
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity
Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and
Submission Information
1. Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Receipt, Review, and Anticipated
Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Submitting an Application
Electronically to the NIH
C. Application Processing
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection Process
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration
Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
3.
Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contacts
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information
- Required Federal Citations
Part II
- Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1.
Research Objectives
Purpose
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) solicits small-scale Research Project Grant (R01) applications from institutions/organizations proposing to advance knowledge on the reasons behind the divergent trends that have been observed in health and longevity at older ages, both across industrialized nations and across geographical areas in the United States. This FOA is intended to capitalize on provocative findings in the literature which have gone unexplained to date. This FOA is also intended to capitalize on NIA’s investment in the development of cross-nationally comparable datasets that can be harnessed to study these research questions; these include the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), the English Longitudinal Study on Ageing (ELSA), and the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Applications proposing secondary analysis, new data collection, calibration of measures across studies, development of innovative survey measures, and linkages to administrative sources are encouraged. Applications are not restricted to projects using the NIA-supported datasets above and may propose research using any relevant data.
Background.
The United States spends more on health care both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP than any other nation in the world. Per capita expenditures on medical care in the US generally are 2-to-3 times higher than in European countries. Life expectancy at birth in the United States has improved dramatically over the past century. Also, throughout the second half of the century, advances in medicine particularly in the treatment of heart disease and stroke along with healthier lifestyles, better access to health care, and better overall health before age 65 combined to produce impressive improvements in life expectancy above age 65. Why then has US life expectancy at birth and at age 65 -- especially for women -- been lagging behind other industrialized nations since 1980? Why does evidence from cross-national research indicate that older Americans get sicker sooner compared to older Europeans, and why have divergent trends been observed in health and longevity across geographical areas in the United States?
The recent availability of longitudinal data expressly designed to be cross-nationally comparable has begun to prompt research inquiry into the underlying dynamics of, and reasons for, these differences in health and longevity at older ages. For example, research using the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) and the National Health and Nutrition Study (NHANES), indicates that older white non-Hispanic US adults aged 55-64 are less healthy than their English counterparts for a range of diseases including diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer (Banks et al., 2006). Relatively, these differences in health are much larger than the differences in life expectancy between the US and England. The analysis was limited to non-Hispanic whites in both the US and England thus ensuring that results were not due to health issues in the black or Latino populations in the United States. The analysis also controlled for education and a standard set of comparably-measured behavioral risk factors (smoking, overweight, obesity, and alcohol drinking), which explained little of these health differences. In addition, analysis of biomeasures from ELSA and NHANES showed that the differences between the US and England and across SES groups within each country are not due to biases in self-reported disease or screening rates, because biological markers of disease (although they have not been calibrated against one another) exhibit exactly the same patterns. Finally, the results showed that these differences are not solely driven by the bottom of the SES distribution, and that in many diseases, the top of the SES distribution (which in the US has near universal health insurance coverage) is less healthy in the United States as well. Surprisingly, English lower SES individuals have better health than high SES US individuals. This is a provocative finding, that US residents in late middle-age are much less healthy than their English counterparts and that these differences exist at all points of the SES distribution. Possible explanations include survival advantages among US adults with chronic illness, behavioral differences in risk factors not (or imperfectly) measured in these studies, psychosocial factors, the obesity epidemic (which is more advanced in the US), differences in health care systems, social policy contexts other than medical care (e.g., social retirement benefits, unemployment compensation, sick pay, housing policies, transportation options, social integration, etc.), how health influences wealth (e.g., in the US, major health events lead to wealth depletion), measurement differences across studies, quality and comparability of biospecimen assays, etc.
A subsequent analysis using data from the HRS, ELSA, and the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), found similar results (Avendano, 2009). American adults ages 50-74 of all wealth levels reported worse health than did European adults at comparable wealth levels. Indeed, on many measures England was shown to have worse health than other European countries. Similar to the paper discussed above, this analysis excluded US minorities, indicating that the worse health of Americans compared with Europeans cannot be attributed to racial disparities within the United States. And, similar to the US-UK results, this analysis also found that the disparities were only partially explained by differences in a standard set of behavioral factors. Finally, while poor Americans were at particularly worse health compared with their English or other European counterparts in this analysis, even well-off Americans reported health comparable to substantially poorer Europeans suggesting that access to and quality of health care cannot be the explanation.
Cross-national analyses provide insight into potential causal explanations for observed differences in health and longevity because institutional factors vary (e.g., universal health care in England at all ages vs. universal health care after age 65 in the US). However, comparative analyses can also be done within the US where there is also variation. Extensive research has focused on health disparities within the US and many investigations have documented the consistent gap in measures of mortality and functional health by race, income, social class, education, community characteristics, insurance coverage, health care access and utilization, quality of care, etc. Less has been done exploiting the internal variations by geography in the US. Using data from the US Bureau of the Census and the National Center for Health Statistics, researchers have divided the US into eight subgroups based on a number of sociodemographic and geographical variables (such as location of county of residence, race and income), which they termed the eight Americas (Murray, 2006). They found disparities in mortality across the eight Americas that are enormous by international standards and that cannot be explained by race, income or basic health-care access and utilization alone. A related analysis looked at trends in US county mortality and cross-county mortality disparities from 1961-1999, including the contributions of specific diseases to county level mortality trends (Ezzati, 2008). This study found that there was a steady increase in mortality inequality across the US counties between 1983 and 1999, resulting from stagnation or increase in mortality among the worst-off segment of the population, and that female mortality increased in a large number of counties, primarily because of chronic diseases related to smoking, overweight and obesity, and high blood pressure. Other examples of US geographic disparities in health include scholarship on the stroke belt . While no consensus has been reached to explain geographic differences in stroke mortality, recent research suggests that both early life exposures and adult residence independently contribute to stroke mortality risk (Glymour, 2009).
Research Scope
Applications are encouraged that pursue possible explanations for the divergent trends that have been observed in health and longevity at older ages, both across industrialized/high life expectancy nations and across the US by geographic area. Applicants are encouraged to read a forthcoming National Research Council consensus report entitled Understanding Divergent Trends in Life Expectancy in High-Income Countries and a companion volume of scientific papers written or invited by the NRC consensus report committee, entitled International Differences in Mortality at Older Ages: Dimensions and Sources. While the reports are not available at this writing, they are expected in Summer 2010 and applicants are encouraged to check for them at www.nap.edu. The papers will: detail potential causes for the observed divergent trends that have been observed in longevity and health at older ages across high-income countries; discuss internal heterogeneity in the US; present the available cross-national harmonized data useful for analysis; and raise many interesting and provocative hypotheses for future research. The consensus report will summarize the findings from the papers and offer general conclusions and recommendations for future research. The reports will be valuable for applicants interested in explaining differences in longevity and health status internationally or within the US.
Examples of possible approaches to explaining these divergent trends are offered below. (These are suggested approaches but they are not limited to these approaches.) . Also in order to make existing studies more suitable for comparative analyses of health status and longevity in middle aged adults, applications that propose secondary analysis, new data collection, calibration of measures across studies, and/or linkages to administrative data sources are appropriate. These represent example approaches and topics only. Other approaches and topics are welcome.
References:
Avendano, M., Glymour, M.M., Banks, J. and Mackenbach, J.P. (2009) Health Disadvantage in US Adults Aged 50 to 74 Years: A Comparison of the Health of Rich and Poor Americans with that of Europeans. American Journal of Public Health 99/3:540-47.
Banks, J., Marmot, M., Oldfield, Z. and Smith, J.P. (2006) Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and England. Journal of the American Medical Association 295:2037-45.
Ezzati, M., Friedman, A.B., Kulkarni, S.C., and Murray, C.J.L. (2008) The Reversal of Fortunes: Trends in County Mortality and Cross-County Mortality Disparities in the United States. PLoS Med 5(/4): e66:557-68.
Glymour, M., Avendano, M., and Berkman, L.F. (2007) Is the Stroke Belt worn from childhood? Risk of first stroke and state of residence in childhood and adulthood. Stroke 38: 2415-21.
Glymour, M., Kosheleva, A., and Boden-Albala, B. (2009) Birth and Adult Residence in the Stroke Belt Independently Predict Stroke Mortality. Neurology 73: 1858-1865
Murray, C.J.L., Kulkarni, S.C., Michaud, C., Tomijima, N., Bulzacchelli, M.T., Iandiorio, T.J., and Ezzati, M. (2006) Eight Americas: Investigating Mortality Disparities across Races, Counties, and Race-Counties in the United States. PLoS Med 3(9):1513-24.
National Research Council Panel (forthcoming) Divergent Trends in Life Expectancy in High-Income Countries, Panel on Divergent Trends in Longevity in High-Income Countries, Committee on Population, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (forthcoming) International Comparisons of Levels and Trends in Mortality at Older Ages. Committee on Population. Eileen M. Crimmins, Samuel H. Preston, and Barney Cohen, eds. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Wang, H and Preston, SH. (2009) Forecasting United States Mortality Using Cohort Smoking Histories. PNAS 106(2): 393-398.
See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal
Citations, for policies related to this
announcement.
Section
II. Award Information
1. Mechanism of Support
This FOA will use the R01 award mechanism. The Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) will
be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This FOA uses Just-in-Time information concepts (see SF424 (R&R) Application Guide). It also uses the modular as well as the non-modular budget formats (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm). Specifically, a U.S. organization submitting an application with direct costs in each year of $250,000 or less (excluding consortium Facilities and Administrative [F&A] costs) must use the PHS398 Modular Budget component.
U.S. applicants requesting more than $250,000 in annual direct costs and all foreign applicants must complete and submit budget requests using the Research & Related Budget component.
2.
Funds Available
The National Institute on Aging intends to commit $7,500,000 in total costs over the project period for use under this FOA. We anticipate that 3-5 awards will be made for Fiscal Year 2011, pending the number and quality of applications and availability of funds. For this funding opportunity, direct costs are expected to range between $200,000 and $333,000 per year in the first year. Direct costs may not exceed $333,000 in the first year. Project periods up to 5 years may be requested.
Because
the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to
application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will
also vary. Although the financial plans of the IC(s) provide support for this
program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the
availability of funds.
Facilities
and Administrative (F&A) costs requested by consortium participants are not
included in the direct cost limitation. See NOT-OD-05-004.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Section III. Eligibility Information
1.
Eligible Applicants
1.A.
Eligible Institutions
The following
organizations/institutions are eligible to apply:
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the PD/PI is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
More than one PD/PI (i.e., multiple PDs/PIs), may be designated on the application for projects that require a team science approach and therefore clearly do not fit the single-PD/PI model. Additional information on the implementation plans and policies and procedures to formally allow more than one PD/PI on individual research projects is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi. All PDs/PIs must be registered in the NIH electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons prior to the submission of the application (see http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm for instructions).
The decision of whether to apply for a grant with a single PD/PI or multiple PDs/PIs is the responsibility of the investigators and applicant organizations and should be determined by the scientific goals of the project. Applications for grants with multiple PDs/PIs will require additional information, as outlined in the instructions below. When considering the multiple PD/PI option, please be aware that the structure and governance of the PD/PI leadership team as well as the knowledge, skills and experience of the individual PDs/PIs will be factored into the assessment of the overall scientific merit of the application. Multiple PDs/PIs on a project share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically. Each PD/PI is responsible and accountable to the grantee organization, or, as appropriate, to a collaborating organization, for the proper conduct of the project or program, including the submission of required reports. For further information on multiple PDs/PIs, please see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi.
2. Cost
Sharing or Matching
This program does not require cost sharing as defined in the current NIH
Grants Policy Statement.
3. Other-Special Eligibility
Criteria
Number of Applications. Applicants may submit more than one application, provided each application is scientifically distinct.
Resubmissions. Resubmission applications are not permitted in response to this FOA.
Renewals. Renewal applications are not permitted in response to this FOA.
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
To
download a SF424 (R&R) Application Package and SF424 (R&R) Application
Guide for completing the SF424 (R&R) forms for this FOA, use the Apply for
Grant Electronically button in this FOA or link to http://www.grants.gov/Apply/ and follow the directions provided on that Web site.
Registration:
Appropriate registrations with Grants.gov and eRA Commons must be completed on or before the due date in order to successfully submit an application. Several of the steps of the registration process could take four weeks or more. Therefore, applicants should immediately check with their business official to determine whether their organization/institution is already registered with both Grants.gov and the Commons. All registrations must be complete by the submission deadline for the application to be considered on-time (see 3.C.1 for more information about on-time submission).
A one-time registration is required for institutions/organizations at both:
PDs/PIs should work with their institutions/organizations to make sure they are registered in the NIH eRA Commons.
Several additional separate actions are required before an applicant can submit an electronic application, as follows:
1) Organizational/Institutional Registration in Grants.gov/Get Registered
2) Organizational/Institutional Registration in the eRA Commons
3) Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) Registration in the NIH eRA Commons: Refer to the NIH eRA Commons System (COM) Users Guide.
Both the PDs/PI(s) and AOR/SO need separate accounts in the NIH eRA Commons since both are authorized to view the application image.
Note: The registration process is not sequential. Applicants should begin the registration processes for both Grants.gov and eRA Commons as soon as their organization has obtained a DUNS number. Only one DUNS number is required and the same DUNS number must be referenced when completing Grants.gov registration, eRA Commons registration and the SF424 (R&R) forms.
1.
Request Application Information
Applicants must
download the SF424 (R&R) application forms and the SF424 (R&R)
Application Guide for this FOA through Grants.gov/Apply.
Note: Only the forms package directly attached to
a specific FOA can be used. You will not be able to use any other SF424
(R&R) forms (e.g., sample forms, forms from another FOA), although
some of the "Attachment" files may be useable for more than one
FOA.
For further
assistance, contact GrantsInfo -- Telephone 301-710-0267; Email: [email protected].
Telecommunications
for the hearing impaired: TTY: (301) 451-5936
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Prepare all applications using the SF424 (R&R) application forms for this FOA through Grants.gov/Apply and in accordance with the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm).
The SF424 (R&R) Application Guide is critical to submitting a complete and accurate application to NIH. Some fields within the SF424 (R&R) application components, although not marked as mandatory, are required by NIH (e.g., the Credential log-in field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile component must contain the PD/PI’s assigned eRA Commons User ID). Agency-specific instructions for such fields are clearly identified in the Application Guide. For additional information, see Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
The SF424 (R&R) application has several components. Some components are required, others are optional. The forms package associated with this FOA in Grants.gov/APPLY includes all applicable components, required and optional. A completed application in response to this FOA includes the data in the following components:
Required Components:
SF424 (R&R) (Cover
component)
Research & Related
Project/Performance Site Locations
Research & Related Other Project Information
Research & Related Senior/Key Person
PHS398 Cover Page Supplement
PHS398 Research Plan
PHS398 Checklist
PHS398 Modular Budget or Research & Related
Budget, as
appropriate (See Section IV.6 regarding
appropriate required budget component.)
Optional Components:
PHS398 Cover Letter File
Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s)
Form
Foreign
Organizations (Non-Domestic
[non-U.S.] Entities)
NIH policies concerning grants to Foreign (non-U.S.) organizations can be found in the NIH Grants Policy Statement at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part12.htm#_Toc54600260.
Applications from Foreign organizations must:
Proposed research should provide special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the United States (U.S.) or that augment existing U.S. resources.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
Applications with Multiple PDs/PIs
When multiple PDs/PIs are proposed, NIH requires one PD/PI to be designated as the "Contact PI, who will be responsible for all communication between the PDs/PIs and the NIH, for assembling the application materials outlined below, and for coordinating progress reports for the project. The contact PD/PI must meet all eligibility requirements for PD/PI status in the same way as other PDs/PIs, but has no other special roles or responsibilities within the project team beyond those mentioned above.
Information for the Contact PD/PI should be entered on the SF424 (R&R) Cover component. All other PDs/PIs should be listed in the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component and assigned the project role of PD/PI. Please remember that all PDs/PIs must be registered in the eRA Commons prior to application submission. The Commons ID of each PD/PI must be included in the Credential field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component. Failure to include this data field will cause the application to be rejected.
Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan: For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, the section of the Research Plan entitled Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan , must be included. A rationale for choosing a multiple PD/PI approach should be described. The governance and organizational structure of the leadership team and the research project should be described, and should include communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, and procedures for resolving conflicts. The roles and administrative, technical, and scientific responsibilities for the project or program should be delineated for the PDs/PIs and other collaborators.
If budget allocation is planned, the distribution of resources to specific components of the project or the individual PDs/PIs should be delineated in the Leadership Plan. In the event of an award, the requested allocations may be reflected in a footnote on the Notice of Award (NoA).
Applications Involving a Single Institution
When all PDs/PIs are within a single institution, follow the instructions contained in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applications Involving Multiple Institutions
When multiple institutions are involved, one institution must be designated as the prime institution and funding for the other institution(s) must be requested via a subcontract to be administered by the prime institution. When submitting a detailed budget, the prime institution should submit its budget using the Research & Related Budget component. All other institutions should have their individual budgets attached separately to the Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s) Form. See Section 4.8 of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for further instruction regarding the use of the subaward budget form.
When submitting a modular budget, the prime institution completes the PHS398 Modular Budget component only. Information concerning the consortium/subcontract budget is provided in the budget justification. Separate budgets for each consortium/subcontract grantee are not required when using the Modular budget format. See Section 5.4 of the Application Guide for further instruction regarding the use of the PHS398 Modular Budget component.
3.
Submission Dates and Times
See Section IV.3.A. for details.
3.A. Submission, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
Opening Date: September 14, 2010 (Earliest date an
application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Letters of Intent Receipt Date(s):
September 14, 2010
Application Due Date(s): October 14, 2010
Peer Review Date(s): February/March 2011
Council Review Date(s): May 2011
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): July
1, 2011
3.A.1. Letter of Intent
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
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.
The letter of
intent is to be sent by the date listed in Section
IV.3.A.
The letter of
intent should be sent to:
Georgeanne
E. Patmios,
M.A.
Division
of Behavioral and Social Research
National
Institute on Aging
7201
Wisconsin Ave., #533
Bethesda,
MD 20892-9205
Telephone:
(301) 4906-3138
Fax:
(301) 402-0051
Email: [email protected]
3.B.
Submitting an Application Electronically to the NIH
To submit an
application in response to this FOA, applicants should access this FOA via http://www.grants.gov/applicants/apply_for_grants.jsp
and follow Steps 1-4. Note: Applications must only be submitted
electronically. PAPER APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. All
attachments must be provided to NIH in PDF format, filenames must be included
with no spaces or special characters, and a .pdf extension must be used.
In order to expedite the review, applicants are requested to notify the National Institute on Aging Referral Office by email ([email protected]) when the application has been submitted. Please include the FOA number and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.
3.C.
Application Processing
3.C.1
Submitting On-Time
Applications may be submitted on or after the opening date and must be successfully received by Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization) on the application due date(s). (See Section IV.3.A. for all dates.) If an application is not submitted by the due date(s) and time, the application may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed. All applications must meet the following criteria to be considered on-time :
Please visit http://era.nih.gov/electronicReceipt/app_help.htm for detailed information on what to do if Grants.gov or eRA system issues threaten your ability to submit on time.
Submission to Grants.gov is not the last step applicants must follow their application through to the eRA Commons to check for errors and warnings and view their assembled application!
3.C.2 Two Day Window to Correct eRA Identified Errors/Warnings
IMPORTANT NOTE! NIH has eliminated the error correction window for due dates of January 25, 2011 and beyond. As of January 25, all corrections must be complete by the due date for an application to be considered on-time. See NOT-OD-10-123.
Once an application package has been successfully submitted through Grants.gov, NIH provides applicants a two day error correction window to correct any eRA identified errors or warnings before a final assembled application is created in the eRA Commons. The standard error correction window is two (2) business days, beginning the day after the submission deadline and excluding weekends and standard federal holidays. All errors must be corrected to successfully complete the submission process. Warnings will not prevent the application from completing the submission process.
Please note that the following caveats apply:
3.C.3 Viewing an Application in the eRA Commons
Once any eRA identified errors have been addressed and the assembled application has been created in the eRA Commons, the PD/PI and the Authorized Organization Representative/Signing Official (AOR/SO) have two weekdays (Monday Friday, excluding Federal holidays) to view the assembled application before it automatically moves forward to NIH for further processing.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the CSR and responsiveness by the IC. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.
There will be an acknowledgement of receipt of applications from Grants.gov and the Commons. The submitting AOR/SO receives the Grants.gov acknowledgments. The AOR/SO and the PI receive Commons acknowledgments. Information related to the assignment of an application to a Scientific Review Group is also in the Commons.
Note: Since email can be unreliable, it is the responsibility of the applicant to check periodically on the application status in the Commons.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application, originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an Introduction describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the application.
4.
Intergovernmental Review
This initiative
is not subject to intergovernmental
review.
5.
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. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior
approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days
before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new award if such
costs: 1) are necessary to conduct the project, and 2) would be allowable under
the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures
would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval
before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be
incurred more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget
period of a new award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a
competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make
the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made
for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award
costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs
result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not
impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the
approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project
(see the NIH
Grants Policy Statement).
6. Other Submission Requirements
PD/PI Credential (e.g., Agency Login)
The NIH requires the PD(s)/PI(s) to fill in his/her Commons User ID in the PROFILE Project Director/Principal Investigator section, Credential log-in field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile component.
Organizational DUNS
The applicant organization must include its DUNS number in its Organization Profile in the eRA Commons. This DUNS number must match the DUNS number provided at CCR registration with Grants.gov. For additional information, see Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
PHS398 Research Plan Component Sections
All application instructions outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide are to be followed, incorporating "Just-in-Time" information concepts, and with the following additional requirements:
Budget Component
U.S. applicants submitting an application with direct costs in each year of $250,000 or less (excluding consortium Facilities and Administrative [F&A] costs) must use the PHS398 Modular Budget component.
U.S. applicants requesting more than $250,000 in annual direct costs and all foreign applicants must complete and submit budget requests using the Research & Related Budget component.
Appendix Materials
Applicants must follow the specific instructions on Appendix materials as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm).
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations. An application that does not comply with the required page limitations may be delayed in the review process.
Resource Sharing Plan(s)NIH considers the sharing of unique research resources developed through NIH-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value and further the advancement of the research. When resources have been developed with NIH funds and the associated research findings published or provided to NIH, it is important that they be made readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community. If the final data/resources are not amenable to sharing, this should be explained in the Resource Sharing section of the application (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm).
(a) Data Sharing Plan: Investigators seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year are expected to include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss data-sharing plans with their NIH program contact (see Data-Sharing Policy or http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html.)
(b) Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated are expected to include a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organisms and related resources, or state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible. See Sharing Model Organisms Policy, and NIH Guide NOT-OD-04-042.
(c) Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): Regardless of the amount requested, applicants seeking funding for a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. A genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (e.g., blood pressure or weight) or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. For further information see Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (go to NOT-OD-07-088, and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.)
Foreign Applications (Non-Domestic [non-U.S.] Entities)
Indicate how the proposed project has specific relevance to the mission and objectives of the NIH/IC and has the potential for significantly advancing the health sciences in the United States.
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Review Process
Applications that are complete and responsive to this FOA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by the National Institute on Aging and in accordance with NIH peer review procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/), using the review criteria stated below.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will:
The mission of the NIH is to support science in pursuit of knowledge about the biology and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. As part of this mission, applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Overall Impact
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five scored review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Scored Review Criteria
Reviewers will consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/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?
Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Additional Review Criteria
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children. When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children.
Vertebrate Animals. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/VASchecklist.pdf.
Biohazards. Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Resubmission Applications. Resubmissions are not allowed for this FOA.
Renewal Applications. Renewals are not allowed for this FOA.
Revision Applications. Revisions are not allowed for this FOA.
Additional Review Considerations
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will address each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations. As applicable for the FOA or submitted application, 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 Agents Research. Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans. Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm); 2) Sharing Model Organisms (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-042.html); and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html).
Budget and Period 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.
Selection Process
Applications submitted in response to this FOA will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
3.
Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Not Applicable
Section
VI. Award Administration Information
1.
Award Notices
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 NIH eRA Commons.
If
the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request
"just-in-time" information from the applicant. For details,
applicants may refer to the NIH
Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards,
Subpart A: General.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award
(NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the
grants management officer is the authorizing document. Once all administrative
and programmatic issues have been resolved, the NoA will be generated via email
notification from the awarding component to the grantee business official.
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. See Section
IV.5., Funding Restrictions.
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.
3.
Reporting
Awardees will be
required to submit the Non-Competing
Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial
statements as required in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated.
We encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall into three areas: scientific/research (program), peer review, and financial or grants management issues:
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s):
Georgeanne E. Patmios, M.A.
Division of Behavioral and Social Research
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Ave., #533
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205 (use 20814 for express mail)
Telephone: (301) 496-3138
Fax: (301) 402-0051
Email: [email protected]
2. Peer Review Contact(s):
Ramesh Vemuri, Ph.D., Chief
Scientific Review Branch
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 2C212
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205 (use 20814 for express mail)
Telephone: (301) 496-9666
Fax: (301) 402-0066
E-mail: [email protected]
3. Financial/Grants Management Contact(s):
Lesa McQueen, M.Sc.
Grants & Contracts Management Office
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2N212
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205 (overnight mail
use 20814)
Telephone: (301) 496-1472
Fax (301) 402-3672
E-mail: [email protected]
Section VIII. Other Information
Required Federal Citations
Use of Animals
in Research:
Recipients of PHS support for activities involving
live, vertebrate animals must comply with PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf)
as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm),
and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm)
as applicable.
Human Subjects
Protection:
Federal regulations (45 CFR 46) require that
applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with
reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against
these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others,
and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and Safety
Monitoring Plan:
Data and safety monitoring is required for all types
of clinical trials, including physiologic toxicity and dose-finding studies
(Phase I); efficacy studies (Phase II); efficacy, effectiveness and comparative
trials (Phase III). Monitoring should be commensurate with risk. The
establishment of data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) is required for
multi-site clinical trials involving interventions that entail potential risks
to the participants ( NIH Policy for Data and Safety Monitoring, NIH Guide
for Grants and Contracts, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
Sharing Research Data:
Investigators submitting an NIH application seeking
$500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year are expected to include a
plan for data sharing or state why this is not possible (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing). Investigators should seek guidance from their
institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local
institutional review board (IRB) rules, as well as local, State and Federal
laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule.
Policy for Genome-Wide
Association Studies (GWAS):
NIH is interested in advancing genome-wide association
studies (GWAS) to identify common genetic factors that influence health and disease
through a centralized GWAS data repository. For the purposes of this policy, a
genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation
across the entire human genome that is designed to identify genetic
associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight), or the
presence or absence of a disease or condition. All applications, regardless of
the amount requested, proposing a genome-wide association study are expected to
provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data
repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the
repository is not possible. Data repository management (submission and access)
is governed by the Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted
Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088.
For additional information, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/
Sharing of Model Organisms:
NIH is committed to support efforts that encourage
sharing of important research resources including the sharing of model
organisms for biomedical research (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm).
At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to
elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding
pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act (see the NIH
Grants Policy Statement. Beginning October 1, 2004, all investigators
submitting an NIH application or contract proposal are expected to include in
the application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and
distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH
funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will
permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public
funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a
cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications
where the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Access to Research Data through the Freedom of
Information Act:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular
A-110 has been revised to provide access to research data through the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are: (1) first
produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds;
and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action
that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed
through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of
this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.
Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a
public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the
distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should
include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include
information about this in the budget justification section of the application.
In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent
statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider
use of data collected under this award.
Inclusion of Women And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of
minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported
clinical research projects unless a clear and compelling justification is
provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health
of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the
NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All
investigators proposing clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines
for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html);
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical
research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB
standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical
trials consistent with the SF424 (R&R) application; and updated roles and
responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all
applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans
to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or
racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators
must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate,
by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of Children as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e.,
individuals under the age of 21) must be included in all clinical research,
conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical
reasons not to include them. All investigators proposing research involving
human subjects should read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the
inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires education on the protection of
human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH applications
for research involving human subjects and individuals designated as key
personnel. The policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC):
Criteria for Federal funding of research on hESCs can
be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-116.html.
Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic
Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov/). It is the responsibility
of the applicant to provide in the project description and elsewhere in the
application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s) for the hESC line(s)
to be used in the proposed research.
NIH Public Access Policy Requirement:
In accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy, investigators
funded by the NIH must submit or have submitted for them to the National
Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central (see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/), an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed
manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no
later than 12 months after the official date of publication. The
NIH Public Access Policy is available at (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html). For more
information, see the Public Access webpage at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy of Individually
Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August
14, 2002. The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection
of individually identifiable health information, and is administered and
enforced by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of
the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR
website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/)
provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text
and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information
on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review, funding,
and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research
contracts can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs
in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals
for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For
publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, Internet addresses
(URLs) or PubMed Central (PMC) submission identification numbers must be used
for publicly accessible on-line journal articles. Publicly accessible
on-line journal articles or PMC articles/manuscripts accepted for publication
that are directly relevant to the project may be included only as URLs or PMC submission identification numbers accompanying the full reference
in either the Bibliography & References Cited section, the Progress Report
Publication List section, or the Biographical Sketch section of the NIH grant
application. A URL or PMC submission identification number citation may be
repeated in each of these sections as appropriate. There is no limit to the
number of URLs or PMC submission identification numbers that can be cited.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to
achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of
"Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting
priority areas. This FOA is related to one or more of the priority areas.
Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and Regulations:
This
program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not
subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public
Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284)
and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All
awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other
considerations described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to
provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products.
In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits
smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in
which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early
childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent
with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of
the American people.
Loan Repayment Programs:
NIH encourages applications for educational loan
repayment from qualified health professionals who have made a commitment to
pursue a research career involving clinical, pediatric, contraception,
infertility, and health disparities related areas. The LRP is an important
component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the next generation of
researchers by providing the means for developing a research career unfettered
by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is not required for
eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications are encouraged.
The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing the LRP
recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP awardees must
commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week based on a 40
hour week) for two years to the research. For further information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov/.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||