Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
and Human Services (HHS)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
R01 Research Project Grant
Reissue of RFA-CA-14-503 - Limited Competition: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Program (U01)
None
Only one application per institution is allowed in response to this FOA, as defined in Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.
93.393, 93.396, 93.399
This limited competition Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) solicits the renewal application for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans. The IARC Monographs program, which is supported in part by the NCI, critically evaluates the published scientific evidence on carcinogenic hazards to humans. Monograph volumes are considered critical references that inform health policy and cancer research worldwide about carcinogenic hazards to reduce cancer burden globally.
Not Applicable
December 16, 2020
No late applications will be accepted for this Funding Opportunity Announcement.
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of non-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on the listed date(s).
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
Not Applicable
March 2021
May 2021
July 2021
Not Applicable
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.
Purpose
Through this limited competition Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) solicits the renewal application for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans. The IARC Monographs program, which is supported in part by the NCI, critically evaluates the published scientific evidence on carcinogenic hazards to humans. Monograph volumes are considered critical references that inform health policy and cancer research worldwide about carcinogenic hazards to reduce cancer burden globally.
Background
Origin of the IARC Monographs. The IARC was founded in 1965 as a specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization to promote international collaboration in cancer research. In response to frequent requests about chemical carcinogens, the IARC was given the authority by the IARC Governing Council to provide government authorities worldwide with expert, independent opinion on suspected carcinogens. In 1971, the IARC Monographs program was instituted as a means to evaluate chemical agents using a systematic and scientifically rigorous process by the subject-matter experts who conducted the original research. Since then, the types of agents considered by this program have expanded beyond simple chemicals to include complex mixtures, physical agents, biological organisms, lifestyle factors, and environmental exposures. For the purpose of this FOA, "agents" are defined broadly to include all of the aforementioned types, including behaviors and occupations. The NCI has funded the IARC Monographs program since 1982 to support two Working Groups each year to produce two Monograph volumes.
Selection and Evaluation of Agents by the IARC Monographs Program. The IARC Monographs program convenes meetings of Advisory Groups to prioritize suspected cancer agents that are suggested by individuals and organizations worldwide. Advisory Groups are composed of senior officials and scientists from international health agencies and cancer research institutions. Agents are prioritized by the extent of human exposure, suspicion of carcinogenicity, public health relevance, and public concern. Agents previously reviewed by the IARC Monographs program can be reevaluated if new and compelling studies emerge. In addition to the Advisory Group recommendations, other agents can be assessed if warranted by significant new scientific studies or an urgent public health need.
High priority agents are evaluated by Working Groups convened by the IARC Monographs program. The program selects Working Group members on the basis of area of expertise, level of experience, and the absence of real or apparent conflicting interests, with consideration given to demographic diversity and balance of scientific views. A Working Group may evaluate one or more agents or families of related agents. Each agent (or agent family) is evaluated separately. The results of each evaluation are presented as a monograph, which contains a critical and comprehensive review of the published scientific literature. Three sets of data are considered for each agent: cancer epidemiology studies in humans, cancer bioassays in experimental animals, and mechanistic studies including carcinogenic mechanisms, susceptibility, and adverse effects. Human exposure data are summarized as well. An overall determination of each agent is made using the following categories: carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, and not classifiable. The findings of each Working Group are published as a single volume, which contains one or more monographs. These volumes are freely available as full-text PDFs from the IARC and the NCBI Bookshelf. A full description of the IARC Monographs program procedures and review can be found at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/index.php.
Impact of the IARC Monographs. Since 1971, the IARC Monographs program has convened 125 Working Groups, evaluated over 1000 agents, and published 124 volumes. From this work, 120 agents have been classified as carcinogenic to humans, 83 as probably carcinogenic, 314 as possibly carcinogenic and 500 as not classifiable. The list of all classified agents can be found at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php. National and international health agencies worldwide use the lARC Monographs as the scientific basis to support their actions to limit exposures to known, probable, and possible carcinogens. In the United States and other developed countries, national agencies make frequent reference to the lARC Monographs. In low- and middle-income countries, the lARC Monographs provide information about carcinogens to nations that may not have the resources and long-term experience in evaluating cancer hazards.
Requirements for this FOA
The IARC Monographs program should have a leading role in assessing global carcinogenic hazards and serve as an authoritative reference for health agencies worldwide. At a minimum, the NCI support should enable the convening of two Working Groups to produce two monograph volumes. The number and type of agents to be evaluated will be decided by the IARC Monographs program as best befitting the needs for global cancer prevention. The IARC Monographs program is expected to fulfill this role by providing scientific leadership and administrative support for convening Advisory and Working Groups as well as preparing and publishing monographs of high scientific clarity and accuracy. The IARC Monographs program is expected to have substantial responsibility in ensuring its continued self-evaluation and improvement.
To realize these tasks, the IARC Monographs program applicant must demonstrate leadership and expertise in forming and convening proficient panels to prioritize and evaluate carcinogenic hazards that are of high importance to health agencies and the scientific community worldwide. This includes recruiting outstanding experts of appropriate expertise and experience to serve on Advisory and Working Groups, convening Working Groups to produce comprehensive and scientifically authoritative evaluations that are free of conflict of interest, and disseminating the findings efficiently. The IARC Monographs program applicant must demonstrate the appropriate expertise and experience in the areas defined above. The applicant institution must have the necessary infrastructure to meet the specific requirements defined in this FOA.
The main strategic requirements that must be met by the IARC Monographs program applicant are summarized as follows: The IARC Monographs program applicant must address the following strategic objectives:
For additional details on the requirements specific to this FOA, see Section IV. Content and Form of Application Submission.
See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.
The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this FOA.
Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?
The NCI intends to commit $900,878 in FY 2021 to fund one award.
The application budget is limited to $793,135 in direct costs per year and should reflect the actual needs of the project.
The applicant may request a project period of 5 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Local Governments
Federal Governments
Other
This is a limited competition FOA. Only the awardee institution for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Program is eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not 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.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
. Only one application per institution (normally identified by having a unique DUNS number or NIH IPF number) is allowed.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. This means that the NIH will not accept:
The eligible applicant organization may submit only one application in response to this FOA.
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.
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.
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 Research Strategy should consist of the following subsections described below.
Sub-section A. Overview. In this sub-section, describe the ability of the IARC Monographs program to provide the following capabilities:
Sub-section B. Progress Report. In this sub-section, summarize Progress to Date and accomplishments achieved during the current funding period. Address objectives completed in the following areas:
Sub-section C. Proposed Monograph Program. Address the requirements defined in Section I of this FOA and describe the aspects identified below.
Improvements for the timely selection of candidate agents that are of high relevance and concern to the global cancer community (including low- and middle-income countries);
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:
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 (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit 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 NCI, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy. Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.
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 emphasis of this FOA is on maximizing the potential scientific value of the IARC Monographs as a unique international and collaborative resource that provide timely and authoritative scientific evaluations of carcinogenic hazards to humans that are relevant to the global scientific and health communities. The IARC Monographs program (subject of this limited competition FOA) is the key element essential to accomplishing this goal. Reviewers will assess the special opportunities presented by the IARC Monographs program in addressing the goal of this FOA and furthering the prioritization and identification of carcinogenic hazards to reduce cancer burden worldwide.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is 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?
Specific for this FOA
How well will the IARC Monographs program serve its strategic goals of providing timely and authoritative scientific evaluations of carcinogenic risks to humans that are relevant to the global scientific and health communities? Globally, what will be the influenceof the IARC Monographs program in informing the scientific community and health agencies about carcinogenic hazards, and in guiding cancer health policy and prevention, particularly for low- and middle-income countries?
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?
Specific for this FOA
How adequate are the expertise and commitment of the PD/PI and other key personnel for the required scope and objectives of the proposed IARC Monographs program? How well has the PD/PI demonstrated leadership in recruiting and convening effective Advisory and Working Groups to produce scientifically rigorous evaluations that are relevant, timely, and significant?
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?
Specific for this FOA
How innovative are the proposed approaches in identifying, prioritizing, and comprehensively evaluating human cancer hazards? How innovative are the proposed approaches for communicating and disseminating information globally to relevant audiences? How feasible and effective are the proposed improvements or refinements?
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?
Specific for this FOA
How well described and adequate are the proposed functions and activities of the IARC Monographs program that will be supported by the NCI award? Are they sufficient for convening at least two Working Groups each year to produce two Monograph volumes? How adequate are the resources of the IARC Monographs program (organization, personnel, infrastructure, and collaborations) to support its overall objectives? How likely will the proposed strategies optimally identify and prioritize agents for evaluation that are of high relevance and concern to the global cancer community? How sufficient are the plans and approaches for Advisory and Working Groups to ensure that these panels are scientifically rigorous, balanced and widely respected? How well will the proposed improvements make the processes more efficient, and the results more accessible and impactful globally?
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?
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?
Specific for this FOA
How adequate is the environment of the awardee institution for supporting the proposed program in accomplishing its goal of producing rigorous evaluations of carcinogenic hazards of significance and concern to global health agencies and communities?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the 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.
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.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Not Applicable
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Not Applicable
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).
For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Application will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the NCI, 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.
Following initial peer review, the application will receive a second level of review by the National Cancer Advisory Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to 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.
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.
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
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.
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: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-945-7573
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov
Ron Johnson, Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6250
Email: rjohnso2@mail.nih.gov
Referral Officer
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6390
Email: ncirefof@dea.nci.nih.gov
Amy Bartosch
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6375
Email: amy.bartosch@nih.gov
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.
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.