September 7, 2017
November 5, 2017
November 5, 2017
December 5, 2017), by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of non-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on this date.
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.
December 6, 2017
It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.
Applications that do not comply with these instructions will not be reviewed
There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The NIH Research Education Program (R25) supports research educational activities that complement other formal training programs in the mission areas of the NIH Institutes and Centers. The over-arching goals of the NIH R25 program are to: (1) complement and/or enhance the training of a workforce to meet the nation’s biomedical, behavioral and clinical research needs; (2) enhance the diversity of the biomedical, behavioral and clinical research workforce; (3) help recruit individuals with specific specialty or disciplinary backgrounds to research careers in biomedical, behavioral and clinical sciences; and (4) foster a better understanding of biomedical, behavioral and clinical research and its implications.
The over-arching goal of this NIDDK R25 program is to support educational activities that enhance the diversity of the biomedical, behavioral and clinical research workforce. In particular, this R25 program focuses on the role that professional societies can play in enhancing the research workforce. Ultimately, it is hoped that by fostering the diversity of the overall research workforce, the diversity of professional societies, including at the level of the committee and organizational leadership, will be enhanced as well.
To accomplish the stated over-arching goal, this FOA will support creative educational activities with a primary focus on:
NIH's Interest in Diversity
Every facet of the United States scientific research enterprise—from basic laboratory research to clinical and translational research to policy formation–requires superior intellect, creativity and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. NIH’s ability to help ensure that the nation remains a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation is dependent upon a pool of highly talented scientists from diverse backgrounds who will help to further NIH's mission.
Research shows that diverse teams working together and capitalizing on innovative ideas and distinct perspectives outperform homogenous teams. Scientists and trainees from diverse backgrounds and life experiences bring different perspectives, creativity, and individual enterprise to address complex scientific problems. There are many benefits that flow from a diverse NIH-supported scientific workforce, including: fostering scientific innovation, enhancing global competitiveness, contributing to robust learning environments, improving the quality of the researchers, advancing the likelihood that underserved or health disparity populations participate in, and benefit from health research, and enhancing public trust.
In spite of tremendous advancements in scientific research, information, educational and research opportunities are not equally available to all. NIH encourages institutions to diversify their student and faculty populations to enhance the participation of individuals from groups identified as underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral and social sciences. To this end, the NIH has asked for and received guidance to increase diversity in the the scientific workforce from many source including the NIH Advisory Committee to the Director Working Group on Diversity (NIH ACD WGD). In the Report of the ACD WGD, one recommendation stated that NIH should partner with academic institutions and professional societies to develop accountability policies and metrics that enhance diversity in the trainsition from trainee to independent careers.
NIDDK's Interest in Diversity
The mission of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) is to conduct and support medical research and research training and to disseminate science-based information on diabetes and other endocrine and metabolic diseases; digestive diseases, nutritional disorders, and obesity; and kidney, urologic, and hematologic diseases, in order to improve health and quality of life. The Institute maintains a vigorous investigator-initiated research portfolio, supports pivotal clinical studies and trials, strives to preserve a stable pool of talented new investigators, fosters exceptional research training and mentoring opportunities, and ensures knowledge dissemination through outreach and communications. Analysis of our portfolio shows that very few of our grantees come from nationally underrepresented backgrounds. Therefore, the Institute has launched several initiatives aimed at diversifying the scientific workforce. This funding opportunity announcement seeks to enhance scientific workforce diversity through efforts with professional societies.
The Role of Professional Societies in Promoting Scientific Workforce Diversity
“Federal agencies should work in concert with the private nonprofit sector to emphasize the recruitment and retention of qualified individuals from ethnic and gender groups that are currently underrepresented in the scientific, technological, and engineering workforce.”-- Public Law 106-525, Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000.
Professional societies are in a unique position to make critical contributions to enhancing scientific workforce diversity. They publish journals, recognize emerging talent by sponsoring awards, and support the development of scientific careers among their members. Because leaders in these societies play a major role in professional development, well-planned and coordinated outreach strategies with input from these entities can eliminate potential barriers to the application and participation of individuals from nationally underrepresented backgrounds. Thus, the goal of this program is to promote the research careers of students, fellows, and junior faculty from underrepresented backgrounds who are prepared to pursue careers in biomedical, behavioral, clinical, or social sciences research. Professional Societies are well-equipped to assist in this effort by providing an environment for education, research, information dissemination, networking, and mentoring opportunities for individuals from underrepresented backgrounds interested in research careers pertinent to the Society’s and NIDDK’s missions in order to accomplish this goal.
The NIDDK envisions that the Professional Society Programs to Promote Diversity (R25) will identify and recruit talented individuals from populations underrepresented in biomedical, behavioral, clinical, or social sciences research important to the Professional Society and the NIDDK. The career level for this announcement should target early and mid-faculty levels (Assistant Professor and Associate Professor or equivalent) but may also include fellow and post-doctorate trainees, when appropriate.
Awards made under this program must include both courses for skills development and formal mentoring activities; as a result, applications that propose to simply provide travel to the Professional Society’s national or annual meetings are not appropriate.T Examples of the program elements that could be included but are not limited to are:
1) Develop processes to identify investigators from underrepresented backgrounds with an interest in leadership development so that there is an active process to identify the individuals;
2) Develop and incorporate a commitment to diversity within the Professional Society;
3) Develop a set of quantitative and qualitative outcome metrics for evaluating the “success” of the program on increasing the diversity of the biomedical research workforce and thee Professional Society;
4) Provide opportunities for program participants to acquire new skills or knowledge necessary for careers in health-related research;
5) Develop an evaluation methodology for the Professional Society’s leadership, program mentors, and eligible participants to participate in the review of the progress and identify areas for improvement in the program;
6) Develop regular reports to the Professional Society’s leadership and to the NIDDK on the achievement of defined outcome metrics of the “success” of the program, including tracking of program participants; and
7) Demonstrate and establish partnerships, contacts and long-term commitments to the program within the Professional Society and other interested individuals, institutions or other Professional Societies.
The elements listed above are a limited set of metrics that may contribute to the goals of the program. Each project may incorporate these metrics and others in order to have the outcome of enhancing the representation of individuals from underrepresented groups in the biomedical research workforce and the organization's leadership.
After the award project period (e.g., 5 years), the NIDDK will review the overall success of the entire program to determine whether to continue funding it as currently configured. This review may be distinct from the individual reviews that take place under the auspices of the annual Progress Reports. The discontinuation of the program is a policy option that may be made at the discretion of the NIDDK.
Research education programs may complement ongoing research training and education occurring at the applicant institution, but the proposed educational experiences must be distinct from those training and education programs currently receiving Federal support. R25 programs may augment institutional research training programs (e.g., T32, T90) but cannot be used to replace or circumvent Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) programs.
See Section VIII. Other Informationfor 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.
NIDDK intends to commit up to $475,000 in FY 2018 to fund up to 3 awards. Future amounts will depend on annual appropriations.
Although the size of award may vary with the scope of the research education program application, the total direct costs are limited to $135,000 annually.
The total project period for an application submitted in response to this funding opportunity may not exceed 5 years.
Individuals designing, directing, and implementing the research education program may request salary and fringe benefits appropriate for the person months devoted to the program. Salaries requested may not exceed the levels commensurate with the institution's policy for similar positions and may not exceed the congressionally mandated cap. (If mentoring interactions and other activities with participants are considered a regular part of an individual's academic duties, then any costs associated with the mentoring and other interactions with participants are not allowable costs from grant funds). It is expected that total direct costs for personnel (i.e., salary and fringe benefits) do not exceed $50,000 per project year.
Participants may be paid if specifically required for the
proposed research education program and sufficiently justified. Participant
costs must be itemized in the proposed budget.
Allowable participant costs depend on the educational level/career status of the individuals to be selected to participate in the program.
While generally not an allowable cost, with strong justification, participants in the research education program may receive per diem unless such costs are furnished as part of the registration fee. Participants may also receive funds to defray partial tuition and other education-related expenses.
Expenses for foreign travel must be exceptionally well justified.
Individuals supported by NIH training and career development mechanisms (K, T, or F awards) may receive, and indeed are encouraged to receive, educational experiences supported by an R25 program, as participants, but may not receive salary or stipend supplementation from a research education program.
Because the R25 program is not intended as a substitute for an NRSA institutional training program (e.g.,T32), costs to support full-time participants (supported for 40 hours/week for a continuous, 12-month period) are not allowable.
Consultant costs, equipment, supplies, travel for key persons, and other program-related expenses may be included in the proposed budget. These expenses must be justified as specifically required by the proposed program and must not duplicate items generally available at the applicant institution. Expenses must not duplicate items generally available at the applicant Professional Society. Grant funds are intended to leverage the Professional Society's internal resources in formulating and maintaining the program.
Indirect Costs (also known as Facilities & Administrative [F&A] Costs) are reimbursed at 8% of modified total direct costs (exclusive of tuition and fees and expenditures for equipment), rather than on the basis of a negotiated rate agreement.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
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
The applicant must be a Professional Society with a mission that is within the mission area of NIDDK.
The sponsoring Professional Society must assure support for
the proposed program. Appropriate Societal commitment to the program includes
the provision of adequate staff, facilities, and educational resources that can
contribute to the planned program.
Professional Societies with existing Federally funded training programs may apply for a research education grant provided that the proposed educational experiences are distinct from those training programs receiving NIH support. In many cases, it is anticipated that the proposed research education program will complement ongoing research training occurring at the applicant Society.
Institutions with existing Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) institutional training grants (e.g., T32) or other Federally funded training programs may apply for a research education grant provided that the proposed educational experiences are distinct from those training programs receiving federal support. In many cases, it is anticipated that the proposed research education program will complement ongoing research training occurring at the applicant institution.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are
not 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 not allowed.
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 diverse backgrounds, including
underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and
women 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.
The PD/PI should be an established investigator in the scientific area in which the application is targeted and capable of providing both administrative and scientific leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed program. The PD/PI will be expected to monitor and assess the program and submit all documents and reports as required.
The PD(s)/PI(s) must be an active member in good-standing (i.e., current with the payment of professional dues) and hold a leadership role in the applicant Professional Society. Each Professional Society may define what level of "leadership" the PD(s)/PI(s) will be required to hold in the society in order to serve as the PD(s)/PI(s) for this application. Executive Directors of the Society, if they meet the other requirements, may be suitable as PD(s)/PI(s), or as one of the multi-PD(s)/PI(s) team.
Additionally, the PD(s)/PI(s) may have had either research experience within the mission area of NIDDK or practical experience in developing educational curricula and or/programs to promote diversity. Experience in mentoring should be evident, but formalized training in education is not a requirement.
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:
Researchers from diverse backgrounds, including racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and women are encouraged to participate as preceptors/mentors. Mentors should have research expertise and experience relevant to the proposed program. Mentors must be committed to continue their involvement throughout the total period of the mentee’s participation in this award.
Program Faculty/Mentors should be established investigators in the scientific area in which the application is targeted and capable of providing the professional, educational and scientific mentorship/preceptorship to the participants of the proposed program.
This FOA is focused on enhancing the pool of individuals from of underrepresented backgrounds in the biomedical research workforce, and ultimately, within the Society. The activities from this program are limited to the underrepresented groups.
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement is primarily to(1) enhance the pool of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in the biomedical research workforce within the scientific mission areas of NIDDK. By virtue of their participation in the program, these individuals will be available to serve in the Professional Society's committees and leadership positions. Therefore, applications must describe the intended participants, and the eligibility and/or specific educational background characteristics that are essential for participation in the proposed research education program.
Participants in the proposed Society program may include fellows, postdoctorates and/or early and mid-career faculty from nationally underrepresented backgrounds.
Unless strongly justified on the basis of exceptional relevance to NIH, research education programs should be used primarily for the education of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
Buttons to access the online ASSIST system or to download application forms are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, including Supplemental Grant Application Instructions except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions will not be reviewed.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions – Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
John Connaughton, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
All page limitations described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
Instructions for Application Submission
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.
Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with the following additional modifications:
Facilities & Other Resources. Describe the educational environment, including the facilities, laboratories, participating departments, computer services, and any other resources to be used in the development and implementation of the proposed program. List all thematically related sources of support for research training and education following the format for Current and Pending Support. Since some of the program may be enacted at the Society’s national meeting, provide a brief overview of the usual format for the meeting and the usual location, i.e. convention center, hotel, or other area.
Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with the following additional modifications:
Follow all instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
The Research Strategy section must be used to upload the Research Education Program Plan, which must include the following components described below:
Research Education Program Plan
Proposed Research Education Program. While the proposed research education program may complement ongoing research training and education occurring at the applicant institution, the proposed educational experiences must be distinct from those research training and research education programs currently receiving federal support. When research training programs are on-going in the same department, the applicant organization should clearly distinguish between the activities in the proposed research education program and the research training supported by the training program.
Program Director/Principal Investigator. Describe arrangements for administration of the program. Provide evidence that the Program Director/Principal Investigator is actively engaged in research and/or teaching in an area related to the mission of NIH, and can organize, administer, monitor, and evaluate the research education program. For programs proposing multiple PDs/PIs, describe the complementary and integrated expertise of the PDs/PIs; their leadership approach, and governance appropriate for the planned project.
The application should also describe the organizational structure of the Professional Society, show how the PD(s)/PI(s) will interface with it and its leadership, and describe how the proposed structure will allow the PD(s)/PI(s) to implement the program activities.
Program Faculty. Researchers from diverse backgrounds, including racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and women are encouraged to participate as program faculty. Faculty should have research expertise and experience relevant to the proposed program and demonstrate a history of, or the potential for, their intended roles.
Program Participants. Applications must describe the intended participants, and the eligibility criteria and/or specific educational background characteristics that are essential for participation in the proposed research education program. Identify the career levels for which the proposed program is planned.
Applications must provide details about the pool of expected participants, their qualifications, recruitment strategies and sources of applicant pool, etc.
Clearly indicate the career level of participants being encouraged to participate in the program. The NIDDK expects that the Professional Society will justify how the identified career level(s) of the program participants will increase diversity on a national.
Clearly indicate the career level of participants being encouraged to participate in the program. The NIDDK expects that the Professional Society will justify how the identified career level(s) of the program participants will enhance diversity on a national basis.
Describe the criteria and the process for the selection of the program-supported participants, as well as the academic position of the members of the selection committee. Please clearly state whether or not a separate Selection Committee will be convened, or provide a selection protocol for participants in the proposed program. If a Recruitment and/or Selection Committee is employed, please provide a charter for the committee, including but not limited to the following information: purpose and goals; priorities; meetings; membership/selection/replacement of committee members; objective review of applications for participation; inclusion/exclusion requirements for participants; and voting/scoring processes.
Institutional Environment and Commitment. Describe the Institutional Society's environment, reiterating the availability of facilities and educational resources (described separately under “Facilities & Other Resources”), that can contribute to the planned Research Education Program. Evidence of Institutional Society's commitment to the research educational program is required. A letter of Institutional Society's commitment must be attached as part of Letters of Support (see below). Appropriate commitment should include the provision of adequate staff, facilities, and educational resources that can contribute to the planned research education program.
Additionally, please provide information regarding the Professional Society's or Organization’s commitment to diversity. Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Top leadership commitment – a vision of diversity demonstrated and communicated throughout the Professional Society by top-level management/leaders.
2. Diversity as a part of the Society’s Strategic Plan – a commitment (i.e., a decision that has long-term impacts and is difficult to reverse) to the participation of individuals from nationally underrepresented backgrounds in the Professional Society, as manifested by diversity of the membership and leadership; diversity awareness and training within the Professional Society’s membership and leadership; development programs to strengthen the retention and engagement of diverse membership of the Society; affiliations with affinity networks and interest forums in diversity-related issues; diversity achievement awards and recognition; and community commitments to promote diversity;
3. Metrics for the current measurement of diversity within the Professional Society;
4. Metrics for the future measurement of diversity programs/efforts by the Professional Society;
5. Mechanisms for accountability of the leadership of the Society for diversity efforts.
(b) Educational opportunities
1. Existing programs within the Professional Society regarding nationally underrepresented groups in the biomedical research workforce and within the Professional Society (i.e., efforts to educate membership about the value of diversity);
2. Existing travel grants to attend national meetings of the Professional Society or Organization 3. Career development courses at national meetings of the Professional Society or Organization 4. Affiliations/joint ventures with other Societies or institutions to promote diversity in the health-sciences.
(c) Mentorship programs and activities
1. Definition of mentorship within the Professional Society;
2. Identification and recruitment of members of the Society from nationally underrepresented backgrounds to serve as mentors;
3. Qualitative and quantitative measures of mentorship skills of the membership/workforce of the Professional Society;
4. Retention of qualified and successful mentors within the Professional Society to continue their efforts.
1. Funding opportunities to support members from underrepresented backgrounds within the Professional Society or Organization in their career development
2. Support for programs in underrepresented comminities.
Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity: Fostering diversity in the scientific research workforce is a key component of the NIH strategy to identify, develop, support and maintain the quality of our scientific human capital (NOT-OD-15-053). Every facet of the United States scientific research enterprise—from basic laboratory research to clinical and translational research to policy formation–requires superior intellect, creativity and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. NIH’s ability to help ensure that the nation remains a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation is dependent upon a pool of highly talented scientists from diverse backgrounds who will help to further NIH's mission.
Research shows that diverse teams working together
and capitalizing on innovative ideas and distinct perspectives outperform
homogenous teams. Scientists and trainees from diverse backgrounds and life
experiences bring different perspectives, creativity, and individual enterprise
to address complex scientific problems. There are many benefits that flow from
a diverse NIH-supported scientific workforce, including: fostering scientific
innovation, enhancing global competitiveness, contributing to robust learning
environments, improving the quality of the researchers, advancing the
likelihood that underserved or health disparity populations participate in, and
benefit from health research, and enhancing public trust.
In spite of tremendous advancements in scientific research, information, educational and research opportunities are not equally available to all. NIH encourages institutions to diversify their student and faculty populations to enhance the participation of individuals from groups identified as underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral and social sciences, such as:
A. Individuals from racial and ethnic groups that have been shown by the National Science Foundation to be underrepresented in health-related sciences on a national basis (see data at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showpub.cfm?TopID=2&SubID=27) and the report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering). The following racial and ethnic groups have been shown to be underrepresented in biomedical research: Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.
B. Individuals with disabilities, who are defined as those with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, as described in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. See NSF data at, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/tab7-5_updated_2014_10.pdf.
C. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, defined as:
1. Individuals who come from a family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds. These thresholds are based on family size, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census; adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index; and adjusted by the Secretary for use in all health professions programs. The Secretary periodically publishes these income levels at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml.
2. Individuals who come from an educational environment such as that found in certain rural or inner-city environments that has demonstrably and directly inhibited the individual from obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to develop and participate in a research career.
The disadvantaged background category (C1 and C2) is applicable to programs focused on high school and undergraduate candidates.
Since this announcement focuses on participants above the undergraduate level, the disadvantaged category is not applicable.
New applications must include a description of plans to enhance recruitment, including the strategies that will be used to enhance the recruitment of trainees from underrepresented backgrounds and may wish to include data in support of past accomplishments.
Renewal applications must include a detailed account of experiences in recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups during the previous funding period, including successful and unsuccessful recruitment strategies. Information should be included on how the proposed plan reflects the program’s past experiences in recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups.
For those individuals who participated in the
research education program, the report should include information about the
duration of education and aggregate information on the number of individuals
who finished the program in good standing. Additional information on the
required Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity is available at Frequently Asked
Questions: Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity (Diversity
Applications lacking a diversity recruitment plan will not be reviewed.
Accordingly, the NIH continues to encourage Professional Societies to diversify their student and faculty populations and thus to increase the participation of individuals currently underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences such as: individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; individuals with disabilities; and individuals from socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds that have inhibited their ability to pursue a career in health-related research. Professional Societies are encouraged to identify candidates who will increase diversity on a national basis.
for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research. All
applications must include a plan to fulfill NIH requirements for instruction in
the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). The plan must address the five,
required instructional components outlined in the NIH policy: 1) Format - the required
format of instruction, i.e., face-to-face lectures, coursework, and/or
real-time discussion groups (a plan with only on-line instruction is not
acceptable); 2) Subject
Matter - the breadth of subject matter, e.g., conflict of interest,
authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety,
research misconduct, research ethics; 3) Faculty
Participation - the role of the program faculty in the instruction;
4) Duration of Instruction - the number of contact hours of instruction, taking into consideration the
duration of the program; and 5) Frequency
of Instruction –instruction must occur during each career stage and
at least once every four years. See also NOT-OD-10-019.
The plan should be appropriate and reasonable for the nature and duration of the
proposed program. Renewal (Type 2) applications must, in addition, describe any
changes in formal instruction over the past project period and plans to address
any weaknesses in the current instruction plan. All participating faculty who
served as course directors, speakers, lecturers, and/or discussion leaders
during the past project period must be named in the application.
Applications lacking a plan for instruction in responsible conduct of research will not be reviewed.
Evaluation Plan. Applications must include a plan for evaluating the activities supported by the award. The application must specify baseline metrics (e.g., numbers, educational levels, and demographic characteristics of participants), as well as measures to gauge the short or long-term success of the research education award in achieving its objectives. Wherever appropriate, applicants are encouraged to obtain feedback from participants to help identify weaknesses and to provide suggestions for improvements as well as describe how changes to the program design to reflect the feedback from participants will occur.
While the NIDDK recognizes the importance of a needs assessment evaluation program in order to develop the appropriate goals of the R25 program, the research strategy should specifically address outcome evaluations (i.e., is the program meeting its short-, intermediate- and long-term goals) and process evaluations (i.e., are the program operations being conducted as planned, and how may they be improved).
The NIDDK believes that tracking participants is critical to any outcome evaluation, and recommends the development of mechanisms to track the activities and career status of program participants annually during the project period. The specific metrics of success in increasing the participation of individuals currently underrepresented is at the discretion of the Professional Societies. As a guide, the NIDDK recommends that Professional Societies review the National Science Foundation’s report “Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Broadening Participation Projects” available at http://www.nsf.gov/od/broadeningparticipation/framework-evaluating-impacts-broadening-participation-projects_1101.pdf. The metrics may include quantitative measures of diversity such as disaggregated baseline measures of trainee, faculty, and society member engagement; qualitative measures of tracking and assessing mentoring, matriculation to graduate programs in relevant fields; and transition to the scientific workforce.
In addition to the outcome evaluations, the NIDDK also requires that the Professional Society develop process evaluations (i.e., formative evaluations) to provide information for program improvement. The intent of the process evaluations is to assess the ongoing activities of the program, as well as to provide monitoring and improvement in the program. Metrics developed for the process evaluation should provide information for the PD(s)/PI(s) and program staff to determine what the impact of the program is on the program participants and mentors at various stages of the program. Ideally, the NIDDK believes that the process evaluations should allow for the determination of whether the program is being implemented as planned, whether the outcomes of interest are being impacted (i.e., effectiveness), and how the program may be improved in response to the outcome measurements.
Dissemination Plan. A specific plan must be provided to disseminate nationally any findings resulting from or materials developed under the auspices of the research education program, e.g., sharing course curricula and related materials via web postings, presentations at scientific meetings, workshops.
Letters of Support: A letter of institutional commitment must be attached as part of Letters of Support .
Resource Sharing Plans
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following Guide modification:
When relevant, applications are expected to include a software dissemination plan if support for development, maintenance, or enhancement of software is requested in the application. There is no prescribed single license for software produced. However, the software dissemination plan should address, as appropriate, the following goals:
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide .
Blank evaluation forms/ instruments must be submitted as a single document.
When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
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. Add Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.
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
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Guidelines for Applicants Experiencing System Issues. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
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.
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 (SAM). Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
For this particular announcement, note the following: The goal of this R25 program is to enhance the diversity of the biomedical, behavioal and clinical research workforce by providing educational activities that have an outcome of increasing diversity in the NIDDK mission areas research workforce and the participation of individuals from nationally underrepresentd groups with in the Society's committee leadership and Society leadership.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to strongly advance research education by fulfilling the goal of this R25 Education Program, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria, as applicable for the project proposed.
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact.
Does the proposed program address a key audience and an important aspect or important need in research education? Is there convincing evidence in the application that the proposed program will significantly advance the stated goal of the program?
Specific to this FOA: Will the proposed program produce a significant improvement in the diversity of the Professional Society's mission areas, leadership and committee leadership i?
Do the aims/objectives of the program appear appropriate for the goals of this R25 program and are they achievable? If the aims of the application are achieved, does the proposed program have the potential to retain diverse individuals and train the diversite investigators?
Is the PD/PI capable of providing both administrative and scientific leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed program? Is there evidence that an appropriate level of effort will be devoted by the program leadership to ensure the program's intended goal is accomplished? If applicable, is there evidence that the participating faculty have experience in mentoring students and teaching science? If applicable, are the faculty good role models for the participants by nature of their scientific accomplishments? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Specific to this FOA: Are the mentors and Society members involved in the proposed program well-qualified for their roles in the program? Is the PD(s)/PI(s) well suited to develop and supervise this program? Is there evidence that an appropriate level of effort will be devoted by the PD(s)/PI(s) and the Professional Society's leadership to ensure the success of the program? Is the PD(s)/PI(s) experienced in mentoring and training students, fellows or early faculty?
Taking into consideration the nature of the proposed research education program, does the applicant make a strong case for this program effectively reaching an audience in need of the program’s offerings? Where appropriate, is the proposed program developing or utilizing innovative approaches and latest best practices to improve the knowledge and/or skills of the intended audience?
Specific to this FOA: Is the proposed program new or an appropriate adaptation of an existing program, e.g., are there added, unique components and/or a proposal to determine portability or expansion of an existing program?
Does the proposed program clearly state its goals and objectives, including the educational level of the audience to be reached, the content to be conveyed, and the intended outcome? Is there evidence that the program is based on a sound rationale, as well as sound educational concepts and principles? Is the plan for evaluation sound and likely to provide information on the effectiveness of the program? If the proposed program will recruit participants, are the planned recruitment, retention, and follow-up (if applicable) activities adequate to ensure a highly qualified participant pool?
Specific to this FOA: Applicants were asked to address and provide details for the following application elements: Proposed Research Education Program
If the goals of these elements are achieved, will the program increase the number of diverse scientists within the leadership of the applying Professional Society?
Is there an adequate pool of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in the Professional Society or in the academic pipeline from which to recruit participants? Are there plans to expand the pool of potential participants in a meaningful and appropriate manner? Is the target applicant pool appropriate to the plans for the program? Are the oversight, administration, and committee structure appropriate for the program?
For applications designating multiple PD(s)/PI(s), is the Leadership Plan approach, including the designated roles and responsibilities, governance and organizational structure consistent with and justified by the aims of the project/program and the expertise of each of the PD(s)/PI(s)?
Will the scientific and educational environment of the proposed program contribute to its intended goals? Is there a plan to take advantage of this environment to enhance the educational value of the program? Is there tangible evidence of institutional commitment? Is there evidence that the faculty have sufficient institutional support to create a sound educational environment for the participants? Where appropriate, is there evidence of collaboration and buy-in among participating programs, departments, and institutions?
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.
Are the evaluation plan and timeline adequate for assessing the effectiveness (process and outcome) of the program in achieving its goals and objectives? Is the evaluation plan based on appropriate literature and methodology? Does the plan adequately describe how outcomes will be determined and evaluated? Does the proposed evaluator have the appropriate background and credentials? Is the summative evaluation of outcomes proposed by the Professional Society appropriate to demonstrate success in increasing the numbers of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in the biomedical, behavioral, clinical and social sciences relevant to the Professional Society and the mission relevant areas of the NIDDK (diabetes and other endocrine and metabolic diseases; digestive diseases, nutritional disorders, and obesity; and kidney, urologic, and hematologic diseases) ? Has the Professional Society proposed appropriate formative (process) evaluations, and proposed a mechanism for the application of these metrics to improve the overall effectiveness of the proposed program?
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: (1) risk to
subjects, (2) adequacy of protection against risks, (3) potential benefits to
the subjects and others, (4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and (5)
data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: (1) the justification for the exemption, (2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and (3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.
When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of children to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period, and the success of the program in attracting and retaining individuals from diverse populations, including populations underrepresented in biomedical, behavioral and clinical research on a national basis.
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.
Peer reviewers will separately evaluate the recruitment plan to enhance diversity after the overall score has been determined. Reviewers will examine the strategies to be used in the recruitment of individuals from underrepresented groups. The review panel’s evaluation will be included in the summary statement.
Taking into account the specific characteristics of the proposed research education program, the level of participant experience, the reviewers will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed RCR training in relation to the following five required components: 1) Format - the required format of instruction, i.e., face-to-face lectures, coursework, and/or real-time discussion groups (a plan with only on-line instruction is not acceptable); 2) Subject Matter - the breadth of subject matter, e.g., conflict of interest, authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety, research misconduct, research ethics; 3) Faculty Participation - the role of the program faculty in the instruction; 4) Duration of Instruction - the number of contact hours of instruction, taking into consideration the duration of the program; and 5) Frequency of Instruction –instruction must occur during each career stage and at least once every four years. See also: NOT-OD-10-019. The review panel’s evaluation will be included in the summary statement. Plans will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable, and the summary statement will provide the consensus of the review committee.
Generally not applicable. Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific Review Officer.
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. If support for development, maintenance, or enhancement of software is requested in the application, the reviewers will comment on the proposed software dissemination plan.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), 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:
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.
Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the
PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique)
via the eRA
Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council
review, and earliest start date.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH
Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person’s race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.
For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA. HHS provides general guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/laws/revisedlep.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/about/rgn-hqaddresses.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.
In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.” This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually. Continuation support will not be provided until the required forms are submitted and accepted. Programs that involve participants should report on education in the responsible conduct of research and complete a Training Diversity Report, in accordance with the RPPR Instruction Guide.
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.
Failure by the grantee institution to submit required forms in a timely, complete, and accurate manner may result in an expenditure disallowance or a delay in any continuation funding for the award.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 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.
A final RPPR and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
In carrying out its stewardship of human resource-related programs, the NIH or its Institutes and Centers will periodically evaluate their R25 research education programs, employing the measures identified below. In assessing the effectiveness of its research education investments, NIH may request information from databases, PD/PIs, and from participants themselves. Where necessary, PD/PIs and participants may be contacted after the completion of a research education experience for periodic updates on participants’ subsequent educational or employment history and professional activities.
Upon the completion of a program evaluation, NIH and its ICs will determine whether to (a) continue a program as currently configured, (b) continue a program with modifications, or (c) discontinue a program.
In evaluating this research education program NIDDK expects to use the following evaluation measures:
For Courses for Skills Development:
For Research Experience and Mentoring Programs Involving the Following Groups:
Postdoctorates and Early Career Investigators:
Subsequent participation in research
Subsequent employment in a research or research-related field
Subsequent authorship of scientific publications in a STEM field
Subsequent independent research grant support from NIH or another source.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons
registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system
problems that threaten submission by the due date, post submission issues)
Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Salina P. Waddy, M.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
John Connaughton, Ph.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
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.