National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
R35 Outstanding Investigator Award
- July 26, 2024 - This RFA has been reissued as RFA-ES-24-004.
The NIEHS Revolutionizing Innovative, Visionary Environmental health Research (RIVER) program is intended to provide support for outstanding investigators in the Environmental Health Sciences, giving them intellectual and administrative freedom, as well as sustained support to pursue their research in novel directions in order to achieve greater impacts. The program seeks to identify individuals with a potential for continued innovative and impactful research and combine their existing investigator-initiated research into a single award to support the majority of their independent environmental health sciences research program.
30 days prior to the application due date
| Application Due Dates | Review and Award Cycles | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New | Renewal / Resubmission / Revision (as allowed) | AIDS | Scientific Merit Review | Advisory Council Review | Earliest Start Date |
| June 09, 2022 | June 09, 2022 | Not Applicable | November 2022 | January 2023 | April 2023 |
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.
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
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:
The RIVER program is intended to invest in people rather than projects; rewarding individuals from the NIEHS recipient community who demonstrate a broad vision and potential for continuing their impactful environmental health research and who are most likely to benefit from a program emphasizing flexibility and sustained support.
Overview:
RIVER is intended for investigators who demonstrate the potential to conduct outstanding, innovative, and transformative research and articulate a clear and compelling vision for revolutionary research to advance the environmental health sciences. For this reason, eligibility is limited. Please refer to Section III. Eligibility Information for specific details.
It is expected that RIVER will improve long-term research outcomes and facilitate ambitious, creative research by providing a flexible and stable funding environment within a broad scientific domain with broadly stated 'goals' rather than specific aims and by stating the kinds of techniques that might be used to address them rather than providing specific experimental details. Key features and benefits of the program fall into two large categories: (1) freedom from traditional focused specific aims and a structured research plan which will enable investigators to pursue new directions in their research as they arise throughout the funding period, and (2) the ability to devote increased effort to research, mentoring, and scientific service due to reduced time spent writing and managing multiple grant applications and awards.
RIVER is intended to support the majority of an individual's independent research program; as such, the R35 award will require a relinquishment and consolidation of projects funded by NIEHS at the time the R35 is issued and dedication of at least 6 person months (i.e., the equivalent of 50% effort on a full-year appointment, 66.67% on a 9-month appointment, or 100% on a 6-month appointment) of the PD/PI's total effort to the project throughout the R35 award. NIEHS scientific program and grants management staff will review this information in relation to Other Support prior to award to ensure sufficient level of effort is dedicated to the project and to ensure no commitment overlap. Commitment overlap occurs when an individual's dedicated time exceeds 100% (i.e., 12 person months), whether salary is requested in the application.
Some types of grant awards will be excluded from consolidation, including:
- NIEHS-funded:
- Multi-PD/PI research projects;
- Clinical/Interventional Trials;
- Grants supporting research resources;
- Program project or center grants;
- Contracts;
- Cooperative agreements;
- Grants supporting training/career development (Institutional or individual);
- SBIR/STTR grants;
- Conference grants;
- Research that is not funded by the NIEHS, including projects that are administered by NIEHS but are funded by other ICs or Agencies.
The NIEHS will not consider funding future individual or multiple PD/PI research grant applications from current R35 awardees until the final year of their award; however, the RIVER does not eliminate the eligibility of the PD/PI for the following separate sources of NIEHS funding:
- Grants supporting research resources;
- Program project or center grants;
- Contracts;
- Cooperative agreements;
- Grants supporting training/career development (Institutional or individual);
- SBIR/STTR grants;
- Conference grants;
- R35-eligible supplements (R35 awardees should check R35 eligibility on funding opportunities for supplements).
It is anticipated that the RIVER program will be evaluated on a continuing basis by the NIEHS, to assess the impact of the program on the portfolio of the NIEHS, and on the progression of the awardees' careers. Metrics to be used include, but are not limited to: publications, including numbers, impact factors, citations of publications; academic promotion of the PD/PIs; invited talks at national/international symposia; students and postdoctoral fellows trained in the PD/PI's laboratory; honors and awards received by the PD/PI; committee service of the PD/PI; and subsequent grant support awarded. The Program Analysis Branch within the Division of Extramural Research and Training will determine program evaluation. PD/PIs who have received a RIVER grant will be requested to provide information for the evaluation during the period of the award.
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.
Resubmission
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.
Optional: Accepting applications that either propose or do not propose clinical trial(s).
Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?
NIEHS intends to commit $4M in FY 2023 to fund 4-5 awards.
Application budgets are limited to $600,000 Direct Costs per year. However, researchers with currently funded projects that will be consolidated into the R35 award and exceed $600,000 Direct Costs may request direct costs equal to the sum of the Direct Costs of all consolidated projects plus 10%, up to a total of $750,000 Direct Costs. Potential applicants are encouraged to discuss current awards which may be consolidated with their NIEHS Program Officer or the Scientific/Research Contact(s) listed on this FOA.
The maximum project period is 8 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.
1. Eligible Applicants
Higher Education Institutions
- Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
- Private Institutions of Higher Education
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
- Hispanic-serving Institutions
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
- Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
- Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
- Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
- Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
- Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
For-Profit Organizations
- Small Businesses
- For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)
Local Governments
- State Governments
- County Governments
- City or Township Governments
- Special District Governments
- Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
- Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)
Federal Government
- Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government
- U.S. Territory or Possession
Other
- Independent School Districts
- Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
- Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
- Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
- Regional Organizations
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) 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 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.
- System for Award Management (SAM) – Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
- NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code – Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
- Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)- A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. SAM registrations prior to fall 2021 were updated to include a UEI. For applications due on or after January 25, 2022, the UEI must be provided on the application forms (e.g., FORMS-G); the same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
- Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) – Organization registrations prior to April 2022 require applicants to obtain a DUNS prior to registering in SAM. By April 2022, the federal government will stop using the DUNS number as an entity identifier and will transition to the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) issued by SAM. Prior to April 2022, after obtaining a DUNS number, applicants can begin both SAM and eRA Commons registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
- eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier (DUNS prior to April 2022; UEI after April 2022) is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their full SAM and Grants.gov registrations; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
- Grants.gov – Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with 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.
Only single PD/PI applications are allowed. Applications with multiple PD(s)/PI(s) will not be accepted. Applications that do not meet eligibility requirements will be deemed non-responsive and will not be reviewed.
Eligibility is determined by NIEHS after the receipt of applications on the intended application due date. Eligibility to apply to this FOA is limited to those individual PD/PIs who meet one of the following criteria:
- Is currently PD/PI on at least one single-PD/PI (i.e., not Multi-PD/PI) NIEHS-supported R01-equivalent (defined here as R01, DP1, DP2, DP5, or U01) award that has been supported by NIEHS for 4 years (i.e. active at the time of application and in Fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021 including up to 1 year of no-cost extension within this period), OR
- Was PD/PI on at least one single-PD/PI (i.e., not Multi-PD/PI) NIEHS-supported R01-equivalent (defined here as R01, DP1, DP2, DP5, or U01) that was active in FY2021 and supported by NIEHS for 4 years during Fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 2020 including up to 1 year of no-cost extension within this period.
2. Cost Sharing
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
1. Requesting an Application Package
The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide 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 may be delayed or not accepted for review.Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
- Descriptive title of proposed activity
- Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
- Names of other key personnel
- Participating institution(s)
- Number and title of this funding opportunity
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Leroy Worth Jr., PhD
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Telephone: 984-287-3340
Fax: 301-480-3722
Email: [email protected]
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
R&R Budget
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Applicants are required to devote at least 6 person months (i.e., the equivalent of 50% effort on a full-year appointment, 66.67% on a 9-month appointment, or 100% on a 6-month appointment) of their effort throughout the R35 award. This requirement pertains to total support and includes all financial resources, whether Federal, non-Federal, commercial or institutional, available in direct support of an individual's research endeavors, including but not limited to research grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and/or institutional awards. Training awards, prizes or gifts are not included.
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:
Specific Aims: Do not use. Specific Aims are not required and must not be submitted.
Research Strategy: The Research Strategy is expected to evolve over the duration of a RIVER award; therefore, a detailed experimental plan is not expected and should not be included. The Research Strategy should focus on general scientific themes and approaches to be taken to address broad but critical questions within the area of study/and or related to the goals of your research program.
The Research Strategy should contain the following sections:
- Background:
- Provide a brief background of the area(s) of environmental health science research proposed and key scientific questions or challenges which will be addressed.
- Describe the potential for the identified area(s) of research to be groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting, or transformative and the future impact on the environmental health sciences.
- Discuss the potential ways this work may impact human health and describe how the R35 project might evolve through different phases of the environmental health translational research process (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp3657). Depending on the field of study, provide details on how the research will enable novel therapeutic targets, develop novel strategies and approaches to protect human health, inform policy, lead to changes in clinical protocols, or enable population-wide intervention/prevention efforts.
- Evidence of transformative impact:
- In the context of the proposed area which is the focus of your R35 application, describe how you will leverage your contributions of novel ideas, key scientific accomplishments, experience, high impact productivity, scientific service, or cross disciplinary collaborations in the proposed future research program. This discussion should highlight the impact of research funded by NIEHS, including groundbreaking findings from previous support. If the planned research diverges significantly from past work and the current NIEHS funded projects which will be consolidated into the R35, explain the rationale for the changes and describe your ability to undertake this new direction.
- Expanding beyond information covered in the Biosketch, discuss how you will continue to maintain a trajectory of creative, groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting, or transformative research and to conduct rigorous, reproducible, and transparent research in your proposed research program.
- Overview of the future research program:
- Describe, through broadly defined goals, the research vision for your research program for the requested support period. Discuss the reasons and likelihood that the proposed research program will continue to be important and generate significant/timely new discoveries.
- Discuss, in general terms, strategies and potential outcomes including any key innovative or unique methods which will be applied in your research program. Experimental details and extensive preliminary data are not required but information may be included if it is critical in assessing overall feasibility of the initial research approach. This includes justification for work utilizing either human subjects or vertebrate animals where projections based on previous (e.g., R01) research efforts are appropriate to describe the launch point for initial investigations in the R35. Include a discussion of rigor and reproducibility and the authentication of biological and chemical resources.
- Describe how the research program could evolve as the work is being performed and how the risks and challenges will be addressed. This description should set up the temporality of the program. In general, more detail is expected at earlier time points in the research strategy.
- Describe how results from the proposed research will lead to change/progress in your field regarding practice of existing methods, development of novel technologies or therapeutic targets, policy change, or changes in public health practice.
- Suitability of the RIVER Program:
- Explain how sustained funding, level of effort, and a flexible research approach that this mechanism enables is necessary to complete the proposed work and to achieve the realization of your research vision.
- Mentoring, Diversity & Inclusion, and Service:
- Describe your commitment and dedication to mentorship and training in environmental health science research.
- Describe ongoing and planned outreach and mentoring activities, to enhance workforce diversity in your research program NOT-OD-20-031.
- Describe planned activities during the grant period designed to develop or enhance skills of talented scientists from a wide variety of demographic groups, including individuals from underrepresented groups, and any actions planned to promote inclusive and equitable scientific biomedical research environments.
- Describe significant contributions of service to the research community (e.g. study section service) or community partners and stakeholders to ensure equity and to support rapid research translation to improve practice and public health.
Letters of Support (required):
Because of the highly selective nature of the RIVER Program, all applications must include one of each of two types of letters:
- Letter of Recommendation (limit of 1): Applications must include, under Letters of Support, one Letter of Recommendation for the applicant being proposed for the RIVER Award. The Letter of Recommendation should come from a peer of the PD/PI and discuss the outstanding contributions of the applicant to the environmental health sciences and the unique qualities of this individual which make them an ideal candidate for a sustained and flexible research program. In two pages or less, the peer Letter of Recommendation should describe:
- A statement of the PD/PI's demonstrated outstanding contributions to the environmental health sciences including novel ideas, key scientific accomplishments, experience, high impact productivity, scientific service, or evidence of cross disciplinary collaborations, which are commensurate with their career stage and the potential for the PD/PI's research productivity and influence to continue at the same high caliber level; and
- A discussion of the unique qualities of the applicant which support the need for a flexible research opportunity.
- Letter of Support (limit of 1): In addition, RIVER applications require a separate Letter of Support from the applicant's institution which should be signed by the person at the institution who has the responsibility to evaluate and endorse the outstanding potential contributions of the applicant to the environmental health sciences (e.g.: Department Chair, Dean, etc.) and with the authority to commit the institution to all the requirements of the application and award. The institutional Letter of Support should indicate:
- The PD/PI's commitment of at least 6 person months (i.e., the equivalent of 50% effort on a full-year appointment, 66.67% on a 9-month appointment, or 100% on a 6-month appointment of their effort throughout the R35 award (see Sections I and III.1 for further explanation);
- A statement identifying the NIEHS R01-equivalent (defined here as R01, DP1, DP2, DP5, or U01) award(s) that render the PD/PI eligible for the RIVER;
- A willingness to support the consolidation of other support from the NIEHS into the R35 award (see execptions in Part 2, Section I);
- An agreement not to submit additional individual or multiple PD/PI research grant applications until the final year of their award listing this individual as PD/PI to the NIEHS until the final year of the R35 award (see exceptions in Part 2, Section I); and
- A clear and continuing substantial institutional commitment to the PD/PI beyond the normal level extended by the Institution to faculty (e.g., 20% salary support, access to resources, protected time, space, etc.) for the duration of the award.
Letters of Commitment (optional):
Applicants may also submit Letters of Commitment as appropriate to demonstrate the commitment of institutions and collaborators and to identify specific contributions or resources that will be provided to support the program (e.g., staff time, facility space, supplies, equipment, etc.). These additional letters are not required and there is no limit on the number submitted; however, applicants should only submit those that are truly relevant to the research program. Letters of Commitment should not be used to circumvent the limitations on the required letters and should not contain endorsements of the applicant’s reputation, expertise, or the proposed research program. Letters of Commitment should be clearly labeled as such to distinguish them from both the Letter of Recommendation and Letter of Support.
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.
All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, must address a Data Sharing Plan. The Data Sharing Plan should describe the approach for how the scientific data generated from the proposed project and any accompanying metadata will be managed, preserved, and shared, taking into account any potential restrictions or limitations. The plan should not exceed two pages in length. The plan should address each of the following elements:
- Description of the scientific data to be managed, preserved, and shared over the life of the proposed project;
- Description of the tools, software, and/or code needed to access and/or interpret the data;
- Description of standards to be applied to the scientific data and associated metadata;
- Plans and timelines for data preservation and access;
- Description of factors affecting access, distribution, or reuse of scientific data; and
- Plans for oversight of data management and sharing.
Additional information on each of the elements to be addressed in the Data Sharing Plan can be found in NOT-OD-21-014. NIH strongly encourages the use of established repositories to the extent possible for preserving and sharing scientific data.
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.
Delayed Onset Study
Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
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 fieldof the Senior/Key Person Profile form. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier (DUNS number or UEI as required) provided 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 the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify the NIEHS Referral Office by email at [email protected] when the application has been submitted. Please include the FOA number and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.
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.
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
For this particular announcement, note the following:
The research strategy is expected to evolve over the eight-year award period; therefore, applicants should describe general scientific themes and approaches to be taken to address broad but critical questions within the area of study and/or related to the goals of the applicant's research program. Experimental details and extensive preliminary data should not be included unless they are necessary to assess the feasibility of new avenues of research. Reviewers should evaluate whether the scope of research proposed is sufficiently comprehensive, forward-thinking, and innovative for the R35 mechanism.
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials:
A proposed Clinical Trial application may include study design, methods, and intervention that are not by themselves innovative but address important questions or unmet needs. Additionally, the results of the clinical trial may indicate that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted or lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the program 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 program proposed).
Scored Review Criteria
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Significance
Does the program 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 program rigorous? If the aims of the program 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 to this RFA:
Does the application address a critical challenge in the environmental health sciences and provide convincing justification for a sustained and flexible research program to overcome it?
How will achievement of the proposed, broadly stated goals lead to a transformation on a specific domain within the environmental health sciences or provide future direction for the environmental health sciences research field as a whole?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors or health care policy? For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?
Investigator(s)
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If the PD/PI is in the early stages of an independent career, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)?
Specific to this RFA: How has the PD/PI demonstrated a consistent record of productivity and significant scientific impact in the proposed field of study commensurate with the applicant's career stage that can be leveraged to continue at the same high caliber level? What evidence has the PD/PI provided that demonstrates creativity, innovation, and adaptability in their research career as relevant for their specific field that indicates that this individual is likely to thrive in a research program which is not bound by specific aims and methodological details? Has the PD/PI demonstrated that they are the intellectual driver of the proposed research program? What evidence has the PD/PI provided that demonstrates a record of professional service to the research community and successful mentoring that could be expanded upon due to reduced time spent managing multiple grant applications and awards? What evidence does the PD/PI provide that indicates a continued commitment to embracing rigor and reproducibility and transparency in science including data sharing and collaboration as well as translation of science across scales of research and to diverse communities?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
With regard to the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?
Innovation
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Specific to this RFA: How likely is it that the proposed program will result in new opportunities, explore new areas of scientific inquiry, and/or develop new systems or broadly applicable strategies? How has the application capitalized on exploration of research in creative directions within a broadly defined theme?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?
Approach
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the program? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed program? 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 program 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?
If the program 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?
Specific to this RFA: Has the applicant successfully integrated the goals of their existing research activities into a scientifically valid and clear approach relevant to human health? Is there a logical plan for sustained progress across the research program for the eight-year award period? Is there evidence that the research program will evolve appropriately as the work is performed? Is there an appropriate plan to use the stability and flexibility of the R35 mechanism to achieve the program goals and are the potential risks and challenges appropriately addressed? Does the application indicate appropriate commitment of time and effort for the proposed work? For epidemiology studies, is the research grounded in public health significance, where results can lead to meaningful applications in public health and clinical practice settings, design of future population-level studies, or inform policy makers and other key stakeholders in the relevant research area?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable
Study Design
Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?
Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the need for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?
Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?
Data Management and Statistical Analysis
Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?
Environment
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the program proposed? Will the program benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Specific to this RFA: How has the applicant's institution demonstrated appropriate support for fostering a sustained and flexible research program in the Environmental Health Sciences, assuring that the investigator will be able to dedicate appropriate resources to the RIVER program? Does the application indicate a level of institutional commitment of support for the PD/PI beyond the normal level extended by the Institution to faculty?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?
Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?
If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?
If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?
Additional Review Criteria
As applicable for the program 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.
Study Timeline
Specific to applications involving clinical trials
Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?
Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan
When the proposed program involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Biohazards
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Resubmissions
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
Renewals
Not Applicable
Revisions
Not Applicable
As applicable for the program proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Not Applicable.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).
Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources:
For programs involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the NIEHS, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.
Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
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 Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
- Scientific and technical merit of the proposed program as determined by scientific peer review.
- Availability of funds.
- Relevance of the proposed program to program priorities.
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
1. Award Notices
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient's business official.
Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.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.
Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.
ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain “applicable clinical trials” on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov). NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.
Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).
Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities, including of note, but not limited to:
- Federalwide Research Terms and Conditions
- Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
- Acknowledgment of Federal Funding
If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.
Should the applicant organization successfully compete for an award, 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 (including gender identify, sexual orientation, and pregnancy). This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities. 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 https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/nondiscrimination/index.html
HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA.
- Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. For guidance on meeting the legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to programs or activities by limited English proficient individuals see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/fact-sheet-guidance/index.html and https://www.lep.gov.
- For information on an institution’s specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities, including reasonable accommodations and making services accessible to them, see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html.
- HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html. For information about NIH's commitment to supporting a safe and respectful work environment, who to contact with questions or concerns, and what NIH's expectations are for institutions and the individuals supported on NIH-funded awards, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/harassment.htm.
- For guidance on administering programs in compliance with applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religious-freedom/index.html.
Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.
In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 and 2 CFR Part 200.206 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.” This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
Not Applicable
3. Reporting
When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
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. NIH FOAs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 45 CFR Part 75.301 and 2 CFR Part 200.301.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative 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: [email protected] (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-480-7075
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]
Jennifer B. Collins
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Telephone: 984-287-3247
Email: [email protected]
Kimberly Gray, PhD
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Telephone: 984-287-3262
Email: [email protected]
Frederick L. Tyson, PhD
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Telephone: 984-287-3334
Email: [email protected]
Leroy Worth Jr., PhD
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Telephone: 984-287-3340
Email: [email protected]
Camilo Asuncion
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Telephone: 984-287-4521
Email: [email protected]
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75.
and Human Services (HHS)
