POPULATION RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
RELEASE DATE: July 1, 2002
RFA: HD-02-021
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
(http://www.nichd.nih.gov)
LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATE: October 20, 2002
APPLICATION RECEIPT DATE: November 20, 2002
THIS RFA CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
o Purpose of this RFA
o Research Objectives
o Mechanisms of Support
o Funds Available
o Eligible Institutions
o Individuals Eligible to Become Principal Investigators
o Special Requirements
o Where to Send Inquiries
o Letter of Intent
o Submitting an Application
o Peer Review Process
o Review Criteria
o Receipt and Review Schedule
o Award Criteria
o Required Federal Citations
PURPOSE OF THIS RFA
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), through
the Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch (DBSB), Center for Population
Research (CPR), invites applications for infrastructure grants in support of
population research relevant to the DBSB mission. Applicants may request
funds to support infrastructure development and/or research designed to: (1)
enhance the quality and quantity of population research conducted at an
institution, and (2) develop new research capabilities to advance population
research through innovative approaches. A central goal of this program is to
facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation in population
research while providing essential and cost-effective core services in
support of the development, conduct, and translation of population research
based in centers or comparable administrative units.
This announcement invites applications for two types of award: for full-
fledged Research Infrastructure Awards and for Developmental Awards.
Developmental Awards are intended to support the development and demonstrate
the feasibility of programs that have high potential for advancing population
research, but have not yet fully developed the necessary resources and
mechanisms to qualify for a Research Infrastructure Award.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Background
The Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch (DBSB) is one of three
programs in the Center for Population Research of the NICHD. The mission of
the Branch is to foster research on the processes that determine population
size, growth, composition, and distribution, and on the determinants and
consequences of those processes. This mission translates into a research
portfolio that looks intensively at the demographic processes of fertility,
mortality, and migration and at their broad interrelationships with larger
social, economic, and cultural processes. Areas of supported research
include fertility and family planning, sexually transmitted disease, family
and household demography, mortality and health, population movement,
population and environment, and population composition and change. Research
supported by the Branch uses a broad spectrum of scientific approaches in the
clinical, behavioral, and social sciences.
During the years 1972-2000, NICHD provided infrastructure support for
population research through the Center Core Grant (P30) and Specialized
Research Center Grant (P50) mechanisms. In 1999, DBSB undertook a
comprehensive review of this program to determine whether its structure and
guidelines best served the future needs of population research. A report
summarizing the results of this review is available at
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/cpr/dbs/pubs/report.pdf and from the program
contact named under WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES, below. As a result of the
review, DBSB is phasing out the P30 and P50 mechanisms in favor of the R24
and R21 mechanisms.
Objectives and Scope
The primary purposes of the Population Research Infrastructure Program are to
provide resources to support and advance research that will improve
understanding of the antecedents and consequences of population structure and
change, facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration among investigators
conducting population-related research, and promote innovative approaches to
population research questions. An additional goal is to facilitate
interaction among scientists in locations throughout the United States that
contributes to the integration and coordination of population research.
The Infrastructure Grant will retain some of the characteristics of
traditional P30 and P50 grants. It will continue to fund infrastructure to
support a portfolio of population research housed in or coordinated by a
center or other research unit (hereafter, "research unit" or "unit") at an
institution. However, it is designed to move beyond the traditional center
grant mechanism to allow institutions to aggressively pursue scientific
opportunities appearing at the boundaries between traditional population
research and allied fields, and to facilitate partnerships among diverse
scientists and institutions. The Infrastructure Grant will permit a
streamlined format that allows more flexible use of funds to address not only
the core support needs of existing projects, but also the development of new
directions and approaches to population research and the translation and
dissemination of research findings and resources. It asks applicants to
design and propose infrastructure programs that will serve to advance the
interdisciplinary reach, innovation, and impact of their research programs,
in addition to serving the existing needs of researchers. It also allows and
encourages the development of infrastructure that broadly serves the field of
population research.
Institutions that have not held a P30, P50, or R24 grant related to
population research in the 10 years prior to the application date may, at
their option, request to be considered for a R21 Developmental Award. This
award is intended to support the development of research units that have high
potential for advancing population research. The award provides such units
the opportunity to further develop the mechanisms and resources required to
support and facilitate significant new contributions to the field, continue
to build a substantial interdisciplinary portfolio of population research,
and demonstrate their feasibility as full-fledged population research units.
Applicants responding to this RFA must articulate a clear vision for their
research unit and its current and future contributions to population
research. Applicants must identify the central scientific objectives and
signature population-related themes of the unit and these must be relevant to
the DBSB mission. A description of the DBSB mission is available at
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/cpr/dbs/dbs.htm. Illustrative examples of
population research topics that fall within the DBSB mission are listed
below. Applicants are encouraged to consult with program staff listed under
WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES to determine the relevance of other topics to the
DBSB mission.
1. Antecedents and consequences of changes in population size, structure,
and composition, including the relationship of economic development to
population change, population modeling and the projection and/or prediction
of human population change, and the interrelationship between population and
the physical environment.
2. Family and household dynamics, including issues related to
intergenerational relationships.
3. Fertility and family planning, including issues related to union
formation and dissolution, births and birth spacing, family size, gender in
relation to fertility, and social acceptability of measures for the
biological regulation of human fertility.
4. Spatial distribution of human population groups, causes and consequences
of migration, including issues related to international and internal
migration, residential mobility, and interrelationships between population
and the environment.
5. Demographic aspects of health, morbidity, disability, and mortality,
including issues related to the influence of early life on later life
development and outcomes, status of children, the interrelationship between
health and socioeconomic status.
6. Social, demographic, and behavioral studies of sexual behavior, sexually
transmitted diseases, and contraception.
Infrastructure Support – R24 Research Infrastructure Awards
R24 applicants may request support in the following categories: (1) Research
Support Cores, (2) Developmental Infrastructure, (3) Research Projects, and
(4) Public Infrastructure. Applicants are not expected to request support in
all or even most of the categories, rather, they should request types and
levels of support that best suit their needs and objectives. The NICHD
expects that the amount and allocation of infrastructure support that
applicants request will vary substantially.
The first three categories of infrastructure support are intended to advance
the scientific program of the applicant research unit. For these categories,
applicants must justify the types and amounts of support requested in terms
of: (1) the scope, objectives, and current and potential impact of the
applicant"s research program, (2) the potential contribution of requested
infrastructure to advancing the research program, and (3) the cost-
effectiveness of the requested support. Applicants are expected to define
guidelines for determining the eligibility of researchers and research
projects to access resources provided under this program, and guidelines and
procedures for allocating such resources. No restrictions on access (e.g.,
by students, investigators lacking research support, investigators in fields
other than population research) are imposed under this announcement.
However, applicants must demonstrate that their proposed guidelines and
procedures for controlling access to core resources are consistent with the
scientific objectives of their research program and the goals of this RFA.
Definitions of Infrastructure Support Categories:
1. Research Support Cores provide shared resources that support the
applicant"s research program. Examples include:
o Administrative Core, providing for coordination of research, editorial
services, and/or assistance with grant application development and fiscal
management of grants.
o Computing Core, providing equipment and/or services supporting shared
computing needs.
o Information Core, providing support for retrieving information, materials,
and data commonly used in population research.
o Methodology Support Cores, providing support for specific methodologies
employed in population research (e.g., GIS, statistical methods, biomarkers,
survey methodologies).
Research Support cores should be designed to advance the central scientific
objectives and signature population-related themes of the applicant"s
research program while providing essential, cost-effective services to
support on-going research activities. Cores should be designed to facilitate
and promote innovation in the science conducted by program researchers in
addition to responding to researcher needs. Equipment and support services
that are specific to individual research projects or researchers are not
allowable, except in the context of individual research projects that may be
proposed in response to this RFA.
2. Developmental Infrastructure refers to activities that promote the
development of new research capabilities. Examples include:
o Seed grant programs, providing funds for the development of new research
projects. Institutions proposing seed grant programs must develop guidelines
and eligibility requirements appropriate to the goals of this RFA, and
procedures and policies for administration of the program. Issues that may
be addressed include (but need not be limited to): (1) priorities for
allocating funds (e.g., junior researchers, specified areas of research,
interdisciplinary work, etc.), (2) procedures for reviewing applications, (3)
requirements for leveraging funds or preparing research proposals to continue
or expand the research project, (4) size of awards, (5) length of award
periods, (6) number of awards permitted to an individual researcher, (7)
mentoring arrangements, and (8) support for the program from the parent
institution or other funding sources.
o Faculty development, providing for partial salary support or other support
for the recruitment of new faculty in scientific areas critical to the
development of innovative and/or interdisciplinary research directions.
Support for any one individual may not exceed three years in duration.
o Activities that foster the development of new core services. For example,
applicants may propose to hire consultants to assist with the design of GIS
services, or conduct pilot studies to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
alternative modes of core service delivery.
o Workshops, conferences, seminar series, and visiting scholar programs that
lay the groundwork for new substantive work or foster new research
collaborations.
3. Research Projects proposed for R24 support must be of R01 quality, must
directly address and advance the program"s central scientific objectives and
signature population-related themes, and should emphasize innovative,
interdisciplinary, and/or cross-cutting elements. Institutions are
encouraged to consider R01 and other research grant mechanisms for the
support of research projects that do not explicitly meet these criteria.
4. Public Infrastructure activities differ from the first three categories
of infrastructure support in that they are not solely intended to advance the
research program at the applicant institution, but are primarily directed
instead at external audiences. These audiences may include (but are not
limited to) the broad community of population researchers or communities
concerned with public policy or health or social programs.
o Illustrative examples of activities benefiting the broader scientific
community include: supporting and disseminating databases of high relevance
to population research, developing and disseminating multidisciplinary
bibliographic databases, and providing general resources for data sharing.
Applicants must justify public infrastructure activities aimed at the
scientific community by demonstrating: (1) that these activities will
significantly advance the field of population research, (2) that the proposed
activity does not duplicate existing resources or services, and (3) that the
proposed activity is cost-effective. Applicants must present their plans for
sharing their resource(s) or service(s) with the scientific community. They
should also address the time frame during which the resource(s) or service(s)
will be needed, and the short- and long-term plan for supporting them. This
plan should address, as applicable, expectations for NICHD support, support
from the institution and other sources of support, and plans for charging
users and managing program income.
o Illustrative examples of activities benefiting policy or program audiences
include the development of tools for effectively communicating population
research findings to relevant audiences and innovative strategies for
translating basic research findings for application to programs designed to
improve health and well-being. Applicants must present their plans for
ensuring effective dissemination of the resources, tools or services
developed by the activity. They should also address the time frame during
which the resource(s) or service(s) will be needed, and the short- and long-
term plan for supporting them. This plan should address, as applicable,
expectations for NICHD support, support from the institution and other
sources of support, and plans for charging users and managing program income.
Applicants may propose to cooperate with other institutions in undertaking
any of the above-mentioned infrastructure activities. Cooperative activities
may include the development of research partnerships involving scientists in
the applicant"s program and colleagues in other institutions, and/or joint
ventures with other institutions to provide research, developmental, or
public infrastructure services. Proposed research partnerships must be
justified in terms of the scientific advances to be gained through
collaborations across institutions relative to those likely to emerge from
within-institution partnerships. Examples of allowable activities include
travel for project development and coordination and use of research support
core, seed project, and research project funds. Applicants also may propose
cooperative research support, developmental, or public infrastructure
services in which the applicant and a Population Center or similar unit in
another institution participate in joint funding and administration of a
common service or resource. Examples might include a shared library, data
archive or outreach effort. Partners in a cooperative venture need not be
another funded applicant or Center. Applicants must clearly describe the
rights and responsibilities of each proposed partner in the funding,
administration, and use of shared resources.
Infrastructure Support - R21 Developmental Awards
R21 applicants may request support in only two categories: (1) Research
Support Cores and (2) Developmental Infrastructure. Although applicants may
not request support for R01-like research projects, they may request support
for developmental activities, using a seed grant or similar mechanism (see
description under Developmental Infrastructure, above). Specific guidelines
for these categories are provided above under "Infrastructure Support - R24
Research Infrastructure Awards." Applicants must justify the types and
amounts of support requested in terms of: (1) the scope, objectives, and
current and potential impact of the applicant"s research program, (2) the
potential of the requested infrastructure to develop the resources and
mechanisms required to build a substantial interdisciplinary portfolio of
population research and facilitate significant new contributions to the
field, and (3) the cost-effectiveness of the requested support. All other
guidelines pertaining to infrastructure requests for R24 Research
Infrastructure Awards apply also to R21 awards.
MECHANISMS OF SUPPORT
This RFA will use the NIH Resource-related Research Project Grant (R24) award
mechanism for Research Infrastructure Awards and the
Exploratory/Developmental Grant (R21) award mechanism for Developmental
Awards. A table summarizing the differences between the R21 and R24
mechanisms as applied to this RFA is available at:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/RFA/HD-02-021/HD-02-021.htm. As an applicant you
will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the
proposed project. NICHD expects to issue an RFA annually to solicit
applications for this program, applications may be submitted only in response
to an RFA. The anticipated award date is July 1, 2003.
This RFA uses just-in-time concepts. It also uses the modular as well as the
non-modular budgeting formats (see
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm). Specifically, if
you are submitting a Developmental Infrastructure (R21) application, use the
modular format. If you are submitting a Research Infrastructure Award (R24)
application, follow the instructions for non-modular research grant
applications.
FUNDS AVAILABLE
NICHD intends to commit approximately $907,000 in total costs [Direct plus
Facilities and Administrative (F & A) costs] in FY 2003 to fund one to three
new and/or competitive continuation grants in response to this RFA. An
applicant for an R21 Developmental Award may request a project period of up
to three years and a budget for direct costs of up to $150,000 per year. An
applicant for an R24 Research Infrastructure Award should request a project
period of five years and should request support appropriate to the size and
impact of their scientific portfolio and to the goals of their infrastructure
program. Because the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary
from application to application, it is anticipated that the size of each
award will also vary. Although the financial plans of the NICHD provide
support for this program, awards pursuant to this RFA are contingent upon the
availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious
applications.
As a general rule, NICHD expects direct cost budget requests for R24
applications to average approximately $15,000 for each researcher in the
program who can provide evidence of research activity directly relevant to
the DBSB mission in two or more of the following categories: (1) externally
funded research grants or contracts in the past three years, (2) publications
in peer-reviewed journals during the past three years, and (3) papers in
preparation and future plans for research. See ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS, below,
for further information on these categories of research activity. Requests
may vary from the guideline provided above as justified by evidence of
exceptionally high impact or productivity or special features of the proposed
infrastructure program. Applicants may request additional funds beyond those
suggested by the guideline for Public Infrastructure activities (see RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES, above). Applicants are encouraged to discuss budget requests
with program staff listed under WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES, below, prior to
submission.
ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS
You may submit an application if your institution has any of the following
characteristics:
o For-profit or non-profit organizations
o Public or private institutions, such as universities, colleges, hospitals,
and laboratories
o Units of State and local governments
o Eligible agencies of the Federal government
o Domestic or foreign
Applicant institutions must have an established research center or other
administrative unit (referred to as the "research unit" or "unit") that
serves as a focal point for or coordinates population research across the
institution. This unit must have a defined governance structure.
The research conducted at the unit should reflect scientific benefits and
cost-efficiencies resulting from cooperation and interaction among a pool of
scientists with shared interests in population research. Applicants should
have in place (or propose in their applications) effective mechanisms for
fostering the development of an intellectual community that bridges
investigators from different disciplines and different projects and promotes
innovation in population research.
To be eligible to apply, the unit must have at least three researchers who
can present evidence of research activity related to the mission of DBSB in
all three of the following categories: (1) externally funded research grants
or contracts in the past three years, (2) publications in peer-reviewed
journals during the past three years, (3) papers in preparation and future
plans for research. The "past three years" refers to the 36-month period
preceding the application submission date for this RFA. "Externally funded"
means funding is received from sources outside the institution, it may
include funding from NIH, NSF, other federal agencies, state and local
governments, and private foundations. Include only projects on which the
individual has served as Principal Investigator or had substantial
involvement, comparable to that indicated by identification of an
investigator as "key personnel" on an NIH-funded grant.
Note that the criterion used for unit eligibility above (at least three
researchers with evidence of research activity in all three categories)
differs from the criteria used to define guidelines for requested budgets
under FUNDS AVAILABLE and to define page limitations under the Application
Guidelines at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/RFA/HD-02-021/HD-02-021.htm. In each
of the latter two cases, the criterion of an "active researcher" is evidence
of research activity in at least two of the three categories defined above.
If your institution has held a P30, P50, or R24 grant related to population
research in the 10 years prior to the application date, you may not apply for
an R21 Developmental Award. Developmental awards are nonrenewable and
institutions may not simultaneously hold a Developmental Award and a Research
Infrastructure Award.
Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to contact staff listed under
WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES, below, to discuss eligibility prior to submission of
an application.
INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry
out the proposed research is invited to work with their institution 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 programs. The Principal Investigator should be a
scientist or science administrator who can provide effective administrative
and scientific leadership.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Because the Infrastructure Program is expected to enhance the unit"s
competitiveness for NIH funding, the institution and pertinent departments
are expected to show a strong commitment to the unit and to match the
requested infrastructure support at a level appropriate to the resources of
the institution and the scope of the proposed program activities. Such
commitment may be demonstrated by the provision of dedicated space, faculty
appointments in subject areas relevant to the goals of the unit"s research
program, salary support for investigators or core staff, dedicated equipment,
or other financial support for the proposed program. Applicants are
encouraged to consult with program staff listed under WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES
to discuss this requirement.
WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES
We encourage inquiries concerning this RFA and welcome the opportunity to
answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall into three
areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants management
issues:
o Direct your questions about scientific/research issues to:
Dr. Christine Bachrach
Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8B07, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Telephone: (301) 496-9485
FAX: (301) 496-0962
Email: cbachrach@nih.gov (email communication preferred)
o Direct your questions about peer review issues to:
Dr. Robert Stretch
Director, Division of Scientific Review
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Telephone: (301) 496-1485
Fax: (301) 402-4104
Email: stretchr@mail.nih.gov
o Direct your questions about financial or grants management matters to:
Ms. Kathy Hancock
Grants Management Branch
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8A17G, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Telephone: (301) 496-5482
Fax: (301) 480-4782
Email: kh47d@nih.gov
LETTER OF INTENT
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes
the following information:
o Descriptive title of the proposed research
o Name, address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator
o Names of other key personnel
o Participating institutions
o Number and title of this RFA
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 NICHD staff to estimate the potential review workload and
plan the review.
The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed at the beginning of
this document. The letter of intent should be sent to:
Dr. Christine Bachrach
Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8B07, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Telephone: (301) 496-9485
FAX: (301) 496-0962
Email: cbachrach@nih.gov
SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research grant application
instructions and forms (rev. 5/2001). The PHS 398 is available at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive
format. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301) 710-0267,
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS: Applications for Research Infrastructure Awards
(R24) and Developmental Awards (R21) should be prepared according to the
Application Guidelines available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/RFA/HD-02-
021/HD-02-021.htm and from program staff listed under WHERE TO SEND
INQUIRIES. All instructions and guidelines accompanying the PHS 398 are to
be followed, with the exception of the sections modified by these guidelines.
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR MODULAR GRANT APPLICATIONS: All applications for
Developmental Awards (R21) must be submitted in a modular grant format. The
modular grant format simplifies the preparation of the budget in these
applications by limiting the level of budgetary detail. Applicants request
direct costs in $25,000 modules. Section C of the research grant application
instructions for the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html includes step-by-step
guidance for preparing modular grants. Additional information on modular
grants is available at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.
All applications for Research Infrastructure Awards (R24) should be submitted
using the non-modular format, even if they request less than $250,000 in
direct cost in all years.
USING THE RFA LABEL: The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001)
application form must be affixed to the bottom of the face page of the
application. Type the RFA number on the label. Failure to use this label
could result in delayed processing of the application such that it may not
reach the review committee in time for review. In addition, the RFA title
and number must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form
and the YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/label-bk.pdf.
SENDING AN APPLICATION TO THE NIH: Submit a signed, typewritten original of
the application, including the Checklist, and three signed, photocopies, in
one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service)
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application must be
sent to:
Dr. Robert Stretch
Director, Division of Scientific Review
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
APPLICATION PROCESSING: Applications must be received by the application
receipt date listed in the heading of this RFA. If an application is
received after that date, it will be returned to the applicant without
review.
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) will not accept any application in
response to this RFA that is essentially the same as one currently pending
initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. The
CSR will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one
already reviewed. This does not preclude the submission of substantial
revisions of applications already reviewed, but such applications must
include an Introduction addressing the previous critique.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the CSR and
responsiveness by the NICHD. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications
will be returned to the applicant without further consideration.
Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated
for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group
convened by the NICHD in accordance with the review criteria stated below.
As part of the initial merit review, all applications will:
o Receive a written critique
o Undergo a process in which only those applications deemed to have the
highest scientific merit, generally the top half of the applications under
review, will be discussed and assigned a priority score
o Receive a second level review by the National Advisory Child Health and
Human Development Council.
Applicants should anticipate that no site visit will be conducted and ensure
that their applications are complete at the time of submission.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Overall Program – R24 Research Infrastructure Awards:
Two primary criteria will be used to evaluate the overall scientific merit of
an application for a Research Infrastructure Award:
1) Quality of the research program and its impact on the field: Reviewers
will consider the significance, innovation, and quality of current and recent
contributions of program scientists. Have these contributions produced new
knowledge and/or new approaches to research that have significantly expanded,
improved or altered the content, methods, and direction of population
research? In order to create a level playing field for smaller and larger
programs on this criterion, reviewers will be asked to take size of the
program into account in assessing impact. In other words, while both larger
and smaller programs will be expected to demonstrate research activity of
high quality, programs with fewer researchers would not be expected to
demonstrate the same quantity of research productivity and program impact as
programs with a greater number of researchers.
2) The potential future contributions of the applicant program to population
research: Reviewers will base their assessment of potential on such factors
as the current trajectory of research productivity, innovation, and
accomplishments, the significance of the applicant"s central scientific
objectives and signature population-related themes and the plan for advancing
them, the program"s plan for encouraging synergy and interaction among
population researchers, and the applicant"s success in contributing to the
development of junior investigators.
Applicants proposing only Public Infrastructure activities will be judged on
the basis of the secondary criteria below and the detailed review criteria
listed below under "Public Infrastructure."
Three secondary criteria will also be used to assess the overall scientific
merit of applications:
1) Quality and potential impact of proposed infrastructure program:
Reviewers will examine the overall quality, scientific merit, and innovation
of the activities to be supported. Reviewers will consider the likelihood,
based on existing capabilities and proposed activities, that the proposed
program will enhance population research, promote new research directions,
facilitate interactions across disciplines and substantive areas of study, or
advance theoretical or technical approaches. For infrastructure components
benefiting audiences outside the population research community, reviewers
will assess potential impact in terms of improving the accessibility of
population research to significant audiences and enhancing the appropriate
application of research findings to activities that improve health and well-
being.
2) Research competence of key personnel: Reviewers will consider the
capability and scientific credentials of the Principal Investigator to direct
the Program and maintain high standards of research collaboration, the
specific technical qualifications of core directors, and the scientific
accomplishments of all participating investigators.
3) Institutional commitment and environment: Reviewers will assess the
nature and level of resource commitment from the institution in which the
center is housed and any cooperating institutions, taking into account the
institutional context. Reviewers also will consider the academic and
physical environment as it bears on research opportunities, space, equipment,
and the potential for interaction with scientists from various departments,
institutions or disciplines.
Overall Program – R21 Developmental Award:
One primary criterion will be used to evaluate the overall scientific merit
of an application for a Developmental Award:
The potential future contributions of the applicant program to population
research. Reviewers will base their assessment of potential on such factors
as the current level and trajectory of research productivity, innovation,
quality and significance, the significance of the applicant"s central
scientific objectives and signature population-related themes and the plan
for advancing them, the program"s plan for encouraging synergy and
interaction among population researchers, and the applicant"s success in
contributing to the development of junior investigators.
Three secondary criteria will also be used to assess the overall scientific
merit of applications:
1) Quality and potential impact of proposed infrastructure program:
Reviewers will examine the overall quality, scientific merit, and innovation
of the activities to be supported. Reviewers will consider the likelihood,
based on existing capabilities and proposed activities, that the proposed
program will develop the resources and mechanisms required to build a
substantial interdisciplinary portfolio of population research and facilitate
significant new contributions to the field.
2) Research competence of key personnel: Reviewers will consider the
capability and scientific credentials of the Principal Investigator to direct
the program and maintain high standards of research collaboration, the
specific technical qualifications of core directors, and the scientific
accomplishments of all participating investigators.
3) Institutional commitment and environment: Reviewers will assess the
nature and level of resource commitment from the institution in which the
center is housed and any cooperating institutions, taking into account the
institutional context. Reviewers also will consider the academic and
physical environment as it bears on research opportunities, space, equipment,
and the potential for interaction with scientists from various departments,
institutions or disciplines.
Infrastructure Support Components:
For both R21 and R24 applications, each individual element of the proposed
infrastructure program will be evaluated separately based on the criteria
below.
Research Support Cores
o Potential or actual contribution of the proposed core to advancing research
within the applicant unit, by: enhancing the productivity of the existing
scientific program, fostering new scientific advances, facilitating
interactions across disciplines and substantive areas of study, and/or
advancing theoretical or technical approaches.
o Appropriateness to the size and characteristics of the applicant"s existing
research program and the central scientific objectives and signature
population-related themes of the program,
o Qualifications, experience, and commitment to the program of the
investigators responsible for the cores or activities and their ability to
devote the required time and effort to the program, and
o Cost-effectiveness of services or activities and appropriateness of cost-
sharing arrangements with the institution, relevant departments, and other
external infrastructure support programs.
Developmental Infrastructure
o Potential of the proposed activity to advance research within the applicant
unit by stimulating innovation in population research and/or fostering the
development of junior scientists.
o Appropriateness to the size and characteristics of the applicant"s existing
research program and the central scientific objectives and signature
population-related themes of the program,
o Qualifications, experience, and commitment to the program of the
investigators responsible for the activities and their ability to devote the
required time and effort to the program, and
o Cost-effectiveness of services or activities and appropriateness of cost-
sharing arrangements with the institution, relevant departments, and other
external infrastructure support programs.
o For seed grant programs proposed under "Developmental Infrastructure," the
appropriateness and quality of procedures and policies for administering the
program, such as guidelines for reviewing applications, priorities for
allocating funds, requirements for leveraging funds, and size and length of
awards, and other program guidelines. Upon renewal, seed grant programs will
be reviewed for their success in developing funded research projects relevant
to the mission of DBSB.
Research Projects (R24 only):
The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of
biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health. In
the written comments, reviewers will be asked to discuss the following
aspects of your application in order to judge the likelihood that the
proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these
goals:
o Significance
o Approach
o Innovation
o Investigator
o Environment
The scientific review group will address and consider each of these criteria
in assigning your application"s overall score, weighting them as appropriate
for each application. Your application does not need to be strong in all
categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus
deserve a high priority score. For example, you may propose to carry out
important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move
a field forward.
(1) SIGNIFICANCE: Does your study address an important problem? If the aims
of your application are achieved, how do they advance scientific knowledge?
What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that
drive this field?
(2) APPROACH: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses
adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the
project? Do you acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative
tactics?
(3) INNOVATION: Does your project employ novel concepts, approaches or
methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does your project challenge
existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?
(4) INVESTIGATOR: Are you appropriately trained and well suited to carry out
this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to your experience level as the
principal investigator and to that of other researchers (if any)?
(5) ENVIRONMENT: Does the scientific environment in which your work will be
done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments
take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ
useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional
support?
ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA: In addition to the above criteria, your
application will also be reviewed with respect to the following:
o PROTECTIONS: The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals,
or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the
project proposed in the application.
o INCLUSION: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders,
all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for
the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and
retention of subjects will also be evaluated. (See Inclusion Criteria
included in the section on Federal Citations, below.)
o DATA SHARING: The adequacy of the proposed plan to share data.
o BUDGET: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period
of support in relation to the proposed research.
Each proposed research project will also be evaluated with respect to:
o The contribution of the project to advancing the unit"s central scientific
objectives and signature population-related themes and the extent to which it
embodies innovative, collaborative, and/or cross-cutting elements of the
unit.
Public Infrastructure (R24 only):
Public infrastructure components will be evaluated according to the following
criteria:
o For activities intended to benefit the research community, the value and
significance of the proposed activity for population researchers and its
potential for promoting interdisciplinary and/or innovative population
research.
o For activities directed to policy, program, or other audiences, the
significance of the proposed activity and its potential for improving the
accessibility of population research to significant audiences and enhancing
the appropriate application of research findings to activities that improve
health and well-being.
o Appropriateness of the targeted audiences and the adequacy of the plans for
disseminating the proposed activities, resources, or services to these
audiences.
o Cost-effectiveness of services or activities and appropriateness of the
short- and long-term plans for supporting them (including cost-sharing
arrangements).
o Qualifications, experience, and commitment to the program of the
investigators responsible for the cores or activities and their ability to
devote the required time and effort to the program.
Applications proposing to undertake any infrastructure activity in
cooperation with another institution will be evaluated for the value added by
the involvement of other institutions and the appropriateness and adequacy of
plans for the sharing of rights and responsibilities among proposed partners
with respect to the funding, administration, and use of shared resources.
RECEIPT AND REVIEW SCHEDULE
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: October 20, 2002
Application Receipt Date: November 20, 2002
Peer Review Date: March 2003
Council Review: June 2003
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: July 1, 2003
AWARD CRITERIA
Criteria that will be used to make award decisions (selection of applications
for award and the level of support provided) include:
o Scientific merit (as determined by peer review)
o Availability of funds
o Relevance of the applicant"s research program to the DBSB mission
o Programmatic priorities.
Within applications recommended for funding, specific infrastructure
components may be funded selectively.
REQUIRED FEDERAL CITATIONS
MONITORING PLAN AND DATA SAFETY AND MONITORING BOARD: Research components
involving Phase I and II clinical trials must include provisions for
assessment of patient eligibility and status, rigorous data management,
quality assurance, and auditing procedures. In addition, it is NIH policy
that all clinical trials require data and safety monitoring, with the method
and degree of monitoring being commensurate with the risks (NIH Policy for
Data Safety and Monitoring, NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, June 12,
1998: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN CLINICAL RESEARCH: It is the policy of
the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations
must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a
clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is
inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of
the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993
(Section 492B of Public Law 103-43).
All investigators proposing clinical research should read the AMENDMENT "NIH
Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical
Research - Amended, October, 2001," published in the NIH Guide for Grants and
Contracts on October 9, 2001
(https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html), a
complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical
research, updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB
standards, clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical
trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398, and updated roles and
responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a)
all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of
plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by
sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable,
and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting
analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group
differences.
INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS:
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of
21) must be included in all human subjects research, conducted or supported
by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include
them. This policy applies to all initial (Type 1) applications submitted for
receipt dates after October 1, 1998.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the
"NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as participants in
research involving human subjects that is available at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm.
REQUIRED EDUCATION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS: NIH
policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for
all investigators submitting NIH proposals for research involving human
subjects. You will find this policy announcement in the NIH Guide for Grants
and Contracts Announcement, dated June 5, 2000, at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to
provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a
project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2)
cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action
that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed
through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope
of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.
Applicants may wish to place data collected under this RFA in a public
archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the
distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should
include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include
information about this in the budget justification section of the
application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure
informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the
potential for wider use of data collected under this award.
URLs IN NIH GRANT APPLICATIONS OR APPENDICES: All applications and proposals
for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations.
Unless otherwise specified in an NIH solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs)
should not be used to provide information necessary to the review because
reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Furthermore,
we caution reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when they
directly access an Internet site.
HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010: The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to
achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy
People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This
RFA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants
may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at
http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/.
AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS: This program is described in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.864 (Population Research) and is not
subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372
or Health Systems Agency review. Awards are made under authorization of
Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241
and 284) and administered under NIH grants policies described at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm and under Federal Regulations
42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free
workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition,
Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in
certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which
regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early
childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent
with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of
the American people.