Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
R01 Research Project Grant
The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and partnering Institutes invite applications for the Autism Centers of Excellence: Networks Program, hereafter termed ACE Networks . Each ACE Network will consist of a multi-site project focusing on a specific topic of research for R01 support through this FOA. Each ACE Network will submit one R01 application that includes sub-awards to the collaborating sites. A companion FOA (RFA-HD-22-008) invites applications for ACE Centers supported by the P50 mechanism.
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 |
| November 09, 2021 | November 09, 2021 | Not Applicable | March 2022 | May 2022 | July 2022 |
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of non-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on the listed date(s).
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
Not Applicable
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.
Background
Autism spectrum disorders (ASD), characterized by difficulties with social communication and stereotypic and repetitive patterns of behaviors, are complex and highly heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorders with early childhood onset. ASD remains an urgent public health challenge. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that from 2002 to 2016 the prevalence of ASD in eight-year-olds rose from 1 in 150 to 1 in 54. For the first time, the CDC released a prevalence estimate for ASD in adults aged 18 years and older in the United States at 2.21%. These disorders, for which there are presently only limited therapies, generally have lifelong effects.
The NIH historically has supported a vast array of projects in autism research. Beginning in 1997, the Collaborative Programs of Excellence in Autism (CPEA) focused on research related to the possible causes of autism, including genetic, immunological, and environmental factors. Both NICHD and NIDCD sponsored the CPEA program. After the establishment of the CPEA Centers program, Congress enacted the Children's Health Act of 2000. This legislation mandated the establishment of a new autism research program. In response, the five Institutes of the NIH Autism Coordinating Committee (NIH-ACC; represented by NICHD, NIDCD, NIEHS, NIMH, and NINDS) implemented the STAART (Studies to Advance Autism Research and Treatment) program in 2002. Each of the eight STAART centers contributed to the autism research base in the areas of causes, diagnosis, early detection, prevention, and treatment. In 2007, consolidation of funding from the CPEA and STAART programs resulted in autism centers and networks collectively called the Autism Centers of Excellence or ACE program. The ACE program was renewed in 2012 and again in 2017. Now in its 13th year of funding, the ACE program continues to make significant progress in key areas of ASD research. Ongoing projects are examining, for example, how ADHD may affect the diagnosis and treatment of ASD, evaluating if early developmental screening lowers the average age of ASD diagnosis and leads to earlier interventions and improved outcomes, adopting community implementation strategies and innovative tools to bridge the research-to-practice gap in underserved communities, investigating how ASD differs among girls and boys, particularly during the transition from adolescence into adulthood, and developing interventions appropriate for different subtypes of children with ASD.
Purpose
The ACE program is a trans-NIH initiative that supports large-scale studies on ASD. The program includes ACE Centers, which foster collaboration between teams of specialties to address major questions about ASD in depth, and ACE Networks, which consist of researchers at multiple sites, all of whom work together on a specific topic of research. The purpose of ACE program is to support research that will lead to better understanding of the causes and mechanisms underlying ASD, improved efficiency of methods of early identification and diagnosis, and more innovative and cost-effective services for individuals with ASD across their lifespan.
This FOA invites applications for ACE Networks, supported by the R01 mechanism. A companion FOA (RFA-HD-22-008) invites applications for ACE Centers supported by the P50 mechanism.
ACE Networks will consist of multiple sites focusing on a specific topic of research. Each network will submit one R01 application that includes subawards to the collaborating sites. An ACE Network application must require multiple sites for optimal design and conduct of the study. Given the heterogeneity of ASD, subgroups requiring large numbers of participants for each protocol may be studied best under a network because of enhanced recruitment and other benefits of multi-site participant accrual.
This FOA requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) as part of the application (see further below). Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the FOA instructions carefully and view the available PEDP guidance material. This FOA is among the first to require a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) in the application, and applicants are strongly encouraged to attend the Technical Assistance teleconference to ask for information on preparing a PEDP.
Research Objectives
The intent is to fund research that will build on the progress and momentum of the past 13 years of ACE research and continue to incorporate cutting-edge technologies and methods. Applications focusing on rare genetic disorders will be considered responsive to this FOA only if the proposed research will lead to a better understanding of ASD, and participants with a confirmed diagnosis of autism using standard clinical assessments are the subject of clinical studies.
Applications must include a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment (see Section IV). The PEDP will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation, as well as considered among programmatic matters with respect to funding decisions.
Areas of interest include studies focusing on:
This FOA will support non-clinical trial and clinical trial studies. For clinical trial studies, this ACE FOA will support hypothesis-driven mechanistic clinical trial studies in basic and/or translational discovery research in participants with ASD and in appropriate comparison groups. The goal of such studies is to address basic questions and to interrogate concepts in biology, behavior, and pathophysiology that will provide insight into understanding ASD. These studies may seek to understand a biological or behavioral process, or the mechanism of action of an intervention. This RFA also supports biomarker studies that may provide information about physiological function, target engagement of novel therapeutics, and/or mechanisms of therapeutic responses.
The minimal structural requirements of an ACE Network under this FOA are:
Research Project(s) -- An ACE Network application must include multiple sites for optimal design and conduct of one or more research studies. Each network will submit one R01 application that includes subawards to the collaborating sites. Those applying for a renewal of an ACE Network are encouraged to form new collaborations with investigators.
Data Coordinating Center -- Each network must have a Data Coordinating Center (DCC) that is functionally separate from the data collection sites, with separate chains of command. The DCC must design and conduct data analyses and oversee all data management, including organizing and performing on-site monitoring. In addition, DCC staff must provide program support and generate standard operating procedures that include assisting in the design of protocols, data collection forms, manuals of operations, data collection/distribution systems, quality assurance (edit/query procedures) and monitoring systems, reliability assessment, data sharing, and generating reports. When relevant, medical monitoring and consultation regarding clinical data management (e.g., adverse events reporting, safety and protocol deviation monitoring), must also be provided. The DCC lead must supervise staff in accomplishing these activities and direct the performance of the DCC.
Dissemination and Outreach Plan-- ACE Networks must disseminate research knowledge and information to those with an interest in ASD research. Examples of activities that would address this important aspect of the Network include a designated grand rounds series on the Network’s theme, collaborative case conference sessions, development of a website for the scientific and lay communities that includes tutorials and fact sheets, and development of laboratory-based learning experiences. Seminars and workshops designed for the scientific and lay communities are also appropriate. The ACE Networks are expected to play leadership roles in disseminating research findings to the community.
Each ACE Network must promote two-way communication between the investigators and the community of individuals with autism and caregivers. The primary purpose of the partnership is to lay the groundwork for successful recruitment and retention of study participants. In addition, this partnership should inform investigators about community concerns and feasibility of future studies in this population (such as risk/benefit determination, burden of visits and procedures, etc.) and inform the community about current research avenues and plans for future studies.
The minimal data collection requirements of an ACE Network under this FOA are:
Network studies must include collection of data using the following forms or a justification of why the forms are not appropriate. These are widely accepted and NIH-established common data elements for autism research. Additional modifications to these forms may occur periodically.
ACE Subject Medical History (https://nda.nih.gov/ndar_data_dictionary.html?short_name=ace_subjmedhist01)
ACE Family Medical History (https://ndar.nih.gov/ndar_data_dictionary.html?short_name=ace_fammedhist01)
ACE Subject Physical Exam (where applicable to the purpose of a study) (https://nda.nih.gov/ndar_data_dictionary.html?short_name=ace_physexam01)
ACE Genomics Genetic Test (where applicable to the purpose of a study) (https://nda.nih.gov/ndar_data_dictionary.html?short_name=gen_genetic_test01)
Non-responsiveness criteria:
The following types of studies are outside the scope of this FOA and will be considered non-responsive:
Studies that seek to answer specific questions about safety, tolerability, clinical efficacy, effectiveness, clinical management, and/or implementation of pharmacologic, behavioral, biologic, surgical, or device (invasive or non-invasive) interventions.
See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.
The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this FOA.
Optional: Accepting applications that either propose or do not propose clinical trial(s).
Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?
The NICHD and partnering Institutes intend to commit an estimated total of $24.5 million for this funding opportunity and the companion FOA for ACE Centers (RFA-HD-22-008) to fund 8-10 awards.
The exact number of awards will be contingent upon availability of funds and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Applications may request up to $1.5 million in direct costs per year (excluding subaward F & A costs) and need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed project.
The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is 5 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Local Governments
Federal Governments
Other
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.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
A PD/PI may submit only one application, either an ACE Center or an ACE Network. This does not exclude multiple applications from a single institution, provided each application is submitted by a different PD/PI. A PD/PI on an R01 application may be a Project Lead on the same or another ACE application.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Number of Applications
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application. This means that the NIH will not accept:
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.
Letter of Intent
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Alice Kau, PhD
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Telephone: 301-496-1385
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.
Facilities and Other Resources:
Other Attachments:
Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)
In an "Other Attachment" entitled "Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives," all applicants must include a summary of strategies to advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project through expanded inclusivity. The PEDP should provide a holistic and integrated view of how enhancing diverse perspectives is viewed and supported throughout the application and can incorporate elements with relevance to any review criteria (significance, investigator(s), innovation, approach, and environment) as appropriate. Where possible, applicant(s) should align their description with these required elements within the research strategy section. The PEDP will vary depending on the scientific aims, expertise required, the environment and performance site(s), as well as how the project aims are structured. The PEDP may be no more than 1-page in length and should include a timeline and milestones for relevant components that will be considered as part of the review. Examples of items that advance inclusivity in research and may be part of the PEDP can include, but are not limited to:
For further information on the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), please see https://braininitiative.nih.gov/about/plan-enhancing-diverse-perspectives-pedp.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
R&R or Modular Budget
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
PEDP implementation costs:
The application must name one of the PD(s)/PI(s) as the overall Network Director. This individual must commit a minimum effort of 2.4 person-months per year overall effort to the Network.
Data Coordinating Center If the DCC will be located at the applicant organization, the DCC budget should be included as part of the overall R01 budget. If the DCC will be located at an organization distinct from the applicant organization and the network research sites, the DCC budget should be prepared as a subaward. If the DCC is located at one of the participating research sites, the DCC budget should be included as part of the subaward budget for that particular site. DCC budgets that are included as part of either the R01 or research site budgets should be explained and justified in the respective budget justification section.
ACE Network budgets and subaward budgets must include travel funds for key investigators to attend annual two-day ACE meetings in Bethesda, Maryland. Key investigators for this include: the Network PD(s)/PI(s), leaders of the various network sites, and the leader of the Data Coordinating Center (DCC). All should plan to attend the annual meeting to share findings, research approaches, and information about core instrumentation.
To estimate the cost of data sharing, please visit http://ndar.nih.gov/ndarpublicweb/Documents/NDAR_Data_Submission_Costs.xls
Budget Justifications -- Describe the specific functions of all key personnel, consultants, collaborators, and support staff. For all years, explain and justify any unusual items such as major equipment or alterations and renovations. For additional years of support requested, justify any significant increases or decreases in any category over the first 12-month budget period.
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:
Research Strategy:
Applicants should describe the network research project(s) following instructions in the SF424 application guide. In addition, applicants should address the following subjects:
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
The following modifications also apply:
In order to advance autism research as broadly and effectively as possible, investigators funded under this FOA who are collecting data from humans are expected to share those data among ASD researchers through a broadly accessible repository addressing the needs of the autism research community, e.g., via the National Database for Autism Research, now housed under the umbrella of the NIMH Data Archive (NDA; http://nda.nih.gov). Fulfilling this expectation by the awardee will be among the terms and conditions of the award. Established by the NIMH, and supported by other NIH Institutes, the NDA is a secure informatics platform for scientific collaboration and data-sharing that enables the effective communication of detailed research data, results, tools, and supporting documentation. All human subjects data collected and/or derived for a project funded under this FOA are expected to be submitted to the NDA. Data resulting from existing samples, cells, or sequences previously collected are also expected to be submitted to the NDA. Products such as tools, pipelines, and algorithms that will not result in a commercial product are expected to be shared via the NDA Study.
Investigators funded under this FOA are expected to use NDA technologies to submit data in accordance with the NDA Data Sharing Terms and Conditions, incorporated by reference, which can be found at https://nda.nih.gov/contribute/sharing-regimen.html. A resource sharing plan, formulated in accordance with these NDA Data Sharing Terms and Conditions, must be included in the grant application. The NDA links data across research projects through its Global Unique Identifier (GUID) and Data Dictionary technologies. Investigators funded under this FOA are expected to use these technologies to submit and share their research data and results at the appropriate times. To accomplish this objective, it will be important to formulate a) an enrollment and consent strategy that will obtain the information necessary to generate a GUID for each research participant; and, b) a budget strategy that will cover the costs of data sharing. The NDA Cost Estimation Tool is a customizable Excel worksheet that can be used to calculate an estimate of the resources needed to submit and share data with the NDA. This resource estimate should be submitted as part of the application budget (http://nda.nih.gov/contribute_cost_estimation.html)
Sharing of Genetics Data, Biomaterials and other data for NIH research
NIH requires the sharing of genetic data under the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy (https://osp.od.nih.gov/scientific-sharing/genomic-data-sharing/). NIH supports several databases for this purpose through NCBI. Genomic data sharing is also supported through the NIMH Data Archive.
NIH resource sharing policy requires broad sharing of biomaterials collected under scientific studies. Several NIH institutes maintain biorepositories for the purpose of dissemination of biomaterials. For example, the NIMH supports a repository for biospecimens of interest to mental health (http://nimhgenetics.org) to enable rapid sharing of data and biospecimens. These resources offer centralized sources of curated materials that are widely accessible to investigators in the international scientific community.
The rapid dissemination of data and biomaterials is of increasing importance to the NIH for advancing research. The mission of the NIH and a goal of NIH policies are to promote discoveries to improve the health care and treatment of people, which is a mission that should be shared by the research community. Investigators applying for awards under this FOA are strongly encouraged to deposit data and biospecimens in NIH designated databases and appropriate repositories. However, depending on the nature of the data or biomaterials, there may not be an appropriate NIH supported resource for deposition. In such cases, alternative venues for data sharing can be considered. The sharing of data through NIH resources would not necessarily be exclusive and the data could be additionally shared through other investigator suggested venues.
It is expected that the investigator’s data sharing plan will specify the following elements: (1) description of what data will be collected, including clinical data, diagnostic data, and physiological measurements such as MRI, (2) description of what biospecimens will be collected, (3) description of the data that will be derived from the biospecimens such as genotyping, sequence, metabolomic measures, proteomic measures, etc., (4) what data and/or biospecimens will be made available for deposit in databases or in a repository accessible to the research community, (5) a timetable for deposition of the data and/or biomaterials, and a specified time interval after which those data and materials can be released to the research community.
Guidelines have evolved from extensive discussion among NIH Program staff, consultations with human genetics researchers and advocacy members, recommendations from the Genetics Workgroup of the National Advisory Mental Health Council (NAMHC), and requirements of the National Database for Autism Research recommending shortened timelines for data deposition and reduced proprietary periods before the data are released to the research community. The deposition of data is encouraged to occur at intervals throughout the period of the award and not be detained until the end of the award period. Similarly, the proprietary period for data release is encouraged to be short to facilitate rapid data release. Adherence to shortened time intervals for data deposition and release is highly desirable. This is expected to result in all data being released to the scientific community no later than the end of the award period, even if a competing renewal application is submitted. More rapid sharing is strongly encouraged. Requests for exemptions or extensions will require compelling justification and will be fully evaluated through peer review and by program staff.
It is expected that the applicant’s approved consent form addresses the following:
Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
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.
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
Important reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Applications must include a PEDP submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment. Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy. Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
For this particular announcement, note the following:
ACE Networks supported under this FOA will consist of multiple sites focusing on a specific topic of research. Each network R01 application will include subawards to the collaborating sites. An ACE Network application must include one or more collaborative research projects that require multiple sites for optimal design and conduct of studies. The scored review criteria outlined below will be considered in relation to all components of the network, including the various participating sites, investigators, and research project or projects.
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 project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
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?
To what extent do the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives further the significance of the project?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
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?
Does the proposed (new applications) or previous membership (renewal applications) on the EAC have appropriate scientific, clinical, and lay expertise?
To what extent will the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives strengthen and enhance the expertise required for the project?
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?
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?
To what extent will the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives meaningfully contribute to innovation?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
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?
Does the applicant describe an effective plan for Dissemination and Outreach activities?
Does the application include an effective plan for Network evaluation and specific procedures for acting upon evaluation findings and EAC recommendations?
Are the timeline and milestones associated with the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives well-developed and feasible?
Is there an effective plan for resource/data sharing?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
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?
To what extent will features of the environment described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (e.g., collaborative arrangements, geographic diversity, institutional support) contribute to the success of the project?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
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)?
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.
When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Not Applicable.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Not Applicable.
For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the Center for Scientific Review, 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 on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines 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 appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient's business official.
Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. 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).
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:
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.
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex. This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html.
HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA.
Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.
In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 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
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 the threshold. 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 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, 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 and 2 CFR Part 200 Award Term and Condition 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: 301-945-7573
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]
Alice Kau, PhD
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Telephone: 301-496-1385
Email: [email protected]
Cindy P Lawler, PhD
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Phone: 984-287-3280
E-mail: [email protected]
Judith Cooper, Ph.D.
National Institute On Deafness And Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
Phone: (301) 496-5061
E-mail: [email protected]
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Email: [email protected]
Margaret Young
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Telephone: 301-642-4552
Email: [email protected]
Jenny L Greer
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Phone: 984.287.3332
E-mail: [email protected]
Christopher Myers
National Institute On Deafness And Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
Phone: (301) 435-0713
E-mail: [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 2 CFR Part 200.