Category: Research Administration

Posted on

How the Change of Fiscal Year Affects Your NIGMS Grant

by and
1 comment

It’s autumn: cool, crisp weather; bright-colored leaves; the beginning of another fiscal year for NIGMS.

The new fiscal year brings with it a special set of circumstances for funding applications, activating fellowships and making changes to existing grants. Some of these circumstances are related to the NIGMS budget, while others are related to NIH policies and regulations.

Here are answers to some questions that applicants and grantees often ask after the September Advisory Council meeting and during the beginning of the new fiscal year, which started on October 1. We hope that telling you what to expect will help you plan accordingly.

September Council’s over. My application did well in review. When is my grant going to get funded?

NIGMS funds a very limited number of R01s in September after the Council meets. Most pending applications are funded after January 1, depending on when NIH gets its budget appropriation from Congress. However, if your renewal application did exceptionally well in review and your current award expires on November 30, we may be able to start the renewal on, or close to, December 1.

Would my grant application be funded more quickly if it went to a different Council round?

Most likely, yes. Applications that go to the January or May Council meetings are typically selected for funding and processed sooner, relative to when Council meets, than applications that go to the September Council meeting. If you want to minimize the receipt-to-award time and you have a choice about when to submit your application, you may want to submit it for the June/July or October/November deadlines, so that it goes to the January or May Council meetings, respectively. Be aware, though, that there is a large volume of awards to be made after January and May Council meetings, which may impact award processing time.

Why can’t I activate my NRSA fellowship in October or early November?

Many NIH institutes and centers, including NIGMS, do not activate fellowships during the first 6 weeks of a new fiscal year so that future-year anniversary dates align with the NIH funding guidelines (i.e., continuation awards typically do not start before December 1).

I’m moving from one institution to another on October 1. Can my grant or fellowship be transferred when I move? I want it to start on the day that I arrive or, if that’s not possible, later in October.

For the same reason as above, a change of grantee institution action cannot be processed from October 1 through mid-November. However, if we receive your change of institution request at least 8 weeks before the desired start date, we may be able to make the transfer date retroactive. Contact your grants management specialist for details.

I’ve applied for a diversity supplement for an individual who’s arriving on October 25. Will the supplement be available on the day that she arrives?

No, since NIH generally begins issuing grant awards after mid-November. If the supplement application is received at least 10 weeks prior to the desired start date, then the supplement could be issued as early as mid-November. Your institution most likely has pre-award cost authority, so you may opt to start spending the supplemental funds on October 25, when the candidate arrives. If you’re considering this option, be sure to confirm with the director of the diversity supplement program that your supplement will be funded, since submission of a diversity supplement application does not guarantee funding. You’ll also want to know when the supplement is likely to start and whether the budget has been cut.

My grant’s anniversary date is December 1. Why are the awards late most years?

Two factors may contribute. One is that program and grants management staff must wait, often until mid-November, to start the process for issuing grant awards until funding guidance and financial systems are in place. Another factor is that NIH may be operating on a short-term continuing resolution (CR) at a reduced budget level in lieu of a full-year appropriation, which may affect the award process.

Why was my continuation budget reduced? Is the likelihood of a budget cut higher if my grant’s anniversary date is in the winter? Will the cut funds ever be restored?

If NIH is operating on a CR, it may have implemented temporary across-the-board budget cuts on noncompeting continuation awards (years 2, 3, etc. of a grant). This is because we must fund conservatively in case of a further CR or an appropriation that is at a lower level. The likelihood of a temporary budget cut is highest in December and January, since the probability that NIH will be on a CR is highest at the beginning of a fiscal year. It’s possible that some or all of the budget reductions will be restored after NIH gets an appropriation. However, it may take several weeks or longer after an appropriation bill is passed and signed for your award to be adjusted.

Posted on

Update on NIH Special Council Review Policy

by and
1 comment

NIH has announced a new policy whereby applications from investigators who receive more than $1 million in direct research support from active NIH grants will receive additional scrutiny by NIH institute and center (IC) advisory councils. This is a threshold, not a cap: Investigators may still receive additional grant awards if the ICs determine such awards will further their missions.

A few notes: The policy replaces a piloted one that set the threshold at $1.5 million total costs. NIGMS will continue its current practice that sets the threshold for special scrutiny of well-funded investigators at $750,000 or more in direct costs for all research support, regardless of the source.

Below is a chart that outlines some of the differences between the NIH and NIGMS policies. For more discussion on this topic, see comments to my earlier post.

NIH

NIGMS

Funding source

NIH only

NIH and non-NIH

Threshold

$1M direct costs on existing grants

$750K direct costs including the pending application

Exclusions

RFAs, P01s, some multi-PI awards

Resource awards
Posted on

Acknowledging Our Support

by and
0 comments

NIH recently modified the funding acknowledgement language in the notice of award to read:

Each publication, press release, or other document about research supported by an NIH award must include an acknowledgment of NIH award support and a disclaimer such as “Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01GM085232. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.” Prior to issuing a press release concerning the outcome of this research, please notify the NIH awarding IC in advance to allow for coordination.

A key difference in the new version is the reference to “of the National Institutes of Health” after the name of the funding component. The goal is to make it clear that the funding component is part of NIH and, more broadly, to convey the role and value of NIH support. As always, we recommend that if you have more than one grant, you only cite the one(s) that supported the research described in the document.

For some time now, notices of award have also mentioned the NIH public access policy, which requires you to submit papers accepted for publication to NIH PubMed Central.

For more on communicating about your research, see an April 2012 Rock Talk blog post by NIH’s Sally Rockey and our Attribution of NIH/NIGMS Support page.

Posted on

NIH Pilot of the $1.5 Million Special Review

by and
9 comments

There has been considerable discussion on Sally Rockey’s Rock Talk blog and elsewhere about NIH’s pilot advisory council review of applications from investigators who have received more than $1.5 million in NIH research project grant support.

As you may know, NIGMS has a longstanding policy of advisory council review of well-funded laboratories, but it differs from the NIH policy in several respects. At its May meeting, the NIGMS Advisory Council voted to continue our existing policy, which sets the threshold for special review at $750,000 in direct costs for all support.

The chart below outlines some of the differences between the NIH and NIGMS policies.

NIH NIGMS
Funding source NIH only NIH and non-NIH
Threshold $1.5M total costs on existing grants $750K direct costs including the pending application
Exclusions RFAs, P01s, some multi-PI awards Resource awards
Posted on

Comment on Proposed Changes to the NIH Biosketch

by
4 comments

The NIH Biographical Sketch is a standardized format used to present professional information in grant applications. It includes sections for a personal statement, positions and honors, selected peer-reviewed publications, and a list of current and prior research support.

To explore whether the format could be modified to better present an individual’s scientific abilities and accomplishments, NIH formed a working group that has just issued a request for information seeking input from the scientific community. The deadline for responses is June 29, 2012.

Posted on

Explaining the 4-Year Duration of Most Research Project Grants

by
1 comment

NIGMS program directors are often asked why most of our grants are made for 4 years. We’ve just posted this brief explanation on our Web site:

NIH is required by Congressional mandate to keep the average research project grant (RPG) length to 4 years. Since NIGMS primarily uses the R01 mechanism for RPGs and participates in few short-term mechanisms (such as the R21), it limits most R01 awards to 4 years.

NIGMS does award some grants for 5 years, including research program projects and centers. The Institute also funds 5-year R01s to most new and early stage investigators to provide extra time for getting their projects under way.

The limitation on the average length of RPGs has been in effect at NIH for more than 10 years, and it helps ensure that funds are available to support new competing awards.

What does it mean for you? Keep applying for project periods that are adequate for the proposed work and are for a maximum of 5 years. But be aware that unless you fall under the exceptions mentioned above, your award will most likely be limited to 4 years of funding.

Posted on

Electronic Submission Pilots for Three Common Applications

by
0 comments

To further streamline the submission process, NIH has launched a pilot for electronically submitting administrative supplement applications (Type 3s), and it plans to begin pilots for research performance progress reports (Type 5s) and change of institution requests (Type 7s) soon. During the Type 3 and Type 7 pilots, grantees have the option to continue using the paper process.

Administrative Supplements (Type 3s)
The pilot began earlier this month. It’s available for noncompeting supplement applications on grant activity codes that have transitioned to electronic application submission. Grantees may submit through the eRA Commons or Grants.gov. For more information, see NOT-OD-12-024 and an NIH Office of Extramural Research overview presentation.

Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR, Type 5s)
A limited pilot for noncompeting progress reports begins in April with a small number of institutions. If successful, it will expand by the summer to include Federal Demonstration Partnership Link to external web site institutions and become mandatory for SNAP and fellowship awards from all institutions in October. The timeline for implementing non-SNAP awards isn’t yet determined. Currently, most grantees submit Type 5s using the PHS 2590. The government has unified progress reports across agencies into the RPPR, which will eventually replace the PHS 2590.

Change of Institution Requests (Type 7s)
This pilot also starts in April. A grantee will be able to submit a relinquishing statement via the eRA Commons and propose a new grantee. The proposed grantee will be notified of the relinquishing statement and asked to submit a transfer application through Grants.gov. NIH Guide notices will be published as the pilot period approaches.

Posted on

Addressing Additional Review Criteria Questions for AREA Applications

by
1 comment

Of all the institutes and centers at NIH, NIGMS receives the most Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA, R15) applications and funds the most AREA grants. This is probably because the faculty and students at eligible institutions, which have not been major recipients of NIH research grant funds, typically focus on basic research using model organisms and systems.

As Sally Rockey of the NIH Office of Extramural Research has noted, the new AREA funding opportunity announcement includes additional questions reviewers are expected to address that are related to the program’s goals of supporting meritorious research, strengthening the research environment of eligible institutions and exposing students to significant research.

With the next AREA application deadline coming up on February 25, I’d like to point out how and where applicants might address the new review considerations.

SIGNIFICANCE: If funded, will the AREA award have a substantial effect on the school/academic component in terms of strengthening the research environment and exposing students to research? Include a summary discussion at the end of the Research Plan, but provide most of the information on lab space, required equipment and facilities, and the availability of students to participate in the proposed research in the Resource page of the application. You and your institution should also include a description of the current research environment and of students who have continued in the biomedical sciences. In the Significance section as well as at the end of the Research Plan, discuss how the potential R15 support would enhance the research environment and increase the number of students exposed to meritorious research. Please remember that the research proposed should be significant, have an impact on the field and be well justified.

INVESTIGATOR: Do the investigators have suitable experience in supervising students in research? Take advantage of the Biosketch Personal Statement to provide specific information about current and former students participating in your research projects. Highlight publications with student co-authors in the Biosketch, and describe the role of students to be supported on the research project and which aim they will help with in the Budget/Personnel Justification and in the timeline at the end of the Research Plan.

APPROACH: Does the application provide sufficient evidence that the project can stimulate the interests of students so that they consider a career in the biomedical or behavioral sciences? As noted above, address this question in the Resource page and the Biosketch Personal Statement with a discussion of students who have previously worked on aspects of the research and who plan to pursue scientific careers. At the end of the Research Plan, I highly recommend including a list of students and a timeline for what each of them would be doing and what research question or approaches they would be exposed to during the R15 support period.

ENVIRONMENT: Does the application demonstrate the likely availability of well-qualified students to participate in the research project? Address this question in both the Resource page and the Biosketch Personal Statement by discussing your record of recruiting interested students who are excited about doing research and helping you accomplish your specific aims. Does the application provide sufficient evidence that students have in the past or are likely to pursue careers in the biomedical or behavioral sciences? As indicated above, with assistance from your institution, use the Resource page to provide a description of students who have majored in the biomedical sciences and who have gone on to graduate or medical school or other biomedical science careers. Use the Biosketch Personal Statement to describe students you have supervised.

Posted on

Give Input on Public Access to Publications and Data

by
1 comment

The Office of Science and Technology Policy has issued two requests for information (RFIs) on public access to scholarly publications and to digital data resulting from federally funded research. This input will inform working groups of the National Science and Technology Council that are developing policies on these topics.

The first RFI, Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting from Federally Funded Research, deals with questions related to managing public access, protecting intellectual property interests, embargoing publications and identifying other types of peer-reviewed publications (beyond scholarly journal articles) that should be covered by public access policies. Responses will be accepted through January 2, 2012.

The second RFI, Public Access to Digital Data Resulting from Federally Funded Scientific Research, seeks input on public access to data as well as actions to ensure the long-term usefulness and preservation of the data, protect intellectual property interests and harmonize different types and sources of data. Responses will be accepted through January 12, 2012.

If you want to know more about NIH’s existing policies on these topics, a good resource is the NIH Sharing Policies and Related Guidance on NIH-Funded Research Resources Web site. The site includes information on the data sharing policy, which requires all NIH investigator-initiated applications with direct costs greater than $500,000 in any single year to provide a data sharing plan. It also links to the NIH Public Access Policy, which requires scientists to submit an electronic version of the final, peer-reviewed manuscript to PubMed Central within 12 months of the official date of publication.

Posted on

Financial Conflict of Interest Webinar

by
0 comments

In an earlier post, we outlined revised regulations on financial conflicts of interest. August 24, 2012, marks the deadline for institutions to implement the new policies. The changes are significant and will affect both investigators and administrators.

NIH recently held a Webinar on the new regulations, and you can view a recording or see the slide set. For more information, visit the NIH Financial Conflict of Interest Web site.