Instructions for Preparing a Multiproject Research Application

Caution: this page may contain outdated information while we update based on the changes we summarized in "The Art of Application."

As you gain experience with the new applications, please send your lessons learned and any other suggestions to deaweb@niaid.nih.gov. We'll use your feedback to improve our material.

These instructions describe the steps you need to take before we can issue an award and what you need to do to maintain an award.

Table of Contents

• How to Use These Instructions
• Features of Multiproject Grants
• Your Options
• May You Submit a Multiple PI Application?
• First Contact NIAID
• Prepare and Submit the Application
• Advice for Multiproject Applications
• Option to Submit Simultaneously as an R01
• NIAID's Policy for Clinical Trials
• Staff Check, Peer Review
• How a Multiproject Application Is Reviewed
• Multiproject Application Review Criteria
• Review Criteria for Projects
• Review Criteria for Cores
• Review Criteria for the Overall Application
• Second-Level Review
• Overview of Instructions
  • General Instructions
  • Instructions for Projects
  • Instructions for Cores
• Call Us for Help

How to Use These Instructions

These instructions define the features of multiproject grants and outline the steps for applying for an award. They also describe initial peer review, the criteria NIAID's review committees use to evaluate applications, and the factors NIAID's advisory Council considers at second-level review.

To prepare your application, use this document together with instructions in the PHS 398 grant application and the funding opportunity announcement, including its associated NIH Guide announcement.

See our Advice for Multiproject Grants for things to keep in mind when you write.

We also strongly advise you to contact a program officer in the NIAID division -- DAIT, DAIDS, or DMID -- that would support your work if funded. They can assess NIAID's enthusiasm for your research, tell you how it relates to other research or resources NIAID supports, and explain the approval process if you are requesting total direct costs of $500,000 or more in any year of the grant.

For more information, go to Contact Staff for Help.

Features of Multiproject Grants

Multiproject grants share the following features:

• At least two interrelated research projects related to a theme, unless stated otherwise in a funding opportunity announcement.
• Collaboration and interaction among investigator-initiated projects and investigators to achieve a common goal.
• One grantee institution that will be legally and financially responsible for the use of funds.
• One application submitted to NIH by the applicant organization in the name of the PI.
• Support as needed for shared resources -- core resources or facilities -- that provide services or resources to at least two research projects.

For each component project and core you will submit a complete application, following the PHS 398 plus any additional instructions in the announcement.

Some multiproject applications may require pre-application approval. Be sure to read any instructions about NIAID clearance. We usually request a one-page "letter of intent" from prospective investigators.

Direct any questions to the program officer listed in the announcement.

Your Options

You may apply for a multiproject grant in one of the following two ways:

• Respond to a P50 or U19 request for applications (RFA).
• Submit an application for an investigator-initiated P01 program project grant.

P01 grants support multidisciplinary, long-term research programs headed by an investigator who brings in a group of other investigators to support the project and share resources. This is the only option that allows you to submit an investigator-initiated application.

P50 grants are research center grants where a multidisciplinary group of investigators share a common research topic.

U19 grants are cooperative agreements, requiring substantial involvement from agency staff. See the Cooperative Agreements (U) SOP.

To help you decide the best way to go, read Application Approach: What Are Your Choices? and Compare FOAs in our NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal.

May You Submit a Multiple PI Application?

You may submit a multiple PI application for an investigator-initiated P01 -- and any other funding opportunity announcements that allow it.

This applies to the overall program only. NIAID does not recognize multiple project leaders.

Some NIAID-specific opportunities don't give you this option, so read the announcement carefully.

For more information on multiple PI applications, read If Your Application Has Multiple PIs in the NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal.

First Contact NIAID

Before you consider applying, consult with an NIAID program officer as early in the planning stage as possible. The two reasons why you should do so are to get pre-approval for a big grant and feedback on using the multiproject approach.

Obtain Pre-Approval

If you're planning to submit an investigator-initiated application with direct costs of $500,000 or more in any year of the grant, you must have a program officer pre-approve acceptance of your application.

This "big grant" policy applies even if none of the individual projects requests $500,000 or more. See our Big Grants SOP for more information.

Get Guidance

Before tackling the arduous task of preparing your application, touch base with a program officer to see if a multiproject application is the way to go.

Program officers are good sounding boards and can provide feedback on whether NIAID is interested in your research topic and if it's appropriate for a multiproject approach.

Prepare and Submit the Application

Create a multiproject grant application as one complete application that includes all research projects and cores.

Receipt dates for applications are in the funding opportunity announcement. Read these notices carefully as their instructions may differ from or supplement those in this document.

For investigator-initiated applications, receipt dates for AIDS and non-AIDS differ. See NIH's Standard Due Dates for Competing Applications for details.

Send the signed original application and five single-sided photocopies to the Center for Scientific Review. Use the address labels in the PHS 398 to mail your application.

Note: for a new application, do not provide the names of members of your program advisory committee (if you have one), but describe their expertise and responsibilities in the Program Overview section.

For a competing renewal, do provide names of your program advisory committee members (since they cannot serve as reviewers for your application) as well as a description of their expertise and responsibilities.

See our Advice for Multiproject Grants for grant writing tips.

Avoid Common Pitfalls

To make your application as strong as possible, steer clear of these mistakes.

• Weak projects.
• Lack of synergy and integration between the components (pay special attention to this).
• Lack of innovation.
• Insufficient expertise for the work proposed or failure to use expertise of people recruited to participate.
• Insufficient preliminary data.
• Failure to describe significance of proposed work.
• Insufficient experimental detail and unfocused experimental approaches.
• Lack of hypothesis-driven mechanistic studies.
• Lack of convincing rationale for some of the aims.
• Failure to address experimental pitfalls and alternative approaches.
• Overcommitment of program director or project leaders.
• Lack of program coordination.
• Submission of incomplete cores lacking detailed description of facility, approach, and project support.
• Failure to demonstrate progress for renewal.
• Poor formatting and presentation of application.

Advice for Multiproject Applications

Consider the following questions when writing multiproject grant applications. They were developed in consultation with peer reviewers -- use them as your guide.

Strong candidates should be able to confidently answer "yes" to each question.

For instructions on completing the application, please read the Instructions for Preparing a Multiproject Application.

Program Topic

• Did I check the literature to make sure the program I'm considering has not been done before, or has been done and its methods judged inadequate?
• Have I shown that I know the gaps, discrepancies, or roadblocks in my field?
• Does my program have a central focus and coherent direction, with good synergy and integration among components?
• Have I shown why a multiproject coordinated approach is required or uniquely advantageous?

Individual Projects

Preliminary Data

• Do I have sufficient preliminary data to support my project?
• Have I given an account of published and unpublished results, indicating progress toward achievement?
• Have I provided a summary of the importance of my findings in relation to my Specific Aims?

• Is my research innovative?
• Is my project research plan driven by a strong, well-defined hypothesis?
• Is my research plan well developed, creating strong individual projects?
• Does my project have sufficient details and focused experimental approaches?
• Did I address problems I may encounter, propose alternative approaches, and describe contingency plans?
• Did I consider the potential difficulties and limitations of the proposed approaches?
• Did I explain the procedures, situations, and materials that may be hazardous to personnel? Did I list precautions I am taking?

• Have I fully articulated the significance of my work and how it will move the field forward?

Biosketch

• Do I have biosketches for all personnel in my application?
• Does each biosketch include all required sections: positions and honors, selected peer-reviewed publications or manuscripts in press, and research support?

• Have I explained how my institution can give me the support I need to do my work?
• Do I have sufficient expertise for the work proposed?
• Am I or other leaders already involved in too many projects?
• Are the other investigators qualified to perform the research?
• Am I using collaborators or consultants to fill gaps and improve in expertise and resources?
• Does my description of resources show adequate equipment, space, and support staff to conduct the research?
• If I seek cofunding -- e.g., from a company or professional association -- did I state this in my application and provide letters from the other sources of support to confirm this?

Individual Cores

• Have I described how each core supports at least two projects?
• Did I describe the administrative infrastructure and explain how that structure will further the overall program goals?
• Have I stated the roles and responsibilities of the administrative core leader and functions of the core?
• Have I included a detailed description of the facilities, approaches, and support for each project supported by the core?
• Have I created an adequate management structure and committed an appropriate amount of time and effort for the coordination of the program?
• Have I provided for scientific meetings in which the project leaders can interact?
• Have I included the plans for prioritizing the core’s services?
• Do I have sufficient expertise to direct each core?
• Have I shown how the core will add to the central focus of the overall program?
• Have I clearly described an adequate management structure and allocated an appropriate amount of time and effort for the coordination of the program?

Overall Program Coordination

• Have I explained the significance of the overall program goals?
• Does my plan address each PI's role and responsibilities and the team's governance and organizational structure? Is a formal consortium agreement needed?
• Is each PI leading a project?
• Have I listed all the sites where my work will take place and stated which facilities are completing which parts of the project? Have I fully described coordination among them?
• Did I submit complete information on the cores: a detailed description of the facility, approach, and project support?
• Have I made provisions for data management and coordination?
• Have I described how the program is cohesive and has a common theme?
• Have I explained how the projects are coordinated and integrated into the common theme of the program?
• Have I described how the whole program is better than the individual projects (paying special attention to synergy)?

Presentation

• Is the writing clear and concise?
• Have I labeled all materials clearly so reviewers can easily find information?

Option to Submit Simultaneously as an R01

We strongly encourage you to submit a component research project of a multiproject grant application as a research project R01 at the same time.

Should you decide to go this route, keep the following points in mind:

• Your component project should be able to stand alone as an R01.
• NIAID will review your R01 application independently of your multiproject application.
• If your R01 project depends on resources from the multiproject core, include those resources in your R01 application. Also include any associated costs in the budget.
• If both the multiproject and R01 applications are fundable, you will not have the option to withdraw from the multiproject grant and be funded as an R01.
  • This policy preserves the scientific integrity of a multiproject grant, which could be seriously compromised if strong projects were removed.
  • Please be aware of this policy before making a commitment to participate in a multiproject grant.

NIAID's Policy for Clinical Trials

NIAID has a mandatory two-step approach to funding investigator-initiated clinical trials: a Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34) followed by a Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01).

If you are planning a multiproject study that includes a clinical trial, discuss it with your program officer before moving forward. For more information go to the Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial Planning and Implementation Grants Web site.

Applications involving clinical trials or studies must meet requirements of the NIAID Clinical Terms of Award in addition to those in the PHS 398.

Staff Check, Peer Review

Initial peer reviewers evaluate multiproject applications for scientific merit but not for responsiveness to a funding opportunity announcement.

NIAID program staff check applications for their applicability to an announcement's purpose, objectives, and requirements. They return applications that are not consistent with any of those elements.

NIAID's scientific review committees in the Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, review multiproject applications for scientific and technical merit.

Additional Resources

• Withdrawal of a Nonresponsive Application SOP

How a Multiproject Application Is Reviewed

One scientific review committee will evaluate your entire application, assessing two major aspects: 1) each research project and core component and 2) the overall program as an integrated research effort.

Peer reviewers first assess the merit of each project and core and then the overall application. They also judge the relationship and contributions of each research project and core to the overall theme of the application.

An application is recommended for "no further consideration" if peer reviewers deem that fewer than the required minimum number of research projects (two unless stated otherwise in an announcement) have substantial and significant scientific merit.

NIAID will not award such applications or consider a strong project for a separate award. As stated under Option to Submit Simultaneously as an R01, you can submit an application simultaneously as an independent R01.

Multiproject Application Review Criteria

At NIAID, scored multiproject applications receive an overall impact/priority score based on their strengths and weaknesses in the following -- see each section for more information.

• Review Criteria for Projects
  • R01-like research projects receive individual criterion scores for the five standard review criteria.
  • R01-like research projects also receive an overall project impact/priority score.
• Review Criteria for Cores
  • Non-R01-like cores receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating only.
• Review Criteria for the Overall Application
  • Overall program receives an overall impact/priority score only.

For an explanation of scores, see the table below from NIH.

Scoring Table for Multiproject Research Grants

Review Criteria for Projects

Peer reviewers assign an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood of the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field, while considering the five standard review criteria and applicable additional review criteria listed below.

While reviewers consider all criteria, an application does not need to be strong in all to have a major scientific impact and deserve an exceptional overall impact/priority score. For example, an investigator may propose important work that is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward.

Summary statements show a final overall impact/priority score and criteria scores.

Standard Review Criteria

1. Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field?  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?
2. Investigators. Is the PI, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? Have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)?  If the project is collaborative, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
3. Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?  Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense?  Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
4. Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?  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?
   If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
5. Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?  Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?  Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

Additional Review Criteria

Peer reviewers factor in the adequacy of the following into the overall impact/priority score of the project.

• Protection of human subjects.  For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.

For more information, see the Grant Application Guide (for an electronic application) or PHS 398, Research Plan, Human Subjects Research (for a paper application).

• Inclusion of women, minorities, and children. Reviewers assess 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. Reviewers will also evaluate plans for recruiting and retaining subjects.

For more information, see the Grant Application Guide (for an electronic application) or PHS 398, Research Plan, Human Subjects Research (for a paper application).

• Vertebrate animals. If vertebrate animals are to be used, see the five items described under the Grant Application Guide (for an electronic application) or PHS 398, Content of Research Plan, Vertebrate Animals (for a paper application).
• Resubmission applications.  When reviewing a resubmission application (formerly called an amended application), the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
• Renewal applications.  When reviewing a renewal application (formerly called a competing continuation application), the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
• Revision applications.  When reviewing a revision application (formerly called a competing supplement application), the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project.  If the revision application relates to investigation in the original application that was not recommended for approval, the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
• Biohazards.  Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Review Criteria for Cores

Cores receive acceptable or unacceptable ratings only. The following criteria apply where appropriate; for example, reviewers do not look for scientific criteria for cores that do not have scientific responsibilities. Peer reviewers also factor in the adequacy of the additional review criteria (e.g., Protection of Human Subjects and Biohazards) listed under Review Criteria for Projects.

Administrative Core

• Does the application clearly describe and justify the proposed administrative core operational plan and organizational structure?
• Is the proposed administrative core adequate to accomplish the objectives of the overall program? How well does it fit into the central focus of the overall program?
• Do the core leader’s administrative, management, and leadership capabilities provide for the following activities?
  • Internal quality control of on-going research.
  • Management of day-to-day program activities.
  • Management of contractual agreements.
  • Fair, effective communication and cooperation among program leaders and/or program investigators.
  • Resolution of disputes.
  • Development of scientific meetings.
  • Allocation of funds.

Scientific Core or Cores

• Is the scientific core necessary? Can it support at least two research projects?
• How is the core connected to the central focus of the overall program?
• How good are the facilities or services provided by the core (including procedures, techniques, and quality control)? Are they being used effectively?
• How qualified are the core leader and key personnel? Are there any concerns about competence or commitment?

Review Criteria for the Overall Application

After evaluating the individual research projects using the five NIH review criteria, reviewers assess the overall application using the following special review criteria. (Overall applications receive an overall impact/priority score only.)

• Does the application adequately explain the following:
  • Scientific merit of each research project and core? The program as a whole?
  • Significance of the overall program goals?
  • Scientific gains and synergy achieved by combining the component projects into a multiproject program beyond the gains achievable if each project were pursued independently?
• How well does the overall program incorporate innovative concepts and approaches?
• Is the program cohesive? Do research projects and cores fit into a common theme?
• Does the PI have sufficient time, effort, leadership ability, and scientific talent to develop a program of integrated research projects with a well-defined central research focus?
• Are the key personnel qualified, trained, and committed? Do they add to the merit of the project? Can they devote adequate time and effort to the project?
• Does the institution provide sufficient laboratory space, equipment, and other resources to support the project?
• For renewal applications, do the program's accomplishments justify new funding?
• If the project is collaborative or multiple-PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise? Is their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the program?

Administrative considerations

• Is the administrative and organizational structure sound?
• Do the facilities support the overall program objectives?

Second-Level Review

Several weeks after the initial peer review, NIAID's advisory Council conducts a mandatory second-level review, considering the following:

• Results of the initial scientific and technical merit review.
• NIAID program balance.
• Policy and budgetary issues.

Additional Resources

• National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council Web page.

Overview of Instructions

The following instructions supplement those in the PHS 398. For items not covered here, follow the PHS Form 398.

These instructions have three parts:

• General Instructions -- address collaborative efforts among research projects, the overall administrative and organizational structure including facilities and environment, and the overall budget.
• Instructions for Projects -- describe modifications to PHS 398 instructions to address the collaborative or interactive aspects of the project.
• Instructions for Cores -- describe modifications to PHS 398 instructions to address the collaborative or interactive aspects of the project.

General Instructions

You will submit your application using the PHS 398. Assemble and paginate it as one document. The instructions below are in addition to -- not a substitute for -- those in the PHS 398.

Face Page

Complete all items as instructed.

Submit one face page only (projects and cores use cover pages, not additional face pages).

This is the first page of the application; number remaining pages consecutively.

Form Page 2

Use this form for an abstract -- a succinct but accurate description of the overall multiproject application, addressing the major, common theme of the program. Stay within the space provided. List all performance sites that will conduct research.

Under "key personnel," list the PI (or PIs if the initiative includes the option of multiple PIs) of the multiproject application followed by the project leaders of the research projects and cores, other key personnel, and other significant contributors.

Form Page 3

Do not use this page. In its place, prepare a detailed table of contents that will let reviewers locate information pertinent to the overall application as well as to each project and core.

• Identify each project by number (e.g., project 1), title, and project leader.
• Identify each core by letter (e.g., core A), title, and core leader.
• Include the page number for the composite budget and budgets of each project and core.

Keep in mind that each project and core will get its own Form Page 3 and its own review.

Form Page 4

Do not use this page. Instead, use the table format below to create a budget for the entire application for all proposed years of support.

As stated before, include the page number for the budget in the table of contents. Do not justify budget elements here; put a justification in the budget of each project and core.

Sample Consolidated Direct Cost Budget for All Years of Support

Form Page 5

Complete the total direct cost entries for all requested budget periods (years) and total direct cost for the entire period of support.

Biographical Sketch Format Page

Put biographical sketches of professional personnel for all components at the end of the application with the PI's first followed by the project leaders of the research projects and cores, other key personnel, and other significant contributors.

Resources Format Page

Do not use this page. Give essential information in the individual research project and core sections.

Research Plan -- Program Overview

This narrative section summarizes the overall Research Plan; items 2 to 5 are limited to 25 pages.

A multiproject application is a confederation of interrelated research projects, each capable of standing on its own scientific merit but complementing one another. This important section lets a group of investigators show the program's conceptual unity by describing the scientific problems to be addressed and laying out a broad research strategy to address them.

As the strategy develops, explain how each project and core fits into the overall scheme. Summarize special features in the environment and resources that make this application strong, unique, or both.

Also describe the expertise and responsibilities of your program advisory committee members.

• For a new application, do not contact, recruit, or name potential members.
• For a renewal application, provide the names of current and former members.

Appendix

Appendix information must be directly relevant to the application. If data are crucial to the Research Plan, put the data in your application, not an Appendix.

You may have only one Appendix for the whole application. Clearly cross-reference any materials that relate to a project or core.

In addition to NIH's general rules, a multiproject application can have up to three publications or patent-related items for each core or project -- for details see If You Need an Appendix in the NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal. Always read the NIH Guide announcement to see if there are additional directions.

Submit your Appendix on a CD in PDF format, or prepare five paper sets.

Checklist Form Page

Complete one for the entire application, and place it at the end of the application.

Other Support Format Page

Do not use this page. We will request this information just-in-time, before issuing a grant award.

Introduction for a Resubmission

If you need to resubmit, include an introduction of up to three pages to address reviewers' comments for the overall application as well as for each project and core, as needed.

Note: you must request permission from your program officer to resubmit your application.

Instructions for Projects

The following instructions are unique to multiproject grants. For other items, follow the PHS 398 instructions.

Introduce each project using the PHS 398 Continuation Page; do not use the Face Page form.

Give each research project a number, e.g., 1, 2, 3, and a unique title. For easy cross-referencing, put the project's number and title on the upper left margin of all relevant pages.

The cover page should contain only the following items:

• Project Number and Title: e.g., 1. Preclinical Evaluation of HIV Microbicides
• Name of Project Leader: e.g., Jones, Roberta A.
• Human Subjects: Yes or No
  If yes, exemption number
  or
  IRB approval date or "pending"
  and
  Federalwide Assurance number
• Vertebrate Animals: Yes or No
  If Yes, IACUC approval date or "pending"
  and
  Animal welfare assurance number
• Proposed Period of Support
  From: mmddyy, e.g., 07/01/07
  To: mmddyy, e.g., 06/30/12
• Costs Requested for Initial Budget Period: e.g., 07/01/07 to 06/30/08
  Direct costs: e.g., $150,000
  Total costs: e.g., $162,000
• Costs Requested for Entire Budget Period: e.g., 07/01/07 to 06/30/12
  Direct costs: e.g., $700,000
  Total costs: e.g., $785,000
• Applicant Organization: Full name and address

Form Page 2

Provide a description, an abstract of the proposed research. The abstract should also briefly describe how the project will contribute to attaining the objectives of the overall program.

List the performance sites that will conduct the research.

Under "key personnel," list the project leader followed by the other key personnel and then other significant contributors.

Form Page 3

Prepare a table of contents for each project application.

Biographical Sketch Format Page

Do not include biographical sketches; they go in the overall application and its table of contents only.

Research Plan

Items 2 to 5 are limited to 25 pages.

• Item 2 -- Specific Aims: List in priority order the project's objectives and goals. Concisely and realistically describe the hypothesis or hypotheses to be tested. State the project's relationship to the multiproject program's goals and other projects or cores. This section is typically one page.
• Item 3 -- Background and Significance: Use this section to describe how the proposed research will contribute to meeting the program's goals and objectives. Explain the rationale for selecting the methods to accomplish the Specific Aims. State the biological significance of the research and the project's relevance to the primary theme of the application.
• Item 4 -- Preliminary Studies/Progress Report: Follow the approach best suited to your application.
  • For new applications, present your data and analyze its importance to the project. Be sure to include preliminary data that helps reviewers assess the likelihood of success.
  • For renewals, prepare a progress report summarizing your progress towards achieving the specific aims, explaining the importance of your findings, and giving an account of published and unpublished results. Discuss any changes in the project's budget or science.
• Item 5 -- Research Design and Methods: Describe the research design, procedures, experiments, and materials necessary to accomplish the specific aims. Discuss potential problems with your approach and present alternatives. Justify your proposed techniques and explain how they are better than the existing technology. Provide a timetable with contingency plans.

Appendix

Do not create an Appendix for a project as the whole application will have only one Appendix.

Introduction for a Resubmission

If you need to resubmit, include an introduction of up to three pages for each project to address reviewers' comments.

Note: you must request permission from your program officer to resubmit your application.

Instructions for Cores

Each core unit provides essential facilities or services for two or more research projects. A multiproject application may include two types of cores: scientific cores and an administrative core.

Scientific core or cores. A scientific core is a resource for the entire program. The application should list the projects it will serve and services it will provide, e.g., production of monoclonal antibodies and distribution to research projects 1 and 2.

Describe in detail the facilities, techniques, and skills the core will provide and the role of the core leader and each key participant. State the percentage of total dollars required to support each project that will use each scientific core.

Administrative core. The institution and the PI are responsible for the application and collaborative research activities. The institution is legally and financially accountable for the use of funds and must show it can perform the necessary administrative functions.

You should request funding for the program's administrative needs, for example, secretarial and other administrative services, expenses for publications for collaborative efforts, and communication expenses.

The following instructions are unique to multiproject grants. For other items, follow the PHS 398 instructions.

All cores. Introduce each core using the PHS 398 Continuation Page; do not use the Face Page form.

Use a letter, e.g., A, B, C, to designate each core unit, and give each a unique title. For easy cross-referencing, type the core's title and letter on the upper left-hand margin of all relevant pages.

The cover page should contain the following items only:

• Core Letter and Title: e.g., A. Monoclonal Antibody Production Core
• Name of Core Leader: e.g., Smith, Robert A.
• Human Subjects: Yes or No
  If yes, exemption number
  or
  IRB approval date or "pending"
  and
  Federalwide Assurance number
• Vertebrate Animals: Yes or No
  If Yes, IACUC approval date or "pending"
  and
  Animal welfare assurance number
• Proposed Period of Support
  From: mmddyy, e.g., 07/01/07
  To: mmddyy, e.g., 06/30/12
• Costs Requested for Initial Budget Period: e.g., 07/01/07 to 06/30/08
  Direct costs: e.g., $50,000
  Total costs: e.g., $70,000
• Costs Requested for Entire Budget Period: e.g., 07/01/07 to 06/30/12
  Direct costs: e.g., $212,323
  Total costs: e.g., $297,252
• Applicant Organization: Full name and address

Form Page 2

Provide a description, an abstract of the core activities and services to be provided to the projects. The abstract should also briefly describe how the core will contribute to attaining the objectives of the overall program.

List the performance sites that will conduct the core activities and services.

Under "key personnel," list the core leader followed by the other key personnel and then other significant contributors.

Form Page 3

Prepare a table of contents for each core.

Biographical Sketch Format Page

Do not include biographical sketches; they go in the overall application and its table of contents only.

Research Plan

Items 2 to 5 are limited to 25 pages.

• Item 2 -- Specific Aims: List in priority order the objectives of the proposed core. In addition, state its relationship to the program's goals and the research projects or other cores. This section is typically one page.
• Item 3 -- Background and Significance: Use this section to describe how the proposed core activities will contribute to meeting the program's goals and objectives, and explain the rationale for selecting the methods to accomplish the specific aims. This section should indicate the relevance of the core to the primary theme of the application.
• Item 4 -- Preliminary Studies/Progress Report: Describe the proposed core's services and expertise in providing those services for the program. Show how the core will further the program's goals.
• Item 5 -- Research Design and Methods: State the roles and responsibilities of the administrative core leader and functions of the proposed core. Include a detailed description of the core's facilities, approaches, support, and plans for prioritizing its services.

Appendix

Do not create an Appendix for a core as the whole application will have only one Appendix.

Introduction for a Resubmission

If you need to resubmit, include an introduction of up to three pages for each core to address reviewers' comments.

Note: you must request permission from your program officer to resubmit your application.

Call Us for Help

For more information, contact the program, review, or grants management staff listed under "Inquiries" in the funding opportunity announcement. For general NIH and NIAID policy-related questions or questions about NIAID extramural programs, contact Patricia Haggerty, Ph.D..

Other Tutorials

• Go to All About Grants.