August 26, 2009

News Articles

• Next Year's Budget—Caution's the Word
• Prime Yourself for New Applications, Peer Review
• ARRA Grantees—Know Your Reporting Requirements
• Think About CER When Planning Your Research
• Dr. Collins Reveals His Plans
• Redoing a Challenge Grant Application? Know When You Can Submit

Opportunities and Resources

• Taking Grants.gov to Account

Advice Corner

• Watch Out With Multiple PI Applications
• Reader Questions
  • My submission generated "warnings and/or errors" from the eRA Commons. How can I tell whether NIH accepted my application?
  • Given the extensive reporting requirements for ARRA awards, is it acceptable to budget for administrative support (salary and fringe benefits)? 
  • Is the deadline for an AIDS application resubmission different from the deadline for an initial AIDS and a non-AIDS application?
  • If salary increases are built into my budget, does my institution have to give the salary increase?

New Funding Opportunities

• See the list.

News Articles

Next Fiscal Year's Budget—Caution's the Word

As we approach the start of FY 2010, we are moving carefully to set funding policies. With so many uncertainties, we'd rather stay on the conservative side. Here are the factors making budget forecasting precarious this fiscal year.

New scoring. NIH's new peer review scoring scheme is redrawing the funding landscape. As we wrote in "Inside the New Peer Review," new priority scores range from 10 to 90; percentiles, from 1 to 99. New scores mean:

• Old and new overall impact scores and percentiles are not comparable—read more about that in the next article.
• We don't know how reviewers will distribute scores across the scale. Early evidence shows scores clustering in a tight range.
• The percentile base is shifting, which may produce varying results.
  • Instead of using data from three review cycles, NIH will calculate the base differently for each review cycle, as follows:
    • Cycle 1: used those applications only.
    • Cycle 2: uses applications submitted for first and second cycles.
    • Cycle 3: uses applications from all three new cycles.
  • NIH will not recalculate percentiles for applications reviewed in the first two cycles.
  • See Standard Due Dates for Competing Applications for dates.

Spike in R01s. We anticipate a surge of R01 applications when PIs recycle their unsuccessful Challenge Grant applications and submit new applications following their ARRA Bridge awards. Should this happen, success rates will drop, as more applications compete in the funding pool.

For more information on submitting a Challenge Grant, read the article "Redoing a Challenge Grant Application? Know When You Can Submit" below.

Our Interim Plan

Because of this uncertain situation, NIAID is setting its interim R01 payline at the 6 percentile. While this low level is unprecedented, two factors define its context.

First, the 6 percentile for R01s is an interim payline—our definition:

a temporary, administrative measure used to fund top-scoring applications early in the fiscal year. NIAID uses interim paylines before receiving its annual appropriation and immediately afterwards while the budget office is crunching the numbers to create actual paylines.

Interim paylines are conservative so NIAID does not inadvertently exceed its budget early in the fiscal year. Because interim paylines are not true paylines, we do not announce them through NIAID Funding Newsletter and Email Alerts.

An interim payline is not an actual payline. It is an administrative action that enables us to fund very high scoring applications while the budget picture is still uncertain at the beginning of a fiscal year.

Second, we intend to fund the same number of grants in FY 2010 as we did in FY 2009, even though we project that success rates will drop due to an influx of follow-on ARRA applications, as we noted above. (See our definition of success rate.)

We will set interim paylines for applications other than R01s later in the fiscal year.

Looking Beyond

As the year goes on, uncertainties will resolve, and we will have a better grasp of our fiscal situation. We expect to raise the R01 and other paylines, though we do not know to what level until we get our appropriation and have data from at least two review cycles. To get news about paylines right away, Subscribe to Email Alerts, and select the "NIAID Paylines and Budget" interest category.

You will face a tough decision if your R01 application scores beyond the 6 percentile, especially if you are allowed only one resubmission (if you applied before January 25, 2009, you are allowed two resubmissions until January 7, 2011). Here's our advice:

• If your application ranks at 8 percentile or lower, you may want to wait to see if it falls within the payline later in the year. Keep in mind that we will have NIAID and NIH Bridge award funds to help you out. 
• If the percentile is higher than 8, you should probably revise and resubmit since there is no guarantee that the budget picture will be any brighter in FY 2011.

Expect the Budget to Lag Inflation

Though NIH's final FY 2010 appropriation is still unknown, pending legislation points to a modest gain of less than inflation—see the Biomedical Research and Development Price Index.

The Senate Appropriations Committee for NIH has proposed $30.76 billion for FY 2010. That's an uptick of about $441.8 million—1.4 percent—over last fiscal year's level. The House passed a more generous bill at $31.26 billion, a rise of $941.8 million, or about 3 percent.

On the Senate side, members of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies decided to not give a heavy budget boost to programs receiving significant American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. You may recall that NIH received $10.4 billion through ARRA, which continues in FY 2010.

That said, these programs may get a bigger piece of the fiscal pie in FY 2011. Recognizing the dire straits agencies like NIH will face then, the Senate Appropriations Committee report language states:

The Committee understands that fiscal year 2011 will be an even more difficult year because several programs that were well-funded in ARRA will face the prospect of 'falling off a cliff.'

You can follow the bills and their progress at Status of Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal Year 2010.

Prime Yourself for New Applications, Peer Review

It's time to reboot your mental hard drive to gear up for new application formats and processes. Some have already taken effect, and NIH is still working on others. While we can't give you details for the latter, here are some things to wrap your brain around now.

Think big, write small. Research Plans will shrink for many grant types—to 12 pages for R01s, down from 25—and applications will get a new structure to better align with the new review criteria.

This means you will have to not only conceptualize a smaller application but also deal with a new organization. Some information will move to a different section of the application.

Resubmitting for Cycle I? You will need to redo the Research Plan in the new 12-page format.

These changes start with Cycle I receipt dates this winter—see Standard Due Dates for Competing Applications.

Why it's an "overall impact score." In addition to being less detailed, your Research Plan should stress the impact of your work to your area of science.

NIH says that the overall impact score quantifies the reviewers' assessment of a project's ability "to exert a sustained, powerful influence on its field," while considering the initial peer review criteria. To some extent—and we don't know how much—global impact is in, and detail is out.

Your challenge is to give reviewers enough information to be able to assess your understanding of the problem and ability to get the job done while having fewer details. We expect to give you more guidance on this topic in the coming months.

Two-digit scores. Now that NIH is using the new scoring system, we've already seen some confusion about the new scores.

Under the new scheme, each reviewer scores in whole numbers: 1 is best, 9 worst. Scores are averaged and then multiplied by 10 to create the overall impact score. So your non-percentiled score ranges from 10 to 90.

How do these new scores compare to the old three-digit scores? You can't compare them mathematically.

Scoring is different due to the emphasis on overall impact and the new numeric scale, which correlates to a totally different scale of descriptors. For reference, the old scale was 1.0 to 5.0 and descriptors ranged from outstanding to acceptable.

To derive meaning from the new scores, use the graphic we adapted from the excellent one NIH published in the Extramural Nexus. It shows the descriptor for each score and the relationship between scores and descriptors. You can also see how the balance of strength and weaknesses affects a score.

Scoring Table for Research Grants

New percentile base. Percentiling itself doesn't change, but the base against which it is calculated does as we described above under New Scoring in "Next Year's Budget—Caution's the Word."

ARRA Grantees—Know Your Reporting Requirements

FederalReporting.gov is now open for registration for quarterly reporting of your cumulative data. Keep these important factors in mind:

• Understand repercussions. If you  miss a reporting deadline, there may be serious repercussions, including suspension of your funding.
• Reporting window is only ten days.

  If you miss a reporting deadline, there may be serious repercussions, including suspension of your funding.

  • Get ahead of the curve—register and report as early as you can.
  • Keep in mind that systems may be overloaded as every ARRA grantee across the government submits at the same time.
  • Prepare ahead—set up a process to collect data now so they are ready to submit as soon as reporting opens.
  • For the quarter ending September 30, the reporting window is October 1 to October 10.
• Reporting requirement starts immediately. You must report at the next reporting period after receiving an award, no matter how short the time frame.
  • If you got an award on September 30, you must still report in October!
  • If the time is too short for meaningful a report, indicate "Not Started" as the project status and "0" for the data.

For questions about using the reporting system, talk to FederalReporting.gov help, not your program officer or grants management specialist. 

For more information, go to Special Reporting Requirements in NIAID and the Economic Recovery Act and the August 19, 2009, Guide notice.

Think About CER When Planning Your Research

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is quickly becoming a research priority for NIH and the federal government as a whole. You may want to keep this in mind as you assess your research goals, and see the comments by NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins in the next article.

Congress set aside $1.1 billion in ARRA funding for CER, including $400 million for NIH, and directed the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to develop a formal definition and identify ways to build CER nationally.

Read more in IOM's June 30, 2009, report Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

For its part, NIH has put together a CER Coordinating Committee and plans to build a database of projects that meet the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's CER Priority Conditions for its Effective Health Care Program.

NIAID is identifying projects for that database and is working with NIH to match our top CER priorities to those stated in IOM's Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research List of Priorities. In the coming years, we expect these priorities to weigh in on funding decisions.

Dr. Collins Reveals His Plans

In an August 17 address to NIH, its new director, Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., emphasized five themes he will devote his energies to:

• Apply high-throughput technologies to understand fundamental biology and uncover the causes of disease, allowing scientists to tackle problems in a comprehensive way.
• Support translational research to take advantage of new discoveries that can lead to new diagnostics and treatments. This includes getting academic investigators more involved and creating more public-private partnerships.
• Put scientists to work to benefit health care reform, including a focus on comparative effectiveness research, behavioral science, and health disparities.
• Expand global health efforts beyond AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and build research capacity in resource-poor environments.
• Invigorate and empower the research community by ensuring stable funding, strengthening training programs, encouraging new investigators, promoting diversity in the workforce, and supporting the NIH Common Fund.

Dr. Collins also shared his concerns. Foremost is a reprise of the funding shortfall that occurred after the doubling of the NIH budget ended in 2003, a dire possibility for 2011 when ARRA funds end.

Feast or famine is bad for science, he said, and highlighted the need to make the case that NIH-supported research is good for the economy and beneficial to the public. In that vein, scientists should become major players in CER, and the scientific community should figure out how to help contain health care costs.

You can see the video at NIH Videocasting and Podcasting.

Redoing a Challenge Grant Application? Know When You Can Submit

Are you planning to create a new application out of your unfunded Challenge Grant application? Be sure to wait to submit until the Cycle III deadlines—see Standard Due Dates for Competing Applications for dates.

If you submit it earlier—for example, for the September 7 deadline—NIH will withdraw your application.

NIH's Center for Scientific Review (CSR) requested this deadline to avoid giving an unfair advantage to people who got their results early, have separate deadlines for AIDS and non-AIDS applications, and help NIH manage the applications.

If your application is withdrawn, your institutional business office will receive a letter from CSR. Read the letter carefully, and talk to your business office staff if you need help.

Read more in our July 29, 2009, Funding Newsletterarticle "Unfunded Challenge Grant? You'll Need a Strategy" and May 15, 2009, Guide notice.

Opportunities and Resources

Taking Grants.gov to Account

On July 15, 2009, Government Accounting Office (GAO) published its analysis of Grants.gov, and the title is telling: "Grants Management: Grants.gov Has Systemic Weaknesses That Require Attention."

Applicants have difficulty registering with and using the system, which sometimes results in late applications.

Another problem is Grants.gov's customer service, which does not always resolve issues in time especially during off-peak hours and peak submission periods.

Here's what you can do to mitigate these issues:

• Submit your application during off-peak times. You can submit 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
• Contact Grants.gov during peak hours: Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. eastern time (except federal holidays).
• Let Grants.gov know if you are experiencing a problem with the software through the Grants.gov Blog. Learn more through the quarterly Stakeholder Webcast.
• If your organization isn't registered in Grants.gov, allow two to three weeks for registration.

Advice Corner

Watch Out With Multiple PI Applications

Should you apply for a multiple PI award? While the concept has appeal and may be appropriate in some circumstances, multiple PI R01s have a markedly lower success rate than do R01 applications in general, at least for investigators applying for NIAID support.

Success Rates for NIAID Applications in FY 2008

(Excludes withdrawn applications and multiple attempts in the same year.)

These new data mirror our previous take on the topic. We don't know the reason for poorer success, but likely causes are the complexity of the applications and difficulty coordinating the efforts of multiple PIs.

If you want to read more on the subject, go to Should You Consider a Multiple PI Application? in the Strategy for NIH Funding.

Find more FY 2008 success rates for NIAID at Research Project Success Rates for the Selected Institute.

Know the Rules

Sometimes you can use a term loosely, and other times that will get you in trouble. Be careful with "multiple-PI"—it may mean more than you think.

If you determine that a multiple-PI application is right for you, know that it has its own set of rules. For example, it must include a leadership plan and comply with other requirements.

You must meet those requirements or reviewers will not review the application for multiple PIs. If that happens and we award the grant, only the principal investigator listed first in the application will be a PI.

NIH does not recognize co-PIs as some other agencies do, so you cannot simply designate more than one PI. If that is your aim, assess whether the multiple PI approach is the best choice for you, and follow the instructions in your funding opportunity announcement for a multiple-PI application.

Reader Questions

Feel free to send us a question at deaweb@niaid.nih.gov. After responding to you, we may include your question in the newsletter, incorporate it into the NIAID Research Funding site, or both.

"My submission generated 'warnings and/or errors' from the eRA Commons. How can I tell whether NIH accepted my application?"—an anonymous reader

In general, you should talk to the eRA Help Desk for questions about the eRA Commons, but keep these points in mind:

• If your application went through and had warnings but no errors, it has been successfully submitted to NIH.
• However some warnings are serious and you may want to look into them and see whether you want -- and are able—to address them within the viewing window.
• Always log in to your Commons account to verify your application's status. Do not depend on email notifications.

"Given the extensive reporting requirements for ARRA awards, is it acceptable to budget for administrative support (salary and fringe benefits)?"—Alex Boles, University of Alabama at Birmingham

ARRA administrative support is covered by facilities and administrative costs (F&A) costs. We don't pay those as direct costs unless they are integral to your research.

"Is the deadline for an AIDS application resubmission different from the deadline for an initial AIDS and a non-AIDS application?—an anonymous reader

AIDS and AIDS-related applications have unique deadlines: May 7, September 7, and January 7 whether they are new, renewals, resubmissions, or revisions. Most non-AIDS applications have different due dates for these application types.

Go to the Standard Due Dates for Competing Applications for all NIH receipt dates.

"If salary increases are built into my budget, does my institution have to give the salary increase?"—Lea Smalls, Allen Institute for Brain Science

The answer depends on the terms of your award and type of institution. Speak to your business office, then contact your grants management specialist about your situation.

Here is the general policy information. Your institution doesn't have to give you a salary increase even if it was built into your budget. But for most grants, you can rebudget your grant money for another purpose as long as the unused dollars are less than 25 percent of total costs.

Depending on your award, you may need prior approval to do this. Read Grantees Can Take Many Actions Independently in the Strategy for NIH Funding and Prior Approvals for Post-Award Grant Actions SOP for more information.

New Funding Opportunities

• RFP-NOT-OD-09-137, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Contract Solicitation (PHS 2010-1) and Instructions
• RFA-AI-09-036, Centers for Medical Countermeasures Against Radiation
• RFP-BAA-NIAID-DMID-NIHAI2009055, Development of Technologies to Facilitate the Use of, and Response to, Biodefense Vaccines
• RFA-AI-09-041, Non-Human Primate Heart/Lung Transplantation Tolerance
• RFA-AI-09-035, Immunobiology of Xenotransplantation

See these and older announcements at NIAID Funding Opportunities List.

back to top