December 9, 2009
News Articles
Opportunities and Resources
Advice Corner
New Funding Opportunities
News Articles
Just In: Higher Interim R01 Paylines
As we've said before, expect these paylines to change later in the year.
We raised the interim R01 paylines to the 8 percentile for most applicants and 12 for new investigators, enabling us to fund more investigators until we get a budget.
As we've said before, expect these interim paylines to change later in the year.
We are setting paylines more conservatively this year because of the new scoring system—we simply don't know how scores well be spread over the scoring spectrum until we gain more experience with the new scores.
Research Integrity—Now Required Learning for Trainees
Be aware that your funding depends on having an acceptable responsible research conduct plan.
Updating its existing policy, NIH requires that more investigators to be trained with NIH support receive formal instruction in the responsible conduct of research.
Affected are institutional training grants (T), individual fellowships (F), career development awards (K), and some other training-type grants.
What is responsible research conduct?
Responsible research conduct is the practice of scientific investigation with integrity, i.e., the awareness and application of established professional norms and ethical principles in performing research.
It is the converse of research misconduct, which is fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices.
NIH is mandating that trainees have at least eight hours of formal instruction at least once during each career stage, at least every four years.
To show that this will happen, you need to include a plan in your competing and noncompeting applications. Be aware that your funding depends on having an acceptable plan.
Though the plan's rating does not affect your overall impact score, we cannot fund your application unless it has an acceptable plan. If reviewers rate your plan unacceptable, you'll need to send us a revised one that we approve.
The policy affects competing applications starting with the January 25, 2010, receipt date, and noncompeting applications for existing grants starting on January 1, 2011.
Find detailed guidance, application procedures, and other information in the November 24, 2009, Guide notice.
Your Financial Conflict of Interest Information Is Not Optional
And on a related note, we'd like to remind you that all investigators must disclose potential conflicts of financial interests to their institutions when applying for grants or contracts.
"NIH strongly believes that it is vital that all research be conducted with the highest scientific and ethical standards. The introduction of bias is antithetical to these principles and will not be tolerated," says NIH's Sally Rockey.
Following high-profile cases and congressional oversight, NIH is concerned about lack of compliance by institutions.
"NIH strongly believes that it is vital that all research be conducted with the highest scientific and ethical standards. The introduction of bias is antithetical to these principles and will not be tolerated," said Sally J. Rockey, NIH's acting deputy director for extramural research.
As a grantee, your organization must have a written policy for managing or resolving conflicts. For their part, PIs have to promptly report conflicts to their institutions and refrain from spending funds until their institution reports the conflict to NIAID.
Despite the legal requirements, a recent study by the HHS Office of Inspector General found grantee institutions' performance to be lacking. To view its report, go to How Grantees Manage Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research Funded by the NIH.
For more information, read our SOP and previous articles:
Get to Know Council's Role, Newcomers
Council conducts second-level review, advises the Institute, clears concepts for initiatives, and reviews programs.
It's that time again when we welcome new members to our advisory Council. While we're at it, let's review Council's role since it is such an important one.
Roster Changes
The following people will be starting their freshman year. Like other members, each will serve on one of three Council subcommittees that correspond to NIAID's extramural divisions.
- Dr. Connie Celum—DAIDS subcommittee
- Dr. Nelson Chao—DAIT subcommittee
- Dr. George Siber—DMID subcommittee
- Dr. Jenny Ting—DAIT subcommittee
For their backgrounds, go to Biographical Sketches of NIAID Council Members.
The arrival of newcomers means some "old timers" have departed. We bid adieu to Drs. Kathryn Edwards, Megan Sykes, Barbara Baird, and Martin Rosenberg, who came to the end of their four-year terms. As NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci did at the September Council meeting, we thank them for their service.
What Does Council Do?
New members have their work cut out for them. They join their colleagues in performing Council's four key functions: conducting second-level review, clearing concepts for initiatives, reviewing programs, and advising the Institute on policy.
Here's a brief look at the four areas. For more information, go to NIAID's Council—Our Chief Advisory Committee.
Council Makes Recommendations
During second-level review, Council acts on two groups of applications: those with special issues and those without. It does not conduct another scientific review.
For applications that are within the payline and have no study section concerns, three Council members perform an expedited review so we can fund grants earlier than usual. Find additional details in our Expedited Council Review and Award SOP.
On the flipside, each full subcommittee discusses and recommends the next course of action for applications with potential funding obstacles, which we describe in our Special Issues Requiring Council Review SOP. Generally, members will not recommend applications for funding unless the applicant resolves study section concerns.
We cover all this ground and more in Strategy for Second-Level Review in the Strategy for NIH Funding.
What a Concept
If you've gone to our page on Concepts: Potential Initiatives, you know that Council determines which concepts will move forward to possibly become a request for applications, program announcement, or solicitation. You may not know that members scrutinize each concept and often recommend changes to key features like the budget and mechanism (e.g., grant or contract).
As we've written before, you can use concepts as clues to NIAID's research interests and topics for investigator-initiated applications. Find out more by reading our September 9, 2009, article "How We Plan for Science Opportunities and Needs" and Concepts May Turn Into Initiatives in the NIAID Funding Opportunity Planning and the Budget Cycle.
Policy Input, Program Review
When it comes to policy, the Institute often asks Council to weigh in. Occasionally, Council will form a special working group—or request that one be created—to examine and address critical scientific or policy issues that are important to the Institute and its constituencies.
NIAID also looks to Council for feedback on programs, focusing on whether they're effective in meeting Institute goals and the needs of the scientific fields it supports.
Resources
To learn more about Council, check out the following:
Opportunities and Resources
Does an R21 Help a New Investigator Get an R01?
An R21 can help some new investigators develop stronger R01 applications.
Whether new investigators should start with a smaller grant, such as an exploratory/developmental research grant (R21), or jump right into an R01 is a long-standing question.
Several institutes have looked into it recently with varying results.
But for NIAID, the data show benefits. Here's a sample of what we found:
- New vs. new. New investigators who had an R21 in 2003 were twice as successful in getting an R01 as those who did not have a previous R21—32 and 15 percent, respectively. See our definition of new investigator.
- New vs. established. New investigators who had an R21 in 2003 were as successful as established PIs in getting an R01 from their R21 project—32 and 28 percent, respectively.
- Successful vs. unsuccessful. New investigators receiving an R01 in 2003 were seven times more likely to have had an R21 than those who applied unsuccessfully.
Of these data, perhaps the first point is the most important. An R21 seems to get new people on their way to major independent funding by enabling them to develop stronger R01 applications.
Still, it's not for everyone. An R21 is useful if you don't have preliminary data and feel you are not yet competitive with other R01 applicants. However, if you have preliminary data that can support your research hypothesis, you should go straight for the R01.
Though the R21 can be an attractive option for some new investigators, keep in mind that other institutes have gathered data and came up with different results. One institute canceled its R21 program because of perceived harm to new investigators.
Here's an interesting corollary: data show that applying for any grant boosts the chances of success. Yes, just applying has a positive effect. No one knows why, but perhaps gaining grantsmanship skills plays a role.
To learn more about grant writing, go to our Strategy for NIH Funding. We are updating it with new strategy and grant writing information, some of which we are highlighting in this newsletter—see "Conduct Your Own Peer Review" below.
Get More Free Bioinformatics Resources from NIAID
We have partnered with the scientific community on centers that house data, provide software and analytical tools, and offer large-scale database and informatics capabilities.
Looking for valuable data that's free? As promised, here are more bioinformatics resources, following up on our October 28, 2009, article "Get Free NIAID Bioinformatics Software."
NIAID supports several Web-based resources for investigators studying infectious diseases, immunology, immune-related diseases, and transplantation.
We have partnered with the scientific community on centers that house data, provide software and analytical tools, and offer large-scale database and informatics capabilities.
In addition to searchable databases, here are examples of what we offer you:
- Bioinformatics Resource Centers—databases of genomic and other diverse data types including integrated systems biology data for bacteria, viruses, eukaryotic pathogens, and invertebrate vectors as well as analysis tools, services, and training.
- Influenza Research Database—all types of influenza data without restriction including genomic and other "omics," surveillance, and clinical data as well as analysis tools, services, and training.
- Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource—comprehensive database of immune epitopes for allergy and infectious diseases excluding HIV, as well as epitope prediction and analysis tools. Will soon include transplantation and autoimmune epitopes.
- ImmPort—Immunology Database and Analysis Portal—advanced information technology support in the visualization, query analysis, archive, and exchange of data for life science researchers, including both mechanistic and clinical research data and analysis tools.
- Systems Immunology—genomics, forward genetics, signaling, proteomics data, as well as protocols, methods, and experimental data.
Advice Corner
Conduct Your Own Peer Review
Internal reviewers—peers, mentors, or even your department head—are in a perfect position to assess whether your application stands to make a high impact on its field and you have conveyed its impact effectively.
With today's uncertainties, it's critical to submit the best application you can on the first try. Of course, everyone aims that high, but to actually succeed requires more preparation than you may think.
Why is the first shot so important? First, you get only one resubmission. If that doesn't work, you'll have to start over with a new or greatly revised idea.
Second, you should expect to get very limited feedback from the peer review with today's shorter summary statements.
Gone are the days when you could submit an application in a rush with the hopes of getting the feedback you needed to improve it.
Your goal now should be to circumvent problems beforehand, and get it right the first time. As a result, you'll need to 1) spend more time than previously on your strategy and 2) get feedback on your draft.
In this climate, you can't rush the process. Like any major work, it takes time and patience to hone your application to perfection. Here are some tips to make your application a stand-out.
You the Reviewer
Once you've written your application, step back to objectively query yourself about the points a reviewer would focus on:
- Since my score is based on overall impact, did I effectively emphasize the impact of my project on its field of science?
- Have I clearly described how the work I propose is both innovative and significant to public health?
- Does the text leave room for argument with my conclusions?
- Would a reviewer believe my team is especially qualified for the work and that my institution is a good place to do the research?
- Did I check the CSR Study Section Roster Index to determine who's likely to review my application?
- Did I evaluate their areas of expertise and use that information to fine-tune the impact and significance of the application?
- Will this set of reviewers see my topic as high impact? If not, is there another group that would? If this is the best group, is there information I could add to convince them?
Based on this assessment revise, then go to the next step.
Your Colleagues the Reviewers
Internal reviewers—peers, mentors, or even your department head—are in a perfect position to assess whether your application stands to make a high impact on its field and you have driven its impact home.
Get as many people as possible to give you feedback before sending the application to NIH. Ideal recruits would be colleagues who have written successful grants and served on NIH study sections. Also recruit people who are not experts in your field to get an outside perspective on the clarity and persuasiveness of your writing.
Ask your reviewers to be brutally honest as they analyze the strong and weak points of your application's content and presentation.
You could also ask them to score your application using NIH's review criteria; see the Scoring Table for Research Grants in the Strategy for NIH Funding.
These steps take time, but we believe they're worth it. We suggest that you give your reviewers at least a couple of weeks to review your application and then allow yourself at least a week to revise afterward.
As we've said before, we suggest you approach your application with a strategy. Read related advice in the following:
Is There a Best Time to Apply?
Don't rush it—your resubmission is your last chance, so you should take the time to improve it as much as possible.
Yes—the best time to apply is when your application is ready. Still, some people wonder if the receipt date makes a difference. It does—it affects how long you wait for funding, when you can resubmit, and more.
While you shouldn't rush or delay to apply at a certain time of year, use the guidance in this article to decide when to get started on your next application and help you understand what to expect.
Plan Ahead, Then Apply When Ready
As we said in the article above, "Conduct Your Own Peer Review," it's more important than ever to ensure that your first application is as good as it can be.
If you have enough preliminary data and all the other pieces are in place, don't save an application for a later receipt date. Wait only if you can make the application significantly stronger. For example, you might get an expert consultant on board, collect convincing new data, or get important resources to assist the research.
Considerations for Each Review Cycle
This table summarizes the three review cycles of fiscal year 2011, which starts on October 1, 2010, and ends on September 30, 2011.
You can't resubmit until your summary statement appears in the Commons, so this table assumes you wait the typical minimum of two review cycles to resubmit. Even if you are able to resubmit earlier, don't rush it—your resubmission is your last chance, so you should take the time to improve it as much as possible.
| New R01 Application Timing |
Characteristics and Considerations |
|
Review Cycle 1
Apply February 5, 2010
(AIDS: May 7.)
Council in September 2010.
|
- This cycle allows you to resubmit within the same fiscal year for review cycle 3.
- You may experience a delay in your funding while we don't have a budget or NIAID Paylines. We fund very few grants until we have a budget.
- If your application is deferred—in the gray zone—for possible funding at the end of the fiscal year, you have the longest wait. Consider revising for cycle 3 instead of waiting.
|
|
Review Cycle 2
Apply June 7, 2010
(AIDS: September 7.)
Council in February 2011.
|
- When you get your score in October or November 2010, we may have an interim NIAID Payline but not an actual payline.
- You're less likely to experience the long delay for funding we described above.
- The earliest you could resubmit would be for review cycle 1 of the next fiscal year, which means your application would be funded under the next year's payline. That could mean a long wait.
|
|
Review Cycle 3
Apply October 5, 2010
(AIDS: January 7, 2011.)
Council in May 2011.
|
- We usually have a budget when you get your score in February or March 2011, so you can compare it with the NIAID Payline.
- If your score falls in the gray zone, you won't wait long before NIAID starts making end-of-year funding decisions in June or July.
- The earliest you could resubmit would be for review cycle 2 of the next fiscal year, which means your application would be funded under the next year's payline.
|
We've posted a permanent version of this table for you at R01 Application Considerations for Each Review Cycle.
More Decision Tools
You can get an overview of timing for the three standard R01 receipt dates by reading R01 Planning to Award Timeline by Review Cycle.
Find a graphical view of how long it could take at Strategy Timelines in the Strategy for NIH Funding.
For resubmissions, see Resubmission Timing of Part 6. If Not Funded in the Strategy for NIH Funding.
For renewals, read more in Deciding When to Apply for a Renewal of How to Renew Your Application in the Strategy for NIH Funding.
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.
"For an individual fellowship application, can a co-sponsor submit one of my letters of reference?"—Suzanne Chapman, Trudeau Institute
No. The sponsor and co-sponsor have similar roles; therefore, the co-sponsor cannot be a reference.
"My abstract was chosen for a poster presentation; does NIAID offer travel grants?"—an anonymous reader
Sorry, no, NIAID does not offer travel grants.
"I saw that you are asking for investigators who would be willing to share examples of proposals (Rs and Ks) written under the new NIH format. Has anyone come forward yet?"—Pamela Derish, University of California, San Francisco
We expect it to take several months before people are willing to share their applications online due to the proprietary nature of the information when they apply. As soon as we have samples, we will post new applications including the Research Strategy section.
New Funding Opportunities
See these and older announcements at NIAID Funding Opportunities List.
back to top