1 / 14

NIH 101

NIH 101. Laurie Tompkins, PhD Acting Director, Division of Genetics and Developmental Biology NIGMS, NIH Swarthmore College May 14, 2012. Structure of NIH (one view). Intramural (research labs at NIH) 10%

mai
Télécharger la présentation

NIH 101

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NIH 101 Laurie Tompkins, PhD Acting Director, Division of Genetics and Developmental Biology NIGMS, NIH Swarthmore College May 14, 2012

  2. Structure of NIH (one view) • Intramural (research labs at NIH) 10% • Extramural (administrators who deal with the biomedical research community outside of NIH) 90%

  3. Structure of NIH (another view) • 28 Institutes, Centers, and Offices • Most but not all support biomedical research • Examples: • NCI (cancer) • NHLBI (heart, lung, and blood) • NIMH (mental health) • NIGMS (basic research) http://www.nih.gov/icd/

  4. Most important point in talk! • Every grant-funding institute, center and office is different • Mission (topics of interest) • Types of awards • Grants, cooperative agreements, contracts • Special initiatives vs. investigator-initiated projects • Research grants vs. centers • Emphasis on training and workforce development • Types of awards (“mechanism”): R03, R21s not accepted by all institutes

  5. Take-home message: • New to NIH? • Changing fields? • Figure out what institute(s) might be interested in funding what you want to do before you start working on the grant application • Is NIH interested? • If an institute is interested, what does it offer (special initiatives, types of awards)?

  6. How? • http://www.nih.gov/icd/ • rePORTERhttp://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm • Discuss idea with program director • Email preferable to phone, to start discussion • Send description of what you want to do • Think about budget, term, scope of project before you contact program • Provide information (independent investigator, trainee, institution, contact info) • Inquiry may be referred to another person at NIH

  7. Special initiatives (ask!) • RFA (institute interest, money set aside) • PA (institute interest, but no money set aside) • If there’s an RFA or PA for what you want to do, apply in response to the RFA or PA, even if it’s a little more work, you have to delay submitting an application, or the institute isn’t the one that has funded your projects in the past • Get in touch with scientific/program contact named in funding opportunity announcement (FOA) if you’re not sure

  8. Applying for funding • All applications—special initiatives and “standard”—submitted in response to FOA • FOAs published in NIH Guide • http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html • FOAs for “unsolicited” applications • http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm • R01, R03, R15, R21, T32, F, common K

  9. Funding to award cycle (6-9 months) • Most applications submitted electronically • Applications submitted to CSR (Center for Scientific Review) • Division of Receipt and Referral in CSR: two assignments, review and institute • Review: usually CSR study section • Institute advisory Council • Funding decision

  10. Review • NIH administrator: Scientific Review Officer (SRO) • CSR review: study section or special emphasis panel (SEP) • Ca. 25% of applications reviewed by institute review staff: SROs • Research grant applications: ca. half discussed • Summary statement • If discussed, score, percentile (for some types of applications), summary of discussion, reviewers’ critiques, IRG notes (budget cuts, concerns) • If not discussed, reviewers’ critiques

  11. Council • “Second level of review” • Deals with appeals and grievances (concerns about review or the outcome), special situations (applications from investigators with lots of other funding, foreign applications, etc.) • Provides advice about special initiatives and applications submitted in response to special initiatives • En bloc approval to consider applications for funding • Lots of variability among institutes

  12. Post-Council • Institute (program) decides which applications to fund • Lots of differences among institutes in how funding decisions are made • New investigators typically get special consideration • Budget and/or term of award may be cut • Start date may be later than requested • Grants management specialist makes award

  13. Why does receipt-to-award cycle take so long? • SROs need time to read applications, figure out what expertise is required to evaluate them, recruit/assign appropriate reviewers • Reviewers need time to read and evaluate applications • After review, SROs need time to write summary statements • Advisory Councils need time to complete assignments (read documents and make decisions)

  14. Question or concern? Program director, SRO, or grants management? • Before submitting application: program (or if question is about a study section, SRO) • After submission, before review: SRO • After review, program (scientific issues) or grants management (budget or policy issues). General rule: institutional administrators talk to grants management, investigators talk to program. Just-in-time: grants management. PLEASE SUBMIT ASAP IF REQUESTED. • After award: program (scientific), grants management (budget or policy)

More Related