Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Michelle M. Timmerman, Ph.D.
Director, AREA Program
National Institutes of Health
• Overview of AREA (R15) program
• R15-specific instructions
• Review of R15 applications
Goals of AREA program
• Support meritorious research
• Expose students to research
• Strengthen the research environment of the
institution
Key features
• Project period is limited up to 3 years
• Direct cost limited to $300,000 over entire
project period
• Multiple PIs are allowed, if all eligible
• Research Strategy limited to 12 pages
• Grants are renewable
• Preliminary data not required but can be
provided
Eligibility
Eligibility = applicant institution and PI only
Eligibility ≠ collaborators
Eligibility
Institution Principal
Investigator
Institution eligibility
• US institutions only
• Baccalaureate or advanced degree in
biomedical or behavioral science
• Degree granting & accredited
• Receives less than $6 million per year in NIH
support in 4 out of last 7 years
There is no “eligible” list
• Ineligible list is on AREA Program website ▫ http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/area_ineligible.htm
• “Other Academic” = sum of everything that is not
an R15-defined Health Professional School
• Updated in April; university should check
PI eligibility
• Primary appointment at eligible institution
• Multiple PI OK if all eligible
• R15 supports small scale projects
▫ Eligible:
Also serve as consultant (e.g., Key Personnel) on
another grant
▫ Not Eligible:
Also serve as PI of other NIH research grants at
time of award
Also serve as Multiple PI on another NIH research
grant at time of award
Application logistics
• Funded through the R15 grant mechanism ▫ Program Announcement (PA) Number: PA-13-313
• All NIH ICs participate in the PA-13-313 except
FIC and NCATS
Timeline for R15 applications
10
Scientific Review:
Jun/July
Oct/Nov
Feb/Mar
Council Review:
October
January
May
Earliest Award Date:
December
April
July
Receipt/Due Date:
Feb 25 May 7 AIDS
Jun 25 Sept 7 AIDS
Oct 25 Jan 7 AIDS
There is no winning formula
No one can give specifics of what will score well
Do not treat a successful [or not] application as
an iron-clad template [of what not to do]
▫ How much experience supervising students
▫ How many students
▫ How many papers
▫ What % of a collaborator
▫ What % of special facilities
▫ What amount or type of institutional support
▫ What type of environment
R15-specific instructions:
Biosketch • Personal statement addresses your experience
supervising students doing research
▫ Potentially includes:
Numbers and length of experience
Inclusion of students in publication
Student outcomes
• Specifies which pubs/patents involved your
students
12
R15-specific instructions: Budget
• Must include undergraduate (preferably, if
available) and/or graduate students
• Specify which parts of research students will be
involved in
• List number & level (e.g., undergraduate, junior)
13
Budget: Justify ineligible collaborators
• FAQ: Can I have a collaborator who is not at an
AREA-eligible institution, at home campus or
another site?
• Eligibility answer: Yes
• Merit answer: But keep the unique goals and
criteria of the R15 in mind
▫ No one can predict what level of involvement will
be seen as counter to the R15 goals
▫ Pre-PA-12-006, unique attributes not included as
strongly in review criteria
R15 instructions:
Facilities & Other Resources
• For institution; not PI’s mentoring experience
• Profile of students
• Estimate of # who obtained Bachelor & pursued
doctoral degree in last 5 years
• Special characteristics that make it appropriate
for 3 goals of AREA
• Impact of R15 on PI & institution
• Any institutional support
15
Research Strategy • Address research-related AREA goals
▫ Support small-scale meritorious research projects Research should contribute to the field
Results should be publishable
Hypothesis should be provable with budget requested
▫ Expose students to research How students will be incorporated into the research
project
How students will benefit from this research experience
Project should stimulate students’ interest in research
• Don’t include fellowship-style training plans
•
16
Additional advice
• Include a collaborator or consultant if you don’t have
the necessary expertise or resources • Note caveat for ineligible collaborators
• Understand the review criteria and the review
criteria questions
▫ Each question should be addressed in the
application
• In A1, respond thoroughly and diplomatically to
all of the reviewer comments
17
Talk to a Program Officer
• Before you write
▫ Is your project appropriate for R15?
▫ Does your project fit in Institute/Center’s mission?
• After your Summary Statement is released
▫ More context for Resume and Summary of
Discussion
▫ Resubmit?
▫ Timeline for funding decisions
18
Electronic submission hints
• Obtaining or renewing registrations can take 6
weeks
• Start e-submission 3 business days early
• Follow process for system errors ▫ http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/support.htm#guidelines
• Correct errors & “address” warnings on time
▫ Error = NIH does not get application
▫ Warning = application gets to NIH and will be
manually validated
• Use the 2 day viewing window
19
News & resources • Annotated sample R01, R21 applications ▫ http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/
appsamples.aspx
• AREA Program evaluation underway
▫ Assessing Program’s success in meeting its goals
▫ Surveys & interviews by Westat
• AREA Program Facebook page
▫ Like us on Facebook
▫ https://www.facebook.com/NIHAreaProgram
• AREA Program FAQs
▫ http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/area_faq.htm
• AREA mailbox
Peer Review of Research Applications at the
NIH
Vonda Smith, Scientific Review Officer (SRO) Small Business: Biological Chemistry, Biophysics, and Drug Discovery Study Section February 19, 2015
American Association of State Colleges and Universities:
2015 GRC Funding Competitiveness Conference
Center for Scientific Review
Center for Scientific Review
• Serves as central receipt point for grant applications
submitted to NIH and some other DHHS agencies
• Assigns applications to CSR review groups/study
sections or Institute scientific review groups
• Assigns applications to NIH Institute(s)/Center(s) as
potential funding component(s)
• Conducts initial scientific merit review of most
research applications submitted to the NIH in about 240
Study Sections and regularly recurring Special Emphasis
Panels
Your Scientific Review Officer Takes Charge
Your SRO is a doctoral-level scientist with expertise relevant to
your field who manages the overall peer review of your application.
Your SRO Assigns at Least Three Reviewers to
Your Application
What Your SRO Looks for When Recruiting Reviewers
• Demonstrated scientific expertise/research support
• Doctoral degree or equivalent
• Mature judgment
• Work effectively in a group context
• Breadth of perspective
• Impartiality
• Diversity
• Geographic distribution
The Study Section Meeting
Your SRO Convenes the Study Section Meeting
At the Meeting: Application Discussion
• Any member in conflict with an application leaves the room
• Reviewer 1 introduces the application and presents critique
• Reviewers 2 and 3 highlight new issues and areas that
significantly impact scores
• All eligible members are invited to join the discussion and then
vote on the final overall impact score
• Reviewers typically discuss the top half of the
applications
• The panel will discuss any application a reviewer wants
to discuss
Discussions Focus on the Best Applications
Main Review Criteria
• Overall Impact
The likelihood for the project to make an important
scientific contribution to the research field(s) involved, to
provide research opportunities to students, and to
strengthen the research environment of the institution,
• Core Review Criteria
Core Review Criteria
• Significance: Does the project address an important problem
or a critical barrier to progress in the field, or have the ability
to improve knowledge, technical capability or clinical practice?
Does the project advance the field?
• Investigator(s): Are they qualified? If ESI or NI , for an R01
application, do they have appropriate experience and
training?
• Innovation: Does it challenge and seek to shift current
research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing something
novel? Is it novel to one field of research or novel in a broad
sense? Is it a refinement, improvement, or new application?
Core Review Criteria
• Approach: Is it well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish
the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems/
alternative /benchmarks for success presented? If in the early
stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and
will particularly risky aspects be managed?
• Environment: Will it contribute to the probability of success?
Are the institutional support/equipment/other physical resources
available to the investigators adequate? Will the project benefit
from unique features of the scientific environment, subject
populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Additional Criteria Contribute to Overall Impact
Scores
• Protections for human subjects
• Inclusions of women, minorities and children
• Appropriate use of vertebrate animals
• Management of biohazards
R15/AREA Grant Review
• Reviewed together
o Clustered
o SEP
Main Review Criteria
• Overall Impact
Overall Impact : How likely is it that the project will make
an important scientific contribution to the research field(s)
involved, to provide research opportunities to students,
and to strengthen the research environment of the
institution?
• Core Review Criteria
Core Review Criteria R15/Area Grants
• Significance: How well could the grant strengthen the
research environment and expose students to research?
• Investigator(s): Do the PD(s)PI(s) have suitable
experience in supervising students in research?
• Innovation: No specific difference from assessing
innovation in R01 grant applications.
• Approach: Can the project stimulate students’ interest so
they might consider a biomedical/behavioral science
career?
• Environment: Are qualified students available? Is there
evidence that students have pursued or will pursue
biomedical/ behavioral science careers?
More on the AREA/R15 Program
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/area.htm
9-Point Scoring Scale
Impact Score Descriptor
High Impact
1 Exceptional
2 Outstanding
3 Excellent
Medium Impact
4 Very Good
5 Good
6 Satisfactory
Low Impact
7 Fair
8 Marginal
9 Poor
Scoring
• Each panel member provides an overall impact score.
Range of Scores
• After discussion, assigned reviewers state final Overall Impact
Scores, defining the score range.
• Panel members may vote outside this range although any intent
to do so must be declared.
Other Considerations that Do Not Affect Overall
Impact Scores
• Resource Sharing Plans:
– Data
– Model Organisms
– Genome Wide Association Studies
• Foreign Organizations
• Select Agents
• Budget
Electronic reviews are used to facilitate reviewer participation
Electronic Review Platforms
• Telephone Assisted Meetings
• Internet Assisted Meetings
• Video Assisted Meetings
Your Application Could Be Reviewed Electronically
After Your Review
Your SRO
• Prepares summary statements
• Provides information to NIH Institutes and Centers
• Scores for each review criterion
• Critiques from assigned reviewers
• Administrative notes if any
If your application is discussed, you also will receive:
• An overall impact/priority score and percentile
ranking
• A summary of review discussion
• Budget recommendations
Your Summary Statement
Check the Status of Your Application in NIH Commons
Cover Letter
The cover letter should be used for a number of important
purposes:
• Suggest Institute/Center assignment
• Suggest review assignment
• Identify individuals in potential conflict and explain why
• Identify areas of expertise needed to evaluate the application
• Discuss any special situations
It is NOT appropriate to use the cover letter to suggest specific
reviewers.
What Reviewers Look for in Applications
• Impact
• Exciting ideas
• Clarity
• Realistic aims and timelines -- Don’t be overly
ambitious
• Brevity with things that everybody knows
• Noted limitations of the study
• A clean, well-written application
Key NIH Review and Grants Web Sites
NIH Center for Scientific Review
http://www.csr.nih.gov
NIH Office of Extramural Research
http://grants.nih.gov/
Who Can Answer Your Questions?
Before You Submit Your Application
• A Program Officer at an NIH Institute or Center
• Scientific Review Officer
After You Submit
• Your Scientific Review Officer
After Your Review
• Your Assigned Program Officer
Meet the Experts in NIH Peer Review Webinars
www.csr.nih.gov/webinar
For Researchers Seeking:
• R01 Grants
• Fellowship Awards
• AREA/R15 Grants
• Small Business Grants