Grants links
Grants Bulletin
To subscribe to e-mail notification of Grants Bulletin updates with a link to this page, fill out the Subscription Form.
December 22, 2008
Discontinuation of Grants.gov Find Opportunities Email Delivery Service
If you are currently subscribed to receive Grants.gov Opportunities Posting Updates, please note that effective January 31, 2009, these notices will no longer be sent via email. To continue to receive this information you can subscribe to the Really Simple Syndication (RSS) Feed instead. The following link provides directions on what you need to do: http://grants.gov/help/rss.jsp.
Another option is to subscribe to the subject mailing lists on the Proposal Development Office website to receive email updates.
National Council of University Research Administrators Satellite Teleconference – Audits and the Audit Process - Jan. 13
Sponsored by the Office of Sponsored Projects Administration
January 13, 2009
11:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Room 340 Whitehall Classroom Building
The audit process can be intimidating to those inexperienced with it, especially when an auditor shows up unexpectedly: How should you respond? Do you have to respond? What if the auditor presents an inspector general’s badge? In this program we will discuss the audit process and the differences between audits, reviews, inspections, and investigations. We will also look at how auditors approach an audit, and the various institutional roles including that of the institutional audit and compliance officer, the central research administrator, and the departmental research administrator.
Learning Objectives:
- Participants will be able to describe the differences between the various types of audit, review and inspection;
- Participants will be able to discuss the audit process and how an auditor approaches an audit;
- Participants will be able to explain the roles and responsibilities of both the agency and institutional players in an audit.
Moderator
David Mayo, Director, Sponsored Research, California Institute of Technology
Panel
- Denise Clark, Assistant Vice President for Research Administration and Advancement, University of Maryland, College Park
- Thomas Cooley, Chief Financial Officer and Director, Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management, National Science Foundation
- Lillie Ryans-Culclager, Director, Engineering Research Administration, School of Engineering, Stanford University
To sign up, please call or e-mail Jessica Craft at 7-9424 or jessica.craft@uky.edu. Lunch will be provided for participants who register prior to the conference.
"The Biology of small RNAs" - Jan. 9
The Dean’s Distinguished Lecture Series
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Hospital Auditorium, HG611
Phillip A. Sharp, Ph.D., 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Objectives:
- To introduce the science of small RNAs
- To indicate potential therapeutic use of small RNAs
- To discuss the relationship of gene regulation by small RNAs and disease
Seating available:
- HG611 (by RSVP only)
- VA Auditorium
- Family Practice Room K354
Please RSVP By 1/5/09, ddls@email.uky.edu. If you require special physical arrangements to attend this meeting, please call 323-2615.
Sponsored by C. William Balke, M.D., Associate Provost for Clinical and Translational Science, Jay A. Perman, M.D., Dean, College of Medicine, and the Emery A. Wilson Lecture Series
December 15, 2008
The NIH Center for Scientific Review Updates the Descriptions of its Chartered Review Panels
The NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) has updated the descriptions or guidelines of its study sections that applicants often use to suggest which CSR study section(s) might best review their applications. These changes only apply to CSR’s chartered study sections, and they do not apply to other study sections organized by CSR or the other NIH Institutes or Centers. The updated descriptions are available online at http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescriptionNew.
CSR revised these study section descriptions in response to requests from study section chairs and other representatives of the scientific community who participated in recent evaluations of CSR’s review groups. These changes were designed to make CSR’s chartered study section descriptions more transparent and reflective of the types of applications actually reviewed by CSR study sections. The updated descriptions were also designed to be more user-friendly for applicants - particularly new applicants.
NIH encourages applicants to submit a cover letter with their application to suggest which study section(s) they think could best review their applications. CSR cannot guarantee it will follow these suggestions, but it does so when appropriate and possible. Having applications reviewed by study sections with the needed experts helps ensure the quality of NIH peer reviews and the identification of those projects most likely to advance science and health. More information on cover letters is available in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for NIH and Other PHS Agencies:
The descriptions for chartered study sections now have the following format:
- A one-paragraph overview of the scientific areas reviewed by the study section.
- A bulleted list of the key specific topics.
- Links to the membership roster and the three most recent meeting rosters of the review panel.
- Links to related study sections that review similar areas of science.
CSR expects to update these descriptions at least every year or sooner if needed. Updated descriptions of recurring special emphasis panels will be produced early in 2009. Study section chairs will help revise these descriptions during biannual reviews of CSR Integrated Review Groups (IRGs).
Inquiries
Please direct specific questions about individual study section descriptions to the respective Scientific Review Officer (SRO) by using the meeting roster links on the study section pages, which can be found via the Review Group Description Web site.
CSR’s Division of Receipt and Referral can provide guidance on the process used to refer grant applications to IRGs. If you have questions about the assignment of your application to a CSR IRG, call the CSR Division of Receipt and Referral on 301-435-0715. General information on the application assignment and referral process is available on CSR’s Web site.
New Research Initiative for Humanists and Scientists
The Arete Initiative at the University of Chicago has announced a $3 million research program on a New Science of Virtues. Research proposals may emphasize one subject area more than other, but all proposals must address the primary question: In what ways might the humanities and the sciences cooperate to develop richer understanding of virtue for modern societies?
The sponsor anticipates awarding 20 two-year research grants ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. Humanities scholars and scientists from around the world are invited to submit Letters of Intent (LOI) by March 2, 2009 as entry into the research grant competition.
Details on the required letter of intent and more information about the new program are available at: http://www.scienceofvirtues.org.
December 8 , 2008
National Science Foundation Revises Grant Policies
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has released revisions to its Grant Proposal Guide that will take effect January 1, 2009, and will be applicable to proposals with a due date on or after January 5, 2009. The major changes include:
Salary – several important items concerning salary have been revised or clarified. NSF will generally be limiting salary compensation for senior project personnel to no more than two months of their regular salary in any one fiscal year. This removes the previous NSF restriction of normally funding summer salary only, so investigators may now utilize their two months salary per year at any point in the year that is appropriate. The two month limit includes salary compensation received from all NSF funded grants. This will be of particular importance for investigators that may already be receiving salary reimbursement from NSF and are planning to propose effort on an additional NSF grant. The policy does allow for requesting more than two months when appropriate. The needed salary support should be included on the proposal budget and must be justified in the budget justification. If approved, salary support beyond two months will be included on the Notice of Award budget.
Postdoctoral Mentoring – Any project that requests funding for postdoctoral researchers must include a section describing the mentoring activities that will be provided to them. Examples of mentoring activities include career counseling; training in the preparation of grant proposals, publications, and presentations; guidance on ways to improve both teaching and mentoring skills; guidance on how to effectively collaborate with researchers from diverse backgrounds and discipline areas; and training in responsible practices. Note that the information must be included as a separate section in the project description which is still limited to 15 pages. Failure to provide the separate mentoring section will result in the proposal being returned without review.
Two new grant mechanisms replacing one current one – As of January 5, 2009, the Small Grants for Exploratory Research mechanism will be replaced with two new Foundation-wide funding mechanisms: Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) and Early-Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER). Prior to submitting a RAPID or EAGER proposal an investigator must contact his or her cognizant program officer to discuss the appropriateness of the proposal being submitted through these mechanisms.
Definition of co-PI – NSF has modified its definition to explicitly state that they make no distinction concerning the scientific stature among multiple PIs, whether referred to as PI or co-PI. The PI and all co-PIs are equally responsible for the conduct of the project and submission of the requisite project reports. The first name listed will be the contact PI for NSF.
The full document may be found here http://nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf091. A summary of significant changes is on the first page.
Please contact the Office of Sponsored Projects Administration at 257-9420 if you have any questions concerning these policy changes.
Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces Updated Implementation Timeline
The mission of the NIH is to support science in pursuit of knowledge about the biology and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. As part of this mission, applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system. In June 2007, the NIH initiated a formal, agency-wide effort to review the NIH peer review system (http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov). After careful deliberation and consideration of the recommendations resulting from this year-long effort, an initial implementation timeline for enhancing peer review was announced earlier this year (NOT-OD-08-118). Below is the updated implementation timeline for key actions that will be implemented in the NIH peer review system.
Implementation
| January 2009 Due Dates (for potential FY2010 funding) |
|
May 2009 Review Meetings (for potential FY2010 funding) |
|
January 2010 Due Dates (for potential FY2011 funding) |
|
Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces New Scoring Procedures for Evaluation of Research Applications Received for Potential FY2010 Funding
The mission of the NIH is to support science in pursuit of knowledge about the biology and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. As part of this mission, applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system. In June 2007, the NIH initiated a formal, agency-wide effort to review the NIH peer review system (http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov). After careful deliberation and consideration of the recommendations resulting from this year-long effort, a number of key actions will be implemented in the NIH peer review system.
In current practice, each scored application is assigned a single, overall priority score that reflects the consideration of all review criteria. Individual reviewers assign scores on a 1 to 5 scale in 0.1 increments (e.g., 2.2), resulting in 41 possible rating discriminations for reviewers to make. The reviewers’ individual scores then are averaged and multiplied by 100 to yield a single overall priority score for each scored application (e.g., 253).
Although this rating system has served the NIH and the research community well, several concerns led the NIH to consider a revised rating system for grant applications. Making 41 discriminations is difficult for reviewers to do reliably, and scores increasingly have become compressed toward the positive end of the scale. In addition, by averaging reviewer scores and multiplying by 100, the resulting priority score appears to have more precision than it actually has. To address these concerns, the NIH considered scoring systems with fewer rating options to increase potential reliability and with sufficient range and appropriate anchors to encourage reviewers to use the full scale. To increase transparency, the NIH also considered methods to communicate ratings from assigned reviewers even when the application is streamlined and not discussed, or discussed and scored by the full committee.
Additional information is available in NOT-OD-09-023 “Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces Updated Implementation Timeline” and NOT-OD-09-025 “Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces Enhanced Review Criteria for Evaluation of Research Applications Received for Potential FY2010 Funding”.
Implementation
New Scoring System. The new scoring system will be effective for all applications for research grants and cooperative agreements that are submitted for funding consideration for fiscal year 2010 and thereafter. The first standing due date for FY 2010 is January 25, 2009; the new scoring system will be used for applications submitted in response to Parent Announcements and Program Announcements, including PARs and PASs published before or after this Guide Notice. An important aspect of the implementation of the new scoring system is to use it in a consistent manner for applications considered in a given fiscal year. Therefore, some RFAs and PARs for funding consideration in FY 2010 have due dates before January 25, 2009, and responses to those will be evaluated using the new scoring system. Likewise some RFAs and PARs for FY 2009 have due dates after January 25, 2009, and responses to those will be evaluated using the present scoring system.
The new scoring system will utilize a 9-point rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor). Although a 7-point scale was planned initially, a 9-point scale was selected based on the desire for a scale with sufficient range. The NIH also has prior experience with the distribution of scores from a 9-point scale, based on data on the 1-5 scale when only 0.5 increments were allowed. Moreover, prior recommendations from measurement and decision science experts regarding the scoring system suggested that an 8 to 11 point scale is appropriate.
Not Recommended for Further Consideration. An application may be designated Not Recommended for Further Consideration (NRFC) by the Scientific Review Group if it lacks significant and substantial merit; presents serious ethical problems in the protection of human subjects from research risks; or presents serious ethical problems in the use of vertebrate animals, biohazards, and/or select agents. Applications designated as NRFC do not proceed to the second level of peer review (National Advisory Council/Board) because they cannot be funded.
Percentile Rankings. Percentile rankings will be calculated anew, starting with scores from the May 2009 cycle of review, and reported to the nearest whole number.
Scores for Individual Criteria. Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a separate score for each of five core review criteria (Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, and Environment). For all applications, even those not discussed by the full committee, the scores of the assigned reviewers and discussant(s) for these criteria will be reported individually on the summary statement.
Priority Scores – Discussed Applications. Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a preliminary impact score for that application. The preliminary impact scores will be used to determine which applications will be discussed. For each application that is discussed, a final impact score will be given by each eligible committee member (without conflicts of interest). Each member’s impact score will reflect his/her evaluation of the overall impact that the project is likely to have on the research field(s) involved, rather than a weighted average applied to the reviewer’s scores given to each criterion (see above).
The overall impact score for each discussed application will be determined by calculating the mean score from all the eligible members’ impact scores, and multiplying the average by 10; the overall impact score will be reported on the summary statement. Thus, the 81 possible overall impact scores will range from 10 - 90. (Overall impact scores will not be reported for applications that are not discussed.)
Funding Decisions. The new scoring system may produce more applications with identical scores (“tie” scores). Thus, other important factors, such as mission relevance and portfolio balance, will be considered in making funding decisions when grant applications are considered essentially equivalent on overall impact, based on reviewer ratings.
Inquiries
Questions should be directed to EnhancingPeerReview@mail.nih.gov.
For more information on NIH’s Enhancing Peer Review effort visit http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov.
Holiday Hours for Research Offices
The Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (257-9420), the Proposal Development Office (257-2861), the Office of Research Integrity–IRB & IACUC– (257-9428), and the Survey Research Center (257-4684) will be closed Wednesday, December 24 through Friday, January 2 and will reopen on Monday, January 5, 2009. If you anticipate a need for services provided by any of these offices during this time, please call the appropriate office(s) before December 15. Thanks and from all of us, we wish you a safe and happy holiday season!