What is the PHS Assignment Request Form and why should I include it in my NIH grant application?

The PHS Assignment Request Form is an optional form that can be submitted with your proposal. It is not a separate attachment, but rather an embedded form in the application package. The form is used to list expertise needed to review your application, exclude reviewers, request an institute assignment, and, in particular for investigator-initiated applications such as parent R01s, to request assignment to a specific study section.

The PHS Assignment Request Form can be used to:

1. Provide up to five areas of expertise that will be required to understand and accurately review your application. 
• This can include specific disciplines or an understanding of certain methodologies; however there is no guarantee that all of the requested expertise will be represented in the reviewer panel. Write your proposal with this in mind.
2. List individuals who should be excluded from reviewing your application. 
• This section is limited to no more than 1,000 characters. Only a few reasons for exclusion will be considered. Valid reasons that could prevent you from receiving a fair review include if the potential reviewer is a direct competitor, if there is a long-standing scientific disagreement with the individual, or if a conflict of interest exists. 
• Unfortunately, you can't request exclusion of that guy who looked like Russell Brand who spilled his espresso martini all over your shirt when he was tipsy at last year's conference.
3. Request assignment to a particular study section and/or institute. 
• This request should only be made if you are submitting an investigator-initiated R01, R21, or R03 application. 
• Review the Center for Scientific Review's (CSR) study sections here.

More advice about completing the PHS Assignment Request form is available from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

What is an NIH parent announcement? What is a parent grant?

If you’re new to NIH grants, you may be struggling to understand the grant-speak and acronym alphabet soup that are often used by faculty members and research administrators. Given the many, continually changing rules and regulations of the grant proposal and award process, it is not surprising that individuals routinely speak in NIH terms when discussing grants. As with clinical skills, which require regular practice and upkeep, research grant knowledge must be continually applied to stay fresh in the field. Unfortunately, this means that many of us who have been working on NIH grants for many years often become accustomed to speaking in technical terms and forget to ensure that we are providing information in a way that is understandable to a novice. Fortunately, however, many resources exist to help you expand your NIH grant vocabulary, including a grants and funding glossary.

One term that is often a source of confusion is “parent grant”. Sometimes this is also stated as “Parent R01” or “Parent R03”, etc. When you hear this mentioned, your first thought might be of something like this:

Luckily for all parents who have experienced the tantrums of the terrible twos, kids have nothing to do with these grants. The official name for this grant type is “parent announcement.” NIH defines a parent announcement as follows:

Parent announcements are broad funding opportunity allowing applicants to submit investigator-initiated applications for specific activity codes. They are open for up to 3 years and use standard due dates.

It is important to note that not all NIH institutes and centers participate in parent announcements. If you are seeking funding from a particular institute, check the “Components of Participating Organizations” section listed toward the top of of the first page of funding opportunity.

Is NIH closed during the government shutdown?

This question has been coming up quite a bit over the past couple of weeks.  For the record, NIH is open during the partial federal government shutdown.  Don't believe me?  Read it for yourself here. 

Although NIH is not closed, agencies such as NASA and the FDA are experiencing the effects of the shutdown.  This impacts not only research, but also the individual employees who are currently furloughed or working without pay.  My sincere hope is that both parties can come together on a compromise and that President Trump will reopen the government soon so everyone can get back to work.

San Francisco, anyone?

In October of 2018, there will be an NIH Regional Seminar in San Francisco, California. The program agenda includes one day of optional workshops and two days of seminars. For a limited time, discounted rooms for attendees are available at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square.  If you are fortunate enough to have travel funds available to attend this seminar, be sure to check out this list of 10 things not to miss.

What does the fiscal year 2019 budget mean for NIH funding?

The budget for the 2019 fiscal year proposed by President Trump on February 12th included some modifications to NIH funding.  Importantly, though, the budget would remain at a similar level to the ones in recent years.  This would mean no major cuts or caps on indirects.  However, the new budget does propose the creation of  the National Institute for Research on Safety and Quality, which would replace the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and moving both the National Institute of Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under the NIH umbrella.  The proposed budget also seeks to reduce the amount of salary an investigator can receive from NIH grants and cap the amount of salary each can receive at 90%.  For more information about how the proposed budget impacts the NIH, CDC, and FDA, click here.

A recent update in the fight against caps on indirect costs

Although it has not been a top news story as of late, there is still an undercurrent of discussion surrounding limiting the indirect costs paid on federal grants.  As previously mentioned, a cap of 10% indirect costs on all NIH and other federal awards would decimate the research infrastructure of most academic institutions.  In a recent move, an important legislator began to lay the groundwork for prevention of indirect cost limits in 2018.  You can read the full article here.

GSI Haters Rejoice! NIH Launches Next Generation Researchers Initiative

Thank you to all members of the research community who made your voices heard in response to the proposed NIH Grant Support Index (GSI).  The GSI would have created a system by which different types of grants were assigned varying numbers of points.  Principal Investigators holding multiple significant grant awards would have been capped based on the point total equivalents of their awards.  The GSI proposal created much concern that team science would be discouraged and that experienced investigators would be penalized.

NIH has listened to our concerns!  Instead of the GSI cap, they have launched the Next Generation Researchers Initiative.  More details surrounding the background and the goals of the new policy are also provided in a recent blog posting from NIH Director Dr. Collins.

Appendix Changes are Coming

NIH has gradually been limiting what can be included in the Appendix of your grant proposal over the past several years.  Gone are the days when you could simply move extra text to the Appendix to circumvent page limits.  In a recent notice, NIH announced that Appendix materials will be further limited for upcoming deadlines for NIH, NIOSH, and AHRQ.  Beginning January 25, 2017, most materials will no longer be allowed in the Appendix.  Proposals that fail to comply with the revised instructions will not be reviewed.  For more information, view this NIH Notice.

Who do I talk to?

Often, individuals refer to the "NIH Program Officer" when speaking of NIH staff members who provide feedback and guidance on planned proposal submissions.  Most RFAs list several points of contact, all with different titles.  How do you know who to contact when you have a question?  Who can review your specific aims to help determine if your project is a good fit for a particular institute or funding opportunity?  A breakdown of the roles of various types of NIH program staff is provided here.  Of particular note, the Program Official "is responsible for the programmatic, scientific, and/or technical aspects of assigned applications and grants".

Submit your R01 on Sunday!

Per NIH submission policy, if a grant is due on a weekend, the deadline moves to the next business day.  This would mean the Sunday, October 5th deadline would actually move to the 6th.  However, given the high and increasing volume of proposals submitted for the parent R01 deadlines, Grants.gov may be slow on Monday the 6th.  To ensure that your proposal makes it in on time, and that you will have time to review it in the era commons after submission, I highly recommend submitting on Friday, October 3rd if possible.  If you work at an institution that gives you the ability to submit your own proposal directly, you may be able to wait until Saturday, but if you wait longer than that you will run the risk of not having enough time to review your grant and pull it back for changes if you identify any problems.  In case you missed it, NIH eliminated the 2-day error correction window a few years back, which means that all modifications to the proposal must be made prior to the deadline.

New Video Produced by NIH

This video provides a great overview of the NIH grant proposal process.  The NIH Grants Process: The Big Picture is a must-see for those who are new to the application process as well as veterans who are seeking new funding. Check it out!

K Award Funding Opportunity Notices Have Been Reissued

If you are planning to apply for a K Award, such as a K01 Mentored Research Scientist Development Award, be sure that you are following the newly released guidelines. The revisions include only minor changes to most application requirements, but the most significant change is the requirement that all application use Adobe Forms Version C. Also, if you plan to apply for a K99/R00(also known as a "kangaroo" award), be advised that major changes have been made to this program.

This could be a tough funding year for all of us

Last week, NIH released a notice explaining its operation plan in the event of sequestration.  The brief memo explains that, in the event of a sequestration, funding will be significantly cut.  However, even if the sequestration does not happen, we are looking at cuts in funding across the board.  Does this mean you should give up on your plan to become a successful, federally-funded researcher?  Should you practice saying "do you want fries with that?"  No, if anything, you should try even harder.  Funding is about to get even more competitive than it has become in recent years, but if you are putting together an exemplary proposal with great potential for significance and innovation, you should have no reason to despair.

Double Dipping, Research Style

A new article in Nature brings up the practice of double dipping in research funding, where researchers obtain multiple grants for nearly identical projects.  While this practice is discouraged and technically not permitted, the plain truth is that it happens all the time.  This article points out that very little is done to check for duplication of funding between federal agencies.  It is up to researchers to report the duplication or overlap of funding.  Interestingly, more than one individual mentioned in this article admitted to submitting the exact same materials to multiple federal agencies.  Having a little more background knowledge than what is written in this article, I can attest to the fact that the duplicate submissions may have something to do with lack of time or motivation on the part of the PI to make edits or changes before submitting a modified version of an application to a different funding agency.  In other words, while some materials such as the budget may be different, researchers who duplicate submissions of projects focused on the same aims often fail to take the time to modify the abstract and other materials when seeking additional sources of funding for their projects.   

NIH Early Independence Award Scientists

If you are curious who won the NIH Early Independence Awards in 2011, here is a video for you:

What is the difference between an R01, and R03 and an R21?

This is a common question as you begin to prepare research grant applications. How do you select the correct mechanism when applying for a parent announcement? Contrary to popular belief, this should not just depend on how much money you need. Rather, the type of grant mechanism to apply for is dictated by your research plan. What do you hope to accomplish? Is this an exploratory project to try a new method that can then be turned into a large-scale study? If so, consider applying for the R21. Is this a smaller-scale study that can be completed in 2 years? If so, consider applying for the R03.

For more information and definitions of the various R series grants from NIH, click here.

Clearing up confusion over structuring of Research Strategy related to Specific Aims in NIH grant proposals

One of the most common questions I received from Principal Investigators when NIH released the new Research Strategy section guidelines was regarding Specific Aims. Though NIH has gone to great lengths to clarify the allowed structure of Research Strategy with regard to the aims, the question still seems to pop up.

Here is the official answer, right from the NIH Enhancing Peer Review site:

How I should organize the Research Strategy section to address the Significance, Innovation, and Approach for each Specific Aim, assuming I have more than one?

Applicants should use their discretion in organizing the information to best convey the desired information to the reviewers. For example, if an application had two specific aims, an applicant might choose to organize the Research Strategy in one of the following two ways:

Significance: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2 Innovation: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2 Approach: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2

OR:

Specific Aim 1: Significance, Innovation, Approach Specific Aim 2: Significance Innovation, Approach

If you can't read the directions, don't bother applying

NIH just released a reminder that, in essence, states that PIs should read the directions before applying. You can read this groundbreaking announcement here.

Though in some ways I find it ridiculous that NIH has chosen to spend precious time creating and releasing this document, I can understand why it is needed. When the page limits for research plans were shortened last year, several study section members told me stories of extra information "hidden" in various other parts of the application. "Resources and Environment" sections turned into "Methods and Resources" and dribbled on for pages about methods instead of libraries and office space. One proposal that came across my desk had a "Background and Significance" section brazenly planted in the Appendix.

There is a lesson to learn here, folks: YOU ARE NOT THAT CLEVER. For every trick that you think you have invented to circumvent the page limits, hundreds of others have probably tried (and failed). The people submitting NIH grant applications are scientists- meaning that they, like you, are creative thinkers who are trying desperately to convey the importance of their research in 6 or 12 pages.

For your sake, and to protect the integrity of the review process, spend your time developing new ways to be less verbose in your writing, and stop wasting your time trying to find ways to avoid following the rules.

NIH Grant Proposal Appeal: The Double-Edged Sword

So, you successfully submitted your first grant application and- miraculously!- it wasn't bottom-halved or unscored (look up those old school terms here). Congratulations! What's that, you say? A terrible score? A reviewer who clearly didn't "get" your application? He/She doesn't seem to understand your project? Before you fire off an angry email to the program officer requesting an appeal, stop and take a breath.

NIH recently revised its appeal policies. All principal investigators do have the right to appeal reviewer decisions on certain specific grounds. However, just because you have the right to do it, it is not always the best choice.

Before proceeding with any contact with the program officer, clear your head and pull out the original application. Read it critically, keeping in mind the reviewer's specific criticism of the project. If, after reading the appeal guidelines, you feel that the reviewer made an error that can be the basis for appeal, call your program officer and speak to him/her calmly and rationally. You will get more direct, better advice on the phone than by communicating via email with the PO, and it will help to ensure that your tone is not misconstrued as whiny, angry, or otherwise. If the program officer believes you may have grounds to appeal, discuss the impact of the flawed reviewer on your overall score. Ask for a direct assessment of whether he/she believes that an additional review would result in a fundable score. If this is not likely to happen, an appeal could be a waste of time. In addition, it may create a bias in reviewers' minds that causes them to be more critical in your additional review. I once worked with a PI who appealed successfully and was granted a review at the next round. In the second review, reviewers were critical of things that were not even mentioned in his first review, and the new score was even higher (i.e. worse) than the old one.

If you are in this situation, you may be best served by preparing a resubmission. In your Introduction section, you can address any concerns that were brought up by the "flawed" reviewer and explain your reasons for not addressing them.

At least NIH knows that grant awards are skewed...

In this recent update, NIH continues to try to answer to investigators who complain about the lack of fairness in award distributions, arguing that a small number of experienced investigators hold a disproportionate number of grant awards. I am not sure where I fall in this debate. On one hand, this is taxpayer money, and I think it should be more accessible to younger and less seasoned investigators. On the other hand, if what we are focused on is real, significant advancements in health research, wouldn't we want to give the most resources to those individuals who have the most chance of success and proven track records when it comes to project completion and follow-through?

What are your thoughts on this? Do you believe that some investigators hog too much federal grant money? Or are you happy with the current distribution?