text:
Part I Overview Information
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (http://www.nih.gov)
Components of Participating Organizations
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (http://www.nichd.nih.gov)
Title: Specialized Cooperative Centers Program in Reproduction and Infertility Research (U54)
Announcement Type
This is a reissue of RFA-HD-08-001
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
Key Dates
Release Date: September 3, 2009
Letters of Intent Receipt Date: April 5, 2010
Application Receipt Date: May 5, 2010
Peer Review Date(s): October/November 2010
Council Review Date: January 2011
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: April 1, 2011
Additional Information to Be Available Date (Url Activation Date): Not applicable
Expiration Date: May 6, 2010
Due Dates
for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Overview Content
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
I Overview Information
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2.Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Receipt, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Sending an Application to the NIH
C. Application Processing
D. Application Assignment
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection Process
A. Additional Review Criteria
B. Additional Review Considerations
C. Resource Sharing Plan(s)
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
A. Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
1. Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities
2. NIH Responsibilities
3. Collaborative Responsibilities
4. Arbitration Process
3. Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/ Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information - Required Federal Citations
Part II - Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), through the Reproductive Sciences Branch (RSB) in the Center for Population Research (CPR), provides funding for a limited number of research centers in the reproductive sciences. These centers provide an arena for multidisciplinary interactions among basic and clinical scientists interested in establishing high quality translational research programs in the reproductive sciences. The centers also serve as national resources for the training and career development of young scientists electing to pursue careers conducting research in high priority areas of reproduction and infertility. Accordingly, the purpose of this FOA is to announce a re-competition of the Specialized Cooperative Centers Program in Reproduction and Infertility Research (SCCPIR). Applications are sought from investigators willing to participate with the NICHD under a cooperative agreement in a multicenter cooperative research program. Center investigators will be expected to work with NICHD staff in facilitating research collaborations and interactions within and among centers. Such a cooperative program will form a national network that facilitates and accelerates bidirectional knowledge transfer between the laboratory and clinic with the ultimate goal of improving human reproductive health through enhanced communication, innovation and research excellence.Background
Families, family values, and family planning form the cultural essence and cohesiveness of our existence as human societies. One of the most basic of human rights -- the right to procreate -- is frustrated or denied by the occurrence of infertility in couples desiring children. It has been estimated that infertility affects between 37 and 70 million married couples around the world. In U.S. studies described over 50 years ago, it was stated that up to 10 percent of married couples were sterile, with the remaining 90 percent having varying degrees of fertility. More recent and technically rigorous U.S. survey studies have conservatively identified that there are about 2.3 million infertile couples, which is about nine percent of the domestic married couple population base with wives aged 15-44. According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, 7.4 percent of married women, or about 2.1 million women were infertile (12 months or longer without birth control and without a pregnancy). This represents a significant decline from the prevalence of 8.4 percent reported in 1982. On the other hand, about 15% of married women or 4.3 million had an impaired ability to have children (impaired fecundity) in 2002 compared to 8.5% of married women 20 years earlier. This latter trend likely is indicative of the delay in childbearing found in the contemporary couple population base in which significant age-related increases in infertility and subfecundity have been reported.
Physician office visits reflecting current societal life style requirements for infertility services have markedly increased in the U.S. almost four fold between 1968 (600,000) and 2000 (2,100,000). Indeed, it is estimated that 13 percent of American women will receive infertility services during their lifetime. Interestingly, this represents only half the number of women who actually need infertility services. Of the infertile couples seeking treatment for infertility, it has been estimated that up to one half will be unsuccessful in achieving their desired outcome. In concert with the increased medical assistance sought, U.S. infertility service costs have risen to exceed a several billion dollars annually.
In couples, at least 25-40 percent of infertility is attributable to male factor infertility for which the pathophysiology is either not understood at all or, at best, poorly understood. The prognosis for male infertility treatment outcomes is extremely poor at present. Indeed, whereas 80 percent of infertile women can be successfully treated, male infertility can be treated in only 10-20 percent of such men. However, the widespread use of assisted reproductive technologies such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and its variants has enabled otherwise infertile men to father children, although possible genetic causes of the infertility are likely transmitted to the progeny.
Reproductive tract disorders affecting fertility are associated with significant morbidity and a degree of mortality in some specific instances that cannot be ignored. Accompanying the human costs of morbidities of reproductive tract disorders are the attendant substantial costs to the U.S. health care system involving the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up services provided to the patients, as well as the added costs to the patient and the U.S. economy of lost employment and family service hours. In reproductive-aged couples, the obstructive sequelae of male accessory gland infections account for eight to 12 percent of male partner diagnostic costs for fertility impairment. In reproductive-aged females, it has been estimated that the general incidence of endometriosis is five to 15 percent, but can be as high as 50% in women with pelvic pain or infertility. While the causative role of endometriosis in infertility remains poorly understood and its optimal diagnosis and treatment remain a goal not an accomplishment of contemporary medicine, the morbid impact of the associated pelvic pain has significant human cost as well as national economic costs. Indeed, the health care burden of endometriosis has been estimated to be an astounding 22 billion dollars per year!
Similarly, the role of dysfunctional uterine bleeding, either in the presence or the absence of uterine leiomyomata (fibroids), is not well understood despite its common occurrence and decades of research. It is a significant factor in noncompliant contraceptive use or discontinuance and, therefore, in the unintended pregnancy problem.
Uterine leiomyomata occur in nearly 20% percent of all reproductive-aged women, are the single most common diagnosis in gynecological hospital admissions, may be the only abnormality observed in an infertile couple, and represent the most common medical indication for an unintended and often unwanted hysterectomy that prematurely ends a females reproductive options. Fibroids disproportionately affect African Americans with some studies indicating a three-fold higher prevalence in this racial group than in the Caucasian population. Annual cost expenditures for this condition approximates 2.1 billion dollars.
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a major cause of female infertility, as well as of other reproductive system and other tissue and organ system morbidities. Identified more than 60 years ago by Stein and Leventhal, the etiology of PCOS remains misunderstood despite 60 years of research. This insidious disease is currently the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-aged women, affecting between five and 10 percent of women aged 15-44 or more than four million women in the U.S. Most, if not all women with PCOS present with hyperandrogenemia, irregular menstrual cycles and polycystic ovaries. Often, these conditions are accompanied by obesity and insulin resistance. Indeed, the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among PCOS patients is five- to 10-fold higher than in the normal population, and the prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome is nearly two-fold higher in PCOS women then in the general population. Considering the high prevalence of diabetes in PCOS women, a very recent study estimated that the total annualized cost of evaluating and providing care to PCOS women is a staggering $4.6 billion dollars.
Also poorly understood is the pathogenesis of premature ovarian failure that affects one in 100 women by age 40. Interestingly, 16 percent of women carrying the fragile X pre-mutation present with premature ovarian failure. The mechanism(s) underlying pre-mutation-based ovarian insufficiency is not known, but once known could provide critical insights into the basic biological processes regulating ovarian follicular growth, differentiation and atresia.
With the hopes that earlier diagnosis of these devastating infertility disorders will result in earlier intervention and amelioration of the condition, attention is now turning to the adolescent. Here, research efforts are needed to better define hormonal changes during normal progression of sexual maturation, particularly at the time of menarche. In this regard, initial menstrual cycles are often irregular and are anovulatory making it difficult to diagnose conditions such as PCOS. Likewise, endometriosis had been thought to occur rarely in adolescence, but it is being diagnosed more frequently in this population thanks to a greater awareness by the medical community. Even so, efforts to refine diagnostic criteria for children and adolescents so that effective interventional strategies can be employed are likely to be pay enormous dividends in decreasing the incidence of disease and infertility in adulthood.
Data now firmly support the contribution of genetics and epigenetics in male and female infertility. In males, there is considerable evidence from breeding studies and gene knockout experiments in animals that mutation of over 100 separate genes results in infertility. More limited studies in humans show that a number of inherited diseases are associated with abnormal sperm morphology and function. These data suggest that a significant number of men with infertility may have one or more mutations that predispose to their condition. However, it is currently not possible to determine which men have genetic infertility. Similarly, it is estimated that 15-20 percent of human pregnancies are chromosomally abnormal as a result of division errors during oocyte meiosis or early embryonic cleavage. Such errors not only are the leading cause of birth defects, but may be the single most important factor contributing to human infertility. Finally, evidence is mounting to show that altered epigenetic modification of gene expression through histone modifications, methylation defects or RNA stability changes may underpin diseases such as endometriosis.
An area of emerging public health interest is the preservation of fertility in individuals undergoing treatments for diseases such as cancer. Currently, there are more than 9 million cancer survivors in the U.S. of whom approximately 5% are under the age of 35. The chemical or radiological consequences of these treatments oftentimes target vital reproductive organs such as the gonads depleting the gamete stem cell pool thereby causing permanent infertility. Therefore, providing options for preserving fertility in men, women and children is not only an important reproductive health issue, but a quality of life issue as well.
Another high priority area for reproductive health is in area of preconception care. This has its roots in the Barker Hypothesis which states that adult diseases have their origins prior to birth. To this point, most experimentation has examined possible adverse birth outcomes (e.g., low birth weight, intrauterine growth restriction, preeclampsia, pre-term birth, birth defects) and adult disease incidence as a result of perturbing the maternal-fetal environment. However, it is now clear once again from animal models that these adverse outcomes can occur during the embryonic period and even prior to implantation or conception itself. Thus, increased efforts are needed to define important developmental periods in which perturbations to normal physiological systems can result in poor pregnancy outcomes and to determine if these periods coincide with periods for important epigenetic modification of the genome.
Finally, the need for the availability of contraceptive options acceptable to diverse populations remains globally unmet. Among the 600 million women of reproductive age in todays world, as many as 228 million women are at risk of unintended pregnancy. Up to 64 percent of all worldwide pregnancies are unintended (mistimed or completely unwanted). Over 50 million abortions occur worldwide each year, with minimal estimates of at least 100,000 abortion-related deaths annually. In the U.S., more than three million unintended pregnancies, about 60 percent of all pregnancies, occur annually, with half resulting in abortion as an outcome. In half of the abortions occurring in the U.S. each year, a contraceptive method being used failed to prevent pregnancy.
The RSB recognizes that the interactive needs of basic and clinical research necessary to address the above and related problems may be so complex that they cannot be solved by individual investigators working alone. Therefore, it is the intention of the RSB, contingent upon the availability of funds, to continue and maintain organized, multi-component reproduction and infertility research programs of high quality that focus on topics of high priority and significance that are critically important to the mission of the RSB, and that address important reproductive health concerns of the American public.Objectives
A major objective of the SCCPIR is to support specialized translational reproductive research programs of high quality, and to facilitate and accelerate bidirectional transfer of knowledge between the laboratory and clinic. This process of translating research between the laboratory and clinic is a continuum that encompasses all aspects of knowledge transfer from non-human animal models to humans. For example, application of information from rodent species to non-human primates is considered part of the translational continuum. However, the ultimate goal of supporting translational research through the SCCPIR is to improve human reproductive health.
This FOA is specifically designed to stimulate the reproductive sciences research community to organize and maintain research-based centers of outstanding quality that, serving as national research resources, form a cooperative network with NICHD that fosters communication, innovation and high quality reproduction and infertility research. Such networking as afforded by the cooperative nature of this Centers Program will ensure that the reproductive research community remains in the forefront of the development and utilization of new technologies that can be used to diagnose, treat and ameliorate reproductive diseases and disorders, as well as to identify novel leads for fertility regulation.Research Scope
The SCCPIR is composed of research-based center grants designed to support interactive groups of research projects and supporting core service facilities. The research activities included in these center grants must comprise, by definition, a multidisciplinary approach to biomedical problems addressing the specific research topic areas announced in this FOA (see below). These centers may have more than one theme, focus or emphasis, but all of the subprojects involved must be responsive to one or more of the specific research areas of reproduction supported by the RSB. Furthermore, the objectives of this Program require that one of the subprojects be entirely or predominantly clinical and that all basic science subprojects be linked to the clinical component(s) of the center.
Topics that are considered to be responsive to the research mission areas of the RSB include but are not limited to those bulleted below. Additionally, these topics identify areas where research at the basic/clinical interface is deemed essential to the potential development of new leads or approaches to fertility regulation, as well as of diagnostic tools and procedures for the detection, treatment and effective management of reproductive disorders that impact on reproductive competence.
Because this list is not meant to be all inclusive, prospective applicants preparing either a new or competing continuation center grant application are encouraged to discuss program relevance issues with the program staff contact cited below. However, applicants should note that the research scope of this FOA does not include studies in the area of reproductive oncology, reproductive toxicology or reproductive epidemiology, or studies dealing with post-implantation pregnancy and parturition. These topic areas are outside the scope of research supported by the RSB and, therefore, will be deemed non-responsive to this FOA. Further, applications proposing research activities focused exclusively on basic research, or applications or components thereof proposing epidemiological or large-scale clinical trial research, will not be considered responsive to this FOA.
See Section
VIII, Other Information - Required Federal Citations, for policies
related to this announcement.
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism of Support
This funding opportunity will use the NIH Specialized Cooperative Research Center (U54) award mechanism. The Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This FOA uses Just-in-Time information concepts. It also uses non-modular budget formats described in the PHS 398 application instructions (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html).
This funding opportunity will use a cooperative agreement award mechanism. In the cooperative agreement mechanism, the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) retains the primary responsibility and dominant role for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project, with NIH staff being substantially involved as a partner with the Principal Investigator, as described under the Section VI. 2. Administrative Requirements, "Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award". At this time, the NICHD plans to reissue this FOA on an annual basis.
2. Funds Available
The NICHD intends to commit approximately $5.5 million in total costs [Direct plus Facilities and Administrative (F & A) costs] in FY 2011 to fund up to three new and/or renewal applications in response to this FOA. An applicant for a center may request a project period of up to five years and a budget for direct costs not to exceed $1.4 million for the first year with incremental increases for recurring costs (i.e., personnel, consultants, supplies, travel and other expenses) not to exceed three percent in each subsequent year. Applications exceeding the budgetary limits specified above will be returned to the applicant without peer review. Furthermore, increases in outyear budgets for recurring costs are subject to the availability of funds.
The estimated amount of funds available for support of three projects awarded as a result of this announcement is $5.5 million for fiscal year 2011. Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations.
Because the nature
and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to application,
it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary.
Although the financial plans of the IC(s) provide support for this program,
awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the
availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious
Facilities and administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included in the direct cost limitation see NOT-OD-05-004.
grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Number of Applications. Applicants may submit more than one application, provided they are scientifically distinct and based in different departments or units.
Resubmissions. Applicants may submit a resubmission application, but such application must include an Introduction addressing the previous peer review critique (Summary Statement). Beginning with applications intended for the January 25, 2009 official submission due date, all original new applications (i.e., never submitted) and competing renewal applications will be permitted only a single amendment (A1). See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-003.html and NOT-OD-09-016. Original new and competing renewal applications that were submitted prior to January 25, 2009 will be permitted two amendments (A1 and A2). For these grandfathered applications, NIH expects that any A2 will be submitted no later than January 7, 2011, and NIH will not accept A2 applications after that date.
Renewals. Renewal applications are permitted in response to this FOA.
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application
The PHS 398 application instructions are available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of the PHS 398. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301) 710-0267, Email: email@example.com.
Telecommunications for the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Applications must be prepared using the most current PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms. Applications must have a D&B Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements. The D&B number can be obtained by calling (866) 705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/. The D&B number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398 form.
The title and number of this funding opportunity must be typed in item (box) 2 only of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be checked.
Applications for the U54 grant are to be prepared in a manner consistent with the information presented in the NICHD U54 Cooperative Specialized Research Center Grant Guidelines, available from the contacts listed below and at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/mechanism/u54_guide.cfm.
Additional information is available in the PHS 398 grant application instructions.
Submission Dates and Times
Applications must be received on or before the receipt date described below (Section IV.3.A). Submission times N/A.
3.A. Receipt, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
Letters of Intent Receipt Date: April 5, 2010
Application Receipt Date: May 5, 2010
Peer Review Date(s): October/November 2010
Council Review Date: January 2011
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: April 1, 2011
Letter of Intent
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
Although a letter of
intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a
subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to
estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed in Section IV.3.A.
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Louis V. DePaolo, Ph.D.
Reproductive Sciences Branch
Center for Population Research
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8B01A, MSC 7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Telephone: (301) 435-6970
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3.B. Sending an Application to the NIH
Applications must be
prepared using the forms found in the PHS 398 instructions for preparing a
research grant application. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the
application, including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Personal deliveries
of applications are no longer permitted (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-040.html).
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application and all copies of the appendix material must be sent to:
Robert Stretch, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Scientific Review
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Telephone: 301-496-1485
Email: email@example.com
3.C. Application Processing
Applications must be received on or before the application receipt date) described above (Section IV.3.A.). If an application is received after that date, the application may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed. Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the CSR and for responsiveness by the reviewing Institute Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application, originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an Introduction describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the application.
Information on the status of an application should be checked by the Principal Investigator in the eRA Commons at: https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/.
4. Intergovernmental Review
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental
5. Funding Restrictions
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The Grants Policy Statement can be found at NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs
are allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval,
incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the
beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award if such costs: 1) are necessary to conduct the
project, and 2) would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH
prior approval. If specific expenditures would otherwise require prior
approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH
prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days
before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or
renewal award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project (see NIH Grants Policy Statement https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm.)
6. Other Submission Requirements
Applications for the U54 grant are to be prepared in a manner consistent with the information presented in the NICHD U54 Cooperative Specialized Research Center Grant Guidelines, available from the contacts listed below and at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/mechanism/u54_guide.cfm.
At minimum, an application in response to this FOA should include:
All applicants must document their ability to meet or exceed the minimum requirements as set forth in this FOA. This specifically includes understanding of and commitment to the cooperative nature of this Program, and willingness to meet the Terms and Conditions of Award.
Description of a Center
The minimal requirements for a Center described in this FOA are as follows (see sections on Review Procedures and Award Criteria below):
Optional components of the Center organization include the mix of subprojects and cores to be included in the Center:
Closed Access Structure: In this center structure administrative and all technical service cores will be utilized by budgeted center subprojects only. Consistent with NICHD guidelines for establishment of core facilities, utilization by three subprojects is required to justify a core technical service facility. Percent utilization by any one of the three subprojects justifying the core may not exceed 50 percent or be less than five percent. The percent utilization of additional subprojects requiring core services may be less than five percent. Costs necessary to use a particular core facility may be incorporated into the budget of the core unit, and not in the budgets of the research subprojects per se. No internal charge-back system would be required.
Open Access Structure: In this center structure, budgeted center subprojects, as well as research projects external to the Center (e.g., R01, R03, R21, P01 subproject), may have access to technical service cores. However, special consideration must be given to justification of a technical service core facility and the formal establishment of an effective charge-back system for all technical service cores. For each core service facility, at least one of the three projects used to justify a core must be a budgeted center subproject, while the remaining project(s) used in justifying the core must be externally funded NICHD projects administered by the RSB. Percent utilization by any internally budgeted center subproject or externally funded RSB project used to justify a particular core facility may not exceed 50 percent or be less than five percent. An additional seven federally funded, peer reviewed external research projects addressing program relevant research areas of the RSB may access the core up to 100 percent of its service capacity. The 50/5 percent utilization requirement applies to this group of external projects. Centers must establish an internal management policy for evaluating the acceptability of proposed RSB program relevant external projects to access the core facilities. Approval of requests for core access privileges for external projects which would replace those described above must be made to RSB Program Staff who then will evaluate the extent to which the project is relevant to RSB mission research areas (see Research Scope), and render a decision accordingly.
If centers choose to operate in an open access format, costs necessary to utilize a particular core facility by budgeted center subprojects must be incorporated into the budget of the subproject and not the core budget in order to accommodate participation in the required charge-back system. Core budgets will be justified and evaluated based on access by budgeted center subprojects and external, program relevant research projects as described above. Above and beyond this arrangement, technology based core units may offer services to additional external projects addressing any area of research regardless of funding source only on a full payback (fee for service or in-kind) basis. However, additional funds necessary to provide services to these external projects (e.g., technical support, supplies, etc.) must come from sources other than the center funding, such as the supply budgets of the external projects wishing to access the core facilities. In choosing to configure a center in an open access center structure, the Principal Investigator must have in place, and adequately describe in the application, management policies that ensure that budgeted center subprojects are given highest priority in receiving services provided by the core.
Centers choosing to configure in an open access center format may propose one or more technical service cores that will be utilized exclusively by budgeted center subprojects. These centers may, therefore, have a mix of open and restricted access technical service cores. On the other hand, administrative cores in open center structures may be accessed only by budgeted center subprojects.
Once an award is made, centers configured as a closed access center structure may, at a later time, choose to convert to an open access center structure by requesting such conversion in writing to the NICHD.
Program Coordination and Management Structure
Overall coordination of the SCCPIR, consistent with the stated objectives set forth in this FOA (see Objectives), will be done by a Steering Committee consisting of all Center Principal Investigators and an NICHD Project Scientist from the RSB, CPR. The Steering Committee will employ a consensus decision process to guide the SCCPIR in evaluating the progress of member Center programs, their proposed new research initiatives within the general scope of the approved program, the need to provide the entire SCCPIR network of centers with access to new technologies, the need for collaborations either within or outside the SCCPIR network, and the need to redirect certain efforts of member Centers due to either sufficient data acquisition to permit conclusion, the acquisition of data supporting an alternative study initiative or experience proving that the proposed research is no longer feasible, or, in the case of SCCPIR-wide resources, lack of utilization.
In addition to the Steering Committee, smaller cooperative groups will be formed that consist of research components of member centers having common research interests addressing a specific basic and/or clinical research problem. These Research Focus Groups will perform coordinated research activities as recommended by the SCCPIR Steering Committee, subject to peer review. In turn, progress of the Research Focus Groups will further guide the Steering Committee in decision making regarding changes in specific research directions, translational activities, collaborative research projects and support of new resources. The Research Focus Group will consist of an NICHD Staff liaison from the RSB, CPR, and Key Investigators of the relevant subproject and/or Core Directors.
Further details of the guidance and management structures and processes may be found under Section VI.2.A Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award.
Travel to Meetings
Principal Investigators should request travel funds to support their participation in the annual Steering Committee Meeting as well as two research focus group meetings. Key Investigators of budgeted center subprojects and Directors of technical service cores should request travel funds to support participation in two research focus group meetings.
Research Strategy Page Limitations
The Research Strategy section may not exceed 12 pages for each project and 6 pages for each core and pilot project, including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams and charts.
Appendix Materials
All paper PHS 398 applications submitted must provide appendix material on CDs only. Include five identical CDs in the same package with the application. See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-031.html.
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations. An application that does not observe the required page limitations may be delayed in the review process.Resource Sharing Plan(s)
NIH considers the sharing of unique research resources developed through NIH-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value of, and advance research. When resources have been developed with NIH funds and the associated research findings published or provided to NIH, it is important that they be made readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community. If the final data/resources are not amenable to sharing, this must be explained in Resource Sharing section of the application. See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm.
(a) Data Sharing Plan: Investigators seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year are expected to include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss data-sharing plans with their NIH program contact. See Data-Sharing Policy or https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html.
(b) Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated are expected to include a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organisms and related resources, or state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible. See Sharing Model Organisms Policy, and NIH Guide NOT-OD-04-042.
(c) Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): Regardless of the amount requested, applicants seeking funding for a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. A genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight) or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. For further information see Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088, and https://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications that are complete and responsive to the FOA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by NICHD and in accordance with NIH peer review procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/), using the review criteria stated below.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will:
The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
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.
Individual Research Projects
Overall Impact. Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Core Review Criteria. Reviewers will consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) Protections for Human Subjects, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Core Units
NIH considers the following in evaluating Center grant applications:
Additional Review Criteria
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children. When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children.
Vertebrate Animals. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia.
Resubmission Applications. When reviewing a Resubmission application (formerly called an amended application), the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
Renewal Applications. When reviewing a Renewal application (formerly called a competing continuation application), the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Revision Applications. When reviewing a Revision application (formerly called a competing supplement application), the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
Biohazards. Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Center as an Integrated Effort
For Renewal Applications:
Additional Review Considerations
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will address each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Budget and Period Support. Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Select Agents Research. Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Applications from Foreign Organizations. Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Resource Sharing Plans. Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm); 2) Sharing Model Organisms (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-042.html); and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html).
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award
Not applicable
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
If the application is under consideration for funding,
NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant. For
details, applicants may refer to the NIH Grants Policy
Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General.
formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be
provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the grants management
officer is the authorizing document. Once all administrative and programmatic
issues have been resolved, the NoA will be generated via email notification
from the awarding component to the grantee business official.
Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs. See Also Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm) and Part II Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities (https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm).
following Terms and Conditions will be incorporated into the award statement
and will be provided to the Principal Investigator as well as to the
appropriate institutional official, at the time of award.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable OMB administrative guidelines, HHS grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is applicable when State and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.
The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the cooperative agreement an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.
2. A.1. Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities
The Principal Investigator will have the primary responsibility for:
will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software
developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent
with current HHS, PHS, and NIH policies.
2. A.2. NIH Responsibilities
An NIH Project
Scientist will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and
beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below.
Additionally, an NICHD Program Official will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice.
2.A.3. Collaborative Responsibilities (optional)
Overall Coordination of the Centers Program
consistent with the stated intent of the RFA will be done by a Steering
Committee consisting of the Principal Investigators from each of the
participating Centers and one NICHD staff member from the RSB, CPR, NICHD, who will
be the Project Scientist. A member of the NICHD grants management staff will
serve as a nonvoting advisor to the Committee. A non-NIH chairperson for the
Steering Committee will be chosen by a majority vote of the Principal
Investigators. The Steering Committee meetings will be convened at least once
per year. The purpose of these meetings is to share scientific information,
assess scientific progress, identify new research opportunities and potential
avenues of collaborations such as with industry, private foundations and/or NIH
intramural scientists, establish priorities that will accelerate the
translation of preclinical findings into clinical applications, reallocate
resources and conduct the business of the cooperative research program. In
anticipation that some centers will have common research interests that address
a specific basic and/or clinical research problem, it is envisioned that
research focus groups will be formed to conduct coordinated research activities
recommended by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will approve
multicenter protocols on specific research activities. As needed, the Steering
Committee will develop a publication policy regarding joint authorship of research
reports derived from such collaborative efforts.
Each full member will have one vote. Awardee members of the Steering Committee will be required to accept and implement policies approved by the Steering Committee.
2.A.4. Arbitration Process
Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to arbitration. An Arbitration Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special arbitration procedure in no way affects the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulations 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and HHS regulations 45 CFR Part 16.
3. Reporting
will be required to submit the Non-Competing
Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial
statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy
A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated.
Section VII. Agency Contacts
encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the
opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall
into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants
management issues:
1. Scientific/Research Contacts:
Louis V. DePaolo, Ph.D.
Reproductive Sciences Branch
Center for Population Research
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8B01, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Telephone: (301) 435-6970
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Robert Stretch, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Scientific Review
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Telephone: 301-496-1485
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3. Financial or Grants Management Contacts:
Ms. Cecilia Bruce
Grants Management Branch
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8A17L, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Telephone: (301) 496-1304
Email: email@example.com
Section VIII. Other Information
Required Federal Citations
Vertebrate Animals:
Recipients of PHS support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply with PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf) as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm), and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm) as applicable.
Human Subjects Protection:
Federal regulations (45CFR46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and Safety Monitoring Plan:
Data and safety monitoring is required for all types of clinical trials, including physiologic toxicity and dose-finding studies (phase I); efficacy studies (Phase II); efficacy, effectiveness and comparative trials (Phase III). Monitoring should be commensurate with risk. The establishment of data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) is required for multi-site clinical trials involving interventions that entail potential risks to the participants (NIH Policy for Data and Safety Monitoring, NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
Sharing Research Data:
Investigators submitting an NIH application seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year are expected to include a plan for data sharing or state why this is not possible (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing).
Investigators should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local IRB rules, as well as local, State and Federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule. Reviewers will consider the data sharing plan but will not factor the plan into the determination of the scientific merit or the impact/priority score.
Policy for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS):
NIH is interested in advancing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify common genetic factors that influence health and disease through a centralized GWAS data repository. For the purposes of this policy, a genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire human genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight), or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. All applications, regardless of the amount requested, proposing a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. Data repository management (submission and access) is governed by the Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088. For additional information, see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.
to Research Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm. Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award.
Sharing of Model Organisms:
NIH is committed to support efforts that encourage sharing of important research resources including the sharing of model organisms for biomedical research (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm). At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding pursuant to the Bayh Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement https://grants.nih.gov/archive/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm). All investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal, beginning with the October 1, 2004 receipt date, are expected to include in the application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html); a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm. The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of Children as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) must be included in all clinical research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC):
Criteria for federal funding of research on hESCs can be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp and at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-116.html. Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov). It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide in the project description and elsewhere in the application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s) for the hESC line(s) to be used in the proposed research.
NIH Public Access Policy Requirement:
In accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html) investigators must submit or have submitted for them their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts that arise from NIH funds and are accepted for publication as of April 7, 2008 to PubMed Central (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/), to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after publication. As of May 27, 2008, investigators must include the PubMed Central reference number when citing an article in NIH applications, proposals, and progress reports that fall under the policy, and was authored or co-authored by the investigator or arose from the investigators NIH award. For more information, see the Public Access webpage at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002. The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the DHHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/) provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review, funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research contracts can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, internet addresses (URLs) must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal articles. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide any other information necessary for the review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This FOA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and Regulations:
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372. Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The NIH Grants Policy Statement can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Loan Repayment Programs:
NIH encourages applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical, pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas. The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week based on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Office of Extramural
Research (OER)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.


text:
New Products
Lifting Magnets Simplify Difficult Steel-Handling Operations
SafeHold APL magnets are designed so that an operator is not required to manually release the magnet. They require no electricity, with no costly DC power supply nor a recharge. The magnets can be used singly or in multiples on a spreader beam. They come in three models to handle loads to 5800 lb.
Eriez: 814/835-6000; www.eriez.com
See also: Eriez Manufacturing Co.
Related Enterprise Zones: Automation
Reader Comments
There are no comments posted at this time.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
A child will glide along on this no pedal balance bike in no time! The Child's Balance Bike No Pedal Bicycle is a budget friendly way to teach a child to ride a bike. A push bike is the perfect learning tool as children advance from a no pedal bike to actually pedaling a bicycle.
The Balance Bike is simple to assemble and easy to maintain, but if you need any assistance our outstanding Customer Service team is available to answer any questions. These Balance Bikes are offered at discounted prices and come with free shipping.Childs Balance Bike No Pedal Bicycle Features:
|Childrens Balance Bike No Pedal Push Bicycle for Girls or Boys


text:
Trimble Introduces Apple iOS Support in Latest Release of its ThingMagic Mercury API
Extensive and Intuitive RFID Software Development Kit Strengthened by More Universal Compatibility
SUNNYVALE, Calif., July 11, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Trimble (NASDAQ: TRMB) announced today the addition of Apple iOS compatibility enhancements to the ThingMagic(R) Mercury(R) API software development kit. The latest enhancements to the Mercury API address the growing demand from end users who want to use consumer mobile devices--smartphones and tablets--as an alternative to handheld computers for RFID applications. The addition of iOS support represents the next step in expanding the breadth of application uses for ThingMagic's Mercury API, an extensive software development kit that offers a consistent programmatic interface across all ThingMagic finished and embedded reader products.
"Feedback from RFID end users has shown an increased demand to use the most popular mobile devices and operating systems. We first responded with Android support in the last release of our Mercury API and have now added iOS support," said Tom Grant, general manager of ThingMagic. "By adding iOS support to the Mercury API we are expanding the population of devices that can manage and control ThingMagic embedded modules and finished readers to implement an RFID solution."
Using a smartphone or tablet with an RFID reader attached as a sled, dongle or connected via Bluetooth offers an attractive solution to developers and users compared to costly handheld computers. The value in opening up the development possibilities clears the way for more applications and supports the trend toward enabling a true Internet of Things. The Mercury API software development kit is a blanket offering for customers of all ThingMagic fixed and embedded readers. In addition, its inclusion with products such as the Mercury xPRESS flexible development platform offers a more comprehensive approach to delivering RFID solutions to a wider variety of vertical markets. Having more development options can enable new projects in retail, medical, manufacturing, logistics and transportation, among other markets that have made limited use of RFID.
The ThingMagic Mercury API removes complexities and speeds time to deployment for system integrators and OEMs developing solutions with ThingMagic readers and embedded modules, who will now benefit from support of a greater breadth of operating systems. Intuitively designed and supported by a significant volume of documentation, the Mercury API requires little RFID expertise and enables developers to rapidly design and test:
-- Reader and tag commands
-- Advanced read functionality such as setting antennas, protocols and filtering criteria
-- Advanced tag operations such as killing and locking tags
-- Privacy and security features
-- Performance and memory optimization
About Trimble's ThingMagic Division
Trimble's ThingMagic Division is a leading provider of UHF RFID reader engines, development platforms and design services for a wide range of applications. ThingMagic develops products for demanding high-volume applications and provides consulting and design services to create solutions for challenging applications. ThingMagic's customers include some of the world's largest industrial automation firms, manufacturers, automotive companies, retailers, and consumer companies. Located in Woburn, Massachusetts, the ThingMagic business was founded in 2000 by a group of visionary PhD graduates from Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab. ThingMagic is "The Engine in RFID(TM)."
For more information, visit: www.thingmagic.com.
About Trimble
Trimble applies technology to make field and mobile workers in businesses and government significantly more productive. Solutions are focused on applications requiring position or location--including surveying, construction, agriculture, fleet and asset management, public safety and mapping. In addition to utilizing positioning technologies, such as GPS, lasers and optics, Trimble solutions may include software content specific to the needs of the user. Wireless technologies are utilized to deliver the solution to the user and to ensure a tight coupling of the field and the back office. Founded in 1978, Trimble is headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif.


text:
(L-R) Greenpeace India Campaign DIrector Divya Raghunandan, Shri Giriraj Singh, Minister of Fisheries, Bihar, Shri Brijendra Prasad Yadav, Minister of Energy of Bihar, Samit Aich, Executive Director, Greenpeace India, and Dr Shaibal Gupta, member of the Finance Commission, Government of Bihar, at the "Energy Revolution Bihar- The Renewable Energy Way" conference, organised by Greenpeace India at Bihar.
© Greenpeace
1 - 12 of 2564 results.
Follow @greenpeaceindia