text:
of Health and Human Services
Participating Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov)
Components of Participating Organizations
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/)
Title: Research on Alcohol-Related Public Policies such as Those Detailed in the Alcohol Policy Information System (R21)
Announcement Type
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
This FOA must be read in conjunction with the application guidelines included with this announcement in Grants.gov/Apply for Grants (hereafter called Grants.gov/Apply).
A registration process is necessary before submission and applicants are highly encouraged to start the process at least four weeks prior to the grant submission date. See Section IV.
Program Announcement
(PA) Number: PA-07-428
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s)
Key Dates
Release/Posted Date: August 8, 2007
Opening Date:December 7, 2007 (Earliest date an application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Letters of Intent Receipt Date(s): Not Applicable
NOTE: On time submission requires that applications be successfully submitted to Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization).
Application Submission/Receipt Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
AIDS Application Submission/Receipt Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#AIDS.
Peer Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Council Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Additional Information To Be Available Date (URL Activation Date): Not Applicable
Expiration Date: September 10, 2010 (now September 8, 2010 per NOT-OD-07-093)
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Overview Content
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Part I Overview
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism 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. Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Submission, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Submitting an Application Electronically to the NIH
C. Application Processing
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. Sharing Research Data
D. Sharing Research Resources
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
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
Research Objectives
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) issued by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), invites applications to conduct research on the effects of alcohol-related public policies on health, economic, and social behaviors and outcomes. The purpose of the FOA is to advance understanding of public policy pertaining to alcohol as a tool for improving public health and welfare. The NIAAA has developed the Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS) as a resource for researchers conducting studies in this area; studies that make use of the information available through APIS are particularly encouraged. Research supported by this FOA includes, but is not necessarily limited to, studies examining the effects of alcohol-related public policies on health-related behaviors and outcomes, evaluations of public policies as tools for improving public health, and research to advance methods and measurement used in studying relationships between alcohol-related public policies and health-related behaviors and outcomes.
Research Objectives
The NIAAA seeks to expand knowledge about the effects of alcohol-related public policies on health, economic, and social behaviors and outcomes. Such knowledge can inform discussions and decisions about public policies that ultimately may lead to improvements in public health and welfare. The specific objectives of this FOA are to provide support for (a) studies of the effects of alcohol-related public policies on specific health, economic, or social behaviors and outcomes; (b) evaluations of policy measures as means of improving health outcomes; (c) analyses to elucidate the behavioral linkages through which alcohol-related policies affect intervening attitudes or behaviors that ultimately affect health-related behavior or outcomes; and (d) research to advance methods and measurement used in studying relationships between alcohol-related public policies and health-related behaviors and outcomes. Studies that make use of policy information provided in NIAAAs Alcohol Policy Information System (http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov) are particularly encouraged. Grants under this announcement are not intended as a means for promoting enactment, adoption, or repeal of any specific public policies.
The adverse consequences of alcohol consumption on health, social, and economic outcomes are large in magnitude and diverse in character. These effects encompass a wide variety of health conditions, both chronic and acute, as well as effects on development and maturation, educational achievement, employment, productivity, violent and criminal behavior, health care utilization, cultural mores, and family and interpersonal relations. A substantial scientific literature has identified a few alcohol-related policy measures, including maximum allowable blood alcohol levels for drivers, minimum legal drinking ages, and other policies that influence access to alcohol, that can lead to significant improvements in some outcomes. However, governments at all levels have established a large and varied body of public policy addressing myriad aspects of alcoholic beverage manufacture, packaging, distribution, pricing, advertising, marketing, sales, and consumption, as well as post-consumption behavior and delivery of, access to, and financing of health care services for treatment of alcohol use disorders and the medical consequences of alcohol consumption. Such policies, through their effects on alcohol production, pricing, sales, purchase, consumption, and post-consumption behavior, have the potential also to affect various health, social, or economic outcomes that are influenced by these behaviors.
For most policy measures, there is little or no research assessing their effects on particular outcomes or their effectiveness in achieving any specific objectives. Even for relatively well-studied policies such as excise taxes, empirical findings exhibit substantial variation. Disparities in findings due to factors such as measurement problems, confounding, and complex behavioral linkages can leave significant uncertainty about the true magnitudes of policy effects on specific outcomes and behaviors of interest. As a result, policy debates and decisions often must proceed without the benefit of clear, research-based knowledge of the health, social, and economic consequences of specific policy choices.
Despite limited information about the effects of many policies, evidence from policy studies yields the tantalizing suggestion that policy tools may be able to generate improvements in public health on a scale unmatched by other approaches to alleviating the adverse consequences of alcohol consumption. For example, substantial evidence indicates that public policies, including tighter restrictions on blood alcohol levels permitted for drivers and minimum drinking age laws, have played a signal role in the 50-percent decline in the rate of alcohol-related traffic crash fatalities per population in the United States over the twenty-five-year period beginning in 1980. This decline represents a total of approximately 150,000 deaths averted. However, these changes occurred over a period that included many other economic, social, and cultural changes. The challenge of discerning how any particular policy might have influenced specific outcomes of interest in the presence of numerous confounding factors is one of the main challenges of policy research. This FOA seeks to encourage studies that address these difficulties as well as studies that advance the methodologies available for conducting such analyses.
Areas of Research Interest
Studies of the effects of alcohol-related public policies commonly take the form of natural experiments: secondary analyses of problem indicator data before and after a policy change takes effect. Cross-sectional studies or research designs that pool time-series and cross-sectional data may also be appropriate for analyzing the effects of policies on specific outcomes of interest. In addition, simulation models, including both population-based and agent-based or microsimulation studies, can provide flexible frameworks for examining effects of multiple policy changes on a range of outcomes.
Data on outcome variables may be obtained from various sources. Numerous survey datasets are available, including some that provide detailed information on outcomes specifically relevant to alcohol, such as the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH; http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda.htm), the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS; http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/fars.html), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/), and the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS; http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/index.htm). Many outcomes of interest also may be measured at the aggregate level, including per capita levels of alcohol consumption, traffic crash fatality rates, measures of the incidence or prevalence of specific health conditions, and broader indicators of the burden of alcohol-related problems. Numerous data sources with data relevant to alcohol-related behaviors and outcomes are described and documented in the Alcohol Epidemiologic Data Directory developed by the NIAAA through the Alcohol Epidemiology Data System Contract; the Data Directory is available at http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/2006DataDirectory/2006DataDirectory.htm.
Alcohol Policy Information System. Data on policies ultimately derive from the public policy documents themselves, primarily statutes and regulations. The Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS; http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov) is a recently-developed online data resource that provides authoritative, detailed, and comparable information on alcohol-related policies at the State and Federal levels in the United States based on primary legal research on the statutes and regulations. The APIS was developed by the NIAAA to facilitate research on the effects and effectiveness of alcohol-related public policies. APIS provides detailed coverage, including exact effective dates and legal citations, for 36 specific policy topics:
For each policy topic, APIS provides detailed comparison tables showing both up-to-date policy information and policy changes over time with exact effective dates. APIS also provides descriptive overviews, maps and charts, summaries of relevant Federal law, and detailed explanatory notes. Coverage for most topics begins at January 1, 1998 and extends through January 1, 2006. One purpose of this FOA is to encourage studies that will make use of the information available through APIS.
Additional information on policies may be obtained through a variety of sources, including legal information resources, government offices and agencies, and public health, trade, and advocacy organizations that compile information on policies in their areas of interest. Sources of policy information in other areas related to public health include the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/statesystem/), the National Conference of State Legislatures Substance Abuse Legislation Database (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/substAbuse_bills.cfm), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Digest of Impaired Driving and Selected Alcohol Beverage Control Laws (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/ImpairedDrivingBeverageControlDigest.pdf), the National Cancer Institute's State Cancer Legislative Database (http://www.scld-nci.net/), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives publication, State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/statelaws/26thedition/index.htm). Policy information from these and other areas may be useful in examining how policies interact to influence health-related outcomes.
Some studies of policy effects have examined the direct relationship between policy variables and outcomes of interest, such as the direct relationship between alcohol excise tax rates and traffic crash fatalities. Other studies have attempted to examine elements of the behavioral linkages that connect policy changes and downstream effects on specific outcomes, such as the effects of alcohol taxes on alcohol prices, the effects of prices on consumption behavior, and the effects of alcohol consumption behavior on traffic outcomes. Both approaches are valid, and each presents its own conceptual and methodological challenges. A literature that includes both perspectives should provide greater insight into the effects and mechanisms of public policies on behaviors and outcomes than a body of research that is restricted to either approach alone.
Beyond the mere existence of particular statutes or regulations, differences in how policies are implemented can also influence the extent to which they achieve desired (or undesired) effects. Key aspects of implementation include the dissemination of public information pertaining to policy changes, the extent of enforcement efforts and publicity about enforcement, and the nature and severity of penalties associated with violations. Empirical studies that incorporate measures of enforcement or other aspects of implementation often confront significant challenges in terms of measurement and data availability. This FOA seeks to encourage studies that can add to our understanding of the role of enforcement, public information, and other aspects of implementation in determining policy effects.
Public policies influence behaviors and outcomes within the broader social context in which the policies are enacted and implemented. For example, the factors that lead some jurisdictions to adopt policies different from those in otherwise similar jurisdictions may have significant implications for (or reflect the influence of additional factors that also affect) the health, social, and economic outcomes that obtain in such jurisdictions. Research on the process of policy diffusion and determinants of policy formation may enhance understanding of the role of policy as a tool for influencing health and other outcomes and help researchers to choose appropriate analytic strategies for incorporating policy variables into studies of causal relationships.
Because alcohol consumption is associated with a wide range of health conditions, policies that affect health care service delivery, financing, access, and utilization can have significant effects on the magnitude and severity of alcohol-related health outcomes. Insurance policies may specify coverage limits for treatment of alcohol use disorders under the broader headings of substance abuse treatment or mental health services, and insurance coverage for these categories may be more restrictive than coverage for general health conditions. As a result, public policies governing such insurance provisions may affect patients access to treatment. Similarly, laws allowing insurers to deny coverage for treatment of injuries sustained as a result of intoxication (so-called UPPL laws) may provide a disincentive for health care providers to identify, document, and make appropriate referrals for possible alcohol use disorders among injury victims. The broad and complex body of public policy that applies to health care providers, facilities, services, and programs as well as to financing and insurance arrangements (both public and private), has the potential to influence alcohol-related behaviors and outcomes in numerous and important ways.
In addition to studies of the effects of specific policies on outcomes of interest, this FOA also aims to encourage research that evaluates the effectiveness of specific policy measures as tools for improving public health or reducing the burden of alcohol-related illness and mortality. Such studies may use techniques of cost-effectiveness analysis or other accepted methods and should adopt a societal perspective as a primary basis for comparisons unless compelling reasons for an alternate perspective arise based on the specific policies or policy effects under consideration.
Accurate assessment of the effects of public policies on outcomes of interest requires accurate measurements of policy status in the jurisdictions under study. Accuracy in characterization of the statutory and regulatory provisions that comprise many policies such as the information available through the Alcohol Policy Information System is a necessary component of such measurement. However, some policies may be characterized by multiple provisions in more complex combinations. In such cases, it may be necessary to create synthetic measures of policy status, such as an index number reflecting the stringency of policy in a particular area. Areas of alcohol-related policy where such indices or other synthetic measures of policy status may be especially useful include underage drinking, alcohol taxation, and alcohol-related traffic policies. An additional objective of this FOA is to encourage development, testing, and application of alternate approaches to measurement of policy status in these and other areas where characterizations based on direct representations of legal provisions may not be adequate for research purposes.
Many different alcohol-related public policies are appropriate for examination under this FOA. For any given policy topic or topic area, potentially researchable questions arise concerning the direction and magnitude of policy effects on outcomes of interest. Depending on the specific policy or policies under consideration, outcomes of interest may include
In addition to policy effects on alcohol-related health, behavioral, and social outcomes of the sorts identified above, policies may have wide ranging additional effects, including adverse or unintended consequences. Evaluations or comparisons of policies should give consideration to the additional benefits or burdens that may be attributable to policies.
Previous studies often have examined policy effects on selected outcomes at the level of the study population as a whole. However, better understanding may be gained by examining differential policy effects on relevant subpopulations. Groups of particular interest may be defined by age, gender, drinking categories, socioeconomic status, education, or other traits. This FOA seeks to encourage research that will expand understanding of how policy effects differ across relevant population groups. Such information can help decision-makers assess the potential value of specific policy tools in efforts to address particular aspects of alcohol-related problems.
Examples of policy topics and potentially associated outcomes that could be examined with support under this FOA include:
Examples of additional policy-related research questions with a somewhat broader focus that could be addressed under this FOA include
The evolution and vitality of the biomedical sciences require a constant infusion of new ideas, techniques, and points of view. These may differ substantially from current thinking or practice and may not yet be supported by substantial preliminary data. By using the R21 mechanism, the NIH seeks to foster the introduction of novel scientific ideas, model systems, tools, agents, targets, and technologies that have the potential to substantially advance biomedical research.
The R21 mechanism is intended to encourage new exploratory and developmental research projects. For example, such projects could assess the feasibility of a novel area of investigation or a new experimental system that has the potential to enhance health-related research. Another example could include the unique and innovative use of an existing methodology to explore a new scientific area. These studies may involve considerable risk but may lead to a breakthrough in a particular area, or to the development of novel techniques, agents, methodologies, models, or applications that could have a major impact on a field of biomedical, behavioral, or clinical research.
Applications for R21 awards should describe projects distinct from those supported through the traditional R01 mechanism. For example, long-term projects, or projects designed to increase knowledge in a well-established area, will not be considered for R21 awards. Applications submitted under this mechanism should be exploratory and novel. These studies should break new ground or extend previous discoveries toward new directions or applications. Projects of limited cost or scope that use widely accepted approaches and methods within well established fields are better suited for the R03 small grant mechanism. Information on the R03 program can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm.
See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal
Citations, for policies related to this
Section II. Award Information
Mechanism of Support
This FOA will use the NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant (R21) award mechanism. As an applicant, you will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This FOA uses Just-in-Time information concepts. It also uses the modular as well as the non-modular budget formats (see the Modular Applications and Awards section of the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Specifically, if you are submitting an application with direct costs in each year of $250,000 or less (excluding consortium Facilities and Administrative [F&A] costs), use the PHS398 Modular Budget component provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Package and SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (see specifically Section 3.4, Modular Budget Component, of the Application Guide).
All foreign applicants must complete and submit budget requests using the Research & Related Budget component found in the application package for this FOA. See NOT-OD-06-096, August 23, 2006.
Exploratory/developmental grant support is for new projects only; competing renewal (formerly competing continuation) applications will not be accepted. Applicants may submit a resubmission, but such application must include an Introduction addressing issues raised in the previous critique (Summary Statement).
2. Funds Available
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 Institutes and Centers (ICs) provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
The total project period for an application submitted in response to this funding opportunity may not exceed 2 years. Although the size of award may vary with the scope of research proposed, it is expected that applications will stay within the budgetary guidelines for an exploratory/developmental project; direct costs are limited to $275,000 over an R21 two-year period, with no more than $200,000 in direct costs allowed in any single year. Applicants may request direct costs in $25,000 modules, up to the total direct costs limitation of $275,000 for the combined two-year award period. NIH grants policies as described in the NOT-OD-05-004, November 2, 2004.
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
1.A. Eligible Institutions
You may submit an application(s) if your institution/organization has any of the following characteristics:
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
More than one PD/PI, or multiple PDs/PIs, may be designated on the application for projects that require a team science approach that clearly does not fit the single-PD/PI model.Additional information on the implementation plans and policies and procedures to formally allow more than one PD/PI on individual research projects is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi. All PDs/PIs must be registered in the NIH eRA Commons prior to the submission of the application (see http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm for instructions).
The decision of whether to apply for a single PD/PI or multiple PD/PI grant is the responsibility of the investigators and applicant organizations and should be determined by the scientific goals of the project. Applications for multiple PD/PI grants will require additional information, as outlined in the instructions below. When considering multiple PDs/PIs, please be aware that the structure and governance of the PD/PI leadership team as well as the knowledge, skills and experience of the individual PD/PIs will be factored into the assessment of the overall scientific merit of the application. Multiple PDs/PIs on a project share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically.Each PD/PI is responsible and accountable to the grantee organization, or, as appropriate, to a collaborating organization, for the proper conduct of the project or program, including the submission of required reports. For further information on multiple PDs/PIs, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi.
2. Cost Sharing or
This program does not require cost sharing as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy Statement.
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Applicants may submit more than one application, provided each application is scientifically distinct.
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
To download a SF424 (R&R) Application Package and
SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for completing the SF424 (R&R) forms for
this FOA, link to http://www.grants.gov/Apply/ and follow the directions provided on that Web site.
A one-time registration is required for institutions/organizations at both:
PDs/PIs should work with their institutions/organizations to make sure they are registered in the eRA Commons.
Several additional separate actions are required before an applicant institution/organization can submit an electronic application, as follows:
1) Organizational/Institutional Registration in Grants.gov/Get Started
2) Organizational/Institutional Registration in the eRA Commons
3) Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) Registration in the NIH eRA Commons: Refer to the NIH eRA Commons System (COM) Users Guide.
Both the PD/PI(s) and AOR/SO need separate accounts in the NIH eRA Commons since both are authorized to view the application image.
Note that if a PD/PI is also an NIH peer-reviewer with an Individual DUNS and CCR registration, that particular DUNS number and CCR registration are for the individual reviewer only. These are different than any DUNS number and CCR registration used by an applicant organization. Individual DUNS and CCR registration should be used only for the purposes of personal reimbursement and should not be used on any grant applications submitted to the Federal Government.
Several of the steps of the registration process could take four weeks or more. Therefore, applicants should immediately check with their business official to determine whether their organization/institution is already registered in both Grants.gov and the Commons. The NIH will accept electronic applications only from organizations that have completed all necessary registrations.
1. Request Application Information
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application forms and SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for this FOA through Grants.gov/Apply.
Note: Only the forms package
directly attached to a specific FOA can be used. You will not be able to use
any other SF424 (R&R) forms (e.g., sample forms, forms from another FOA),
although some of the "Attachment" files may be useable for more than
one FOA.
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
Prepare all applications using the SF424 (R&R) application forms and in accordance with the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (MS Word or PDF).
The SF424 (R&R) Application Guide is critical to submitting a complete and accurate application to NIH. There are fields within the SF424 (R&R) application components that, although not marked as mandatory, are required by NIH (e.g., the Credential log-in field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile component must contain the PD/PIs assigned eRA Commons User ID). Agency-specific instructions for such fields are clearly identified in the Application Guide. For additional information, see Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
The SF424 (R&R) application is comprised of data arranged in separate components. Some components are required, others are optional. The forms package associated with this FOA in Grants.gov/APPLY will include all applicable components, required and optional. A completed application in response to this FOA will include the following components:
SF424 (R&R) (Cover component)
Research & Related Project/Performance Site Locations
Research & Related Other Project Information
Research & Related Senior/Key Person
PHS398 Cover Page Supplement
PHS398 Research Plan
PHS398 Checklist
PHS398 Modular Budget or Research & Related Budget, as appropriate (See Section IV.6., Special Instructions, regarding appropriate required budget component.)
Research & Related Budget (required for foreign applications)
Optional Components:
PHS398 Cover Letter File
Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s) Form
Foreign Organizations (Non-domestic
(non-U.S.) Entity)
NIH policies concerning grants to foreign (non-U.S.) organizations can be found in the NIH Grants Policy Statement at: https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm#_Toc54600260.
Applications from foreign organizations must:
Proposed research should provide special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the United States or that augment existing U.S. resources.
Applications with Multiple PDs/PIs
When multiple PDs/PIs are proposed, NIH requires one PD/PI to be designated as the "Contact PI, who will be responsible for all communication between the PDs/PIs and the NIH, for assembling the application materials outlined below, and for coordinating progress reports for the project. The contact PD/PI must meet all eligibility requirements for PD/PI status in the same way as other PDs/PIs, but has no other special roles or responsibilities within the project team beyond those mentioned above.
Information for the Contact PD/PI should be entered in Item 13 of the SF424 (R&R) Cover component.All other PDs/PIs should be listed in the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component and assigned the project role of PD/PI.Please remember that all PDs/PIs must be registered in the eRA Commons prior to application submission.The Commons ID of each PD/PI must be included in the Credential field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component.Failure to include this data field will cause the application to be rejected.
All projects proposing Multiple PDs/PIs will be required to include a new section describing the leadership of the project.
Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan: For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, a new section of the research plan, entitled Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan, must be included. A rationale for choosing a multiple PD/PI approach should be described. The governance and organizational structure of the leadership team and the research project should be described, including communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, and procedures for resolving conflicts.The roles and administrative, technical, and scientific responsibilities for the project or program should be delineated for the PDs/PIs and other collaborators.
If budget allocation is planned, the distribution of resources to specific components of the project or the individual PDs/PIs should be delineated in the Leadership Plan. In the event of an award, the requested allocations may be reflected in a footnote on the Notice of Award.
Applications Involving a Single Institution
When all PDs/PIs are within a single institution, follow the instructions contained in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applications Involving Multiple Institutions
When multiple institutions are involved, one institution must be designated as the prime institution and funding for the other institution(s) must be requested via a subcontract to be administered by the prime institution. When submitting a detailed budget, the prime institution should submit its budget using the Research & Related Budget component.All other institutions should have their individual budgets attached separately to the Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s) Form.See Section 4.8 of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for further instruction regarding the use of the subaward budget form.
When submitting a modular budget, the prime institution completes the PHS398 Modular Budget component only.Information concerning the consortium/subcontract budget is provided in the budget justification. Separate budgets for each consortium/subcontract grantee are not required when using the Modular budget format. See Section 3.4 of the Application Guide for further instruction regarding the use of the PHS398 Modular Budget component.
3. Submission
Dates and Times
See Section IV.3.A for details.
3.A. Submission, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
Opening Date: December 7, 2007 (Earliest date an application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Application Submission/Receipt Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
AIDS Application Submission/Receipt Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#AIDS
Peer Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Council Review Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): Standard dates apply, please see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#reviewandaward
3.A.1. Letter of Intent
A letter of intent is not required for the funding opportunity.
3.B. Submitting an Application Electronically to the
To submit an application in response to this FOA, applicants should access this FOA via http://www.grants.gov/Apply and follow steps 1-4. Note: Applications must only be submitted electronically. PAPER APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
3.C. Application Processing
Applications may be submitted on or after the opening date and must be successfully received by Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time(of the applicant institution/organization) on the application submission/receipt date(s). (See Section IV.3.A. for all dates.) If an application is not submitted by the receipt date(s) and time, the application may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed.
Once an application package has been successfully submitted through Grants.gov, any errors have been addressed, and the assembled application has been created in the eRA Commons, the PD/PI and the Authorized Organization Representative/Signing Official (AOR/SO) have two business days to view the application image.
Upon receipt, applications will
be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH.
Incomplete applications will not be reviewed.
There will be an acknowledgement of receipt of applications from Grants.gov and the Commons. Information related to the assignment of an application to a Scientific Review Group is also in the Commons.
Note: Since email can be unreliable, it is the responsibility of the applicant to check periodically on their application status in the Commons.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial merit review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. The NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. This does not preclude the submission of an application already reviewed with substantial changes, but such application must include an Introduction addressing the previous critique. Note such an application is considered a "resubmission" for the SF424 (R&R).
4. Intergovernmental Review
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
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.
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 award if such costs: are necessary to conduct the project, and 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 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 the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
6. Other Submission Requirements
PD/PI Credential (e.g., Agency Login)
The NIH requires the PD/PI to fill in his/her Commons User ID in the PROFILE Project Director/Principal Investigator section, Credential log-in field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile component. The applicant organization must include its DUNS number in its Organization Profile in the eRA Commons. This DUNS number must match the DUNS number provided at CCR registration with Grants.gov. For additional information, see Registration FAQs Important Tips -- Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Organizational DUNS
The applicant organization must include its DUNS number in its Organization Profile in the eRA Commons. This DUNS number must match the DUNS number provided at CCR registration with Grants.gov. For additional information, see Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Warning: Please be sure that you observe the direct cost, project period, and page number limitations specified above for this FOA. Application processing may be delayed or the application may be rejected if it does not comply with these requirements.
PHS398 Research Plan Component Sections
While each section of the Research Plan needs to be uploaded separately as a PDF attachment, applicants are encouraged to construct the Research Plan component as a single document, separating sections into distinct PDF attachments just before uploading the files. This approach will enable applicants to better monitor formatting requirements such as page limits. All attachments must be provided to NIH in PDF format, filenames must be included with no spaces or special characters, and a .pdf extension must be used.
All application instructions outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (MS Word or PDF) are to be followed, incorporating "Just-in-Time" information concepts, and with the following requirements for R21 applications:
Appendix Materials
NIH has published new limitations on grant application appendix materials to encourage applications to be as concise as possible while containing the information needed for expert scientific review. See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-018.html
Applicants must follow the specific instructions on Appendix materials as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm).
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations. An application that does not observe these limitations may be delayed in the review process.
Note: While each section of the PHS398 Research Plan component needs to be uploaded separately as a PDF attachment, applicants are encouraged to construct the Research Plan component as a single document, separating sections into distinct PDF attachments just before uploading the files. This approach will enable applicants to monitor better formatting requirements such as page limits. All attachments must be provided to NIH in PDF format, filenames must be included with no spaces or special characters, and a .pdf extension must be used.
Foreign Applications (Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entity)
Plan for Sharing Research Data
Not Applicable.
Sharing Research Resources
policy expects that grant recipients make unique research resources readily
available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific
community after publication (See the NIH Grants Policy Statement https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm#_Toc54600131).
Investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a sharing
research resources plan addressing how unique research resources will be shared
or explain why sharing is not possible.
The adequacy of the resources sharing plan and any related data sharing plans will be considered by Program staff of the funding organization when making recommendations about funding applications. The effectiveness of the resource sharing will be evaluated as part of the administrative review of each Non-Competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590). See Section VI.3., Reporting.
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria (Update: Enhanced review criteria have been issued for the evaluation of research applications received for potential FY2010 funding and thereafter - see NOT-OD-09-025).
Only the review criteria described below will be
considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications submitted for this funding opportunity will be assigned to the ICs on the basis of established Public Health Service (PHS) referral guidelines.
Appropriate scientific review groups convened in accordance with the standard NIH peer review procedures (http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/) will evaluate applications for scientific and technical merit.
As part of the initial merit review, all applications will:
Applications submitted in response to this funding opportunity will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
The NIH R21 exploratory/developmental grant is a mechanism for supporting novel scientific ideas or new model systems, tools, or technologies that have the potential to significantly advance our knowledge or the status of health-related research. Because the Research Strategy is limited to 6 pages, an exploratory/developmental grant application need not have extensive background material or preliminary information as one might normally expect in an R01 application. Accordingly, reviewers will focus their evaluation on the conceptual framework, the level of innovation, and the potential to significantly advance our knowledge or understanding. Reviewers will place less emphasis on methodological details and certain indicators traditionally used in evaluating the scientific merit of R01 applications, including supportive preliminary data. Appropriate justification for the proposed work can be provided through literature citations, data from other sources, or, when available, from investigator-generated data. Preliminary data are not required for R21 applications; however, they may be included if available.
The goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application.
Note that an application does not
need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific
impact and thus deserve a high impact/priority score. For example, an investigator may
propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is
essential to move a field forward.
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) protection of human subjects from research risks, 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: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
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.
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).
Sharing Research Data
Not Applicable.
2.D. Sharing Research
NIH policy expects that grant recipients make unique research resources readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community after publication (See the NIH Grants Policy Statement https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm#_Toc54600131). Investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a sharing research resources plan addressing how unique research resources will be shared or explain why sharing is not possible.
Program staff will be responsible for the administrative review of the plan for sharing research resources.
The adequacy of the resources
sharing plan and any related data sharing plans will be considered by Program
staff of the funding organization when making recommendations about funding
applications. The effectiveness of the resource sharing will be evaluated as
part of the administrative review of each Non-Competing Grant
Progress Report (PHS 2590), See Section VI.3.,
Model Organism Sharing Plan: Reviewers are asked to assess the sharing plan in an administrative note. The sharing plan itself should be discussed after the application is scored. Whether a sharing plan is reasonable can be determined by the reviewers on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the organism, the timeline, the applicant's decision to distribute the resource or deposit it in a repository, and other relevant considerations. For the R21 mechanism, the presence or adequacy of a plan should not enter into the scoring of the application.
Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Not Applicable.
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Award Notices
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his/her Summary Statement (written critique) via the NIH 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.
A 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 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 and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Section VII. Agency Contacts
We 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:
For Studies on Epidemiology and Prevention
Gregory Bloss, M.A.
Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2075, MSC 9304
Bethesda, MD 20892-9304
Telephone: (301) 443-3865
Fax: 301-443-8614
Email: email@example.com
For Studies on Treatment and Recovery
Peter J. Delany, PhD
Division of Treatment and Recovery Research
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2039, MSC 9304
Bethesda, MD 20892-9304
Telephone: (301) 443-0788
Fax: 301-443-8774
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Not Applicable.
Financial or Grants Management Contacts:
Judy Fox
Chief, Grants Management Branch
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3023, MSC 9304
Bethesda, MD 20892-9304
Telephone: (301) 443-4704
Fax: 301-594-3981
Email: firstname.lastname@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 (45 CFR 46) 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.
Access 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). Beginning October 1, 2004, all investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal 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 SF424 (R&R) application; 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:
NIH-funded investigators are requested to submit to the NIH manuscript submission (NIHMS) system (http://www.nihms.nih.gov) at PubMed Central (PMC) an electronic version of the author's final manuscript upon acceptance for publication, resulting from research supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH. The author's final manuscript is defined as the final version accepted for journal publication, and includes all modifications from the publishing peer review process.
NIH is requesting that authors submit manuscripts resulting from 1) currently funded NIH research projects or 2) previously supported NIH research projects if they are accepted for publication on or after May 2, 2005. The NIH Public Access Policy applies to all research grant and career development award mechanisms, cooperative agreements, contracts, Institutional and Individual Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards, as well as NIH intramural research studies. The Policy applies to peer-reviewed, original research publications that have been supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH, but it does not apply to book chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings. Publications resulting from non-NIH-supported research projects should not be submitted.
For more information about the Policy or the submission process, please visit the NIH Public Access Policy Web site at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ and view the Policy or other Resources and Tools, including the Authors' Manual.
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 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 HHS 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
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 and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency review. 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 Part 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 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:
Microsoft is working on a variety of innovative photo projects, ranging from experiments with its 3D maps offering to massive panoramic photos that users can zoom into for details.
Developers who work in the company's research arm showed off the technologies on Tuesday during the Microsoft Research Faculty Summit in Redmond, Washington.
HD View is one photo project that definitely has the "wow" factor.
The technology allows users to combine hundreds of photos to create one massive picture that users can zoom in on to see clear details. In one example, a panoramic photo of the city of Seattle includes 800 images, each 8 megapixals in size, stitched together to create a 3.6 billion-pixel image.
On a computer screen, it looks just like a panoramic photo. So, what's the point of combining so many photos? The massive file includes incredible detail.
Michael Cohen, a researcher at Microsoft working on the project, zoomed in to the roof of a building where a clay owl peers around a corner. With the picture zoomed out, a viewer doesn't even see a pin prick in the spot where the owl sits.
Another large photo of a mountain in Canada looks like a standard nature snapshot. But Cohen zoomed in to discover that climbers are scaling the rock wall. After finding the first climber, he followed the climbing ropes up to find the second one above him on the wall. When the photo is zoomed out, it's hard to imagine there might be climbers on the wall.
Microsoft offers the tool to build HD View photos for free on its Web site. Creating an HD View panorama image, however, isn't for just anyone. Such images are quite large and may require special cameras.
Another Microsoft project, unveiled last year and built in collaboration with the University of Washington, collects images of a site such as Rome's Trevi fountain from public photo-sharing Web pages such as Flickr. The Photo Tourism technology combines the photos into a 3D image so users can look at the object from any view. The idea was to take advantage of the potentially billions of images that are online, said Noah Snavely, a researcher at the University of Washington who works on the project with Microsoft researchers.
Microsoft also demonstrated at the summit some experiments with Virtual Earth. Eyal Ofek, a Microsoft researcher, demonstrated a 3D map of San Francisco that is made up of 10 million images, including 50,000 aerial photographs as well as pictures taken at street level. All the photos are stitched together so a user can navigate from a bird's-eye view seamlessly down to street level. The view is different from the street view capability in Google Maps, which doesn't combine the street-level pictures with aerial shots.
About 800 workers are developing projects at Microsoft Research. Some technologies they develop may become commercial Microsoft products, and others could be sold to other companies. The summit, which ended Tuesday, was an opportunity for Microsoft and its partners in academia to show off some of their projects.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Electrifying, the one word which most adequately describes THE TAMLINS. Surely one of (if not the best) harmonizing trio to emerge from Jamaica. Their sparkling reputation is based on their solid record of noteworthy achievements and a string of golden hits, like "Baltimore," "Ting-A-Ling," "My Whole World Is Falling Down," "Reasons," and "Go Away Dream," to name a few.
THE TAMLINS, consisting of Carlton Smith, Derrick Lara and Junior Moore, started out as a nightclub act in 1970 and by 1972 had won the "Most Outstanding Group" award in Jamaica. This quickly opened other doors and shortly thereafter, they signed a recording contract with one of Jamaica's then top studios, Dynamic Sounds. Out of this came "Thick And Thin," a ballad that made a good impression locally and drew interest from foreign labels such as Atlantic and Polydor.
THE TAMLINS developed prominence in 1974 with "Eighteen With A Bullet," and this paved the way for their first album titled "Black Beauty," which was released by Dynamic Sounds and State Recording in England. THE TAMLINS went on to record for the famous Channel One which resulted in a chain of hits -– "Hard To Confess," "That's Life," "Thinking" and "Sweat For You Baby," and also the group's second album, "Tamlins Greatest Hits." In 1979, they released "Ting-A-Ling" on the Hawkeye Label in London. "Ting-A-Ling" became a No. 1 hit on the Black Echoes Chart and also made it to the Top 10 of several other chart.
Inevitably, numerous local artists were clamoring for the sweet harmony of THE TAMLINS as backing vocals. Willingly, they threw their musical weight behind performances of artists like Delroy Wilson, Pat Kelly, John Holt, Jimmy Cliff and Peter Tosh. They later toured the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, South America and the Eastern Caribbean Islands with Peter Tosh.
Out of the Tosh relationship developed a rapport with the famed 'rhythm twins', Sly and Robbie, of Taxi Productions. THE TAMLINS' first single on the Taxi Label was "Star," to be followed by "Laying Beside You Baby" and then the remake of Nina Simone's "Baltimore," which was also released internationally by EMI. "Baltimore" held the No. 1 spot for twelve weeks and, indisputably, it was judged the "Number One Record of the Year" in Jamaica on JBC's "Top 100" for 1980. The group also won the "Best Group Award" from JBC, Radio Jamaica and the Daily News that same year…..
In 1986, THE TAMLINS performed on "Dancehall '86" at Cinema One with Half Pint, Josey Wales and Culture, among others. They not only got a standing ovation, but this was judged the "Best Performance of 1986" at the annual Rockers Awards Show. They also "tore the house down" at Sunsplash '86 and the Taxi Connection Shows that same year.
Nineteen eighty-seven saw THE TAMLINS featured on the Freddie Jackson show at the Oceana Hotel, where they proved themselves in such stellar company, receiving thunderous applause and accolades. That year THE TAMLINS were nominated in several categories of media awards and won the award for "Best Performers." In 1988 THE TAMLINS released their album, "I'll Be Waiting" on the Live & Learn Label and a second album, "Love Divine" for SKD of Miami. A return engagement with Freddie Jackson was scheduled in 1989– this time at the Wyndham Hotel, and once again, fans felt they stole the show. During that year they also participated in shows for the Hugo Hurricane Fund and the United Nation's Benefit Show. The self-produced single, "Hurt So Good," was also released that year, to critical acclaim.
Tours of Japan in 1987, performances at Madison Square Garden and in Washington, D.C. and the Detroit, Michigan award for "Top Jamaican Group" are some of the highlights and best held memories of this talented trio.
The nineties found THE TAMLINS celebrating two decades of success in the music industry, with gems still popping up on the charts. They also had a successful tour of Japan with artists such as the I-Threes, Admiral Bailey and Tiger. One of the high points of THE TAMLINS' career was performing in an episode of "Miami Vice," a popular television show during that decade. They wrote and performed several songs for an episode of the show entitled, "Soul On Ice." They were the first Jamaican musical group to have been featured on a top-rated television series.
In 2013, The Tamlins released their latest album Crossroads and continue to stay in the spotlight performing on Festivals in Jamaica such as "Rebel Salute", Reggae Jam in Germany and The Garance Reggae Festival in France. In 2014 they will be touring the US as well as performing on 21st annual Sierra Nevada World Music Festival.


text: Team Hanselman and Diabetes Walk 2010 April 19, '10 Comments [46] Posted in Diabetes Sponsored By I'm here to ask you a personal favor, Dear Reader. Please donate to Team Hanselman and help us reach our Goal of raising $50,000 to Fight Diabetes... ...during this year's Step Out to Fight Diabetes by the American Diabetes Association. SHORT LINK: Please tweet and spread this link! http://hnsl.mn/fightdiabetes DONATE HERE: http://hanselman.com/fightdiabetes/donate This is a technical blog, but I'm not just a technical person only full of source code and pomposity. I've been a Type 1 Diabetic using Insulin every day to survive for 15 years. I've worn an Insulin Pump for 10 years. Here's a stat for you, unless I'm hit by a truck, Diabetics die of Diabetes, not old age. This is my story. I will be posting videos and information about the diabetic experience about once a month over the summer. If you aren't familiar with Diabetes, perhaps my explanation on how Diabetes works using an analogy of an Airplane and the above statistics will help you understand how personally painful this disease is. Two months before my 21st birthday I started peeing a lot. A LOT. Like I was drinking four 2-liter bottles of Sprite a day and was still thirsty beyond belief. We'd just had a family photo taken and I was 130lbs on a 5'11" frame (for those of you outside the US, that's thin.) I was wasting away and looked like death. My father, a Portland Firefighter and Paramedic for thirty years smelled the sugar on my breath and sent me right away to the hospital where my blood glucose level was higher than the meter could read...and it's supposed to be under 100mg/dl. I spent that spring learning how to give myself shots, four a day, along with a regiment of pills. Twelve years later I have no side effects, knock on wood. Not everyone is that lucky. I recently went to a funeral of a high-school friend who was the exact same age and succumbed to Type 1 Diabetes. I currently take three shots a day of Symlin while also wearing an Insulin Pump 24-hours a day, even while I sleep. The pump saves me from an additional six shots a day, which I took for 8 years before the pump. I test my blood sugar by pricking my finger between 8 and 10 times a day - that's about 54,750 finger pricks so far, and miles to go before I sleep. I consider myself lucky though. My 91-year old grandmother's neighbor friend in the 1920's, before Insulin was widely used (it was discovered in 1921) ate nothing but lettuce and eventually died in childhood. I have friends who have been diabetic for nearly 50 years and had to boil large-gauge needles on the stove before injecting themselves with Pork-derived insulin, basing their decisions on a once-a-day urine check to check their blood glucose level. Diabetes is endemic. Here's some stats from the NIH: Total: 20.8 million people—7 percent of the population—have diabetes. Diagnosed: 14.6 million people Un-diagnosed: 6.2 million people 1.5 million new cases of diabetes were diagnosed in people aged 20 years or older in 2005. Diabetes was the sixth leading cause of death listed on U.S. death certificates in 2002. Diabetes is the leading cause of new cases of blindness among adults aged 20 to 74 years. Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure, accounting for 44 percent of new cases in 2002. About 60 to 70 percent of people with diabetes have mild to severe forms of nervous system damage. I tell you this not to scare you, or ask for pity. I tell you this because it's the painful truth. It sucks, and it sucks big time. I am constantly and consistently afraid that my son will face this disease in his lifetime. God help the children who get Type 1 diabetes. I was hardly prepared at 21, I can just now begin to imagine what a parent of a 2 or 3 year old would go through after a diagnosis like that. I'm even afraid to say it out loud, it's that unspeakable. The Goal This year Team Hanselman, led by myself and my wife, Mo, who had this whole idea, will be walking to fight diabetes on Sept 12, 2010. We have set a goal of raising US$50,000. We can do twice that I say. If only 5000 of you, that's 10% of you, dear readers, gave US$10 to this cause, we've met our Team Goal. If only 1000 give US$50, well, you get the idea. If you can't donate, that's OK. Post about this on your blog, spread the URL http://www.hanselman.com/fightdiabetes or http://hnsl.mn/fightdiabetes put some of our Diabetes "Flair" on your site! Last year this time, there were over 5000 people subscribing to this blog (for the technical content, I assume) - this year there are over 14,000. A Personal Favor to Me Perhaps you've searched the web and found my blog useful in the past or you've seen me speak at a conference or local user's group. Or, you've hung out here for years (this blog started in April 2002!). Maybe you're a blogger yourself and useDasBlog. Perhaps you've visited my Blog Archives and found them useful, or you read the ASP.NET MVC book or ASP.NET 4 book. Perhaps you listen to my podcast. If you've ever thought about giving a 'tip' to this blog, here's your chance to make that tip tax-deductible! (if you're in the US) You can also paypal your donation to the email address that is "scott (a t ) hanselman.com" and I will personally deliver 100% of your money myself. You can give a tax deductible donation directly by visiting here. Perhaps your employer has a matching gift program. Just $20, perhaps $10, perhaps $5, perhaps $100. You can always see our current progress at my American Diabetes Association page as well as a list of who's donated! Pass around the link http://www.hanselman.com/fightdiabetes to your friends, your family. Email it to your company's internal email alias. Show us the power of blogging, of word of mouth and spread the word. And please, donate now. In the US, donations are Tax-Deductible and go directly to the ADA. If you like, you can PayPal me and I'll deliver the money myself and I'll match it. Team Hanselman Diabetes "Blog Flair" and Badges Please feel free to spread this flair or post them on your blog, and link them to this easy to remember link:http://www.hanselman.com/fightdiabetes. It'll bring folks right here to this site. If you want to create a better flair, like the one that Jon Galloway created, send it to me, or put a link in the comments and I'll add it to this page for others to use! LINKING NOTE: http://www.hanselman.com/fightdiabetes brings you here, and http://www.hanselman.com/fightdiabetes/donate takes you straight to the donation site. SHORT LINK: Please tweet and spread this link! http://hnsl.mn/fightdiabetes Thanks for your patient attention, we now return you to our regular blogging schedule. « Hanselminutes Podcast 210 - John Lam and... | Blog Home | Towards a Smaller .NET 4 - Details on th... » About Scott Scott Hanselman is a former professor, former Chief Architect in finance, now speaker, consultant, father, diabetic, and Microsoft employee. He is a failed stand-up comic, a cornrower, and a book author. About Newsletter Sponsored By Hosting By Comments [46] Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or use the Permalink


text:
Historic Elizabeth is home to two major hospitals, North Carolina's largest community college and the city's oldest park, Independence Park. Elizabeth has a mix of housing, from brick mansions to quaint bungalows to new townhomes. The neighborhood was home to department store magnate William Henry Belk, and the city's first neighborhood movie theater, The Visulite on Elizabeth Avenue, now a nightclub featuring live music. New shops, up-scale restaurants and revitalization along Elizabeth Avenue has created a trendy hot spot, and several more new developments are in-the-works.
The Elizabeth Avenue redevelopment plan is a $240 million collaborative effort between Grubb Properties, Novant Healthcare (Presbyterian Hospital) and Central Piedmont Community College, encompassing a six-block area along historic Elizabeth Avenue between the two institutions. When completed, the project is envisioned to include 340,000 square feet of Class A office space, 800+ residential addresses in a range of market types, and more than 250,000 square feet of unique, upscale retail including Whole Foods Market, specialty boutiques and services, a 150+ room hotel, a multiplex movie theatre, and scores of restaurants and live entertainment venues including Carpe Diem, NOFO on Liz, Volare Italiano Ristorante and more.
Don't miss: the rose gardens at Independence Park, a New Orleans rooftop dinner at The Cajun Queen (order the gumbo!) or a luxurious night out at Carpe Diem followed by a rooftop drink with skyline views at Loft 1523.
The main office for Helen Adams Realty is located in Elizabeth at 2301 Randolph Road.


text:
Open Source Solaris Stalls
If you were expecting a sneak peak of an open source Solaris or to buy a commercial version when it launches on Nov. 15, don't hold your breath. Although the version 10 launch is still set for mid-November, the commercial product and open source versions of the OS remain veiled as Sun works out some snags.
Although Sun Microsystems said it is on track to officially launch Solaris 10, the next-generation server operating system, on Nov. 15 at its Network Computing 04Q4 event in San Jose, the products will actually take a bit longer.
Glenn Weinberg, vice president of the Operating Platforms Group at Sun, said the company's goal is not to "dribble it out" or release a "half-baked" OS, but to have something that is ready to go.
Executives told reporters Tuesday that the latest version of Solaris to purchase won't officially be available until the end of the year. The open source version of Solaris won't emerge for several months after that.
Earlier this year, Sun promised it would eventually open the Solaris source code as a way to commoditize the operating system and foster third-party developers. The company is expected to discuss its progress with open-sourcing Solaris 10 at next week's event.
Weinberg said Sun is in the middle of a coordinated pilot program to open source all of the code with 30 people from outside Sun and 40 people from inside Sun. The next step is to expand it beyond Sun's firewall, but snags in the device space are causing delays.
"There are limitations to what we can do," Weinberg said. "We don't own all the IP rights to Solaris. There are things we have from third parties we don't have rights to yet, or third parties don't want us to expose source code."
The next-generation OS for use in Intel Xeon and AMD Opteron processor-based servers has been available in bits and pieces since September 2003, courtesy of Sun's Software Express. Sun said this should be the final Express release before the Nov. 15 release announcement if everything goes according to schedule.
"I prefer to believe any delay in the availability of Solaris 10 is due to additional input from beta users that Sun deems valuable or important enough to incorporate before general release," Robert Frances Group principal analyst Michael Dortch told internetnews.com. "And it doesn't surprise me that Sun doesn't own all the IP behind Solaris 10; the software likely includes elements developed by multiple entities, as do many other commercial and open source offerings. This is part of why there are so very many open source software-licensing variants, something becoming its own larger-than-cottage industry."
Sun COO Jonathan Schwartz said he was optimistic that concessions could be met and open source critics silenced based on Sun's track record of contributing to free and open source software projects with offerings like Project Looking Glass and Java 3D. The outspoken executive said the real fight is not between the Solaris and Kernel.org camps.
"We want to ensure that everything in Solaris that we built is available and open sourced to the community," Schwartz said. "One debate we're having is with the open source community, and we're working with OSI [Open Source Initiative] and others because many of those developers tell us that they feel marginalized by Red Hat. [Open sourcing Solaris] is not to undercut Linux; it is to beat Red Hat."
That disdain has been evident for sometime at Sun. A war of words erupted last month between Schwartz and Michael Tiemann Red Hat's vice president of Open Source Affairs. And even though Sun maintains Red Hat in its OS and other Linux-compatible applications, it does not "guarantee" support in the same way it does for Solaris.
"There is no binary for Linux, so they may have a dependency that any binary from Red Hat or SUSE is flawed," Weinberg said. "We are focused on running Red Hat, and over time we'll have more environments, as well."
Instead, Sun has developed its Project Janus as a technology that lets customers run Linux binary applications unmodified and un-recompiled on Solaris without having to acquire extra x86-based hardware.
Weinberg said Sun has the platform running in the lab but will not ship Janus with the first edition of Solaris 10. It will instead follow in the first major update.
"Janus being unavailable until the first release of Solaris 10 likely helps to assure that early Janus users will be more pleased with its performance than they might be if Sun shipped it earlier," Robert Frances Group's Dortch said.
As for migration, Dortch said Sun would be shooting itself in the foot with a cannon if it led enterprise customers to believe that Sun's previous commitment to Red Hat was merely a ploy to try to sell Solaris.
"This is especially true as long as there is no open source version of Solaris," he said. "Sun would best serve itself, its partners and their customers by touting the strengths of Solaris 10, combined with effective, proven services and architectures to help enterprises move in the direction best for their specific business goals. In some cases, this will mean moving to Solaris 10, and in some cases, it may not.
"If Sun is truly paying attention, though, it will be more interested in maintaining and increasing its presence within key enterprise accounts than in trying to throw Red Hat out of those environments in favor of Solaris."
Sun also brought in a couple of partners to show that adoption rates for Solaris 10 are strong even before it officially hits the markets. The Santa Clara, Calif.-based network computer maker highlighted Topspin Communications through its InfiniBand connections and Veritas, which competes with Sun for contracts with companies looking to shift their businesses to a utility computing or "on-demand" model. Both firms have alliances with Microsoft and Red Hat, as well as Solaris.
The cross-partnerships are no bother to Schwartz, who said he even expects HP, and perhaps even IBM, to adopt an open source version of Solaris.
"Both HP and IBM are abandoning HP-UX and AIX," Schwartz said. "What else do they have in the Unix market?"
This article was originally published on internetnews.com.


text: Do you know more about the history of a location or an artifact? Please use the link below to go to the interactive map. You can add a comment about an address by selecting "Location Comments". You can add a comment about an artifact by choosing one from the "List of Artifacts".