text:
" IMPRIMIS "-THAT the Government of this Province shall according to the Powers of the Patent consist of the Governour and Freemen of the said Province in the fform of a Provincial Council and General Assembly by whom all Laws Shall be made Officers Chosen and publick affairs Transacted and is hereafter Respectively declared That is to say
2. THAT the freemen of the said Province shall on the Twentieth day of the Twelfth Month which shall be in this present year One Thousand Six hundred Eighty and two Meet and Assemble in some fit place of which timely notice shall be beforehand given by the Governour or his deputies and then and there shall chuse of themselvs Seventy-Two persons of most note for their Wisdom Virtue and Ability who shall meet on the Tenth day of the ffirst month next ensuing and always be called and act as the Provincial Councill of the said province.
3. THAT at the First Choice of such Provincial Council One Third part of the said Provincial Council shall be Chosen to serve for Three years then next ensuing one Third part for Two years then next ensuing and one Third part for one year then next following such Election and no longer and that the said Third part shall go out accordingly And on the Twentieth day of the Twelfth month aforesaid yearly forever afterward the ffreemen of the said province shall in like manner Meet and Assemble together and then Chuse Twenty flour persons being one Third of the said Number to serve in provincial Council for Three years it being intended that one Third of the whole provincial Council (always consisting and to consist of seventy two persons as aforesaid) falling off yearly it shall be yearly supplied by such new yearly Eleccons as aforesaid and that no one person shall continue therein longer than Three years And in Case any member shall decease before the Last Eleccon during his time that then at the next Eleccon ensuing his decease another shall be chosen to Supply his place for the remaining time he was to have served and no longer.
4. THAT-After the First Seven Years every one of the said Third parts that goeth yearly off shall be uncapable of being Chosen again for one whole year following that so all may be fitted for the Government and have Experience of the Care and burthen of it.
5. THAT-In the provincial Council in all Cases and matters of moment as There agreeing upon Bills to be passed into Laws Exorting Courts of Justice having Judgment upon criminals Impeached and choice of Officers in such manner as is herein after menconed Not lesse than Two Thirds of the whole Provincial Council shall make a Quorum and that the Consent and approbaton of Two Thirds of said Quorum shall be had in all such Cases or matters of Moment.And moreover that in all cases and matters of lesser moment Twenty-ffour members of the said Provincial Council shall make a quorum The Majority of which flour and Twenty shall and may always determine on such Cases and Causes of Lesser moment.
6. THAT-In this Provincial Council the Governour or his deputies shall or may always preside and have a treble Voice. And the said Provincial Council shall always Continue and Sit upon its own Adjournments and Committees.
7. THAT-The Governour and Provincial Council shall prepare and propose to the General Assembly hereinafter menconed all Bills which they shall at any time think fit to be past into Laws within the said Province which Bills shall be publish" and Affixed to the most noted places in the inhabited parts thereof Thirty days before the meeting of the General Assembly in order to the passing of them into laws or Rejecting of them as the General Assembly shall see meet.
8. THAT-The Governour and Provincial Council shall take Care that all Laws Statutes and Ordinances which shall at any time be made within the said Province be duly and diligently executed.
9. THAT-The Governour and Provincial Council shall at all times have the Care of the peace and Safety of the Province and that nothing he by any person Attempted to the subversion of this Frame of Government.
10. THAT-The Governour and Provincial Council shall at all times settle and order the Situation of all Cities ports and Market towns in every County modelling therein all publick buildings Streets and Market places and shall appoint all necessary roads and highways in the province.
11. THAT-The Governour and Provincial Council shall at all times have power to inspect the management of the public Treasury and punish those who shall Convert any part thereof to any other use than what hath been Agreed upon by the Governour Provincial Council and General Assembly.
12. THAT-The Governour and Provincial Council shall Erect and order all publick Schools and incourage and Reward the Authors of usefull Science and Laudable Inventons in the said province.
13. THAT-For the better management of the powers and Trust aforesaid the Provincial Council shall from time to time divide itself into flour Distinct and proper Committees for the more Easie Administration of the Affairs of the province which divides the Seventy Two into flour Eighteens Every one of which Eighteens shall consist of Six out of each of the Three Orders or yearly Eleccons-Each of which shall have a distinct portion of business as followeth A Committee of plantatons to situate and settle cities ports and Market-towns and highways and to hear and decide all Suits and Controversies relating to Plantatons. A Committee of Justice and Safety to secure the peace of the province and punish the Male [mat-] Administration of those who subvert Justice to the prejudice of the publick and private Interest. A Committee of Trade and Treasury who Shall Regulate all Trade and Commerce according to Laws encourage Manufacture and Country-growth and defray the publick Charge of the province. And a Committee of manners Education and Arts that all Wicked and scandalous Living may be prevented and that Youth may be successively trained up in Virtue and useful Knowlledge and Arts.The Quorum of each of which Committees being six that is Two out of each of the three orders or yearly eleccons as aforesaid make a Constant or Standing Council of Four and Twenty which shall have the power of the Provincial Council being the Quorum of it in all Cases not excepted in the ffifth Article. And in the said committees and standing Council of the Province the Governour or his deputy shall or may preside as aforesaid. And in the Absence of the Governour or his deputy if no one is by either of them appointed the said Committees or Council shall appoint a President for that time and not otherwise and what shall be Resolved at such Committees shall be reported to the said Council of the Province and shall be by them resolved and confirmed before the same shall be put in Execution And that these Respective Committees shall not sit at one and the same time except in Cases of necessity.
14. AND TO THE End that all Laws prepared by the Governour and Provincial Council aforesaid may yet have the more-full Concurrence of the Freemen of the Province It is declared granted and confirmed that at the time and place or places for the Choice of a Provincial Council as aforesaid the said FREEMEN shall yearly chuse to serve in a General Assembly as their representatives not exceeding Two hundred persons who shall yearly meet on the Twentieth day of the Second Month in the Capital Town or City of the said province where during Eight days the several members mav freely confer with one another and if any of them see meet with a Committee of the Provincial Council consisting of Three out of each of the flour Committees aforesaid being Twelve in all which shall be at that time purposely appointed to secuir from any of them proposals for the Alteration or Amendment of any of the said proposed and promulgated Bills and on the ninth day from their meeting the said General Assembly after the reading over of the proposed Bills by the Clerk of the Provincial Council and the occasion and motives for them being opened by the Governour or his Deputy shall give their Affirmative or Negative which,to them seemeth best in such manner as hereafter is express.But not less than two thirds shall make a Quorum in the passing of Laws and Choice of such Officers as are by them to be chosen.
15. THAT-The Laws so prepared and proposed as aforesaid that are Assented to by the General Assembly shall be Enrolled as Laws of the province with this stile by the Governour with the Assent and Approbation of the ffreemen in Provincial Council and General Assembly.
16. THAT-For the better Establishment of the Government and Laws of this province and to the end there may be an Universal Satisfaction in the laying of the ffundamentals thereof the General Assembly shall or may for the ffirst year consist of all the ffreemen of and in the said province and ever after it shall be yearly chosen as aforesaid. Which number of Two hundred shall be enlarged as the Country shall Increase in people So as it do not exceed dive hundred at any time The Appointment and proportoning of which as also the laying and methodizing of the choice of the Provincial Council and General Assembly in future times most equally to the Division of the Hundreds and Counties which the Country shall hereafter be divided into shall be in the power of the Provincial Council to propose and the General Assembly to resolve.
17. THAT The Governour and the Provincial Council shall from time to time erect Standing Courts of Justice in such places and number as they shall Judge Convenient for the good Government of the said province And that the Provincial Council shall on the Thirteenth day of the First month yearly Elect and present to the Governour or his Deputy a double number of persons to serve for Judges Treasurers Masters of the Rolls within the said province for the year next ensuing.AND the ffreemen of the said province in their County Courts when they shall be erected and till then in the General Assembly shall on the Three and Twentieth day of the Second Month yearly Elect and present to the Governour or his Deputy a double number of persons to serve for Sheriffs Justices of peace and Coronors for the year next ensuing Out of which respective Eleccons and presentments the Governour or his Deputy shall nominate and Commissionate the proper number for each office the Third day after the said respective presentments or else the first named in such presentment for each office shall stand and serve for that office the year ensuing.
18. BUT for as much as the present Conditon of the Province requires some Immediate Setlement and admitts not of so quick a Revoluton of Officers and to the end the said Province may with all Convenient speed be well ordered and settled I William Penn do therefore think fit to nominate and appoint Such persons for Judges Treasurers Masters of Rolls Sheriffs Justices of the peace and Coronors as are most fitly qualified for those imployments To whom I shall make and grant Commissions for the said Offices respectively TO nod to them to whom the same shall be granted for so long time as every such person shall well behave himself in the Office or place to him respectively granted and no longer And upon the Decease or displacing of any of the said Officers the Succeeding Officer or Officers shall be chosen as before said.
19.That the General Assembly shall continue so long as may be needful to Impeach Criminals fit to be there Impeached To pass Bills into Laws that they shall think fit to pass into Laws and till such time as the Governour and Provincial Council shall declare that they have nothing further to propose unto them for their Assent and Approbation And that Declaration shall be a Dismiss to the General Assembly for that time Which General Assembly shall be notwithstanding Capable of Assemblying together upon the summons of the Provincial Council at any time during that year if the said Provincial Council shall see occasion for their so Assembling.
20. THAT-All the Eleccons of Members or Representatives of the people to serve in Provincial Council and General Assembly, and all Questions to be determined by both or either of them that relate to passing of bills into Laws to the choice of Officers to Impeachments made by the General Assembly and Judgment of Criminals upon such Impeachment by the Provincial Council and to all other Cases by them respectively Judged of Importance Shall be resolved and determined by the BALLOTT And unless on suddain and Indispensable Occasions no business in Provincial Council or its respective Committees shall be finally determined the same day that it is moved.
21. AND THAT at all times when and so often as it shall happen that the Governour shall or may be an Infant under the Age of one and Twenty years and no Guardians or Commissioners are appointed in Writing by the dasher of said Infant or that Such Guardians or Commissioners shall be deceased that during such Minority the Provincial Council shall from time to time as they shall see meet Constitute and Appoint Guardians and Commissions not exceeding Three One of which Three shall preside as Deputy and Chief Guardian during such Minority and shall have and Execute with the consent of the other Two all the powers of a Governour in all publick Affairs and Concerns of the said province.
22. THAT-as often as any day of the month mentoned in any Article of this Charter shall fall on the First day of the Week commonly called the Lord's day the Business appointed for that day shall be differred till the next day unless in Case of Emergency.
23. THAT-no act Law or Ordinance whatsoever shall at any time hereafter be made or done by the Governour of this Province his heirs or Assigns or by the ffreemen in the Provincial Council or the General Assembly to Alter Change or Diminish the dorm or Effect of this Charter or any part or Clause thereof or contrary to the true Intent and meaning thereof without the Consent of the Governour his heirs or Assigns and six parts of seven of the said ffreemen in Provincial Councll and General Assembly.
24. AND LASTLY THAT I the said William Penn for myself my heirs and Assigns have Solemnly declared granted and confirmed and do hereby solemnly declare grant and confirm that neither I my heirs nor Assigns shall procure or do anything or things w hereby the 1iberties in this Charter contained and expressed shall be Infringed or broken And if anything be procured by any person or persons contrary to these premises it shall be held of no force or Effect. IN WITNESS whereof I the said William Penn have unto this present Charter of Liberties Set my hand and Broad Seal this ffive and Twentieth day of the Second Month vulgarly called April in the year of our Lord One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and Two.
Signed sealed and delivered by the within named William Penn as his Act and Deed in the presence of
Verefied by Francis N. Thorpe, March 11, 1893, from the original Charter at that time in the possession of Dr. Edward Maris, 1100 Pine Street, Philadelphia.


text:
Welcome, Guest: Join Earboard Forum / LOGIN! / Advertise / Contact Us
Stats: 41989 members, 38256 topics. Cached on: Thursday, 5th October 2023
School of Health Technology, Jahun , Jigawa State 2022/2023
(0) (Reply) (Create New Topic) (Go Down)
|School of Health Technology, Jahun , Jigawa State 2022/2023 by dr jane adeleke: 8:46 pm On November 6, 2022
School of Health Technology, Jahun , Jigawa State 2022/2023 Admission Form is currently out call the school admin office now on [07043240159] [07043240159] For ND/HND in Community Health Extension Workers (CHEWs), Junior Community Health Extension Workers (JCHEWs), environmental health officers (EH medical technicians (MT) and records clerks (RC).
Dental Technology Dental Therapy Health Information Management Community Health Environmental Health Technology Public Health Nursing Other courses offered by the Colleges of Technology include Community Health Extension Worker (CHEW) Health Assistant Medical Course (HAM) Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) Pharmacy Technician (PHT) X-Ray Technician (XR) Community Nutrition Technician (CNT) Food Hygienist (FH) Environment Health Assistant (EHA) The course duration ranges from two (2) years to four (4) years depending on the programme
To bring about ease and simplicity to our application process, we have made provisions for two methods of application that can be carried out in the comfort of your home.CALL THE SCHOOL ADMISSION OFFICE VIA (07043240159) FOR GUIDELINES BEFORE THE DEADLINE..
(0) (Reply)
Federal University of Agriculture, Zuru, Kebbi State 2022/2023 Post / Federal University of Health Technology, Otukpo Benue State 2022/2023 Post / Usumanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto UDUSOK 2022/2023 Post Utme Screening form is out /
(Go Up)
Sections: News (1) Technology Education (2)
Earboard - Copyright @ 2016 - 2023 Forumer. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. DMCA Content Removal.
Disclaimer: Every member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Earbaord.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Lamb of God Guitarist Willie Adler Offers 'Thoughts and Prayers' to Baroness
Lamb of God guitarist Willie Adler's heavy metal heart goes out to the guys of Baroness, who were involved in a horrific road accident on Wednesday (Aug. 15) in England. Baroness were heading to Southampton, England, following a gig in Bristol the night before, when the incident took place.
Adler is no stranger to rough situations in foreign countries. After all, Lamb of God singer Randy Blythe was recently arrested in the Czech Republic on manslaughter charges stemming from an alleged 2010 concert incident, and he was stuck in a Czech prison for five weeks.
Adler took to his official Facebook page to offer up his well wishes and prayers to Baroness' band members:
I want to send all my love and prayers to our brothers in Baroness. What they have endured is one of my greatest fears of touring. To be in that situation has to be extremely harrowing. I can only hope that their recovery is speedy and their trauma is short lived. Again, all my thoughts and prayers are with Baroness, their crew and their families. I feel that I can speak on be-half of all of the Lamb family when I say, we love you, and are all praying for you. We can't wait to be back out on the road with you guys doing what we do best.
Baroness' tour bus apparently plunged for 30 feet over a viaduct after crashing through a security barrier in a heavy rainstorm. Nine people, including the four members of Baroness, were taken to the hospital, and two of the passengers have serious injuries. For now, all of Baroness' upcoming tour dates have been postponed.


text:
The costly and ongoing drought that stretches across a majority of the lower 48 states worsened during the past month, and by one measure it now ranks fifth on the top 10 list of the largest droughts ever recorded in the U.S., according to a new report released Wednesday from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The drought is affecting the broadest swath of land and has the greatest intensity of any drought since 1956, and is comparable to the Dust Bowl era droughts of the 1930s as well, NCDC scientists reported.
Graph showing changes in the percent area of the U.S. very wet or very dry, with spikes in drought seen since 1999. Click on the image for a larger version.Credit: NCDC.
The drought footprint is currently the largest in the 13-year record of the U.S. Drought Monitor. To compare this drought with droughts that occurred prior to this period of record, climate scientists use drought indices such as the Palmer Drought Severity Index, or PDSI, which measures the balance between moisture demand and moisture supply.
Based on PDSI data, 57.2 percent of the lower 48 states were experiencing "moderately to extremely dry" conditions at the end of July, which was up from 55.2 percent at the end of June. This places the 2012 drought in fifth place based on its aerial expanse, otherwise known as the drought footprint. According to NCDC, the last drought of comparable size occured in 1956. The drought's intensity has also worsened, with a 5 percent increase in the area of the country experiencing "severe" to "extreme" drought, to 38 percent. By this measure, the drought ranks as the sixth worst drought on record.
The NCDC report characterized the current drought as part of a longer-term drought pattern that began in 1999, with a series of intense, regional droughts occurring since. Only the West has consistently experienced drought during this time period, though.
Palmer Z Index for the primary corn and soybean growing area of the U.S., showing where the 2012 drought ranks compared to other droughts since 1900. Click on image for a larger version.
Credit: NCDC.
The drought is having major impacts on agricultural producers in the High Plains and Midwest, particularly corn and soybean farmers. According to the report, the combination of extreme heat and dry weather during July took a heavy toll on crops. July was the warmest month on record in the contiguous U.S., beating out the Dust Bowl-era year of 1936 for that dubious distinction. Excessive heat increases the transport of moisture out of soils and vegetation, and into the atmosphere, thereby drying the environment faster than would occur in cooler conditions.
The main corn and soybean agricultural belt in the U.S. experienced its second-warmest and sixth-driest April-to-July period, coming in fourth according to one of the Palmer Drought indices, after 1934, 1936, and 1988. As of the end of July, about 86 percent of this vital agricultural region was experiencing moderate-to-extreme drought, which trailed only the droughts of 1988 and the 1930s.
Fortunately, the weather pattern that has dominated the summer across North America, with a giant, seemingly immovable "heat dome" of High Pressure parked over the Central U.S., is showing signs of breaking down. The outlook for an El Nino event during the fall and winter may bode well for increased rainfall in parts of the drought-stricken region, particularly across the southern tier of the country.


text:
The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity
This book was written by a Christian father for his children, to help them understand his relationship with God. The book addresses the most difficult of all theological dilemmas, the goodness of God and the problem of evil. Where is God in the midst of pain and suffering? How can a good God allow the kinds of horrific evil that humans and other creatures experience? Why does He not do something to stop it?
In this novel the protagonist Mackenzie Allen Phillips receives an invitation from God to meet at a shack in the woods. It takes Mack a little while to decide to keep the appointment, but his curiosity and his pain eventually convince him to make the trip. When he arrives at the shack, it and its environment are transformed by the presence of God into an idyllic setting. Mack, too, undergoes a remarkable transformation, although that change takes longer to accomplish.
Four years earlier Mack's youngest daughter Missy was kidnapped during a family outing. Her body has never been found, but the evidence pointed toward her murder at the hands of a serial pedophile at this abandoned shack in the Oregon wilderness. These years have been difficult for Mack and the rest of the family, a period he describes as "The Great Sadness." But after spending a couple of days at the shack with God, Mack returns home a changed man. He has begun to understand how God's love provides the basis of forgiveness and the power to change human lives. The transforming power of redemption through forgiveness is the theme of the book.
The horrific nightmare this family experienced is every parent's worst fear, and thus the story connects with the reader at a deep level. The story stresses God's love for His children, emphasizes human freedom as the cause of sin and evil, focuses on forgiveness and reconciliation as the solution to sin and evil, stresses the hope of eternal life in God's presence in a new creation, and encourages the reader to interact with the human characters and God in a deeply meaningful way. Yet there are serious theological errors and problems that make it impossible to recommend the book.
Although the book itself is fiction, the author claims that the conversations between God and Mack reflect conversations he had with God. After years of such dialogues, Young was looking for a way to hand them down to his children. Thus the story is not real, but the conversations were. "So is the story true? The pain, the loss, the grief, the process, the conversations, the questions, the anger, the longing, the secrets, the lies, the forgiveness . . . all real, all true." Again, he claims, "And the conversations are very real and true" (William P. Young, "Is the Story of THE SHACK True . . . Is Mack a Real Person," http://www.windrumors.com/30/ is-the-story-of-the-shack-trueis-mack-a-real-person/, accessed 14, May 2008).
Throughout the book the triune God appears in three human forms. Such a presentation of the Trinity is not accurate. God is not three separate people; that would be three gods. Rather, He is one in essence while three in person. The persons must be distinguished but never separated. Of course the Trinity is a great mystery and beyond human comprehension. It is not appropriate, however, to portray God in a way that treats the doctrine of the Trinity as tritheism.
The novel undermines the uniqueness of the Incarnation, not just by having the Father and Spirit appear in human form, which is problematic enough. Soon after meeting Papa (in the novel, God the Father is incarnate as a big black woman named Papa), Mack "noticed the scars in her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his. She allowed him to tenderly touch the scars, outlines of a deep piercing, and he finally looked up again into her eyes. Tears were slowly making their way down her face, little pathways through the flour that dusted her cheeks" (pp. 95–96). Papa then spoke: "Don't ever think that what my son chose to do didn't cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark . . . We were there together" (p. 96, italics his). Since only God the Son became incarnate and experienced death on the cross, only the Son could bear the marks of crucifixion. Neither the Father nor the Spirit bears the scars of the Son's suffering. Surely His suffering affected the relationship between them, but those effects were not experienced in the same way by each person of the Godhead. Only the Son became flesh and blood, only the Son died on the cross, and thus only the Son could bear the marks of crucifixion in His body.
The novel's Christology is also inadequate. Christians confess, because the Bible teaches, that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, two natures in one person. The integrity of each nature is preserved in the union. Young's Christology confuses the two natures of Jesus and undermines the uniqueness of the hypostatic union. In one conversation between Mack and Papa, Mack explains his belief that the miracles of Jesus are evidence of His deity. Papa corrects him. "No, it proves that Jesus is truly human. . . . Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regard for appearance or consequence" (pp. 99–100). When Mack asks about Jesus' healing of the blind, Papa explains, "He did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone. . . . Only as he rested in his relationship with me, and in our communion—our co-union—could he express my heart and will into any given circumstance. So, when you look at Jesus and it appears that he's flying, he really is . . . flying. But what you are actually seeing is me; my life in him. That's how he lives and acts as a true human, how every human is designed to live—out of my life" (p. 100).
There are several significant problems with this understanding of the Incarnation. First, Jesus, as the God-Man, did and does possess full and complete deity. It is not true that He "had no power within himself to heal anyone." Young's view sounds like kenotic Christology, that Christ gave up His deity when He became human. If He did not retain full deity, He is not fully divine. Second, no other human is like Jesus in being fully divine. No other human has the power of deity as Jesus did. The incarnation of Jesus is one of a kind. And third, it certainly is not the case that all humans possess the life of God in them, in the way Papa suggests.
Several conversations in this book reveal an inaccurate view of salvation. Young seems to reject the exclusivity of salvation through faith in Christ alone. According to Young's Jesus, "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some were bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved" (p. 182). Mack is apparently confused, so he asks whether this means that all roads lead to Jesus. The answer he receives is brief and enigmatic: "Not at all. . . . Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you" (p. 182). It is inconceivable that Jesus would ever say that He has no desire to make people Christians. If they do not become Christians, then they are not followers of Jesus. Since the Scriptures teach that salvation is found only in Jesus (e.g., John 14:6; Acts 4:12), there is only one road that leads to God. And those who arrive at that destination are Christians.
While some readers are giving high praise to this novel, it is actually a dangerous book. Its view of the Trinity is inadequate, its view of Christ is unorthodox, and its view of salvation is inaccurate.
About the Contributors
Glenn R. Kreider
Prior to teaching at DTS, Dr. Kreider served as Director of Christian Education and then as Senior Pastor in Cedar Hill, TX. His research and writing interests include Jonathan Edwards, theological method, theology and popular culture, and our eschatological hope. Dr. Kreider believes that grace really is amazing; it is a thought that will change the world. He is married to his best friend, Janice, and they have two grown children and one granddaughter, Marlo Grace. He and Janice enjoy live music, good stories, bold coffee, and spending time together and with their rescue dogs—a terrier/greyhound mix named Chloe and a black lab named Carlile.


text:
Begin by determining if your research interests are congruent with NIDA's mission, which is to lead the Nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse, addiction and associated infections such as HIV, HCV, TB and others. Next, talk to a Program Official about your interests and specific aspects of NIDA's mission. To find a Program Official, you can start by exploring the organization of NIDA on our home page. You can locate staff who might be relevant in a division, center, branch, or workgroup, or call the Public Information Branch (301-443-1124) for the names of Program Officials who work in the specific scientific areas of your interest. For information on funding support of grant applications, look on the NIDA home page under Funding And the related Requests for Applications, Program Announcements, and other guidelines. For information on funding support of contract proposals, look under Funding, then Contract Requests for Proposals. These funding opportunities may also be found in the NIDA Requests for Proposals and the NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices pages.
If you are in an institution of higher education, your school probably has an Office of Sponsored Programs or Office of Research Development that can assist you with developing your application.
NIH supports many types of research and training funding mechanisms including small R03 grants, innovative R21 grants, and traditional R01 research grant application opportunities, as well as Program Project and Center P mechanisms. Again, contacting NIDA staff by email, phone or at scientific meetings will help you to learn about the types of mechanisms that best match your research or research training interests and the current priority areas for NIDA.
NIDA supports science related to drug abuse as broadly defined, and this includes an extensive array of projects and programs involving training and research in basic, applied, and clinical research.
NIDA supports several types of training and career development programs. See Research Training Opportunities for Young Investigators and Research Training and Career Development Time Table to learn about funding mechanisms and opportunities for predoctoral, postdoctoral, early career, and career transition funding opportunities. Training is a high priority at NIDA, and the specialist NIDA program staff Research Training Committee will assist you in determining what type of award might be right for you.
NIH is in the process of transitioning to electronic grant applications, and the transition plan schedule and other details are at Applying Electronically with related details at Enhancing Peer Review at NIH and Standard Due Dates for Competing Applications.
Many of the common funding mechanisms (R01, R21, R03) now require electronic submission, while a few others (e.g. P mechanisms) may transition later.
For either paper or electronic grant application submission, all applications are now submitted in response to a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). The "Parent Announcement" may be used if a specific Program Announcement, RFA, etc. is not being cited. Funding Opportunity Announcement are provided at the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, and typically are also available at Institute websites, such as the NIDA funding opportunity website at Researchers. The PHS 398 Grant Application is still used for some research grants, research career awards, and institutional training grants. Applicants may be interested in SBIR, Loan repayment, research or other funding mechanisms, and obtaining the corresponding forms and instructions is necessary.
For grant application funding mechanisms that have transitioned to electronic application submission, most organizations have already registered for electronic submission. If it hasn't done so, information for the organization is at Grants.gov Registration Instructions for Domestic and Foreign Organizations. Your organization's Signing Official can enable grant applications to apply by assigning you a NIH Commons account. This login and password will enable you to enter the eCommons website, and your DUNS number and other information will be entered along with that of the organization to enable the upload of your application at the grants.gov website at Grants.gov; this process requires that both the applicant and the organization's signing official provide information that enables the eSubmission to Grants.gov.
You will also need to download the 424 electronic form package specific to a particular funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and a specific funding mechanism (R01, R21, R03, and others that have transitioned to electronic applications). Funding opportunity announcements may be found either at the NIDA funding opportunity website, at the NIH Office of Extramural Research Funding Opportunities and Notices website, or at Grants.gov. Electronic funding opportunity announcements (FOA's) include Program Announcements, RFA's and FOA's for unsolicited grant applications. Since forms and procedures are sometimes modified, use recently posted grant application packages, and when you download an application package, sign up to receive and be alert to updates.
For NIDA contracts, guidance for forms and submission procedures for NIDA Requests for Proposals are found with the related broad agency announcement and at the NIDA Requests for Proposals website at NIDA Requests for Proposals (RFPs). It may also be helpful to read guidance about contracts available at the Office of Acquistion Management and Policy website and at the NIH-wide Grants and Contracts website. An important difference from research applications is that, while it may be helpful to obtain guidance from many sources, once a contracts-related FOA is issued, the NIDA Contracts Office should be your primary point of contact. NIDA-specific FOA's are at the NIDA Requests for Proposals (RFPs) page, and all contract opportunities are available at Fedbizopps.gov.
NIDA, like other NIH institutes, has an "intramural" program and an "extramural" program. The intramural program consists of the research activities conducted by investigators that NIDA employs; it is located in Baltimore, Maryland.
The extramural program consists of the research and associated activities that support scientific endeavors conducted mainly by non-federal persons. "Extramural" refers both to the NIDA staff who administer the extramural program and to the NIDA-supported researchers who receive extramural funds. NIDA supports extramural research projects through grants, but contracts and other mechanisms are also used.
There are four classes of professional staff that you are most likely to encounter in your interactions with NIDA. They are the Program Official (or Project Officer) (PO), the Scientific Review Officer (SRO, recently changed from Scientific Review Administrator or SRA and there may be some use of the older term in some documents), and either the Grants Management (GM) Officer or Specialist if you are developing a grant application, and the Contracting Officer (or Contract Specialist) if you are developing a contract proposal. Their roles are complementary and interlocking, and each is typically more active at different stages of the research process. The PO is usually the primary contact during the time period in which the Principal Investigator plans, develops and submits the application or proposal. The SRO has primary responsibility for the review of the application. Funding decisions and transfer of funds involve the PO and a GM or CS specialist. Research oversight and management, usually based on progress reports from the Principal Investigator, involve the PO and either the GM or CS officials.
The SRO is the designated federal official responsible for ensuring a fair, equitable, and appropriate scientific review of grant applications or contract proposals. Using his or her knowledge of a variety of scientific areas, the SRO assesses the scientific content of an application or proposal to determine the types of expertise needed for its review. The SRO then identifies potential reviewers with the requisite skills, selects the review group from this pool of potential reviewers, assigns particular applications to participating reviewers for written comments, selects the committee chair, and arranges and manages the review meeting. As needed, he or she provides training regarding review criteria and procedures, as well as NIH policies. The SRO also ensures that applications are complete and ready for review and that certain requirements (e.g., human subjects protections) have been met. He or she manages and conducts the Scientific Review Group (SRG), also known as a "study section," for grant applications or the Technical Evaluation Group for contract proposals and prepares a summary that reflects the comments and recommendations of the reviewers. The SRO can also assist you by providing general information on NIH review policies, procedures, and related issues. Review staff also make presentations at scientific meetings and organize conferences and workshops to disseminate information about NIDA and NIH policies and procedures. Much of the SRO's logistical support is provided by the Extramural Support Assistant(ESA).
From the time you submit a grant application until completion of its review, the SRO is your point of contact. For contract proposals, the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer are the points of contact.
The PO identifies areas of science in which more research is needed and communicates this information to potential grant applicants. The PO does this through writing sections of Program Announcements, Requests for Applications, and Requests for Proposals, which are documents that formally notify the field about research areas of interest to NIDA and opportunities for funding. Program staff also make presentations at scientific meetings and organize conferences and workshops to disseminate information about NIDA programs and new scientific directions. Through discussions of the applicant's research concepts and provision of information, Program staff help investigators develop their applications.
After the summary statement is made available to you at eCommons, the assigned Program Official is your point of contact. The Program Official uses the information from review meetings and summary statements to make funding recommendations, and he or she provides the Institute's scientific administration of grants and contracts once they have been awarded. Program Officials also monitor progress with research based on annual progress reports and other interactions with grantees, and evaluate possible changes in research directions and other issues raised by grantees. In the event that an application is not funded and a decision is made to resubmit, Program Officials work with applicants, providing both scientific and technical assistance as needed.
Grants management personnel include Grants Management Officers (GMOs), Grants Management Specialists (GMS), and Extramural Support Assistants (ESAs). The GMO signs the grant award and is the NIH official responsible for the business management and other non-programmatic aspects of the award. These activities include, but are not limited to, evaluating applications for administrative content and compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and guidelines; negotiating grants; and providing consultation and assistance to applicants and grantees (including interpretation of grants administration policies and provisions and administering and closing out grants). The GMO is the focal point for receiving and acting on changes in the terms and conditions of award and is the only NIH official authorized to obligate NIH to the expenditure of funds or to change the funding, duration, or other terms and conditions of a grant award. The GMS is responsible for the day-to-day management of a portfolio of grants.
Grants management personnel work closely with counterparts in other NIH institutes and as a team with program and review staff. They also work with investigators and their business organizations to ensure appropriate financial management of the grant. The Grants Management Specialist should be contacted when there are questions about fiscal requirements of a grant.
The Contracting Officer receives and acts on contract proposals, and the Contract Specialist is assigned day-to-day management responsibilities. Contract staff assist program staff in drafting contract request packages; thereafter, they solicit, negotiate, and administer the Institute's contracts. They maintain surveillance over the Institute's contract program, and they develop and implement standards for the overall management of the Institute's contract program. Contract staff serve as an important part of the Institute's overall team, as they advise personnel on contract management policies and procedures. Finally, and perhaps most importantly from the extramural researcher's point of view, all contacts, queries, and other communications about a particular Request for Proposals (RFP) are directed to the Contract staff during the stages of solicitation, review, and negotiation for award.
A Program Announcement (PA) is a formal expression of an institute's ongoing interest in funding a particular area of science. PA's define areas that an institute is particularly interested in funding, and they are of several types, Including a "simple" Program Announcement, a PAR or Program Announcement Reviewed within an Insitute; and a PAS, Program Announcement with Set-aside funds. Applications for grant support may cite a PA, but this is not necessary. A Request for Applications (RFA) indicates a specific interest in receipt of applications and solicits applications, and funds are set aside for applications reviewed in response to that announcement. A receipt date is specified, and the applications submitted in response to the RFA are reviewed and considered together as a group competing for funds. The application must cite the RFA to be considered with that group. A Request for Proposals (RFP) solicits contract offerors to submit their bids and proposals. PAs, RFAs, and RFPs are published in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts at Funding Opportunities and Notices.
All applications to NIH must now identify a specific funding opportunity announcement. However some FOA's are generic to a funding mechanism (e.g. an "unsolicited" R01, R21, R03 application) and some FOA's are specific to given Institute/Center(s) or announcement (e.g. a "solicited" R01, R21, R03 with a specific NIDA theme). All NIDA funding opportunity announcements (FOA's) are available at the NIDA website, NIH Guide, and Grants.gov websites provided above. Solicited applications that use FOA's that are announced priority areas for NIDA include Requests for Applications (RFAs) or Program Announcements (PAs) in which NIDA participates. If your application theme can fit well within one of these (again, discussion with NIDA Program Staff is recommended), use the SF 424 R&R form available for that FOA. Remember that each grant funding mechanism supported by NIH has a more general "parent" funding opportunity announcement that is also used for unsolicited (aka investigator-initiated) applications, so if you do not find a specific PA or RFA of interest to you, you certainly may still submit an application by citing the parent or generic FOA for the funding mechanism (R01, R21, R03, etc. as described at Parent Announcements (For Unsolicited or Investigator-Initiated Applications)). Investigator-initiated or unsolicited grant applications remain the majority of applications received by NIDA and NIH.
Budget limits and guidelines for preparation are provided with each funding opportunity announcement, and these differ significantly for each funding mechanism; generally R03, K and R21 budgets are lower than R01, T or P mechanism budgets. Your application should request only what is necessary to conduct the research that you propose. Your budget should be consistent with the project. If you request more than $500,000 direct costs for any year of a grant project, you will need to document written prior approval from a Program Official NIH Grants Policy Statement. If you request under $250,000 per year, the budget should use a simpler modular format as described at NIH Modular Research Grant Applications.
A NIDA Program Official familiar with your area of science can give general advice on whether your research is relevant to NIDA's mission and on how to prepare and submit a grant application. Program Officials can often help you locate investigators doing work similar to yours, and they can help you understand the intent and purpose of DHHS, NIH, and NIDA policies. See "How do I start to apply for support?" above if you do not have a NIDA program contact.
Both program and review staff can explain the different types of grant mechanisms NIDA supports as well as the scientific areas of interest to NIDA.
The SRO can explain review processes, review procedures, review-related policies, and review group expertise. SROs can also explain the intent and purpose of DHHS, NIH and NIDA policies and procedures related to application submission and review.
For contract proposals, contact only the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist listed in the Request for Proposals or Presolicitation Announcement.
For new, revised, and competing renewal grant applications, follow the instructions in the PHS 398 or other application kit. Paper applications will be directly submitted to the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Electronic applications will be uploaded by the submitting organization to the grants.gov website. The CSR assigns application numbers and initiates the complex processing of applications throughout NIH. Although NIDA's Office of Extramural Program Review occasionally requests a "courtesy copy" to assist in planning the review, you do not submit your official application to any NIDA staff person. Competing applications are not considered submitted unless they are sent to, and received by, the Center for Scientific Review.
Applications for non-competing supplements should not be submitted without prior discussion with your Program Official, who will give you instructions on submission procedures.
For contract proposals, submit only to the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist at the address specified in the Request for Proposals.
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is an NIH organization under the Office of the Director of NIH. It serves NIDA and all other NIH institutes, as well as some non-NIH government agencies. CSR provides a central receipt and referral point for competing applications, and it also manages the review process for most of NIH's grant applications, including NIDA applications. More information on CSR can be found at: public.csr.nih.gov.
For grant applications, there is a two-step referral process. First, the Center for Scientific Review assigns the application to no more than one Scientific Review Group for review purposes, and, second, it assigns the application to at least one NIH institute for potential funding. Applications are assigned to more than one institute when the institutes have shared or overlapping interests in the science of the applications. In performing these referrals, the Center for Scientific Review logs in the application, checks the history of the application, and makes assignments to review groups and Institutes on the basis of established referral guidelines. For paper applications, the CSR also makes copies that are distributed to review group administrators, grants management staff, program staff, and others. From the NIH eCommons system you will receive an email from CSR 1-2 days after submission, and this email will tell you the institute assignment and the name and contact information for the NIH official (i.e., the Scientific Review Official (SRO)) responsible for the review of your application.
There are standing agreements between CSR and NIDA that help to determine where particular applications will be reviewed, and referral officers at CSR and NIDA help to make these decisions. In order to achieve more consistent and uniform reviews for the 27 NIH Institutes and Centers that may address overlapping areas of science, the majority of applications are reviewed by CSR. Specifically, most neuroscience, AIDS-related, and behavioral science applications assigned to NIDA are reviewed by standing peer review groups (Scientific Review Groups) convened by the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). NIDA retains review responsibilities for several specialty areas. Career, training, and center grant applications are reviewed by groups convened by OEA. Applications submitted in response to a Request for Applications (RFA), to some Program Announcements (PA), and using certain mechanisms are also reviewed by NIDA/OEA groups.
Contract proposals are similarly processed to ensure appropriate review. NIDA's Contracts Review Branch staff in the Office of Extramural Affairs work closely with the Contracting Officer to ensure a fair and confidential review of proposals. Contract proposals for Research and Development (R&D) are reviewed by peer review groups convened by the Contracts Review Branch, OEA.
Yes. Although CSR uses established guidelines to refer applications to Institutes, applicant input is welcome. It is best to include this request in a cover letter submitted with the application. In electronic applications this cover letter is not seen by reviewers.
You are encouraged to suggest the review group that has responsibility for reviewing the type of science contained in your application and to identify that group in a cover letter submitted with the application. The referrals are made on the basis of established guidelines, and CSR will take your suggestion into account in making the referral to a review group. If one of the NIDA review groups seems appropriate, indicate that in a cover letter. If you cannot identify a review group, referral officers will assign your application to the most appropriate one. If your application happens to be assigned to the review committee with scientists whom you know well (not an unusual occurrence in specialty fields), they may be in conflict with your application based on close personal, professional or institutional associations, and the SRO will recuse them during the evaluation of your application if the association is considered to be a conflict of interest.
Because contract proposals are reviewed by panels that are constituted for a single review for a specific Request for Proposals, offerors are not able to select a review group. There are no standing committees that routinely review contract proposals.
For most grant applications, the initial or first level review involves a panel of scientific experts who evaluate the scientific and technical merit of the application. This Scientific Review Group (SRG) usually contains 15-30 members who meet three times a year. One of the members is designated as the "Chair," who leads the scientific discussion. As noted above, the Center for Scientific Review refers the application to a scientifically appropriate review group at CSR or to the referral officer at NIDA who assigns them to a NIDA review group. Some applications are reviewed by temporarily constituted groups, or "Special Emphasis Panels" (SEPs), which function as a regular SRG but exist for only one meeting. CSR will notify you when your application has been assigned. After submission, watch for the letter that identifies the SRO, review group, institute assignment, and other information.
For contract proposals, the Contracting Officer/Specialist and the SRO work together to ensure that an appropriate review group is formed to evaluate the proposals.
NIDA and CSR Web sites include the rosters of their respective standing committees. A list of these groups and their membership may be found at: About NIDA for NIDA groups and at public.csr.nih.gov for CSR groups. For Special Emphasis Panels, or committees that are not standing, the SRO will be able to tell you who is on the committee after the committee is formed, and the roster will be posted prior to the meeting.
Offerors may request the names of the contract proposal reviewers by writing the Contracting Officer.
You may provide input to the SRO on the types of science that need to be represented on a review panel, but suggesting specific reviewers is not appropriate. This protects everyone from possible allegations of undue influence in the constitution of the committee.
The SRO is accustomed to addressing such concerns. You should contact your SRO and discuss the issues with him or her. You should be prepared to provide specific reasons for your concern.
For grant applications, contact the SRO. Your Notice in the Commons from CSR will identify a Scientific Review Official assigned to your application whom you can call or email for help. If you have not been provided with the name of the SRO in eCommons within four weeks after your submission, contact the CSR Receipt and Referral Office at 301 435-0715, or call NIDA at 301 443-2755, or email associated staff.
For contract proposals: Contact the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist listed in the RFP.
NIH guidelines are that that grant applications should be complete and accurate at the time of submission. Additional or late material places a heavy burden on NIH staff and reviewers, and NIH is under no obligation to accept it. Do not submit late material without prior approval by the SRO. Contract proposals should be complete at submission. For contract proposals, contact the Contracting Officer or Contracts Specialist if you have a concern.
This is no longer needed, as announced in the NIH Guide of May 1, 2000. However, if your application is to be funded, you will be required to secure IRB approval for studies involving human subjects. Similarly, IACUC approval will be needed for studies involving vertebrate animals.
In the NIH Guide of June 2000 and June 1998 (NIH POLICY FOR DATA AND SAFETY MONITORING), NIH announced that investigators must submit a monitoring plan for phase I, II and III clinical trials to the funding Institute and Center (IC) before the trial begins. Further, a general description of the monitoring plan must be submitted as part of the research plan section of the application. Reviewers will comment on the adequacy of that general plan. They will look to see if it is appropriate with respect to the data management plan and potential medical safety risks. In particular, the general plan will be examined for a description of how Adverse Events will be reported to the IRB, NIH, the Office of Biotechnology Activities (if required) and the FDA. Your NIDA project officer can help you determine the elements you need to address in this general description. Guidelines for developing a data and safety monitoring plan are also available online.
Sometimes grant applications must be moved from one review committee to another. The usual reasons for this are to secure more appropriate expertise and to avoid conflicts of interest in a review group. These moves will cause a computer-generated email notice to be sent to the principal investigator. Sometimes these notices reflect a change in the SRO assignment to a committee or other internal administrative event. If, however, the notice indicates a change to a later Council review date, this indicates your application's review has been deferred for some reason. In such a case, you will probably want to call the SRO for more information.
The review administrator must balance a number of priorities. First and foremost, each application must receive a fair and impartial review from qualified scientists. To accomplish this, the SRO must consider the scientific content of the application, the availability of qualified reviewers, schedules, reviewers' skills (including interpersonal skills), conflicts of interest, and other factors. The SRO must avoid even the appearance of favoritism in selecting reviewers, so that each application is judged on a "level playing field." A variety of perspectives is sought in a review meeting, and this is accomplished by selecting scientists of diverse skills and demographic characteristics. The review group should consist of scientists who have broad knowledge of a number of areas, and it might include others with more specialized and narrow expertise. Finally, in some cases, non-scientists familiar with technological, community, or business issues are included in the review meeting because such expertise is needed.
Dates for CSR review meetings are available at public.csr.nih.gov/RosterAndMeetings, and information is also provided at your eCommons account for applications for which you are Principal Investigator Your Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer can tell you when your proposal will be reviewed.
For grants, the SRO convenes the meeting and reminds those present of applicable regulations, policies, and procedures to be followed to assure all applications receive an appropriate and fair review. After introductions and the review of procedures and policies, the Chair leads the reviews of applications. Each application has two or more assigned reviewers who have the responsibility of writing critiques and formally presenting them to the group. These reviewers present their initial scores and their comments on the scientific and technical merit of the application. For most research applications, the evaluation criteria are: Significance, Investigator, Innovation, Approach, and Environment. The reviewers also evaluate the application for adherence to NIH policies regarding the inclusion of women, minorities, and children. They assess procedures for the protection of animal and human subjects and the appropriateness of the budget. After the reviewers present their comments about scientific merit, the full committee discusses the application to arrive at a decision about scoring. Then, any issues about the budget or other issues not related to scientific merit are addressed. In the revised 1-9 best to worst scoring system, each evaluation criterion is given a score as is the overall Impact. The average of all of the committee's scores is multiplied by 10 to generate the final overall Impact Score, so this ranges from 10 (best possible) to 90 (worst possible). At most reviews, applications with initial below-average priority scores are streamlined or not discussed. However, even for these applications, the scores as well as the listed strengths and weaknesses of the assigned reviewers remain available to applicants in their summary statements.
Contract proposals are reviewed somewhat similarly, except that the review administrator usually chairs the meeting. Typically, each proposal is assigned equally to all reviewers at the meeting. All reviewers present their scores and comments, which are based on evaluation criteria provided in the RFP, and all reviewers list strengths and weaknesses for each scored criterion, and there are usually 100 total possible points.
Grant applications can either receive a numerical score, be designated as "not discussed," or be "not recommended for further consideration." Some types of applications, such as training grant applications, are scored on a 1.0 to 9.0 scale, with 1.0 being the most meritorious. However, most applications, including unsolicited R01 research applications and most "R" mechanism applications, are reviewed under a "streamlined" procedure. (See also the question below about "not discussed" applications.) In streamlining, reviewers identify the most meritorious applications, defined as the top half of the distribution, and score them on a scale from 1.0 to about 5.0. Note that under this procedure, a very sound application can receive a score of 5.0 if it is at or near the middle of the distribution of merit for those being considered. Finally, all applications, regardless of mechanism, can potentially be designated as "not recommended for further consideration" (NRFC), which indicates that the application lacks significant and substantial scientific merit.
Contract proposals are scored according to the weighted evaluation criteria given in the RFP.
"Confidential" means that the meeting and its results are not discussed outside the meeting except for legitimate purposes related to conducting NIH business. NIH takes confidentiality very seriously. The integrity of the review system depends on reviewers' confidence that they can provide candid, professional comments. In addition, as an applicant, you want to be confident that the information you submit will be used solely to score and evaluate applications and proposals and that proprietary data and other information will be kept confidential. Reviewers agree not to discuss the applications or proposals outside the meeting itself, either with colleagues, other reviewers, or applicants. If reviewers have questions about an application, they are to call the SRO.
Although the entire review roster is available before and after the meeting, another aspect of confidentiality is that applicants are not told what applications particular reviewers were assigned in evaluating the application (e.g., primary reviewer, discussant, general member of the committee), nor which reviewers were considered to be conflicted and were out of the room during the discussion and scoring of a particular application.
No, please do not contact reviewers either before or after the meeting. Any concerns about the review should be directed to the SRO. You may have professional or personal relationships with some committee members. If relationships are significant, they had conflicts of interest and were not in the room during the review of your application. Even if they lacked conflicts, still don't ever ask them, and if they offer, decline to listen. Such communications have the potential to compromise both of your professional reputations and the integrity of the review process.
The term "Not Discussed" replaces the previous "unscored" term since Enhanced Peer Review changes, even those applications that were not actively discussed at the review meeting, now have numerical 1-9 scores for each of the individual review criteria. "Not Discussed" does not necessarily mean that the application was fatally flawed. Not Discussed means that the review group used a process called "streamlined review," in which approximately half of the applications are designated as "Not Discussed" because the reviewers judged them to be in the lower half of the distribution of applications. This designation requires a committee consensus. These applications are not usually discussed fully in the meeting, but applicants do receive a summary statement with the reviewers' written critiques and numerical scores for each evaluation criterion. The designation of "not discussed" can happen at any stage of the review meeting. For example, as reviewers begin their comments, they may indicate that the application has weaknesses that place it in the bottom half of the distribution, and no further discussion will take place. In other cases, the weaknesses become apparent after discussion. As noted above, a designation of "Not Discussed" is not the same as"not recommended for further consideration." The former means only that the particular application was weaker than most. The latter rarely used evaluation term, means that the application was considered to lack significant and substantial scientific merit.
Even applications with many strengths may be Not Discussed. Since fully half of the applications are expected to be not discussed, if you find that your application has been not discussed, it does not mean that you will never be able to pursue this line of work. The written critiques and individual evaluation criterion scores from reviewers are available in the summary statement also for not discussed applications, and addressing the identified weaknesses is often feasible. As for applications whose numerical scores and other factors also may not warrant recommendations for funding, applicants are encouraged to discuss possible plans for revisions for not discussed applications with the assigned Program Official and with colleagues.
The percentile rank of an application is determined by its position among the reviewed applications within the base of applications reviewed in the current round plus two rounds of review, when the review is associated with a standing review committee and involves a R01 application. The percentile base includes all applications reviewed by a scientific review group regardless of whether the application was scored, not discussed, or not recommended for further consideration. In some cases, the base includes all eligible NIDA-reviewed or CSR-reviewed applications. The use of three rounds minimizes round-to-round variation in addition to providing the stability of a larger sample. The percentile ranking of an application is a major factor, but not the only one, in determining whether it will be funded. Not all types of applications receive percentiles. For example, applications submitted in response to a request for applications (RFA) and non-R01 application's impact scores are not percentiled.
The summary statement is intended to summarize the merit of the application and, if scored, to present committee recommendations related to time and amount of resources needed to do the work proposed. The summary statement contains reviewers' evaluations based on the review criteria, including evaluation of compliance with NIH policies related to human subjects, animal welfare, composition of the sample, etc. The summary statement always contains the written critiques of the reviewers, which are provided to assist NIDA staff and the Council in their deliberations. If an application is scored, its score, recommended budget and period of support, and a summary of the discussion are included.
The priority score is always an average of the full review committee's scores, not only the scores of the reviewers assigned to provide detailed written critiques. If the score was percentiled against a committee, that percentile is included.
The review committee's charge does not include making suggestions for revisions or tutoring. Thus, summary statements should not be expected to contain specific guidance for resubmissions, except to the degree that the remedy is obvious from the comment about a weakness.
The critiques of reviewers are presented essentially verbatim, with editing to assure anonymity, correct minor mistakes (e.g., typographical errors), and clarify sentences. Each critique is an independent opinion, so congruence between or among them is not required. Therefore, applicants should not necessarily expect internal consistency, especially since, even after discussion, reviewers may hold different views.
A summary statement is not intended to identify every strength and weakness of an application. Some parts of the application may not be addressed by any assigned reviewer or be mentioned in the discussion.
Summary statements for contract proposal review meetings are internal documents, and are not released to the offerors. However, unsuccessful offerors may contact the Contracting Officer to arrange for a debriefing.
If your application is not discussed or did not receive an impact score that is likely to be funded, look for what can be remedied and what cannot. If weaknesses can be readily addressed, do so and revise and resubmit. Be sure to address the concerns raised in the summary statement. You do not have to agree with these concerns, but you will need to note your response to them. Work with your program officer to revise your application.
NIH now makes scores available to applicants in their personal and private eCommons account which is established during the application process. For grant applications, scores are usually available within several working days after the review meeting. If your score has not appeared one week after the review date, please call or email the assigned SRO.
The results of your contract proposal's review will be provided by your Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist as soon as they are available.
Summary statements are available after the review group meets. They are prepared and posted at eCommons for access by the Principal Investigator as quickly as possible. If your summary statement is not available by six weeks after the meeting, contact your assigned Program Official or the SRO.
Summaries of contract proposal reviews are considered internal documents within NIDA and are not released to offerors. The summary statement is used to establish the competitive range and to negotiate with offerors who stand a reasonable chance for obtaining a contract award. While the summary statement will not be released to offerors, the Contracting Officer may use this document to debrief unsuccessful offerors.
Contact the Program Official listed in the upper left-hand corner of the summary statement obtained from eCommons. This specialist can usually discuss the likelihood of your application being funded, whether or not you should revise, approaches to revisions, etc.
In general, differences of scientific opinion between applicants and reviewers are to be expected and are not considered evidence of a flawed review. A flawed review occurs when there are substantial errors of scientific fact in the review and it appears likely that these errors significantly affected the score. Also, a flawed review occurs if persons with a conflict of interest participated in the review. Contact your Program Official to discuss this. Program and Review staff work together and will work with you to clarify and explain the issues raised in the summary statement.
Yes. However, first discuss your issues with the assigned Program Official and the SRO. If NIH staff concur that there are significant errors in procedure and/or inappropriate reviewer expertise, Review will delete the initial flawed review and arrange a second independent review of the application. If NIH staff do not agree that the review was flawed, the applicant can still initiate an appeals process, and the applicant's appeal is presented to the NIDA Council. If the Council agrees with NIH staff that the review was correct, the appeal is denied. If the Council agrees with the applicant that the review is flawed based on procedure or lack of expertise, the application is reviewed without modification in a subsequent cycle. Pursuing an appeal in the absence of support by NIH staff should be carefully considered, since even a successful appeal leads only to another review of an unmodified application.
Dual review describes the process for most grant reviews. An initial review for scientific and technical merit is done by the Scientific Review Group administered by the SRO. Then, there is a second level review for most grant applications. This review is conducted by the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse if the application is assigned to NIDA as the primary funding institute.
The Council provides NIDA staff with input on programmatic priorities and the appropriateness of the initial SRG review (this is sometimes called "second level" of review). Council members must concur with the initial review results before funding of most research applications can occur. A list of NIDA's Council members may be found under "Committees" on our Organization page.
The Council does not fund applications. Funding decisions are the responsibility of the Director, NIDA.
Funding decisions are made by the Director of NIDA after consideration of the Institute's program priorities, the availability of funds, and the review groups' comments on the scientific and technical merit of applications and proposals.
Your assigned Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist are your points of contact.
Read the summary statement, and discuss possibilities (revision, new direction, etc.) with the Program Official.
This frequently includes greater levels of details about the budget, human subjects or vertebrate animal issues, and similar information that helps to assure that your research plans follow NIH guidelines.
This can be done either before submission or after the grant application has been reviewed. The grant application must be approved by the IRB and/or IACUC before it can be funded.
When do I need to submit a detailed data and safety monitoring plan? What information should I include in the detailed DSM plan?
The purpose of the DSM plan is to ensure the safety of study participants in clinical trials and the validity of trial results. A detailed DSM plan is required for all clinical trials of all phases for which grant support is sought. A clinical trial is a prospective study to test the effect of a biomedical or behavioral intervention in human subjects. It includes testing medications, herbal/nutritional supplements, physical interventions, behavioral interventions, prevention interventions, and/or diagnostic tools that affect the outcome of the study participants. Read the guidelines for developing a detailed DSM plan.
A DSMB is generally required for Phase III clinical trials. For earlier medication trials (Phase I or II) and some behavioral clinical trials, a DSMB may be appropriate if the study has multiple clinical sites, is blinded, tests a high-risk intervention, or is conducted in vulnerable populations. Generally, Phase III trials involve larger numbers of subjects, but size is not a specific criterion for this designation. NIDA provides guidelines for establishing and operating a DSMB.
In general NIH is committed to sharing resources generated with NIH funding, and for research projects with budgets $500,000 and over annually, a specific plan is required to indicate related data sharing plans. This typically includes a time table and the likely route(s) of data or other resource disseminations. These typically include publications and scientific meeting presentations, and plans for making data, animal models or batteries of samples available to other researchers.
Work with the business office of your organization and with your assigned Grants Management Specialist and Program Official at NIDA to get all the required documents before receiving the funds.
First, congratulations. You will typically first make sure that all administrative and budget questions have been resolved, typically by working with the assigned Program Official and Grants Management specialist and your institution's budget office. You will then be expected to conduct the described research. If early studies or other factors make it necessary to significantly change a research plan or a given aim, this will need to be approved. You will be expected to provide annual Progress Reports and this is an opportunity to check whether key milestones have been achieved. Related publications should cite the specific grant, which will help to document progress. If unusually positive data and significant publications result, the Program Official will also be interested in learning about this, and the NIDA Office of Communications may help to disseminate your findings e.g. through a summary within NIDA Notes or in reports to Congress. It is expected that NIDA-funded research will lead to significant advances with important basic and applied implications. Successful grants are expected to generate publications with high impact, and renewal applications often follow up on the new findings from a successful grant. If results have "real world" implications, patents and/or Small Business plans may be feasible, and Program Officials can also discuss related options.
The process of developing an idea, preparing an application or proposal, awaiting the results of reviews, and possibly preparing a revision can seem overwhelming. Nevertheless, both experienced investigators and those just beginning a research career do successfully secure funding. Don't give up easily.
Take advantage of the resources available to you: there is substantial information on the NIH and NIDA websites about funding opportunities. Additionally, review, program, and grants and contract management staff are available to assist you. Don't hesitate to contact them.
NIDA's mission of bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction is realized through the high quality of the research it supports. We hope that you will work with us to fulfill that critical public health mission.


text:
Clarence Turner of Fairfield made the jump Saturday with an instructor. He says he wanted to generate attention for the plight of 10-month-old Julian Couch, who suffers from a lung disease that could require a transplant.
WLWT of Cincinnati reports that Julian is hospitalized in Columbus. A fundraiser is planned for June 2.
Turner also made a jump at age 85 to fulfill a goal to experience freefalling and landing as he did in the Army. He served from 1944-47, and his last jump was in Japan.
Turner says he also hopes to someday make a parachute jump at an older age than former President George H.W. Bush, who's 88.


text:
What are you looking for? The MARS Online Resource Centre can help you!The MARS Online Resource Centre is an online platform providing material on media, diversity and non-discrimination. This includes practice examples from the areas of media production, journalism and media training, media literacy education and editorial management; Council of Europe references , and selected web content on diversity and non-discrimination. Additionally, the MARS Online Resource Centre hosts the first European contact database including more than 450 media diversity and non discrimination practitioners.
All these training tools, resources, practice examples and the diversity practitioner database are classified according to their areas of action (journalism training, ethics and editorial management and media production) and are labelled with specific tags to easily accesses and search the MARS online resources centre: MED = Media, DIV = Diversity, DIS = Discrimination, SPO = Sport, TRA = Training, ETH = Ethics, EM = Editorial Management, PRO = Production, ADV = Advocacy and SFJ = Sources for journalists. We recommend to use these abbreviations to conduct an effective search in the MARS online resource centre.


text:
The wait is finally over! With over 1400+ castles submitted, Crush the Castle Players Pack was made for the fans by the fans. The King thanks everyone who submitted. The resistance has spread further and the King is not happy. He has ordered you once again to crush all resistance to help expand his territory. Crush castle after castle by wiping out each of it's inhabitants with your large Trebuchet. Win medals for crushing the castle using the least amount of projectiles, unlock new secret projectiles, and share you castles faster and easier than ever before. You can also share your own custom castles or crush the fortresses of others. Check out our dedicated forum thread Crush the Castle Players Pack - Custom Castles Produced In-House by Armor Games Inc. Programmed by Joey Betz. Art by Chris "Con" Condon. **REQUIRES FLASH 10 TO PLAY
Mouse to Fire, Release, and Reload
Arrow Keys to View Castle


text:
The Top Ten International Relations Undergraduate Programs
Where to start your fast-track to running the world.
These rankings are part of the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey, conducted by Paul C. Avey, Michael C. Desch, James D. Long, Daniel Maliniak, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney. All additional information provided was added by Foreign Policy and is not part of the survey results.
1. Harvard University
Student-faculty ratio: 7:1
Tuition: $39,849
Website: http://www.gov.harvard.edu/
Campus international relations organization: Harvard International Relations Council
Why go to Harvard? You get to rub elbows with some of the most prestigious academics in the world, from FP contributors like Joseph S. Nye and Stephen M. Walt to Harvey Mansfield. Not only is it the oldest center of higher education in the United States, Mr. Bartley's — just across the street — cooks a mean hamburger.
2. Princeton University
Student-faculty ratio: 6:1
Tuition: $37,000
Website: http://wws.princeton.edu
Campus international relations organization: International Relations Council
Why go to Princeton? President Woodrow Wilson's convictions were forged in its halls, and the university's tradition of impacting how the United States approaches foreign policy is carried on today by former Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter. It features a range of other outstanding thinkers on foreign policy, from G. John Ikenberry to former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer. Bonus points: The hospital that appears in the opening credits of the hit TV show "House, M.D." is actually Princeton's University Medical Center.
3. Stanford University
Student-faculty ratio: 6:1
Tuition: $40,500
Website: http://www.stanford.edu
Campus international relations organization: Society for International Affairs at Stanford
Why go to Stanford? The Hoover Institution — which counts Condoleezza Rice and Fouad Ajami as fellows — is the premier conservative public policy think tank in the United States. Drive an hour north to San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury District for some serious cognitive dissonance.
4. Columbia University
Student-faculty ratio: 6:1
Tuition: $45,290
Website: http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu
Campus international relations organization: Columbia International Relations Council and Association
Why go to Columbia? The only way to get closer to the intellectual debate that animates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a 5,000-mile plane flight. The late Professor Edward Said's intellectual home has long been the scene of contentious debates over the conflict — Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz are just two recent combatants. University President Lee Bollinger has also proven not to be someone to shy away from a fight, inviting Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007 to address the university in free intellectual debate. Not everyone was convinced.
5. Georgetown University
Student-faculty ratio: 10:1
Tuition: $41,393
Website: http://sfs.georgetown.edu/
Campus international relations organization: Georgetown International Relations Club
Why go to Georgetown? In the nation's capital, you get to learn at the feet of the men and women who don't just theorize about international affairs — they practice it. From former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to fresh-out-of-government former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Colin Kahl, its faculty is full of professionals who know all about the hard work of translating theory into policy. If you imagine yourself as the next Bill Clinton, this is the place to meet thousands of other students who do too.
6. Yale University
Student-faculty ratio: 6:1
Tuition: $40,500
Website: http://www.yale.edu/
Campus international relations organization: Yale International Relations Association
Why go to Yale? Its foreign-policy student group has the top-ranked model U.N. team and a whopping operating budget of $250,000, which is uses to send its members across the globe during school breaks. When you're not traveling to Singapore or Honduras, a faculty that includes famous thinkers such as Bruce Ackerman and Robert Dahl may also know a thing or two.
7. University of Chicago
Student-faculty ratio: 7:1
Tuition: $42,783
Website: http://cir.uchicago.edu/
Campus international relations organization: University of Chicago Model United Nations Team
Why go to the University of Chicago? If you have a grim fascination for understanding why the world economic system is in a state of collapse, this is the school for you. The University of Chicago's Department of Economics has fielded more Nobel Prize laureates than any other university — a fact it is not, and should not be, shy about pointing out. FP contributors Robert Fogel and Raghuram Rajan will tell you why China is rising, why the global financial system is collapsing, and what we can do about it.
8. Dartmouth College
Student-faculty ratio: 8:1
Tuition: $42,996
Website: http://www.dartmouth.edu
Campus international relations organization: Dartmouth Model U.N. Conference
Why go to Dartmouth? If you're looking for small-town New England charm and an Ivy League intellectual pedigree, it's hard to do better than Dartmouth. The college is also home to experts who know all about closed regimes: There's Libya expert par excellence Dirk Vandewalle and Jennifer Lind, who currently has her hands full trying to figure out what's going on in Kim Jong Un's North Korea. The school's Greek life was also the inspiration for the antics in National Lampoon's Animal House — so rest assured, you'll have a good time.
9. George Washington University
Student-faculty ratio: 13:1
Tuition: $44,148
Website: http://elliott.gwu.edu
Campus international relations organization: George Washington International Affairs Society
Why go to George Washington? It's where FP Mideast Channel editor Marc Lynch hangs his hat! Nathan Brown, Amitai Etzioni, and a whole slew of other professors can also show you how Washington's foreign-policy machinery really works.
10. American University
Student-faculty ratio: 13:1
Tuition: $38,071
Website: http://www.american.edu
Campus international relations organization: American University International Politics Student Association
Why go to American University? Students here take their politics out of the classroom — since 2006, it has been named by Princeton Review as the most politically active university in the United States three times. It also has an active international presence, falling within the top 10 of all universities for number of students studying abroad and joining the Peace Corps.
More from Foreign Policy
A New Multilateralism
How the United States can rejuvenate the global institutions it created.
America Prepares for a Pacific War With China It Doesn't Want
Embedded with U.S. forces in the Pacific, I saw the dilemmas of deterrence firsthand.
The Endless Frustration of Chinese Diplomacy
Beijing's representatives are always scared they could be the next to vanish.
The End of America's Middle East
The region's four major countries have all forfeited Washington's trust.


text:
by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?" – Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VIII – 11
"All war is deception." – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
As previously discussed, "we need to differentiate between the terms 'strategy' and 'tactics'. Strategy is defined in relevant part by Webster's as 'the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war'. Tactics, by contrast, is defined in relevant part by Webster's as 'the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end' and 'the study of the grammatical relations within a language including morphology and syntax'. By better understanding the tactics of propagandists, you not only gain a certain degree of immunity from their influence, but insight into their strategic ends."
Today we will address strategy and tactics in the form of a case study. The context is the so-called "War on Drugs" and state's efforts to legalize marijuana for medical and recreational use. The strategy is to exacerbate so called drug crime violence by obliquely attacking the burgeoning states effort to legalize marijuana and those who trade in legal marijuana by deliberately putting them at risk. The primary tactic in question is misdirection. When analyzing propaganda, it's important to ask who brings the message, what do they want me to think, why do they want me to think it and how do they benefit? The leader of this campaign against the American people? United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Let's examine the what, why and who benefits from what Mr. Holder wants you to think.
Continue reading "Propaganda 106 – Waging War (A Case Study) [UPDATED]"


text:
OpenGL is the industry's most widely used, supported and best documented 2D/3D graphics API making it inexpensive & easy to obtain information on implementing OpenGL in hardware and software. In addition to extensive documentation, there are coding examples for every platform and topic, FAQ, open source libraries, Bindings and developer coding related software and benchmarks.
The coding section of OpenGL.org contains information on:
- OpenGL SDK
- This is not a traditional SDK in the sense that it doesn't arrive on CD-ROM, and it isn't one monolithic download. Instead, it is a gathering of 3rd party contributions from many of the leaders in the community. In some cases the information and downloads are available directly from the SDK on opengl.org. In other cases, you'll find links to the original materials elsewhere on the web. In all cases, the contributions have been hand selected and represent the best of what's out there.
- OpenGL Wiki
- Frequently Asked Questions/Answers from experts in the field
- FAQs
- Links are no longer updated, but the basic information is still very relevant. Includes a Technical and Troubleshooting Guide, Getting Started and OpenGL Logo use
- GLUT and Utiltiy Libraries
- Libraries for GLUT - OpenGL Utility Toolkit, Other Interface Toolkits GLX, GLU , DRI, and High-level libraries
- Performance Benchmarks
- The non-profit OPC project is providing unambiguous methods for comparing the performance of OpenGL implementations across vendor platforms,operating systems, and windowing environments.
- OpenGL ES - OpenGL for Embedded System, Cell Phones and Gaming Platforms
- OpenGL ES is a free, lightweight API for advanced 2D/3D graphics capabilities on mobile & handheld devices, appliances and embedded displays. It is based on well-defined subset profiles of OpenGL and enables the lightest weight interface between software and hardware acceleration.


text:
Merit Systems Principles - Human Resources Office
From the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Merit Systems Principles (MSP)
Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP)
More information:
MSP/PPP Handout
Perceptions of Prohibited Personnel Practices: An Update (February 2023)
Employee Perceptions of Prohibited Personnel Practices (2011)
Merit Systems Principles
The Merit System Principles can be described as the core values and are the fundamentals of the entire Federal Human Resources system and should be expressed in every human resources decision that is made. It is important that we emphasize to managers, supervisors, and HR professionals alike that following the Merit System Principles and guarding against Prohibited Personnel Practices is critical.
There are nine Merit System Principles which can be found in 5 U.S. Code § 2301. These Merit System Principles provide guidance on how managers and supervisors should manage our human resources and how human resources professionals should provide oversight of our core values.
These nine principles are the expected outcomes of good management.
- Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.
- All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.
- Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.
- All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest.
- The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively.
- Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards.
- Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance.
- Employees should be-
Protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, and
Prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election.
9. Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the employees reasonably believe evidences-
A violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
Mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an absence of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.