In these times of tight budgets and rapidly evolving science, we must consider new ways to invest biomedical research dollars to achieve maximum impact—to turn scientific discoveries into better health as swiftly as possible. We do this by thinking strategically about the areas of research that we support, as well as the process by which we fund that research. …. We often hear from investigators at all career stages that they spend a significant portion of their careers writing grant applications, consuming precious time that could otherwise be spent conducting research. …. Continue reading
A question that I hear often from investigators is: are my chances of funding increased or decreased by submitting a multi-PI application? It was seven years ago that NIH implemented the Multiple Principal Investigator Policy to encourage interdisciplinary and team approaches to biomedical research, and give scientists the option to apply with their peers and allow for equal credit for leadership of the research program. While the single-PI model works well, and continues to be the model for most of NIH’s research grants, the multi-PI option recognizes that as health research grows in scale and complexity, scientific teams may better reflect the intellectual and scientific leadership within a given grant application. So, let’s look at some data on how multi-PI applications fare in comparison to single-PI applications. …. Continue reading
A major report on the Physician-Scientist Workforce was presented and discussed at the most recent Advisory Council to the Director (ACD) meeting. It was a highly anticipated follow-up to the Biomedical Workforce report from a couple years earlier. I want to follow-up my earlier post with a closer look at some key points presentation by the Physician-Scientist Workforce (PSW) working group. Continue reading
NIH currently requires use of the fed-wide progress reporting format — known as the RPPR (Research Performance Progress Report) — to submit progress reports for Streamlined Non-competing Award Process (SNAP), fellowship, and multi-year funded awards. In April we opened the RPPR for use for all Type 5 Non-SNAP progress reports in anticipation of an October 2014 requirement for RPPR use.
Now, it’s official — all type 5 non-SNAP progress reports submitted on or after October 17, 2014 need to be submitted through the RPPR module of eRA Commons. …. Continue reading
True or false: iEdison is the newest Apple™ light bulb.
Well, for now at least, false. iEdison – which stands for “interagency Edison” – is a system for reporting inventions resulting from federal funding. iEdison is now part of NIH’s electronic Research Administration (eRA) suite of services, and our new website helps iEdison users access information and resources related to invention reporting. …. Continue reading
No. If you are appealing the initial peer review of your application, then the appeal must be resolved before you submit that application as either a resubmission (A1) or new application (A0).
Looking for more information on NIH’s resubmission policy? Visit our frequently asked questions about resubmission. Continue reading
A resubmission application, also known as an “A1” application, requires a one-page introduction that addresses the comments from the review of the prior A0 application as well as marked changes in the text of the Research Strategy. You are permitted one resubmission of an unfunded application to address reviewer comments, and that resubmission must be submitted to an appropriate due date no longer than 37 months …. Continue reading
Want to look into the future? We sure would. But in lieu of clairvoyant powers we’re trying the next best thing: a map to help navigate upcoming changes in grants administration. The grants policy page on grants.nih.gov is now home to an interactive timeline of upcoming changes in grants administration. …. Continue reading
Exemplifying and promoting the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science are among NIH’s main goals as an agency. Research integrity is not about being flawless. It is about conducting science using honest and verifiable methods, complying with rules and regulations and adhering to professional standards. Ultimately, it is also about trust, the foundation upon which the scientific research enterprise is built. We’ve recently updated our website on research integrity, …. Continue reading
Tom Kalil is Deputy Director for Technology and Innovation in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). — We are delighted to announce a new collaboration between the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to empower entrepreneurial scientists and advance the Lab-to-Market priorities set forth in the President’s Management Agenda. The Federal government invests over $130 billion on research and development (R&D) each year, and the President’s 2015 budget supports a sustained commitment to accelerate the transfer of promising Federally-funded technologies from the laboratory to the commercial marketplace. Continue reading