As you can imagine, NIH is devoting significant resources to COVID-19. To get funding as quickly as possible to the research community, we are using Urgent and Emergency competing revisions and administrative supplements to existing grant awards. When responding to these types of funding opportunities, it is important that you understand how they work.
What’s new with the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts? In addition to faster, more precise search results, a few key filtering features have been updated. Notices of Special Interest (NOSIs) are displayed in the results when searching either “Funding Opportunities” or “Notices.” The “Type of Funding Opportunities” filter now includes “Notice of Special Interest.” … Continue reading “Searching for Funding Just Got a Little Easier”
0 Comments
No, letters of intent are not required. Submission of a letter of intent is not binding and the letter is not part of the application review.
2 Comments
You found a funding opportunity announcement (FOA) that fits your research, you’ve read it carefully, and have been working for months perfecting your application. Don’t forget to return to the FOA within 30 days of the due date to check for any new related notices which could impact your submission.
0 Comments
Over the past year, since we published an essay in Nature Human Behaviour on “NIH policies on experimental studies with humans,” NIH has engaged in a discussion with the basic science community to find ways to meet our shared obligations to study participants and taxpayers, while respecting the unique goals and outcomes of basic science. While we are still in the midst of that conversation, we are pleased to announce real progress in the form of new funding opportunity announcements for Basic Experimental Studies involving Humans.
0 Comments
NIH realizes that, as stewards of the American investment in biomedical sciences, we must do all we can to protect the future of the biomedical research enterprise, taking additional measures regardless of our budget situation. In the opening pages of this blog, we noted that our increasingly hypercompetitive system is threatening the future of biomedical research and of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who we look to for discovering tomorrow’s cures. This is a strange irony, given that the last 25-50 years have been times of extraordinary discovery and progress in basic, translational, and applied science. Death rates from cardiovascular disease have plummeted, and death rates from cancer are falling steadily. Scientists have a much deeper understanding of human biology to the point where this knowledge can drive the design of drugs and biologics. Big data and high-throughput technologies now enable rapid development and testing of hypotheses that previously would have taken years. The successes are myriad. But so are the problems, problems so real that some have gone so far as to write, “It is time to confront the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical research system.” ….
418 Comments
When I was an editor at JAMA, we often considered papers that were strong, received favorable reviews, and yet could not be published for lack of space. As it turned out, we had an option other than outright rejection: we could offer authors a user-friendly pathway by which their papers, and the reviews that went with them, could be forwarded for consideration at another journal (e.g. JAMA Internal Medicine). Later, when I came to NIH I wondered whether it was even theoretically possible for a funding agency to do something similar: arrange a way for highly meritorious but unfunded projects to find their way to willing, even eager, alternate private-sector sponsors. Effectively, we could develop public-private partnerships to extend the system’s ability to fund high-quality science and scientists. ….
9 Comments
56 Comments