Archive for Funding Opportunities

Job Stimulation – and Study by the NSF

A brief observation. This morning, the Washington Post sent out a news alert that “Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs” this summer. As if we needed another reminder as to a key review criteria for applications for ARRA funding.

Perhaps this would be a good time to remind you that in the NSF Dear Colleage letter that appeared and then disappeared and then reappeared, the Science of Science & Innovation Policy (SciSIP) Program is accepting 2-5 page proposals for RAPID funding that address the outcome of ARRA, such as:

  • What was the contribution of the science investment to the creation and retention of jobs?
  • What was the contribution of the science investment to science and technology industries?
  • What scientific or technological advances were achieved?
  • What was the impact on the scientific workforce?

In keeping with the Presidential focus on openness and transparency in government, proposals might also examine and evaluate different approaches to building appropriate platforms for tracking and assessing science investments across the federal government as well as ways to visually convey the information to policy makers and the American public.

Edward Tufte, your country needs you.

Comments (6)

ARRA-Funded Human Immunology Profiling Research Groups

NIAID has released its own ARRA funding opportunity with some unique twists (e.g., 5 years of funding, with only the first year covered by ARRA): Protection of Human Health by Immunology and Vaccines (U01, U19).

LOI due: Sept 15
Application due: Oct 15 (full-length applications – not the 12-p jobs sought by most ARRA FOAs)

For U01 applications, requested annual total costs may not exceed $1.5M in year 1 and $1.3M in years 2-5. For U19 applications, requested annual total costs may not exceed $4.5M in year 1 and $4.0M in years 2-5. NIAID anticipates that 6-10 awards will be made for fiscal year 2010.

NOTE: Recovery Act funds will only support the first budget year of the award, and MUST be completely spent by the end of the first budget year, including spending all Infrastructure and Opportunities Funds allocated to support projects and pilot projects. Award recipients must be prepared to initiate their proposed studies upon issuance of the award. Carryover of unobligated funds from the first to subsequent budget years of the award will NOT be allowed. Any unspent first year funds will be returned. Applicants are encouraged to include in their first year budgets any large, one-time costs to support activities that will be carried out during the project period of the award. Examples of such costs include equipment, large peptide or antibody microarrays, microarray analyses, and small molecule libraries.

All applications are required to use bioinformatic, multiplex, and/or systems biology approaches to establish human immune system profiles using samples from well-characterized cohorts obtained (1) after infection, (2) prior to and following challenge with specific vaccines, or (3) prior to and following treatment with an immune adjuvant that targets a known innate immune receptor(s). It is the goal of this initiative to determine how immune profiles are perturbed and eventually return to a new homeostatic state after antigenic challenge. Each Awardee will establish a research infrastructure to collect, characterize and store human samples, and support the complex statistical analysis and informatics needs of the proposed research. All applications are required to include experimental approaches to measure some aspect(s) of the human transcriptome and/or proteome.

Scientific/Research Contacts:

Dr. Matthew J. Fenton
Division of Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation
Telephone: (301) 496-8973
Email: fentonm@niaid.nih.gov

Dr. Helen R. Quill
Division of Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation
Telephone: (301) 435-4416
Email: hquill@niaid.nih.gov

Leave a Comment

ARRA Business Funding Opps at NIH

Hmm. Two new business-oriented ARRA funding opps. Hopefully not bridges to nowhere … woo-woo.

Biomedical Research, Development, and Growth to Spur the Acceleration of New Technologies (BRDG-SPAN) Pilot Program (RC3)

LOI due: August 3, 2009
Application Due: September 1, 2009

U.S.-owned, for-profit enterprise/commercial organization doing a majority of its business in the United States may apply for RC3 funding. The requested budget is limited to $1 million total costs per year for a maximum of 3 years (up to 10 awards are anticipated).

The RC3 application Research Plan component is limited to a total of 13 pages, including 1 page for the Specific Aims and 12 pages for Research Design and Methods.

The BRDG-SPAN pilot program encourages projects representing, for example, the following:

  • a novel, “first in class” therapy
  • a material improvement over existing technologies
  • a potential substantial reduction in cost over existing technologies/products
  • U.S. alternative to foreign suppliers
  • a product for unmet, under-addressed medical needs (e.g., technologies to produce solid medication dosage forms for children, and therapeutic devices appropriate for children in terms of size and functionality)
  • a significant and demonstrable potential U.S. and/or global markets

Participating ICs list their own program officer and grant administrator contacts.

Small Business Catalyst Awards for Accelerating Innovative Research (R43)

LOI due: August 3, 2009
Application Due: September 1, 2009

Only United States small business concerns are eligible to submit SBIR applications. Budget requests are limited to $200,000 total costs for a maximum project period of 1 year (20-25 awards are anticipated).

The Research Plan is limited to a total of 7 pages, including 1 page for the Specific Aims and 6 pages for Research Design and Methods.

In accord with the funding priority of this initiative to attract applicants without a history of SBIR/STTR support from NIH, the focus of the projects solicited by this FOA is on early stage technology development. High-risk, high reward R&D that is unlikely to be undertaken by ongoing academic efforts or within industrial firms is strongly encouraged.

Again, participating ICs have designated their own program officer and grant administrator contacts.

Comments (3)

No Recycling RC1s in June!

I’ve said this before, and not that I expected any of you to try to sneak a recycled RC1 as an R01 or R21 in June, but the NIH has released an official stern reminder to the scientific community not to resubmit RC1s until the October cycle.

Special Information for Pending Challenge Grant (RC1) Applications

It is important to note that NIH anticipates a large number of unsuccessful applications after the review of RFA OD-09-003, NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research (RC1). In accordance with the policies described above, the earliest a new application from that unfunded pool could be submitted is during the Cycle III due dates for new applications. In addition the following conditions must be met:

  • The initial peer review process is complete and the review outcome and summary statement are available on eRA Commons. This is expected to occur in August, 2009.
  • The application is submitted as a new application on the appropriate date for new applications and makes no reference to the previous review (does not include an Introduction or identify the changes made). Note that applications that are incorrectly submitted on the dates for resubmission applications will not be allowed to be corrected and will have to wait until January, 2010 to submit as a new application.
    There is an appropriate match of science topic and Institutes/Centers sponsoring the FOA.
  • The new application follows all the requirements for the FOA and activity code; these may be different than those in the original Challenge Grant RFA. There is not a Parent Announcement for the RC1 activity code and thus applications will have to use other appropriate research activity codes – R01, R03, R15, R21, etc.

Any reconfigured RC1 applications submitted that are found to be not in compliance with these policies will be withdrawn without further consideration. In particular, any application submitted for Cycle II due dates before the initial review process is complete will be returned.

Comments (4)

NCMHD ARRA Opportunities

One application per institution for each of these RFAs, due June 30/July 1:

Community Participation in Health Disparities Intervention Research Planning Phase (R24) – LOI, May 29; Application receipt, June 30; Direct costs may not exceed $375,000 per year for a maximum of a 2-year project period; up to 5 awards will be made

Dissertation Research Award to Increase Diversity (R36) – LOI May 29; Application receipt, June 30; The requested budget may not exceed the current fiscal year NRSA predoctoral stipend level & up to $15,000 for additional expense costs per year for a maximum of a 2-year project period; 3-5 awards will be made

Exploratory Centers of Excellence (P20) – LOI, June 1; Application receipt, July 1; Direct costs may not exceed $450,000 per year for a maximum of a 2-year project period; up to 5 awards will be made

Leave a Comment

NSF ARRA Solicitations

Though of course, the NSF uses R² (recovery & reinvestment) rather than ARRA. Both are limited submissions, with up to two instrumentation acquisition plus one instrumentation development proposal allowed, and just one facilities modernization proposal allowed per applicant institution. Cost sharing (30% of project total cost) is required for the instrumentation program but not the research infrastructure program.

Major Research Instrumentation Program (MRI-R²)

Full Proposals Due: August 10, 2009

400 awards: Proposal budgets may include requests of $100K-$6M from Ph.D.-granting institutions & up to $6M (no minimum) from non-Ph.D.-granting institutions & the disciplines of mathematical sciences or social, behavioral, & economic sciences at any eligible organization. Up to $40M (of $200M) will be available for the acquisition or development of instruments costing between $2-$6M.

Acquisition proposals are characterized by a rapid implementation requiring limited personnel. MRI-R2 acquisition proposals may also be characterized by a demonstrated need for the purchase or upgrade of generally available, yet sophisticated, instruments with little or no modification for shared use among a group of researchers.

Development proposals are characterized by a demonstrated need for new or upgraded instruments that can provide enhanced or potentially transformative use and performance, open up new areas of research and research training, and/or have potential as commercial products. Development proposals must describe the added performance of the new instrument and the expected impact on the broader research community; development of instrumentation that takes advantage of new opportunities enabled by investments in cyberinfrastructure is encouraged.

Academic Research Infrastructure Program (ARI-R²)

LOI due July 1, Full Proposals due Aug 24.

The ARI-R² program will invest in the repair, renovation, or in exceptional cases, the replacement of existing research facilities. It will not support the construction of new research facilities. Organizations may submit one proposal, either as lead or as a sub-awardee but not both.

Approximately 100 awards ranging from a total of $250K-$2M; 6-10 awards ranging from $2-$5M; and 3-5 awards ranging from $5-$10M. The award duration for ARI-R² grants up to $2M is up to 3 years; award duration for grants $2-$10M is up to 4 years.

Comments (1)

Grants that Work for Women

Just think if instead of studying why women do or do not succeed in biomedical research careers or what intervention is needed, the NIH simply provided funds that addressed the “pitfalls” of a life of science. Sort of like the Elsevier Foundation currently does with their New Scholar program. Nature features this refreshingly straightforward approach to helping women succeed as researchers, including the “research” that went into setting up this program:

David Ruth, foundation executive director, says the grants’ focus on childcare, family issues and career advancement grew out of discussions with organizations and agencies internationally, all of which identified early- to mid-career women scientists as most likely to leave the field. They found that concerns about work-life balance were a central reason for the exodus. Ruth says the foundation is trying to spur the development of new programmes to address these conflicts, in hopes of reducing the dropout rate.

I bet it didn’t require a multi-million dollar budget either.

Comments (1)

Latest ARRA Opportunities

Both of today’s RFAs target specialized applicants.

The Academic Research Enhancement Award (R15) seeks to help institutions that are “otherwise unlikely to participate extensively in NIH programs” (i.e., have not received more than $6 million per year in total costs from the NIH in 4 or more of the past 7 years). These 12-p ditties are due Sept 24 (no LOI) and are worth up to $300,000 in total costs over a project period lasting up to 3 years. Each participating IC has a designated contact person. The NIH maintains a nice AREA Resource page to help applicants.

At the other end of the scale, NCRR’s Enabling National Networking of Scientists and Resource Discovery (U24) targets an even more exclusive and elite club: institutions who hold current NCRR Center and Center-like Programs (e.g., CTSA, RTRN, BIRN, BRTC, ABMR, NPRC) as well as the AREA-like center mechanisms (e.g., COBRE, INBRE, RCMI). NCRR will fund 2 awards of $15,000,000 total costs over a 2-year project period. Now, each application must involve a minimum of 6 institutions with one of the eligible NCRR center/center-like awards. Research plan goes for 40 pages and is due June 15; optional though recommended LOI is due May 18 (just the usual info – no mini pre-proposal in the LOI as suggested for RC2s). They’re looking for Web-based tools & infrastructure to make researchers everywhere aware of available resources and to make these resources accessible. NCRR’s preference is for “distributed or federated approaches to both research networking and resource discovery with local control of information sources.” Can’t wait to see how all these egos cram into one proposal and come to consensus on the lead applicant.

Comments (5)

Challenging Grand Opportunities

No rest for the weary. Grand Opportunity letters of intent are due Monday, April 27 to the appropriate GO PO.

Please note the request for a lot more detail than is typical in an LOI. In fact, they essentially want most of the proposal, including its budget.

Prospective applicants are asked to submit a LOI that includes the following information:

  • Descriptive title of proposed research.
  • Name, address, and telephone number of the PD(s)/PI(s).
  • Names of other key personnel.
  • Participating institutions.
  • Number and title of this funding opportunity.

Sounds familiar so far. But prospective applicants are also asked to consider including [translation: damn well better include] the following in the LOI:

  • Description of the research areas, including any subprojects
  • Significance of the proposed research
  • Rationale why the application is not suitable for the Challenge Grant program
  • Evidence that the project is ready for immediate implementation
  • Key personnel
  • Direct, contract F&A, and total costs for each year
  • Description of how the goal and outcomes of the project match the goals of the ”GO” grants program and Recovery Act
  • Preliminary list of the expected 2-year outcomes and deliverables.

This last bit is really important. NIH needs to have a lot to show Congress at the end of 2 years for its $10B stimulus funding, particularly this grand opportunity to support “large-scale research projects that have a high likelihood of enabling growth and investment in biomedical research and development, public health and health care delivery.” Is that all?

Remember that not all ICs are participating (i.e., FIC, NCRR, NEI, NIAID, NIDCD, NIDDK, NLM), and most of those who are have explicit lists of funding priorites – although some simply ask applicants to address the IC’s published priorities (e.g., NINDS). I suspect these LOIs will be especially critical for ICs in this latter category.

Comments (3)

How Kington Portrays NIH ARRA Spending to Congress

In his March 26th testimony to the House Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Ray Kington (Acting NIH Director) expressed his gratitude for the $10.4B in stimulus funding and the whooping 3.2% increase in the FY09 appropriation. He shares a heart-warming story of stimulus funds already saving the economy (excerpt from an e-mail to an IC director):

“Forgot to say that we gave a termination letter last Friday to my longtime (5 years) postdoc. His job has been saved. He is going to be thrilled to hear about his change in fortune! I also would like to hire a technician with the new funds, since at present I do not have one.”

An NIH-funded researcher with a post-doc but no lab tech? Never mind.

First, I’ll jump ahead to as-yet un-announced opportunities: Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (7)

Older Posts »