Archived Comments: NIH Paylines & Resources (Jan-July 2013)

Z.PI. said
January 1, 2013 @ 12:23 pm · Edit
Does anyone know how the recent fiscal cliff vote will impact NIH pay lines?

Reply

writedit said
January 1, 2013 @ 12:32 pm · Edit
Assuming the House passes the Senate bill, sequestration will be postponed 2 months, so paylines will remain in limbo as well. My guess would be that the NIH would have a much smaller cut in the renegotiated version, but paylines would certainly not go up from FY12. But, until March, the ICs will by necessity be very conservative in funding decisions.

Reply

Newbie said
January 2, 2013 @ 8:31 am · Edit
My feeling after last night’s vote is that our applications are still in limbo. No real budget for the NIH to set their funding rates, and therefore the same with the different Institutes. My K23 was to be reviewed later this month by council. What will they decide on funding with no budget as guidance? Will the really good applications with very low impact scores be funded outright, and the marginal applications be left on hold for another day? Or will the marginal applications get the dreaded shaft? I hope not the latter.

C’mon folks, write to your Congressmen and Senators! Let them know how much the NIH means to us.

writedit said
January 2, 2013 @ 10:59 am · Edit
Only the very lowest scoring applications will be funded until later this spring (March … though more likely even later). You shouldn’t consider the FY12 paylines as benchmarks. Applications in the gray zone could be considered for funding up until the end of the FY, though, again, if they were in the gray zone by FY12 standards, they are not likely to be funded under FY13 paylines unless of very high programmatic priority. The ICs will protect R01 awards as best they can, so other mechanisms, including Ks, may have even tighter paylines … but this is all speculation until Congress negotiates the budget and debt ceiling.

Z.PI. said
January 2, 2013 @ 10:35 am · Edit
Writedit- thanks for your thoughtful reply. What happens in March? Did the current bill not deal with sequestration?

Reply

Newbie said
January 2, 2013 @ 6:51 pm · Edit
Current bill did not address sequestration. It solved other problems such as taxes. The sequestration can has been kicked down the road and will be revisited in 2 months; that’s why writedit says March, I think.

Here’s hoping that K23s are somewhat protected!

Reply

writedit said
January 3, 2013 @ 1:04 am · Edit
Yes, as Newbie noted, Congress did not eliminate sequestration – they just postponed the date on which the 8.2% cut would be activated until March 1st. They still need to identify $6B to cut by then, and they will need to raise the debt ceiling at the same time. And by the end of the month, they must either extend the CR or finally pass a budget for FY13. Because Republicans will likely insist that the current defense cuts be scaled back, non-defense discretionary programs such as the NIH & NSF may not be spared (due to no room in the budget for adding any $ back), unless other cost savings can be identified (perhaps all those touted tax loopholes will finally be named & plugged).

Newbie said
January 6, 2013 @ 6:52 pm · Edit
I know that an R01 is very very selective (less than 10% success rates, I think)… but how do R21s and R24s compare in success rates? And just curious, what is the success rate for K23s – curious to know just for comparison sake. If anyone can chime in, I’d appreciate it…. thanks!!!!

Reply

writedit said
January 6, 2013 @ 10:52 pm · Edit
Actually, the NIH-wide success rate for R01s was 18% in FY12, whereas the success rate for R21s was 14% and for K23s was 34%. The R24 is a specialized mechanism (it will have a higher success rate for this reason), so I expect you are thinking of something else. You can find all these data at http://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/, and Sally Rockey posted a number of statistics in her blog: http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2013/01/02/fy2012-by-the-numbers-success-rates-applications-investigators-and-awards/

Please remember that success rate is not the same as percentile … success rate = number of competing applications funded divided by the number reviewed (if an A0 & A1 are reviewed in the same year, the application is only counted as submitted once … the denominator also includes funded carryovers, applications that were reviewed the FY prior but funded in the current FY). Also, you really want to look at the success rates for your target IC, since they can vary significantly among the different ICs for specific mechanisms.

Reply

Merina said
January 8, 2013 @ 1:00 am · Edit
I got a score of 29 and a percentile of 21 on my R01 application (NIDDK) (New Investigator). The PO asked me to keep my fingers crossed. What are my chances?? The council review is pending in January. When will I know the outcome?

Reply

Newbie said
January 8, 2013 @ 8:13 am · Edit
Speculation, speculation!

Writedit. In a previous post, you suggested that “by the end of the month, they must either extend the CR or finally pass a budget for FY13.” I have a feeling that in this age of kicking the can down the road, a budget for FY13 won’t be passed. If we are in the mode of CR come end of month. And my council review of my K23 is this month, then is it fair to infer that council will be using last year’s paylines to determine which applications get funded?

Reply

writedit said
January 8, 2013 @ 9:24 am · Edit
Just because the CR maintains FY12 funding levels does not mean the ICs use FY12 paylines to make funding decisions – they do not and will not in the months to come. In addition to negotiating over sequestration and the debt ceiling and the FY13 budget, March is also supposed to be when Congress sets the framework for the FY14 budget. Clearly they will only (barely) address sequestration and the debt ceiling by the end of March, but at least at that point, the degree of cut to the NIH budget should be known. The ICs won’t have final paylines until the FY13 appropriation is signed into law but should be able to figure out their interims by the May Council.

writedit said
January 8, 2013 @ 9:30 am · Edit
Well, your PO must see some extra programmatic interest, because your percentile is well above the FY12 cut-off (18th percentile) for new/ESI applicants – and FY13 will almost certainly be lower. NIDDK does fund a handful of select pay applications (above the payline), though. If this was an A0, I hope you have been working on the A1 for Feb or June (better choice) – this is always critical insurance, even if the PO suggests you can be optimistic. You definitely will not know about your funding likelihood until May – the January Councils will recommend applications for funding, but none of the ICs will have any idea how much money they will wind up with for FY13 until the end of March (when budget cuts due to sequestration are clear) and later(whenever the FY13 appropriation is negotiated & passed into law).

Reply

TimeToFindNewCareer? said
January 8, 2013 @ 9:58 pm · Edit
Just curious if anyone has any guidance on CR budget vs. interim paylines vis-a-vis the impending sequestration at the end of March. I have an R01 scored 7th percentile (the best of my 10+-year career), and NHLBI’s interim payline is 6. So depressing.

Reply

writedit said
January 9, 2013 @ 1:07 am · Edit
Oh wow … I am so sorry. Unfortunately, you will just need to wait & see what happens. My hope is that when the dust from the debt ceiling-sequestration negotiations settles, the NIH will end up with a cut of less than 8.2%, and I am somewhat optimistic this will be the case. There will certainly be no increase above FY12 funding levels, though, and I am not sure the NHLBI payline will reach the 10th percentile again this year, but I certainly hope they can eek out another 1-2 percentile points – or cover some of these with select pay.

Reply

Richard said
January 9, 2013 @ 12:27 pm · Edit
I have an RO1 scored 7th percentile too and was told by my PO that it is just beyond the payline for the most recent funding cycle. I don’t want to submit anything now because I don’t think I can receive a score better than 7th percentile.

Reply

writedit said
January 9, 2013 @ 12:34 pm · Edit
Wow. I certainly hope some of these can get picked up later in the FY (May-June), when they know their appropriation.

RL said
January 9, 2013 @ 1:01 pm · Edit
Echoing writedit..wow..is that NHLBI? I have an NIA RO1 at 8th percentile, keeping my fingers crossed. PO agreed that I should submit JIT, but otherwise no word.

Richard said
January 9, 2013 @ 1:49 pm · Edit
No, neither NHLBI nor NIA.

Top 10 Reasons Being a University Professor is a Stressful Job | My Daily Drill said
January 9, 2013 @ 1:00 am · Edit
[…] (see the dotted line on the figure at this DrugMonkey post). At the NIH, many institutes are funding at the 11th percentile (and I’ve seen some in single-digit percentiles). One is permitted a total of total of two […]

Reply

AntiOncogenes said
January 9, 2013 @ 8:29 pm · Edit
Dear writedit and other participants here, first of all I wanted to say thank you for all you’ve been doing with this site. I am very new here, but I feel that I am learning a lot (though I do feel overwhelmed by a lot of technical terms/abbreviations used here).

I submitted my K99 in June (2012) through NCI and received the priority score of 19 and great reviews in October/November. In late November, I was told that they should have some info on their payline in 4-6 weeks. Then, we know what happend at the end of the year in Congress. All I have heard so far is that NCI (Cancer Training Branch) has not received the budget yet. The proposed start date for my grant, if funded, is April 1. Are they (NIH, NCI..) going to be able to approve grants by April 1? Is any agency beginning to release info on their payline? I am as anxious as anyone else on this site, and any info would be highly appreciated.

Reply

writedit said
January 9, 2013 @ 8:52 pm · Edit
You do not need to have your grant approved by your start date, if that is your concern. You can receive an award any day up through the end of Sept. Funding decisions will likely be put off until April or more likely the May Council meetings, since even if the debt ceiling/sequestration negotiations conclude by the end of March, it is unlikely Congress will also pass the appropriations bills that establish each institute’s budget. Paylines won’t be known until the President signs the HHS appropriation or an omnibus budget bill for the entire federal government … maybe in March but probably later in the spring. However, by the end of March, the NIH should have some idea of the range of its appropriation.

If the K99 you submitted was an A0 (first submission), you might want to consider preparing an A1 (revised application) for March. In the past, you could have been confident about getting funded with a score of 19; in FY13, unfortunately, all bets are off until the budget cut negotiations are resolved, especially. If there are cuts to the NIH budget, NCI will need to decide how to distribute the pain, which may mean fewer awards for certain mechanisms (such as Ks) to preserve R01 funding.

Reply

AntiOncogenes said
January 9, 2013 @ 10:38 pm · Edit
Thank you for for your info and clarification. This is the only shot I had (.. waited too long…), so, I will just need to keep my fingers crossed. I was going to start asking my PO a lot of questions but it appears that there is simply no point in me doing that at least until late March. Besides just waiting, should we really be doing something else like actively advocating for academic science? I imagine that an organization like AAAS is probably doing something. I did send some letters to my Senators’ offices and received some pleasant-sounding replies but I feel we should be doing more..

writedit said
January 10, 2013 @ 12:09 am · Edit
You could send your PO a note acknowledging that you realize nothing will be known about the budget until April but that you would appreciate hearing from him/her if they have any new information in the meantime. And if you have a manuscript accepted or other news about your science in the meantime, you can let the PO know (could be useful if difficult decisions need to be made). You could also be thinking about your next grant, especially if the R00 work could be expanded to an R01 (or modified for an R21) … or converted to another K mechanism (you’d need an appointment of some sort). If you start down that road, you could ask the PO for advice.

You’ve done well to contact your Senators – hopefully your Representative, too. The chairs of the Senate & House appropriation subcommittees for HHS would be appropriate contacts as well. For the Congress just sworn in, these would be Jack Kingston (R, Ga) (ranking minority member was Norm Dicks, D, WA – not sure who now) for the House (Labor, HHS, & Education) (), and for the Senate (Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions) would be Tom Harkin (D, IA) (ranking minority – Mike Enzi, R Wyo).

FASEB has online Congressional advocacy resources at http://www.faseb.org/Policy-and-Government-Affairs/Advocacy-on-Capitol-Hill/Take-Action/Advocacy-Center.aspx

AAMC has advocacy news & resources as well: http://www.faseb.org/Policy-and-Government-Affairs/Advocacy-on-Capitol-Hill/Take-Action/Advocacy-Center.aspx

whimple said
January 9, 2013 @ 11:37 pm · Edit
Besides just waiting, you should be prepping your resume (this is very different from a CV) and applying for non-academic jobs. If the K99 doesn’t go the way you want it to (or even if it does) it’s always good to have options and networking takes time and effort to do effectively.

madness007 said
January 9, 2013 @ 9:34 pm · Edit
and to put things in perspective, in 2010 when I submitted my NCI K99 in cycle III (Feb deadline) I sat with a score of 19 for 9 months past the “start” date of December until it was actually funded, and this CR makes 2011 look good (scary!) Good luck – it’s frustrating when these sorts of things happen and you lose out on almost a year of funding and a year of searching for a job while you wait to hear from NCI about the status of your award.

Reply

AntiOncogenes said
January 9, 2013 @ 10:43 pm · Edit
Thank you for sharing your experiences. Obviously that’s not what I would have wanted to hear but it’s still very helpful for me to understand what could happen. So, during those 9 months, did you keep asking your PO what was going on or did you almost forget about the fact that your grant was still pending? That situation must have been so difficult to deal with.

Reply

madness007 said
January 10, 2013 @ 5:27 pm · Edit
Oh – I definitely did not forget! It affected all the jobs I applied to that year hoping that I could update all my apps to say I had received the notice of award, but could not, and not surprisingly didn’t get any interviews that year. It was extremely stressful not knowing if/when I would get it, and when they finally started funding them after they had a budget, it was still an agonizing two months until they funded it. But that being said, now I’m behind the eight-ball so to speak to get a job in this cycle before my K99 funding runs out or I need to file a no-cost extension to keep the R00 money on hold. It’s crazy out there!

writedit said
January 10, 2013 @ 6:16 pm · Edit
Wow – I can’t imagine anyone who can bring R00 funding having any difficulty getting an appointment. Current funding has to be one of the most attractive features an applicant could have now.

madness007 said
January 11, 2013 @ 10:32 am · Edit
Oh it’s not too hard to imagine unfortunately… I guess ask me again in about 3 months – I’ve got interviews, but not nearly as many as I would have expected (for the 40+ apps I have out), and it doesn’t seem that the K99 is really helping all that much, and I’ve gotten passed over for offers for candidates w/o a K99 at least twice now at R1 institutions. For how hard I worked to get it and how stressful it was to wait for it, it certainly hasn’t been the golden ticket I was hoping it might be. To be honest it seems like having a cell / nature / science paper has way more weight than a K99.

writedit said
January 11, 2013 @ 10:34 am · Edit
Thanks so much for sharing your experience. Good luck with your research and job search!

Bashir said
January 13, 2013 @ 1:49 pm · Edit
Your situation seems to underscore the issues with the K99. The usefulness of the award is greatly diminished my the extensive amounts of time people have to wait for a score and then the actual funding, and the little amount they have to land a permanent position.

Reply

LL said
January 9, 2013 @ 9:58 pm · Edit
So, there is no point in council meeting in Jan? Also curious about the preference to protect RO1s. Has there been a mandate recently? Thx

Reply

writedit said
January 10, 2013 @ 12:20 am · Edit
The Jan Councils will approve applications for funding, pending resolution of the budget situation. The IC directors select which applications will receive awards, but Council must approve the larger list from which these selections will be made (& sometimes Council members weigh in on individual applications).

There is no R01 mandate (though sometimes the appropriation language includes a minimum number of new awards – not just R01s though), the R01 is the most fundamental and flexible mechanism for ICs to fund extramural research, and it is the mechanism Congress pays most attention to. If you look at any IC’s budget distribution, the biggest piece goes to RPGs (& most of that to R01s). The R01 success rate drives the overall NIH success rate.

Reply

Dave said
January 10, 2013 @ 1:32 pm · Edit
So the Jan/Feb councils ARE a waste of time if all decisions are marked with *(pending resolution of the budget situation). I also found your statement about protecting the R01s slightly concerning, although probably true. However, a reduction in the overall R01 award amount is probably one of the most likely scenarios that would come out of a large budget cut and this would allow the NIH to keep the “success rate” consistent and not ding other mechanisms too badly. I would be surprised if the NIH faces a large budget reduction once the sequester is renegotiated. A flat budget is probably on the cards.

writedit said
January 10, 2013 @ 1:59 pm · Edit
Well, the Council meetings are not a waste of time. They do a lot more than approve applications for consideration for funding (the IC Directors make the final funding decisions, not Council), and they still need to do this (& sometimes Council members want to discuss specific applications) before the funding decisions can move ahead. There will just be many, many fewer award notices going out after the meetings than would if a budget were in place.

Jason said
January 10, 2013 @ 3:37 pm · Edit
My NHLBI F32 resubmission went through council review in November after receiving an 11th percentile. I am worried though that the paylines will drop for fellowships as well. Any thought or opinions?

Reply

writedit said
January 10, 2013 @ 6:19 pm · Edit
Well, the NRSA $ is a separate pot, but if there are any cuts, all pots will get hit proportionally. You don’t mention the IC, but I assume you are on hold with the 11th percentile score. Hopefully the NIH will come away with a flat or only slightly cut budget.

Reply

RC said
January 11, 2013 @ 2:38 pm · Edit
Interesting comment about NRSA money. When someone from NICHD came to speak about NRSA fellowships at my institution last year, he suggested that the institute may attempt to “protect” fellowship and training grant money at a higher priority than other funding mechanisms. Who knows how this will all pan out!

Count me in as another one who is hanging around “in limbo.” I submitted an NSRA application last April, which received an impact score of 20. Still no final decision, and I never even received the supposed automatic JIT for scores under 30. My PO said that my “outstanding priority score that would have been fundable over the past few years,” but suggested resubmission due to the budget uncertainty. My A1 has been submitted (to be withdrawn if the A0 does get funded), and we continue to wait. Thanks for all you do writedit!

writedit said
January 11, 2013 @ 3:05 pm · Edit
The JIT link in eRA commons should be active – but there is a disclaimer to wait to hear from your IC.

Each IC will be different in how they implement any budget cuts that might be handed down later this year. Fellowships are cheap and short-term, which is an attractive combination when the ICs never know what is going to happen with their appropriation in the years to come (i.e., don’t want too many big long-term commitments on the books, which might leave them unable to make enough new awards in a future bad budget year). Good luck on your A1, which I hope you don’t need …

writedit said
January 11, 2013 @ 3:15 pm · Edit
I should have clarified, in light of my noting earlier that all pots will get hit proportionally, that all ICs will get hit proportionally – and so will all their programs – but the ICs can each refine how they distribute any cuts.

optimist said
January 11, 2013 @ 8:14 pm · Edit
My council meeting for R01 is supposed to take place in February, but today I saw in the eRA commons that a name of a grant specialist has been added -What does it mean?

Reply

writedit said
January 12, 2013 @ 9:53 am · Edit
ICs assign GMSs at different points for different reasons. Unless you have an extremely low percentile (5 or less), it probably is just that your application will be on the list for Council to consider.

Reply

optimist said
January 12, 2013 @ 11:23 am · Edit
Thanks

isabella said
January 13, 2013 @ 6:46 pm · Edit
Writedit, your website is amazing! Thanks you for bringing our community together. I have a quick question that is probably easy to answer, but I don’t want to ask my PO (PO isn’t too keen on my app).

I resubmitted a RO3 in June, which received a 22 (12%). It is in the grey zone because – payline cutoff for FY12 was 11%. My PO told me before council met in September that I would most likely have to wait until January/February to see if I would get funded as they were on continuing resolution. After council met, PO emailed me a standard form letter saying my RO3 would unlikely be funded. I emailed PO as to whether I should still wait for the Jan council date/FY2013 budget resoultion. PO didn’t think it would be funded in Jan either because paylines were unlikely to increase. Doesn’t seem like the PO isn’t going to ‘fight’ for this app – she doesn’t seem very enthusiastic.

Question – is there any possibility that my RO3 could still be funded after council meets in January even if the payline doesn’t increase to 12%. My proposal topic is HIGH priority for the IC, but wouldn’t the active support of the PO, is there no hope? I just want to know if I should totally give up at this point.

Reply

writedit said
January 13, 2013 @ 9:53 pm · Edit
Well, your PO probably isn’t too happy about all the uncertainty and potential for loss of funding, so you shouldn’t necessarily take any negativity as reflecting her opinion of your application. Neither she nor anyone else at the NIH will know anything until the end of March, and the paylines will definitely not change after the Jan/Feb Council meetings. Only the very lowest scoring applications are receiving awards right now – extremely conservative funding decisions will continue until later this spring – so you should not anticipate any decision on your R03 before then (again, not a reflection on your application). That said, you may well have good news in April or May, once the ICs have an idea of what their budget will look like. I assume that most ICs will figure out their paylines/percentile range to consider for funding at the time of the May Council meetings.

No matter what, though, you should not give up hope until September – your application could be selected for an award at any time before Sept 30, and many grey zone awards are made in the final months/weeks of the FY, when the ICs know how much $ they have left. If funds are tight, they may opt for more R03s, which are small & short-term, especially since FY14 budget hearings will also be underway (oh boy).

Reply

Isabella said
January 14, 2013 @ 3:23 pm · Edit
Thank you so much writedit! Your response is incredibly helpful. Much appreciated.

Early stager said
January 14, 2013 @ 12:07 pm · Edit
Great site, so much useful information. Thanks for taking the time to keep it updated.
In the discussions lately, I haven’t seen much about how the cuts will affect the early stage investigators who have submitted grants. I am an ESI who submitted an R01 to NHLBI and got a 13th percentile. Council meeting is in February. The NHLBI had a 2012 payline of 10% for regular applicants, 15% for ESI, and 20% for ESI who modify their applications. They now dropped the 2013 payline to 6th percentile, but don’t make any mention of ESI. Can you wager a guess as to how they will proceed with us ESI, and how my 13th percentile will fare at council meeting ?

Reply

writedit said
January 14, 2013 @ 12:30 pm · Edit
Unfortunately, I can be confident in saying you will not know your funding status/likelihood after the February Council meeting (Council will approve your application to be considered for funding by the Director of NHLBI). Your eRA Commons status will change to Council review completed … and nothing else will change or be known for a few months. ICs cannot begin to think about adjusting paylines until the outcome of the debt ceiling, sequestration, and CR negotiations is known at the end of March. You will likely not know your fate until May (perhaps in April, but I expect not until May). The absolutely best-case scenario is no increase to the NIH budget. However, this is, in effect, a cut, even if the NIH continues to disallow inflationary increases in noncompetiting awards (this fiscal policy was implemented in FY12 & remains in effect), though paylines should be within a percentile or two of FY12 levels, if not the same. That is in the best-case scenario. If the NIH must absorb a cut of any sort, it is impossible to predict how the paylines will be adjusted to accommodate this (other than to know they will be lower than in FY12). I assume the interim payline was set to accommodate a potential 8.2% sequestration cut … if this does occur, NHLBI will need to assess the number of applications at each percentile threshold before deciding how generous they can be with their ESI payline break.

Reply

Z.PI. said
January 14, 2013 @ 5:49 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit,
I submitted an SBIR to NHLBI in April 2012, and council was supposed to meet during the Oct 30th hurricane. My era commons status still indicates “pending council review”. Council must have met since NHLBI has established an interim payline of 6% for RO1s. Do you know why no interim SBIR payline has been established?

writedit said
January 14, 2013 @ 6:20 pm · Edit
There probably is no interim payline, not officially, not until after we get past March madness in Congress. In the last 90 days, only 16 new R43 awards and only 2 new R44 awards have been issued – none by NHLBI. I expect ICs are only issuing awards for the very lowest scoring applications until the budget situation is known, which won’t be until April or May.

Now, the NHLBAC did meet on Nov 28, so I am not sure why eRA Commons still says Pending council review, but that has no bearing on the status of your application. The agenda is not posted, but I assume they approved applications that can be considered for funding. You don’t mention a score/percentile, but unless it is quite low, you probably won’t have any word on funding until closer to the May Council (perhaps after).

JHKA2 said
January 15, 2013 @ 11:50 am · Edit
As I know that I eagerly sought timeline info during my application process, I’d like to share my recent experience (spanning an election year) for future applicants as well as provide current payline data. I reapplied for an NIDDK K08 in 3/2012, received a priority score of 21 in 6/2012, council met in 10/2012, and I just received the NOA today.

Reply

writedit said
January 15, 2013 @ 11:55 am · Edit
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your timeline and your score. Best wishes for success with the project and your career in academic research!

Reply

JHKA2 said
January 16, 2013 @ 8:39 pm · Edit
Correction: council met in 9/2012. Also, for the obsessive eRA Commons surfers, here are the Status Messages that I received under Status History before receiving the NOA:

– 1 month prior: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
– 4 days prior: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.

Reply

Newbie said
January 15, 2013 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
JHKA2 – Congratulations on your score and your NOA! So, I suppose there is a bit of a wait before the NOA was received after the council meeting. Curious, did you receive any positive comments or feedback in between from your PO, or were you completely in the dark until you received the NOA?

Reply

JHKA2 said
January 15, 2013 @ 2:20 pm · Edit
Thanks!

In June, my PO sent out a helpful statement that’s been cited elsewhere:

“If your score is higher than 30, my current advice is to prepare a revision, if you are eligible for one, based on the summary statement resume. If you score is lower than 25, I am very optimistic we will be able to support your application next year. If your score is in between 25 and 29, then you are in the definite “maybe” range…”

So, I was reasonably sure that I would be funded, but there’s no certainty until you receive the NOA.

Reply

Newbie said
January 16, 2013 @ 7:05 am · Edit
That was nice of the PO to give you a heads up. I’m sure that statement alone was appreciated by you.

journaltechs said
January 16, 2013 @ 10:37 am · Edit
I just checked eRA commons (once a day isn’t obsessive, right?), and my NHLBI K application (submitted Feb 12, reviewed Jun 12) seems to have gone from “pending council review” to “council review completed”. As stated above, I don’t think it means that any money is coming my way any time soon, but it’s nice to know that they haven’t forgotten about me…

Reply

writedit said
January 16, 2013 @ 3:39 pm · Edit
: )

Reply

journaltechs said
January 17, 2013 @ 7:20 pm · Edit
Turns out I was wrong – the money was coming my way, the very next day. Just got the NoA-lite email from my PO to say that my NHLBI K award is being funded!

writedit said
January 17, 2013 @ 7:39 pm · Edit
Woohoo! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research and career.

anxious77 said
January 16, 2013 @ 2:07 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit,
Not sure if it is relevant here, but I have a question. I started my NCI R21 project last May (two months delay due to regulatory issues at the University). I have the unobligated balance more than 40% of the total approved budget of the first year (mainly due to delay in recruiting a postdoc). So my question is; Can I carry over all?? Can NCI take money, since it is left too much?
Thank you very much.

Reply

writedit said
January 16, 2013 @ 3:19 pm · Edit
No need to be anxious. Yes, you can carry over the unobligated funds – the funding is not use-or-lose. You should talk with your grants administrator at your university/institution. Unless your Notice of Award indicates that you have automatic carryover, you will need to get approval from your IC (& explain why – though such delays as you describe are quite common). At the end of the grant period, you can then ask for a no-cost extension to use any remaining funds.

Here is the explanation in the NIH Grants Policy Statement: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2012/nihgps_ch8.htm#_Toc271264933

Reply

anxious777 said
January 17, 2013 @ 11:26 am · Edit
Thank you very much!!

anxious777 said
March 7, 2013 @ 12:05 pm · Edit
I just want to update about it. My GMS said that “in general, as long as the balance is less than 50%, we won’t make changes, but that isn’t set in stone as it also depends on how spending was in preceding years.” I received the second year award, but the amount is half of funding at 90% of the original one. NOA says that “This award reflects the NCI implementation of the NIH CR funding
policies, and includes six months of funding at 90% of the previously committed level. When NIH and NCI receive a full appropriation, NCI will be able to provide funding for the remainder of this budget period.”

writedit said
March 7, 2013 @ 3:11 pm · Edit
Yes, NCI is making 6-month non-competing renewal awards with a 10% cut (second 6 months to be negotiated when the budget situation becomes clear). I am a little surprised about looking so closely at spending in the first year of a truncated R21 (so already a small award) in deciding about carryover though.

Earlystagescientist said
January 16, 2013 @ 9:12 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit!! This site is so helpful. I have a question about the “council review completed” status. My status changed from “pending council review” to “council review completed ” way before the council meeting which is on 02/2013. This is a K-99 application with NIAID with a priority score of 21 (reviewed in Oct 2012). Not that I have high hope..but I was wondering what this means.

Reply

writedit said
January 16, 2013 @ 10:50 pm · Edit
It is good news – your application qualified for expedited second-level review, which means no one on Council had any concerns with it (& none were raised by the SRO either). This could also mean that your score fell within the payline, since they often do the expedited reviews electronically before the Council meeting, so awards can start getting processed sooner. However, in the current fiscal climate, I cannot say for sure what this means in that regard … but your PO should now be able to confirm whether your application was expedited for award purposes or just to reduce the burden at the Feb meeting.

Reply

Earlystagescientist said
January 17, 2013 @ 4:39 pm · Edit
Thanks again writedit! Yes I have a feeling given its K99 and NIAID, IS of 21 won’t make it..its probably just burden reduction. My PO is not really optimistic either. On the positive note, I had excellent reviews of the scientific aspect of the proposal (weakest being lack of collaboration with parasitologist, taking lab management classes as a part of career goal) and may turn this into an R01 in the future , if I get a job in this market that is. Overall it was a disappointing but a great learning experience.

writedit said
January 17, 2013 @ 7:42 pm · Edit
Well, your score might help in the job search, since it (& the summary statement) confirm that you & your science are competitive in this review environment. Good luck with the K99 & your job search.

aamin9 said
January 17, 2013 @ 11:44 am · Edit
I submitted an R03 in to NCI in 12/11, reveiwed in 03/12 and scored 35. I resubmitted in 06/12, reviewed in 11/12 and scored 20. Yesterday, I found an GMS was assinged to my application, although status shows “pending council review”. GMS was never assigned to first submission even after council review. I have one ongoing R03, GMS was assigned way way latter council review completed. Is this a good sign? Although nothing is known about NCI funding for 2013 except Director’s commnet “likeli funding will move to 9th%).
Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
January 17, 2013 @ 12:04 pm · Edit
Good sign. ICs are different in when they assign GMSs (some do for all applications, some only for applications going to Council, some only for applications likely to receive an award). Given your past experience and your score, clearly your application was sent to Council for review (your first one would not have been), though not all applications sent to Council receive awards. NCI has issued 19 R03 awards in the last 90 days, so you could ask your PO if NCI is funding R03s at your impact score.

Reply

aamin9 said
January 17, 2013 @ 12:33 pm · Edit
Thanks for your nice feed. I sent e.mail to my PO.

aamin9 said
January 17, 2013 @ 12:37 pm · Edit
Here is the response from my PO.
“We have received no specific information yet. However, as you may be aware, the cutoff for funding that has been set for R03 grants previously was 25. So, if this is not significantly changed, you can be optimistic re funding of your application.”

frank said
January 18, 2013 @ 11:36 am · Edit
Hi Writedit:

I have a K award and i am going to move to another institution (hopefully i can carry it over to new institution, however, as informed, i need the signature of my current mentor and a justification). My current mentor wants to apply for a PO1 and want to include my K25 proposal in it. The ideas in that K award is completely from me and written by me. I am wondering whether there is any harm to my future R01 application? If yes, what should i do given my stituation?

Reply

writedit said
January 18, 2013 @ 12:36 pm · Edit
Here is the parent announcement for a change in grantee institution (Type 7 award): http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-12-270.html

Even though you are moving, you can still be part of your mentor’s P01 application and could be the PI for that project, which is what you should talk with your mentor about. For review purposes, your mentor may want someone more senior, but you could share leadership of the project. Being a project PI/PD as part of a P01 does not change your new investigator status. Since you already have funding to do this work, your participation would strenghten the application.

If your mentor refuses to include you on the P01 (in any role, even just as key personnel on the project derived from your K25), you can talk with your PO and, depending on the culture of your current institution, your department chair or equivalent, if you think they might be willing to mediate on your behalf. I know lots of other folks out there have faced this problem, so if anyone wants to chime in with how they resolved their situation (positively or negatively), that would be great.

Reply

Newbie said
January 19, 2013 @ 3:59 pm · Edit
Anybody with a funded K23 with an impact score above 20 recently?

Reply

Z.PI. said
January 18, 2013 @ 5:57 pm · Edit
would someone kindly advise if they know what “Pending administrative review.” means? the current application status in my era commons page went from pending council review, to council review completed, and now to Pending administrative review….all within 3 days.

Reply

journaltechs said
January 18, 2013 @ 6:50 pm · Edit
Well, if you google eRA status codes, you’ll see that the only one that uses the phrase “pending administrative review” has alongside it the phrase “to be paid”. That sounds positive to me.

Reply

writedit said
January 18, 2013 @ 9:22 pm · Edit
Yes, good news, though the award is not assured until it arrives at your institution. Go ahead and check with your PO or GMS as to timing.

Reply

aamin9 said
January 18, 2013 @ 9:51 pm · Edit
Which IC, Which grant and how much is the score?

Reply

KateWells said
January 18, 2013 @ 6:53 pm · Edit
Perhaps opposite to the expedited review situation above, I received a letter saying a notice of award was unlikely today for a grant with a council review date of 1/31/13. Does this mean that my application was plucked from the pile going to council because of concerns? It is an SBIR with a score of 25 (NINDS). Previously, the PO sounded very optimistic about funding, but today the same PO said it was in the borderline range, and not likely to be funded. Is there a chance it might be funded later this year in spite of the letter I received?

Reply

writedit said
January 18, 2013 @ 9:25 pm · Edit
You shouldn’t give up hope until the fiscal year ends – an application can be picked up for award at any time until Sept 30. It could be, with two cycles reviewed, that NINDS is seeing a lot more applications with lower scores than it anticipated – plus they still need to see what happens with the sequestration and final appropriation. If the NIH does not have its budget cut in March/April, you could check back with your PO in May to see if your chances are any better.

Reply

Z.PI. said
January 23, 2013 @ 3:59 pm · Edit
Does the latest debt ceiling news impact those of us waiting on word about our NIH grants?

Reply

writedit said
January 23, 2013 @ 4:12 pm · Edit
Not directly. You still need to wait for Congress to resolve sequestration and either pass an appropriation bill or another CR by the end of March. Until these issues are resolved, the NIH won’t know how much money it has. When they finally go back to address the debt ceiling again in a few months, there might be new talk of new cuts – but those will likely be for FY14, which they will also need to start working on soon.

Reply

MKIM said
January 23, 2013 @ 6:02 pm · Edit
Does today’s bill passed by the House passes to defuse debt ceiling ease out the funding uncertainty at NIH ? Does it imply NIH will work in CR for next 3 months. All the NOA’s that are on hold because of the uncertainty in funding when are likely to be cleared ?

Reply

writedit said
January 23, 2013 @ 8:22 pm · Edit
Again, the debt ceiling has no direct impact on the NIH budget situation. The CR lasts until the end of March, and Congress still needs to act on sequestration (cuts will be imposed if they do not) by this time as well. Until sequestration and the federal budget are resolved, the NIH won’t know how much money they have for FY13, so the ICs will still be very conservative about making awards until April.

Reply

Jerry said
January 24, 2013 @ 1:05 pm · Edit
Hi, writedit,
Is there an NIH website to search the study section members by name?
Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
January 24, 2013 @ 1:36 pm · Edit
There used to be, but it seems to have been removed.

Reply

Jerry said
January 24, 2013 @ 1:43 pm · Edit
thanks

CD0 said
January 24, 2013 @ 2:02 pm · Edit
Here:

http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Standing/Pages/default.aspx

C2 said
January 25, 2013 @ 6:18 pm · Edit
Question about NI/ESI status:
Does anyone know or have experience with supplement applications and whether additional persons named as a PI would lose their status if the supplement is awarded? This pertains to PAR-13-067 for a one year one time supplement. I want to name my colleagues as PIs for future collaboration purposes but don’t want them to lose ESI/NI status for a supplement. Otherwise maybe they can be co-I or just a collaborator (?)

Thanks, C2

Reply

writedit said
January 25, 2013 @ 6:56 pm · Edit
My assumption is no, because the award is for $50K at most for one year (R03, $50K for 2 y, does not count as a “substantial award”). However, I do not think you can make them a PI (as part of a multiple PI/PD application) if you are the sole PI on the parent award. I believe only the PI(s) of the parent award can be the PI(s) on the supplement application – but you can ask the PO for your PAR about both (whether you can add a new PI and whether NI/ESI status would be lost if a new PI with this status could be added):

Genevieve A. Medley Deputy Women’s Health Officer Science Planning and Coordination Branch Office of Science Planning and Assessment National Cancer Institute Telephone: 301-594-9979 Email: medleyge@mail.nih.gov

Reply

C2 said
January 25, 2013 @ 8:00 pm · Edit
Thank you I will ask – from the RFA it looks like you are allowed to name new persons pertinent to the supplement (i.e. on the cover letter, bios, etc) but it is a little unclear what their status is! Don’t want to jeopardize someone’s status over 50K, yet like to include people where they are key.

jason said
January 26, 2013 @ 2:55 am · Edit
hi writedit,

I applied to the NCI for an F32 way back in April 2012, and was received in the 26th percentile. There have not been any updates since July. Is this proposal still in the running for being awarded, or have all applications (low scores and high) been kept as pending?
I have since resubmitted an A1 revision in December, but I am curious about the original submission. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jason

Reply

writedit said
January 26, 2013 @ 11:30 am · Edit
Your A0 (April submission) will continue to be considered for funding until the end of the FY (Sept 30, 2013) – even if the A1 (Dec submission) score is higher.

Reply

PB said
January 27, 2013 @ 1:47 pm · Edit
We have applied for a Phase 2 grant, and currently waiting for scientific review. I wanted to know if NIH officials visit the company before making the award. If yes, what do they look for during the visit? Do they check labs, accounting process, how the Phase 1 money was spent etc? I just want to prepare if they intend to visit.

Reply

SG said
January 27, 2013 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
They might. Although (depending on the IC and how far they have to travel) it is uncommon. Usually phase grants are so much money that it is worth checking. Now, if you had a $5,000,000 contract they probably would. In any case they would give you a reasonable amount of time to prepare. This isn’t like an FDA spot check. Of course, if you company is in Las Vegas or Hawaii you might be assured a visit pre-award. (Just kidding, just kidding.)

Reply

SG said
January 27, 2013 @ 3:48 pm · Edit
Dang. 2 mistakes in one post. I left out a “2″ and a “not”

They might. Although (depending on the IC and how far they have to travel) it is uncommon. Usually phase 2 grants are so much money that it is not worth checking. Now, if you had a $5,000,000 contract they probably would. In any case they would give you a reasonable amount of time to prepare. This isn’t like an FDA spot check. Of course, if you company is in Las Vegas or Hawaii you might be assured a visit pre-award. (Just kidding, just kidding.)

Astrocyte said
January 28, 2013 @ 12:54 am · Edit
I have a question about grant transfers. Been around a while so I am aware of all of the verbiage about the PI versus the institution. I am moving to a new institution in late spring, and it appears as though one of my grant applications will be funded in the spring. The funding date may be earlier than the start date at the new institution. Is it a better strategy to have the grant ‘fund out’ to my current university or ask for a deferred start so that the grant can be awarded directly to the new institution? The 2 universities are comparable, and a co-investigator is at the new university. Any thoughts? I want to make sure I have all of my bases covered in this tight funding climate.

Reply

writedit said
January 28, 2013 @ 7:44 am · Edit
You can talk with your PO about delaying the NoA – and he or she will need to know about your impending move in any case. If the Aims and Approach remain the same, your IC will want details about how the change in Facilities & Other Resources (& available equipment) might affect – or not – the research, and they will need the new institutions OHRP and OLAW assurance numbers, as appropriate. Hopefully (for you), the F&A rates are comparable. Because you will lose productive time during the move (especially if you need to obtain IRB or IACUC approval), you would be better off waiting to start it until afterward. There shouldn’t be an issue in waiting, and unless your score is well within the FY12 payline (or the few posted interim paylines), you might need to wait until May in any case. Here is the electronic application to change the grantee institution should the award be made to your current institution: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-12-270.html

Reply

Whatachance said
January 28, 2013 @ 10:02 pm · Edit
Does anyone know if the chairperson of a study section has any power to ‘downgrade’ the score of applications s/he doesn’t like?
I ask because I recently have a paper got rejected by an editor who happens to be the chairperson of my first R01 submission….-_-

Reply

writedit said
January 28, 2013 @ 10:11 pm · Edit
The overall discussion and the scoring range set by the assigned reviewers guide what score each individual study section member assigns. If the Chair was one of your assigned reviewers or was particularly vocal during the discussion, then he/she might have had an impact – but only by force of argument, not by manipulating the score itself. The Chair has absolutely nothing to do with the scores once they have been entered – this is all managed by the SRO.

Reply

Whatachance said
January 29, 2013 @ 12:21 am · Edit
That’s what I am afraid of now… if my proposal was assigned to this chair…but I guess there’s nothing I can do now..

Thanks for the insight.

Jim said
January 30, 2013 @ 12:05 am · Edit
I received a strange e-mail by my PO saying that if sequestration happens they will NOT (he used the capital letters) revise their currently pretty conservative payline. I am 2 points from the current payline. My feeling is that this was more of a “call your congressman” e-mail that an actual information. I was wondering whether anybody has received a similar email.

Reply

writedit said
January 30, 2013 @ 12:27 am · Edit
The original sequester would have been an 8.2% cut to the NIH budget for FY13. I just saw an estimate placing the new sequester amount (for the NIH) at 5.1% – and low hopes that the NIH would be spared this cut. If March 1 comes and goes and the current sequestration goes into effect (for the entire budget year, Oct 1 2012- Sept 30 2013), paylines will stay at their current conservative levels. While you can and should urge your Congressional delegation to preserve the NIH budget from cuts, I expect your PO was being practical and kind, so PIs on the bubble holding out some hope for funding would realize they need to make contingency plans.

Reply

Newbie said
January 30, 2013 @ 1:40 am · Edit
My council meeting was scheduled for January. Does eracommons change its status soon after, or would communication come directly from the PO regarding funding status? Would the PO have any idea of funding after council meeting these days considering sequestration is always a possibility these days? Just wondering if it is alright to contact PO if I don’t hear from the PO soon.

writedit said
January 30, 2013 @ 1:46 am · Edit
Your eRA commons status would change to “Council Review Completed” (no news) or “Pending Administrative Review” (good news). Unless your score was within the current conservative paylines, probably nothing will be known until April (or the May Council), since the NIH won’t know about sequestration and its budget situation until then. If you have a clearly fundable score (within the conservative interim paylines), you can check with the PO about 2-3 weeks after Council meets. If your score was in the gray zone, you could also check in after the same amount of time, but with the realization that your PO won’t have any definitive news for you.

Z.PI. said
January 30, 2013 @ 8:48 pm · Edit
Writedit- Does a 5.3% sequester correlate directly with a decrease in payline. As an example, if last year’s payline was 30 and sequestration occurs this year- would the new payline be a 28? Also, I notice that some IC have not released SBIR/STTR pay lines- why is this? Thanks!!

writedit said
January 31, 2013 @ 2:32 am · Edit
Well, paylines will go down due to sequestration, if it occurs, but not necessarily by 5.1%. The 5.1% cut will be applied to the total FY funding level (which isn’t known, but will likely just be a repeat of FY12 levels). Paylines, whether numeric or not, are decided based on the number of applications scoring within a range set by the IC and the funds available for new extramural awards (after commitments to noncompeting renewals and intramural/administrative costs have been satisfied). Also … the long-term impact on future FYs will need to be better understood, since ICs will not want to make long-term award obligations if they know larger cuts are looming in future FYs. Many ICs do not release SBIR/STTR paylines (at all); SBIR funding is based on a percentage of the IC’s appropriation for extramural funding, so cannot be calculated yet – just like the other paylines (since budget is a complete unknown). Don’t forget that aside from sequestration, the NIH (& rest of the federal government) is operating under a CR, which I suspect will be extended again until Congress can agree on a budget for FY13. Too many unknowns to set paylines, so nothing but exceptional scores will likely be paid in the interim.

aamin9 said
January 30, 2013 @ 10:22 am · Edit
Do you have any idea about the conservative payline for R03 at NCI? Mine has a score of 20 and pending council review. A GMS is assingned.

Reply

writedit said
January 30, 2013 @ 11:26 am · Edit
Your PO can tell you whether your score is good enough to receive an award now. If not, he/she will not know about your future likelihood of funding until April or May, once the NIH knows what is going on with sequestration and its appropriation.

Reply

aamin9 said
January 30, 2013 @ 1:09 pm · Edit
Here is what my PO said. Diplomatic answer.
“We have received no specific information yet. However, as you may be aware, the cutoff for funding that has been set for R03 grants previously was 25. So, if this is not significantly changed, you can be optimistic re funding of your application.”

writedit said
January 30, 2013 @ 2:59 pm · Edit
Yes – it sounds like you might need to wait until April to find out (after sequestration outcome is known), though perhaps they will set an interim payline after the Feb Council (does not sound like there is one now, per your PO’s note). Thanks for sharing this information with us.

GrantWritingIs… said
January 30, 2013 @ 1:05 pm · Edit
Is it a good sign if one receives a JIT request (sent by a real person) right after council meeting? Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
January 30, 2013 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
Yes, it’s not a guarantee of funding, but it is good news.

Reply

Newbie2 said
January 30, 2013 @ 2:15 pm · Edit
Got 7th percentile from NICHD on my revised R01. I am New Investigator and the payline for R01 NI was 13th percentile in 2012. My PO sounds optimistic on the phone but remains very professional on email (i.e. no specific information yet and will let you know as soon as I know, etc.). Although everyone says mine should be funded, I am still very anxious. The start date was 4/1 and I am not sure whether I can even get the funding decision before then. The current status is “council meeting completed” and I have been asked to submit JIT last week, which i did right away. Any idea or advice?

Reply

Dave said
January 31, 2013 @ 11:54 am · Edit
Wow, 7th percentile as a NI and still there are not sure. This is getting ridiculous.

Reply

frank said
January 31, 2013 @ 1:59 pm · Edit
Hi writedit:

I really got confused about the process of transfer of my K award to a new institution. The PO advised me not to move until NCI gives you approval that your award can be transferred. However, the research office of the new instituon told me that the process wont be innitiated until i accept the offer and am on staff there. I got the trasnfer of an active grant from GMS of my K award, which does not state the process to get approval from NCI. In the documents, some forms are needed to fill in from both the old and new institutions. Could you please do me a favor to explain how I should get an approval from NCI to transfer my K award to a new institution? It seems to me that the process to get approval from NCI is independent (of course earlier) from the process to really transfer the grant. Is my understanding right?

Thanks

frank

Reply

writedit said
January 31, 2013 @ 2:26 pm · Edit
You do need to be hired and on staff/faculty of the new institution before they can accept the award. I am not sure what your PO was trying to communicate, unless you still have not decided about the new position – but it sounds as though you have (& that you do want to change institutions). Your current institution must relinquish the award, so they do need to be part of the process, and your new institution cannot accept the award until you are an employee there. You should send the forms that your GMS sent to you to the research/sponsored program offices at your current and new institution for them to complete.

I do not understand your last question. Once the transfer has been approved, NCI will undertake the required administrative actions needed to move the award from your current to your new institution. You do not perform separate steps first to get approval and then to ask that the award be transferred.

It sounds as though your GMS has given you the forms you need, but here is the electronic application to transfer an award from one institution to another: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-12-270.html– you should ask your PO if you need to complete this.

Reply

Sylvia said
February 1, 2013 @ 1:16 pm · Edit
I just found out that I got 6th percentile for my R21 submission. I’m a new investigator, but of course this doesn’t matter for an R21. Because of the budget confusion, NICHD’s payline is currently at the 5th percentile. My PO says that it’s likely to go back to where it was last year (11th or 12th, I think), but there’s no guarantee. Any idea when something might change (sounds like I’m in the same boat as Newbie2)? I’m trying to be hopeful, but this is so disconcerting!

Reply

writedit said
February 1, 2013 @ 3:49 pm · Edit
The major factor pending is the current sequestration legislation, which would impose an estimated 5.1% cut on the NIH budget. If Congress does not agree on a different set of cuts before March 1, the cut will be imposed, and interim paylines will probably not go up. The current continuing resolution ends at the end of March, and Congress also still needs to either continue the CR or pass appropriation bills or an omnibus budget bill for the rest of FY13. Even if sequestration goes through (with the 5.1% cut), your application might still be in the running because it is close and it is an R21 (just 2 years & relatively small $ – sequestration continues to impose cuts for the next several FYs, which the NIH will need to consider in the duration of awards as well). You shouldn’t expect to know until April or May.

Reply

Newbie said
February 2, 2013 @ 1:55 pm · Edit
Punxsutawney Phil did not see his shadow this morning. Does this have any predictive value on whether my grant application will be funded?

writedit said
February 2, 2013 @ 2:18 pm · Edit
Probably no more or less than any other resource at our disposal. Let’s hope an NIH-sustaining FY13 appropriation, along with spring, is just around the corner.

Sylvia said
April 7, 2013 @ 2:15 pm · Edit
FYI…I spoke to my PO, and the interim paylines (as of March 25) were posted for NICHD (here: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/grants-funding/policies-strategies/strategies/Pages/2013.aspx). As I expected, she says it will take some time for them to sort through how much they can raise the paylines (if they raise them at all). She’s still cautiously optimistic for me at the 6th percentile. May needs to get here, already!

Reply

writedit said
April 7, 2013 @ 2:54 pm · Edit
Thanks for the heads-up – these numbers should improve a bit in May.

Sylvia said
May 17, 2013 @ 8:33 am · Edit
Hi writedit. I received an email this morning saying that my 6th% R21 at NICHD is being considered for funding and asking for an updated JIT. Everything I’ve read on here suggests this is a really good thing. Should I be excited?

writedit said
May 17, 2013 @ 8:36 am · Edit
Yep.

Sent from Pluto

Sylvia said
May 17, 2013 @ 11:25 am · Edit
And the NICHD paylines were updated: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/grants-funding/policies-strategies/strategies/Pages/2013.aspx

writedit said
May 17, 2013 @ 11:32 am · Edit
Thanks for the heads up …

albertp said
February 1, 2013 @ 6:09 pm · Edit
It is unclear to me why a 5% cut in the NIH budget will decrease the NICHD payline from 11-12% to 5%, which means a ~50% cut in the number of funded grants.

Reply

writedit said
February 1, 2013 @ 6:55 pm · Edit
Annualized, the NIH budget would actually be cut by 10% (since the FY is half over), and each IC must take out the $ needed for its administrative and intramural staff/expenses before calculating how much is available for extramural awards. The payline also depends on how many scored applications the IC must take into account, so the effect of sequestration on each IC’s payline would be variable (& they could go up a percentile or two, depending on what the final FY13 appropriation is – unrelated to the sequester).

Reply

alberto said
February 1, 2013 @ 9:12 pm · Edit
Isn’t irrelevant how much is needed for intramural expenses? I thought intramural can only be a certain % of the NIH budget. Also, I would assume there are no substantial changes in the number of scored applications. Am I right?

writedit said
February 1, 2013 @ 9:46 pm · Edit
The number of applications has gone up each FY, and in FY12, about 55% of all applications (not just R01s) were discussed (varied by IC, 44% to 86% of applications assigned were scored). I mention the administrative and intramural costs (less than 20% of the budget) only because no one should assume the entire cut will be applied evenly to each IC’s budget – the extramural pool will take a bigger hit (if not all of it).

alberto said
February 1, 2013 @ 10:14 pm · Edit
Thank you. Are administrative costs part of the intramural budget?

Reply

writedit said
February 1, 2013 @ 10:18 pm · Edit
No, I am referring to the salaries of extramural and other IC staff (so cuts cannot be applied there).

Reply

Larry Y said
February 2, 2013 @ 8:35 pm · Edit
If an R01 is to be funded, how long the PI will get the award notice after the council meeting?

Reply

writedit said
February 2, 2013 @ 8:59 pm · Edit
The IC Director, not Council, selects the final applications for funding, so usually awards that will definitely made are identified anywhere from a couple of weeks to a month after Council. Your score would need to be exceptional to anticipate news of an award now, though – most ICs will hold off on making the bulk of their awards until after all the financial certainty begins to shake out in March and April and the NIH has an idea of what its FY13 budget will be. If your PO has said you will likely get an award sooner than later, you can check in with him/her or your GMS in a couple of weeks (or a couple of weeks after your IC’s Council meets).

Reply

optimist said
February 2, 2013 @ 11:46 pm · Edit
How many times the NIH allows to apply for No Cost Extension?

writedit said
February 3, 2013 @ 2:57 am · Edit
Your first no-cost extension of 12 months only requires that you notify the NIH in advance through eRA Commons of your intention to do so; if you fail to notify the NIH prior to the last day of the project award period, you will need approval. You cannot extend the project period via the eRA Commons notification again – an additional no-cost extension requires advance prior approval of the NIH. You should not need additional time beyond the second year of no-cost extension (I personally do not know of awards being extended longer), but I believe the funding must be used up within 5 years of the in FY which the funds were appropriated … but you must justify every no-cost extension request based on the work left to do (not just because funds are still available).

Larry Y said
February 3, 2013 @ 12:16 am · Edit
Thanks for the reply. A very informative discussion forum.

Reply

Z.PI. said
February 3, 2013 @ 9:30 pm · Edit
Writedit- We are expecting a PII SBIR award (2 year award) and I am wondering if we can apply for a no-cost extension at the end of each budget year (2 in total)? Also, is the full award available in the payment management system at the time of the award, or is only the first year available?

Reply

writedit said
February 3, 2013 @ 10:02 pm · Edit
You will only get one year of the award at a time. You must submit a non-competing renewal to receive the second year of funding. If you have unspent funds at the end of the first year, you can carry them over – but you will need to justify carrying over more than 25% of the first year funds. The no-cost extension only occurs after the final year of funding.

Z.PI. said
February 3, 2013 @ 11:57 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit. Is the second year non-competing renewal guaranteed (especially in the tumultuous funding environment)? We are looking to lease a lab for two years and the continuity of funding is imperative to this.

Reply

writedit said
February 4, 2013 @ 12:13 am · Edit
All years of funding are committed when the award is made (so sequestration & budget fights won’t interfere with your renewal), but you must fulfill the terms of award each year to receive the subsequent year of funding (rare that this does not happen). You can anticipate a cut to your renewal budget … depends on NIH fiscal policy that FY plus whatever additional reductions the IC may need to make – overall, up to 24% before anything needs to be renegotiated.

Reply

Z.PI. said
February 4, 2013 @ 12:56 am · Edit
Thanks writedit. Do you know If I can draw down the entire years rent at the start of the lease (instead of paying monthly)?
Thanks so much!

writedit said
February 4, 2013 @ 10:08 am · Edit
This is a grant (paid out in annual awards), so you can spend the $ however is most expedient for the research. Your terms of award will spell out any restrictions, and you can (& should) ask your GMS any & all questions about managing the award – they’re there to help & are happy to.

James said
February 4, 2013 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
I received notice for my resubmitted R01 (from NCI) with percentile 14 . My PO mentioned that NCI is now funding up to 9% and the others will be considered case by case. Is there any opportunity/chance for funding this proposal as a new investigator?

Reply

writedit said
February 4, 2013 @ 5:24 pm · Edit
If NCI is still pooling all applications with scores up to the 15th percentile for consideration (the case by case selection for awards), then you have a chance. When you get your summary statement, you should talk with your PO about whether you should prepare a short rebuttal and whether he/she will advocate for your application as one of the special cases to be considered for funding by the SPLs.

Reply

James said
February 4, 2013 @ 5:54 pm · Edit
Thanks Writedit. I will do that.

Reply

hanxiaoau said
February 5, 2013 @ 7:22 pm · Edit
I noticed that Snap Indicator Code is now marked with “Y”. Does this mean anything?

Reply

writedit said
February 5, 2013 @ 8:37 pm · Edit
It means the grant mechanism, if awarded, uses SNAP (Streamlined Non-Competing Award Process – i.e., simplified progress report submission).

Reply

Larry Y said
February 5, 2013 @ 9:16 pm · Edit
hanxiaoau,

when was the council meeting of your grant? Last week?

Reply

hanxiaoau said
February 6, 2013 @ 11:05 am · Edit
The council meeting will be in next week. The PO says mine will be funded. I keep my fingers crossed.

Larry Y said
February 6, 2013 @ 11:43 am · Edit
This is great. Congratulations.

Reply

AJ said
February 6, 2013 @ 11:50 am · Edit
My F32 grant to NINDS underwent council review on 1/31. My status just went from “Scientific Review Completed” to “Pending Administrative Review.” Is this good news?

Reply

writedit said
February 6, 2013 @ 11:57 am · Edit
Individual fellowships do not go to Council for the second level of review, so I am not sure if the eRA status of all F applications is uniformly changed to “Pending administrative review” or just those being processed for a possible/likely award (the usual meaning of this status – not a guarantee, but the IC is checking your JIT & other potential administrative concerns). You can check with your PO as to what it means for your application.

Reply

AJ said
February 6, 2013 @ 12:03 pm · Edit
Thanks, writedit. I have not yet received a JIT, so I am unsure if I should be hopeful or not.

Reply

writedit said
February 6, 2013 @ 12:33 pm · Edit
Well, there is no reason to drive yourself crazy wondering – it is perfectly acceptable to check in with your PO, since all the action on the Fs will be internal.

Reply

Hopeful said
February 6, 2013 @ 2:12 pm · Edit
Hello,

I also just got my NINDS F32 switched from SRG complete to Pending Administrative Review. This is my revised application.

The first time I sent in this application, I got summarily rejected the day after the Advisory Council meeting, and my status never changed to Pending Administrative Review.

I obviously have no idea whether or not you’ll get the grant, but I think that this is a positive development.

Reply

AJ said
February 6, 2013 @ 2:16 pm · Edit
This is very helpful information, Hopeful! Let’s both remain “hopeful” that we receive our grants! Good luck!

Reply

kasey said
February 6, 2013 @ 10:37 pm · Edit
Hopeful and AJ,

I am also in the same situation with a NIDA F31 revised application. The first time, my status never changed to pending. I have not submitted JIT yet either. I would love to hear an update when you find out any information.

writedit said
February 6, 2013 @ 10:57 pm · Edit
You should not be shy to check with your PO if your eRA status has changed.

writedit said
February 6, 2013 @ 3:18 pm · Edit
Thank you for sharing your experience – good luck to both of you.

Reply

aamin9 said
February 6, 2013 @ 3:50 pm · Edit
When will the January Council meeting for NCI be held? Any date?

Reply

writedit said
February 6, 2013 @ 3:52 pm · Edit
The NCAB meets Feb 8 (http://citfm.cit.nih.gov/ofacp/meetings.php?id=152).

Reply

pvb said
February 6, 2013 @ 3:57 pm · Edit
Are there often disparities between ICs with regard to the timing of making funding decisions? I see that people are reportng status changes for their F32s, indicating activity. I submitted an F32 to NCI in August (SRG in November, Council Meeting in January) and received an email from the PO in October that funding decisions may not be made until April/May given the turmoil in Washington. I’m becoming more and more neurotic about checking eRA Commons!

Reply

writedit said
February 6, 2013 @ 4:21 pm · Edit
Each IC makes its funding decisions in its own way on its own timeframe. Applications with exceptional scores are being paid within a few weeks of Council meeting, but most need to wait until the sequestration and budget negotiations have been completed … none of the ICs will know their final budget probably at least until April. Your PO sent out a great message. There is no need to keep checking eRA Commons in your case – instead, monitor what is happening in Congress, which will decide the timing of most funding decisions.

Reply

robertH said
February 7, 2013 @ 3:14 pm · Edit
A little unusual? My study section met on Feb. 5 and 6. But I still have not seen my score on Commons…

Reply

writedit said
February 7, 2013 @ 3:22 pm · Edit
Not unusual at all – depends on how many applications were involved and how busy the SRO is. CSR is really pushing reviewers to spread their scores and use the whole range, too.

Reply

robertH said
February 8, 2013 @ 12:25 pm · Edit
On Commons, the status date is changed to Feb. 7, 2013, but still no score information…very odd?

writedit said
February 8, 2013 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
Still not odd (and not a bad thing) – but difficult when you are anxious to know.

emomonster said
February 7, 2013 @ 10:34 pm · Edit
Thanks. FYI, it was funded.

Reply

aamin9 said
February 7, 2013 @ 5:11 pm · Edit
I have a pending R03 at NCI with 20. Today, I got information from GSM that this one has been selected for funding, initially for 9 months due to CR. Although the status shows “Council Review Pending”. GSM was assigned couple of weeks before.

Reply

writedit said
February 7, 2013 @ 5:25 pm · Edit
Congratulations and best wishes for success with the research! Your application may have undergone Expedited Council Concurrence electronically in advance of Council meeting (which is done with a subset of the best scoring applications – and may explain the timing of your GMS assignment). Thanks so much for sharing this information with us.

Reply

aamin9 said
February 8, 2013 @ 10:03 am · Edit
Thanks. In fact, the GMS wrote that the proposal is considered for funding, asked for JIT and verification of start date (01/3/13). In fact, the proposal start date in the eRA was showing 4/13.

frank said
February 7, 2013 @ 6:56 pm · Edit
Hi writedit:

I have one questions about the IP (such as tools and softwares) generated by NIH federal grants such as P or R grants. Who do those IPs belong to (PI, author, or Institution?). From my understanding, IPs (such as tools and softwares) generated by NIH grants should be freely available to general public. Is this right?

Reply

writedit said
February 7, 2013 @ 11:27 pm · Edit
The IP belongs to the university or other institution at which the researcher works (non-academic institutions may have other agreements with their investigators). The Bayh-Dole act permits (encourages) universities, small businesses, and non-profit institutions to pursue ownership and commercially exploit IP generated by federally funded research. They can elect to make it public access, or they can (& more often do) patent, license, or otherwise earn profit from such IP. Most universities have an office devoted to technology transfer or management or some such name for just this purpose. Now, when a PI develops, especially when they publish their findings on, a specific animal model, reagent or software tool, they should (but don’t always) agree to share it with another investigator via an agreement between the universities involved (MTA). This is part of the resource/data sharing agreement – but they do not need to make anything freely and publicly accessible.

Reply

Mkim said
February 8, 2013 @ 10:22 pm · Edit
I have question regarding an R01 . I submitted a R01 grant on 5th of this month. When is the score out for that round of submission. I am a EI /NE, are the applications of early or new investigators reviewed first ?

Reply

writedit said
February 9, 2013 @ 11:42 am · Edit
Your application will be reviewed in June – your eRA Commons account will list the study section review roster and meeting date once it has been referred. All applications are reviewed at the same meeting, and the scores are released at the same time. New/ESI applications are discussed separately at the meeting, and you have the option, if it makes sense to do so, of resubmitting during the same cycle in which you were reviewed (in your case, you could resubmit in July rather than wait until November).

Reply

Whatachance said
February 9, 2013 @ 8:20 pm · Edit
A related question:
Will ESI applications be ranked together with all applications or just with other ESI applications?

Thanks.

writedit said
February 9, 2013 @ 8:28 pm · Edit
With all applications (there is not separate percentiling), though for R01 applications, ESI/NI receive a payline break (funded at a slightly higher percentile than established investigators).

Laolu said
February 11, 2013 @ 2:02 pm · Edit
Mkim’s resubmission of R01 will count a revision?

writedit said
February 11, 2013 @ 5:22 pm · Edit
I am not sure about your question. Any R01 application submitted for the Feb 5 deadline would be an A0 (first submission). If needed, the A1 would not go in until Nov 5 (or later).

Laolu said
February 12, 2013 @ 12:39 pm · Edit
“and you have the option, if it makes sense to do so, of resubmitting during the same cycle in which you were reviewed (in your case, you could resubmit in July rather than wait until November).”

I am a new investigator. I also just submitted a R01 on Feb 5. I am curious how I can resubmit the application in July as suggested above? My understanding is that revised application should be resubmitted after responding to critiques.

Thanks.

writedit said
February 12, 2013 @ 2:49 pm · Edit
You will be reviewed in June and receive your summary statement quickly as a new/ESI applicant so that you have the opportunity, if you can respond quickly, to submit the A1 in July. You would only do this if the concerns raised are easily addressable and you have new data that strengthen your case … perhaps an article published since the original submission (though that can be reported as part of the post-submission materials). If you cannot respond quickly and submit a competitive A1 in that short period of time, you should wait until November, and most applicants do. However, the rapid resubmission is available for those who can take advantage of it (or who have no choice to wait to due to a tight tenure clock etc.).

Laolu said
February 13, 2013 @ 4:02 pm · Edit
It is really helpful. Thank you very much, writedit.

Not hopeful said
February 9, 2013 @ 9:20 pm · Edit
Just received word from my PO regarding NIA. They are not funding anything beyond 5% until the budget uncertainty has passed.

Reply

writedit said
February 9, 2013 @ 10:04 pm · Edit
Thanks for sharing this information – we’ll know by March about sequestration … the actual FY13 budget hopefully by April (Senate must pass something by May).

Reply

Newbie said
February 10, 2013 @ 12:47 am · Edit
Not Hopeful – what grant type were you asking about… Rs or Ks?

Reply

Not hopeful said
February 10, 2013 @ 12:48 pm · Edit
It is/was a R15 AREA grant that scored in the 11%

Reply

Newbie said
February 10, 2013 @ 2:43 pm · Edit
Hopefully yours will get funded when the final budget is approved.

Reply

Red said
February 11, 2013 @ 11:51 am · Edit
That’s strange – I thought that R15 were not percentiled. Are you sure it’s 11% and not Impact score of 11?

Reply

Not hopeful said
February 11, 2013 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
Yes, I am sure. I received an impact score of 21 and a percentile score of 11. My grant was reviewed by a special emphasis panel (ZRG1 MDCN-E (96) that only reviews R15 grants centered around neurobiology. This has been in effect for several years now. NIA is also unique in that they fund all R grants the same through a certain percentile score (2012, it was through the 11 percentile.

Reply

Red said
February 11, 2013 @ 2:51 pm · Edit
Incredible, I hope your grant goes through.

Reply

luckyNI said
February 11, 2013 @ 1:40 pm · Edit
I am an ESI who submitted an R01 to NIAMS that was to be funded 12/01/2012 with a percentile of 15 (within the published 2013 payline for ESI). The program official says it will be funded but he does not know when (it says pending now). In the interim, I submitted a grant to NCI with a percentile of 14 (still as a ESI, May council). Are there any chances that both will be funded? I don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but of course it would be fantastic for my research program.

Reply

writedit said
February 11, 2013 @ 5:20 pm · Edit
Congratulations on your success in two ICs – the absolute best strategy is to be competitive in more than one pot of money. The NIAMS award will likely occur before the NCI decision is made. At that point, you won’t be ESI (status will change on JIT), but you will still be within the percentile range that Harold will consider when making award decisions. If the science is different and the cancer application is of great interest to NCI, having 2 awards so close to each other should not be an issue – but – if sequestration goes through, you will be much, much less likely to be considered for an award at NCI. You can check with your NCI PO as to whether you need to address any concerns in the summary statement for the internal (NCI) discussions of which applications to fund … but you can probably wait a couple more weeks to see what happens on March 1 before asking. Great news that you have the NIAMS R01 no matter what – best wishes for success with the research.

Reply

luckyNI said
February 11, 2013 @ 7:17 pm · Edit
Thanks for the great advice writedit! The two applications are drastically different scientifically, I guess it just depends on institute priorities and the sequester. Let’s hope Congress gets its act together before March 1st

KE said
February 11, 2013 @ 1:53 pm · Edit
Anyone still waiting for their score to be posted from this latest round of reviews (Feb. 5/6)? I know it depends on the SRA and how busy he/she is, how many applications were reviewed, etc., but just looking for confirmation from others in the same boat…also, just FYI, for my A0, the email from Commons re: the score being posted came ~2 days after the score was actually posted.

Reply

writedit said
February 11, 2013 @ 2:01 pm · Edit
Not to worry about the late scores – related to administrative issues at CSR rather than your SRG or your own review.

Reply

KE said
February 11, 2013 @ 4:50 pm · Edit
Thanks for the reply, writedit! That’s good to know. Just got the score today, so I can stop the repetitive checking. Again, no email yet, and interestingly, still “Pending IRG review” on eRA Commons. Maybe these aren’t updated until everyone’s scores are posted? Just curious…

Red said
February 11, 2013 @ 3:00 pm · Edit
When does the NCI coucil meet? – I see Feb 8 or Feb 19-21 on two different sites.

Reply

AntiOncogenes said
February 11, 2013 @ 3:25 pm · Edit
My K99 (NCI) is pending. The “Last Status Update Date” in the General Grant Information section in my eRA Commons page says “02/11/2013″. However, I really don’t see anything else that has been updated. I wonder… the NCI council indeed met and they are in the middle of updating their info online. I hope that’s the case.

Reply

writedit said
February 11, 2013 @ 5:32 pm · Edit
Did your status change to Council review completed? Even if it did not, you should be in touch with your PO rather than wait for an eRA Commons signal as to your funding status … and I don’t expect NCI to make any decisions on anything but exceptional applications before March 1.

writedit said
February 11, 2013 @ 5:24 pm · Edit
I am not sure where you are looking. I see Feb 7-8 on two different pages, most importantly, on the NCAB page itself: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncab/ncabmeetings.htm

Reply

Red said
February 12, 2013 @ 10:58 am · Edit
OK, my status changed to “Council review completed”. I guess I should sit tight until March.

AntiOncogenes said
February 12, 2013 @ 7:54 pm · Edit
Mine changed to “Council Review Completed” as well. I just sent an inquiry to my PO. Hopefully he will have some (any) update but I wouldn’t be very surprised if he didn’t at this time.

SS said
February 11, 2013 @ 4:18 pm · Edit
8th percentile at NIA as established Investigator. Any thoughts on prognosis and timeline? JIT went in Nov. Council already met in Jan.

Reply

writedit said
February 11, 2013 @ 5:37 pm · Edit
Above (https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/#comment-26769), Not Hopeful had heard that NIA was not funding anything above the 5th percentile until sequestration and the rest of the budget uncertainty was addressed. If sequestration occurs, an 8th percentile – yikes, I can’t believe I’m typing this – might be tough. If sequestration is renegotiated yet again, there is still the FY13 budget & debt ceiling negotiations to get through, which would probably still involve a cut but on a smaller scale. If sequestration is reworked by March 1 to prevent the 5.1% cut to the NIH, you can check with your PO – though the ICs still might reman conservative through the May Council, at which point the rest of the fiscal story should be clear.

Reply

Newbie said
February 12, 2013 @ 11:15 pm · Edit
Obama spoke about the sequester in his first few minutes of the State of the Union. He reiterated the importance of investing in research. Hopefully, Congress listened and they will be able to sequester the sequester. We will find out in a few short weeks!

K99 and job hunting said
February 12, 2013 @ 2:29 pm · Edit
Hi, I am currently half way through my 2-yr K99 period and I’m writing up the first progress report. However, I’m also interviewing for faculty jobs, and if I get an offer, I will leave after completing only 1yr of the 2yr K99 phase. In the progress report we have to write a plan for the next funding period, but I will not be able to work on or finish the “K99 aims” before transferring to the R00 phase. How should I deal with this in the progress report?

Thanks for any advice.

Reply

writedit said
February 12, 2013 @ 2:44 pm · Edit
You should talk with your PO, because this of course is not an unusual situation for K99 awardees. You do not know if you will get an offer, so you should submit your progress report as if you will continue working on the research as you have been, which in fact you will for now, at the same time you look for jobs. You need to obtain a faculty appointment to activate the R00, so this won’t come as a surprise, and the timing is difficult to arrange to coincide precisely with the end of the K99 period – the NIH realizes this. So, just keep in touch with your PO, especially when you get to the serious interview and negotiation stage with another university. Your PO can help administer the award to your benefit if you have a lot of K99 time/$ left when you get your faculty appointment.

Reply

planner said
February 12, 2013 @ 8:32 pm · Edit
Trying to plan a start date for an R21 application I will be submitting in less than a week. The earliest start date for cycle 1 awards seems to be December 2013. I would actually like the start date to be (much) later, in case it gets funded – something like March or even June 2014. Would a delayed start date affect my chances for funding? I hear timing one’s application relative to the budget, stage of the fiscal year, may play a role.

Reply

writedit said
February 12, 2013 @ 8:51 pm · Edit
You put Dec 1 no matter when you want the award to start. If it looks like you will be funded, you can talk with the PO about delaying the notice of award. The federal budget situation generally delays award notices (never causes them to occur earlier). If you do not receive a competitive score, your resubmission in November would be funded the next July, perhaps closer to when you would actually like to start.

Reply

planner said
February 12, 2013 @ 11:08 pm · Edit
Thanks Writedit for the quick reply. Why do you advise using Dec 1st? is there an added benefit?
It has happened to me a few years back that the PO refused to delay the NOGA; moreover, I was actually funded retroactively (June start date), relative to the date the NOGA was released (Sep). As a result I lost a few months of funding from a different source, that I had to relinquish retroactively as well. Not a big deal, but I think noone likes to lose funds these days

writedit said
February 13, 2013 @ 1:57 am · Edit
Dec 1 is just the standard start date for Cycle 1 grant submissions (Feb-March). The retroactive start date is common, and every IC is different in how they manage their awards, so it wasn’t your PO so much as the IC. Thanks for reminding me that I should not suggest all the ICs administer their awards the same way. With the retroactive funding, you should have been able to carry funds over to the next FY or, in the last year, requested a no-cost extension. You could certainly request a different start date – I do not think you will be penalized or have the electronic application flagged with a warning or error; you could also just wait a cycle or two to submit, unless you want to be sure to have 2 chances (Feb & Nov submissions) for a start date in the middle of 2014.

Magnum PI said
February 13, 2013 @ 10:29 am · Edit
planner- can I ask what IC refused to delay your award?

Reply

Hanxiaoau said
February 13, 2013 @ 5:08 pm · Edit
Does anybody know if NHLBI council met yesterday (Feb. 12th)? There is no update on the status of my 11% R01 (ESI) which is supposed to go through the council meeting yesterday. I have not yet received JIT as well.

Reply

writedit said
February 13, 2013 @ 5:28 pm · Edit
Your eRA status may not change for a few days and will not signify anything when it does. You are well above the FY13 interim payline, so you should not expect a JIT until after March 1 (when the outcome of sequestration must be decided) – and even if the sequester is averted, NHLBI may not raise its interim payline until closer to April or May, when the actual FY13 appropriation is known (federal government operates under a CR through the end of March, and then the debt ceiling must be addressed by May). If sequestration does not occur, you could check in then (after March 1) with your PO for an update as to your status.

Reply

Magnum PI said
February 14, 2013 @ 3:51 pm · Edit
Does anyone know if NHLBI has even begun funding SBIR/STTR yet? Last I heard, they had not even started.

sean said
February 16, 2013 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
Dave- i found out on Thursday (one day after the council met) my K01 will be funded, pending administrative review of JIT. I don’t know the timeline for the NGA. If something changes, I will post. Good Luck to everyone.

Reply

writedit said
February 16, 2013 @ 3:33 pm · Edit
Congratulations and thanks so much for sharing all your details along the way. Best wishes for success with your research and your career!

Reply

writedit said
February 27, 2013 @ 10:17 am · Edit
Congratulations … though condolences on the cut. Sometimes ICs try to spare the R03s and even the R21s due to their already limited budgets, but not in the face of a sequester apparently. Thank you so much for sharing all the details and best wishes for success with the research!

Reply

D said
February 27, 2013 @ 10:36 am · Edit
I am all for cutting bloated R01 budgets but cutting an R03 budget 25% saves $12,500. That sounds a little desperate to me on NCI’s part.

Reply

New PI said
February 17, 2013 @ 8:42 pm · Edit
Anyone know whether the ICs generally postponing funding decisions until March or does it vary by institute? I ask because I had two grants just go through January council (in February, natch), one at NIDA and one at NIAAA. The NIDA grant already appears as “Pending” in Commons and my PO says that it is being funded, but my PO at NIAAA tells me that no funding decisions are being made. It’s not a bad spot to be in, but I’m more invested in the NIAAA grant and can find no information on their strategy should the sequester hit.

Reply

writedit said
February 17, 2013 @ 9:15 pm · Edit
Congratulations on the NIDA award. Your score on the NIDA application must be much lower and well within the FY12 payline for whatever mechanism it is. The NIAAA application must be closer to or above their pay range, so your outcome won’t be known until after March. Each IC will handle the situation differently, depending on what happens with both sequestration and the FY13 budget negotiations (with the debt ceiling looming to boot). I don’t know, but perhaps NIAAA might have some large center-like applications or a pile of RFA submissions waiting in the wings for funding, which would mean they would need to be especially conservative with investigator-initiated application awards until they know how much money they have to play with. It’s not worth making yourself crazy trying to figure out – you just won’t know until April or May, and at least you’ll have the NIDA award for consolation in the meantime.

Reply

New PI said
February 18, 2013 @ 7:35 pm · Edit
Thanks! There’s a two-point difference in the scores, and I’d say the the crazy-making ship has already sailed. The NIDA grant is HIV-related, which might explain the relatively rapid funding. I was told earlier today that NIAAA has some large multi-year commitments that are coming to an end, which might improve the picture in the near future.

Magnum PI said
February 19, 2013 @ 10:38 am · Edit
writedit- I currently have a Phase I SBIR from NCI, that expires in January 2014 (I received a 1 yr no-cost extension). I plan to apply for the Phase II SBIR in August or December of this year. Will I be applying under the new solicitation (which has new restrictions on funding levels, waiver requirements, etc) or will I be able to apply under the 2012 solicitation- given that my Phase I was awarded under the old solicitation?

Reply

writedit said
February 19, 2013 @ 10:44 am · Edit
No, you must download the electronic application package from the current solicitation. All applications submitted after March 5th will be subject to the new restrictions.

Reply

Magnum PI said
February 19, 2013 @ 7:58 pm · Edit
Writedit- As it looks like the sequester will happen, I wonder if you would be willing to speculate on my chances for funding of a PII SBIR from NHLBI with an impact score of 25? Application was submitted April 2012.

Reply

dnana said
February 19, 2013 @ 9:40 pm · Edit
It might be tight. A 25 might be funded eventually this year, but I doubt it will be funded quickly. The biggest thing is the huge cuts that could come to the grants. I am expecting a 50% cut on my existing RO1. These are terrible times for science in the USA.

Reply

writedit said
February 19, 2013 @ 10:00 pm · Edit
Oh, I doubt there would be a 50% cut – certainly 20% … up to 24% perhaps, unless the NIH issues a revised fiscal policy for FY13 waiving the 25% threshold for budget changes that require renegotiation of the scope of work (i.e., significant rebudgeting). Plus, it’s a waste of an investment for the ICs to cut much more than that – but we’ll see. My thought is that even if the sequester goes through, the FY13 budget has yet to be negotiated, so some NIH funding could be restored then, depending on how Congress is feeling. Everyone will want to look like a hero and restore funding, though, and scientific research (especially biomedical) has bipartisan support. Could be a wild ride in the weeks ahead. Until April or May, though, it’s hard to say what scores (other than the most exceptional ones) will translate to awards.

Magnum PI said
February 19, 2013 @ 11:16 pm · Edit
Please excuse my ignorance….but the NIH can cut your existing multi-year award? So, even if I had a PII award (2 years), they could cut it at the beginning of Y2?

writedit said
February 19, 2013 @ 11:21 pm · Edit
Yep. Some of the cut might be restored – depends on their final appropriation for the FY (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-002.html).

Newbie said
February 20, 2013 @ 7:16 am · Edit
CNN says the sequester is going to happen, but there will be a chance for funds afterwards. Question for writeid…

What cycle was my grant in if it was reviewed by Council in January? If my K23 is looked over during this go around, do they keep it for consideration for future cycles in the fiscal year?

Reply

writedit said
February 20, 2013 @ 8:00 am · Edit
Your application would be part of Cycle 2 (submit in June, reviewed in October, Council in January/February). To the best of my knowledge, applications are only considered for funding in the FY to which they were submitted, such that once the FY ends, an application is no longer considered for (and perhaps eligible for) funding. I do not know whether exceptions can be made or ever have been.

Newbie said
February 20, 2013 @ 8:23 am · Edit
Okay thanks. My application is with cycle 2. There are 3 cycles for every fiscal year, correct?

If planning for the worst (or not so worst) case scenario, when does Council meet for cycle 3 applications??

My app for cycle 2 council met in Jan.

If an NOA is given, it is after the Council meeting, I think. A couple weeks after???

writedit said
February 20, 2013 @ 8:31 am · Edit
Yep. The fiscal year ends Sept 30th.

dnana said
February 20, 2013 @ 8:32 am · Edit
Talking with my program officer tomorrow. The second year of my NCI grant was funded at 50%. They will restore if they have the money. Unfortunately, that might not be until latter in the year. Even as a established investigator, my institution won’t cover the salaries of the people in the hope that a certain level of funding is restored.

Reply

writedit said
February 20, 2013 @ 12:00 pm · Edit
Wow. I have not heard of this large of a cut, though I know POs have the discretion to apply different levels of cuts to different awards. I would have thought at 50%, they would have had to also negotiate a change in scope – not that it’s any consolation to someone would would rather have enough $ to get all the original aims done.

Reply

dnana said
February 24, 2013 @ 3:06 pm · Edit
So I talked with program and things are not nearly as bad as I feared. My grants will have small cuts but nothing as drastic as I feared. My 50% funding was for 6 months because of the continuing resolution and I should be fully funded after June.

writedit said
February 24, 2013 @ 3:16 pm · Edit
Aha – and phew. Though I am still not entirely clear on how/why your award was handled, this would balance out to a 25% cut for the year, which may well be typical for FY13, depending on the budget roller coaster ride ahead.

Dave said
February 20, 2013 @ 2:08 pm · Edit
It’s silly at this point. The NIH is over-reaching in terms of the cuts. I don’t understand how a (now) 5% total cut is leading them to make such drastic reductions in funding. They are acting like a business – hoarding cash in case the worst happens. My prediction is that they will end up with a whole bunch of money to spend towards the end of the fiscal year.

Reply

New PI said
February 20, 2013 @ 8:07 pm · Edit
I agree — it’s bad, but it shouldn’t be 50%-cut bad. I had thought that NIH’s share of any cut would be applied entirely to extramural research, at least at first. About 83% of their $30.9 billion budget is extramural, so the 5.1% cut ($1.58 billion) is more like a 6.1% cut to extramural research. And for FY13 they had already capped non-competing renewals at 90%. So either they’re allowing quite the margin for error, or we’re missing something important. (Possibly both.)

Reply

New R1 Asst Prof said
February 20, 2013 @ 8:15 pm · Edit
You may be correct Dave. I still fail to understand how a 5% cut (sequester occurs) in funding leads to a 30-40% drop in percentile being funded for R01s (2012 10/14 for Established/New; 2013 6/10 Established/New) at NIAID. I was told today by a NIAID PO that if the sequester occurs then the interim funding lines will likely to be the final paylines. But if sequester does not occur then funding lines will be similar to 2013. What?!?! How does that make any sense?

It’s the worst time to be a university scientist in the past half century. I no longer can, in good conscious, recommend this career path to any of my grad students or postdocs.

Reply

Laolu said
February 21, 2013 @ 3:05 pm · Edit
Now the grant mechanisms are too complicated . It seems that no one can control NIH after NIH gets money upon Congress approval. ICs appear to be enjoying funding RFAs or centers which are usually enjoyed by established figures with high reputation. For mid-careers or juniors, sorry you have to struggle for small money like R21s which ICs don’t want to fund more applications. To fund one center is more than funding 10 R21s.

Dave said
February 22, 2013 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
I think Elias Zerhouni explained things rather well in his recent interview to the Washington Post. In response to a question regarding the impact of the cuts, he said:

I think the suddenness of it and the depth of it would be a disaster for research, which is not an activity that you can turn on and off from year to year. It’s an activity that takes time. The most impacted are the young, new investigator scientists, who are coming into science, and will now abandon the field of science. There will be a generational gap created.

An average grant is five years long, because science is like that. So think: That means that every one year, only 20 percent of the grants come to their end. So any one year, NIH only has 20 percent of its money available for new grants. At NIH, about half of the grants get terminated at five years, but the rest get to be continued, as you don’t want to throw away good research. So the half of it that’s left has to go to very promising areas of science, and you have 10 percent left.

If you take 8 percent of that 10 percent, it’s going to come from new science, new people, young investigators; we are going to maim our innovation capabilities if you do these abrupt deep cuts at NIH. It will impact science for generations to come.

drugmonkey said
February 22, 2013 @ 1:21 pm · Edit
Dave- except, as Zerhouni well knows, they will nick the continuing grants for 8-10% hits on the noncompeting years as well. Yes, even on top of the 10% cut they hit it with last year or upon original funding, where applicable.

Naturally those existing investigators are putting in even more applications to make up for these reductions. and the merry-go-round spins on……

Soua said
February 21, 2013 @ 12:19 am · Edit
I re-submitted a k23 application to NIDDK in July 2012, it was reviewed and scored 14 in January (1st application socred 20). The Council met last week and I contacted my PO to get some insight on the likelihood of my application getting funded. The PO stated stated that my application would not be funded, and unlikely that they would revisit this decision later in the year even if more funds became available. Is there any hope that it may be reconsidered even after Budget and sequestration issues are sorted out? My application was a near perfect score and I don’t have the option to reapply. Why would the PO be able to state this without yet knowing what will happen after March budget issues resolve. Any advice????

Reply

writedit said
February 21, 2013 @ 1:05 am · Edit
NIDDK funded 21 K23s in FY11 and 26 in FY12. They won’t fund more than that in FY13, and probably fewer. The ICs now have the scores (or will soon) of all 3 submission cycles, so it could be that your PO sees that there are at least 20-25 applications in the pile with better scores or higher programmatic priority than yours (the most they could fund if the budget stayed the same as FY12, which is unlikely). Your application will still be eligible for consideration until the FY ends, but the PO is telling you this is such a long shot that you should start working on an RPG instead rather than count on K23 funding. He’s doing you a favor by being clear about your chances rather than giving any false hopes. That said, it’s pretty sad when a K23 with a score of 14 isn’t going to be funded.

Reply

Dave said
February 21, 2013 @ 4:43 pm · Edit
Unbelievable. A K23 with a 14 not being funded is unheard of really and I cannot believe there are 20 – 25 applications with scores better than his/hers. I’m guessing there are “programmatic” issues involved here, especially since Ks do not have official paylines at this IC.

Newbie said
February 23, 2013 @ 7:44 am · Edit
Where can I find data as to how many K23s were funded by the NIA in previous fiscal years? Just want to get a sense of how difficult it is to get funded in normal years.

writedit said
February 23, 2013 @ 11:26 am · Edit
You can download an interactive Excel file of career development award success rates that lets you limit the display results by FY, activity code (mechanism), and IC: http://report.nih.gov/DisplayRePORT.aspx?rid=551

For K23s at NIA, they funded 14 of 47 applications (29.8% success rate) in FY12, 16 of 47 applications (34%) in FY11, and 15 of 47 applications in FY10. The data go back to FY03, but only the most recent FYs are informative.

and said
February 21, 2013 @ 1:34 pm · Edit
low news – sad news: interim R21 priority score payline is 20 (28 before) at least NIAID. the special emphasis panel killed my A1R21 – it really hurts, score went down 8 points, although we made every single experiment they wanted. is there any way to deal with the fact the experts on the panel to my subject per the roster were competitors? eh it really hurts….

Reply

writedit said
February 21, 2013 @ 2:49 pm · Edit
With a SEP, you could not have known the roster in advance to make targeted requests about reviewers not to assign, but you can always include in your cover letter the names of competitors for whom you can objectively demonstrate (via publications or grant funding for the same line of research) a conflict of interest. This would head off their being recruited as ad hoc reviewers on a standing SRG. Depending on the outcome of sequestration and the FY13 budget in the weeks/months ahead, you could possibly check back with your PO and raise the point about competitors (& address specific issues on the summary statement), but if the budget is cut, that argument won’t cut it either.

Reply

WomanInScience said
February 21, 2013 @ 2:39 pm · Edit
Is it possible for an unscored A0 R01 to get a fundable score in A1 (resubmission)?

Reply

writedit said
February 21, 2013 @ 2:43 pm · Edit
Possible, yes. Probable, no. This cycle, a friend here at BICO had an unscored R01 score in the gray zone – particularly gray with all the budget uncertainty looming. This was after a major overhaul that, nonetheless, did not convert it to a “new” application, so it went back as an A1.

Reply

Oriade said
February 21, 2013 @ 4:36 pm · Edit
Yes, most people do not bother to resubmitted an unscored application as it is rare that the application gets scored (if at all) well enough to get funding.

Reply

Hanxiaoau said
February 22, 2013 @ 11:16 am · Edit
I have a colleague here at my school. He is an exceptional example. His two R01 applications, were unscored in the A0, but got funded in A1, both of these. Unbelievable?!

Reply

WomanInScience said
February 21, 2013 @ 6:03 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for the input. If this is the case, should I revise the research proposal substantially and submit the grant as a “new” (A0) in next cycle?

Reply

writedit said
February 21, 2013 @ 8:15 pm · Edit
That would be my advice if you can change at least 2/3s of the Aims. Alternatively, you can break it up and submit a piece of it as an R21 (no substantial changes needed, other than to make it fit the budget/time constraints). This assumes your IC accepts applications to the parent R21 announcement or has their own R21 FOA appropriate to your science.

Reply

Justice said
February 21, 2013 @ 9:57 pm · Edit
Thanks so much again for the advice writedit. I will break it up and submit one aim as an R21 grant.

luckyNI said
February 22, 2013 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
While what everyone says is true, I think it really depends on the critiques. In some study sections, the scores are so compressed that the difference between a discussed and not discussed application can be very small. I had this happen to one of my grants where it was possibly the last one they left out, and all of my criterion scores were 2s, 3s and 4s. I resubmitted it and it was scored within the published payline as an A1, and now I am waiting for the award given the sequester, etc.

Reply

Curious said
February 22, 2013 @ 3:45 pm · Edit
Just curious, how did your score look like in the A1, did they mostly improved to 1s and 2s? Was your A0 not scored with those 2s, 3s, and 4s?

Reply

luckyNI said
February 25, 2013 @ 2:52 pm · Edit
My A1 scores were mostly 2s and 3s (the overall score was 25 which is 15th percentile for my study section), the A0 was mostly 3s and 4s. However, to be accurate, there were a couple of things I should mention. I kept the one aim that all three reviewers liked, and wrote two new aims. So, it might have been classified as a new application if I had sent it in. Also, I am actually up for tenure this year, so I mentioned that in the personal statement for my biosketch. I don’t know, but it is my feeling that in the current funding environment, it is really tough to get anything funded as an A0. So, if you can figure out how to rewrite your application two different ways (one way for the A1 that is almost completely different from the A0 and another for an entirely new application) and your score is relatively close (all 3s and 4s) and you can address all of the criticisms, it is worth a try. Otherwise, you are most likely going to have to wait two cycles anyways. Hope this info helps.

AVIK said
February 23, 2013 @ 11:24 am · Edit
I have a phase-I SBIR grant and now i am applying for Phase-II, and I was wondering if one can change submission from the parent solicitation (phase-I) and submit to a different solicitation in phase-II ?

Reply

writedit said
February 23, 2013 @ 11:28 am · Edit
Yes. You can talk with your PO (who I assume is the PO for the more targeted solicitation – if not, you’ll want to communicate with both) about strategies for focusing your application.

Reply

AVIK said
February 23, 2013 @ 11:39 am · Edit
Thanks Writedit. Yes PO is same on both the solicitations. My phase-I was in special solicitation, while the solicitation I am targeting for phase-II i a regular one. There are no restrictions ?

Reply

writedit said
February 23, 2013 @ 11:45 am · Edit
I am not sure what sort of restrictions you might mean, but as long as your project is eligible (and you are an eligible applicant, which obviously you must be), you can submit your application to the FOA. If there is something in particular (specific to your work) that you’re concerned about, you can check with the PO.

Reply

Z PI said
February 23, 2013 @ 3:33 pm · Edit
Would a successful Phase I SBIR to NCI for April 5, 2013 be funded in 2013 or 2014?

Reply

writedit said
February 23, 2013 @ 3:46 pm · Edit
It will be funded in FY14, theoretically in Dec 2013, but more likely not until early 2014.

Reply

No_Sequestration said
February 23, 2013 @ 6:02 pm · Edit
My PO replied saying that “my R01 submission (A0) is on the paylist, but can’t promise anything until I get the notice”. Does this mean anything if at all with the impending sequestration drama in DC?

Reply

writedit said
February 23, 2013 @ 6:15 pm · Edit
This very good news means you have been selected to receive an award – whether you will depends on how far down the paylist they can fund (which depends on how much $ your IC has for the FY). Even if the sequester goes through, Congress can add funds back to the NIH budget when they renegotiate the CR and FY13 appropriations … can, and, IMHO, likely will do so, so don’t give up hope if sequestration goes through. You won’t know for sure about funding until April or May (hopefully not later than that), depending on what happens in Congress and the time frame in which it all plays out.

Reply

Z PI said
February 23, 2013 @ 10:41 pm · Edit
writedit- I have a Phase I SBIR that expires 01/31/14. I have significant unused funds that I have not used yet- is this money in danger of being taken away if the sequester goes through?

Reply

writedit said
February 23, 2013 @ 11:11 pm · Edit
No, new awards have any cuts taken at the NoA and will not be cut further for FY13 (noncompeting renewals might – but not based on/due to the amount of unused funds). I assume with an end date of Jan 2014 that you’ve just started your Phase I award, so of course you have significant unused funds.

Reply

Z PI said
February 23, 2013 @ 11:32 pm · Edit
i am at the beginning of my 12 month no cost extension. thanks for your reply.

Z PI said
February 24, 2013 @ 12:51 pm · Edit
has anyone ever heard of a small business receiving a U01?

Reply

writedit said
February 24, 2013 @ 12:58 pm · Edit
There is no reason for this not to be the case, if the application is competitive and applicant eligibility is not restricted in the FOA. If you put in U01 in the Project Number and “Inc.” in the Organization boxes of the RePORTER query form, you will find 55 hits with currently active awards. Not all are small businesses, but I suspect some are. You could customize your search to the IC of interest … if you are looking at a particular FOA, you can also search by that to see which organizations have received awards.

Reply

Z PI said
February 24, 2013 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
good tip, thanks.

Magnum PI said
February 24, 2013 @ 11:10 pm · Edit
Does anyone have any input as to the relative competitiveness of SBIR or STTR at NCI? We have a phase I project that can through either mechanism, and I am wondering which is easier? NCI does not have pay lines, so I am not sure how to judge this.

Reply

writedit said
February 24, 2013 @ 11:30 pm · Edit
STTR has a higher success rate overall than SBIR (20.3% vs 15.6% in FY12; 15.7% vs 11.5% in FY11), mainly because there are about 8-9 times as many SBIR applications submitted. At NCI, the R41 success rate was 28.0%, while the R43 success rate was 10%.

Reply

Z PI said
February 25, 2013 @ 9:34 am · Edit
thanks writedit. where did you find this information? the technology is coming from a university. if we submit an STTR, do we have to partner with the university who owns the IP or can we use a different university partner?

writedit said
February 25, 2013 @ 9:46 am · Edit
I believe if you want to use University A’s IP, you would need to license it first, after which you could then apply for STTR funding to develop it with University B (check with PO to be sure). You would need a good story to explain why you should not work with University A to develop their technology. The data come from RePORT (used Success Rates & Funding Facts at http://report.nih.gov/nih_funding.aspx).

Z PI said
February 25, 2013 @ 10:53 am · Edit
writedit- we have another technology that was developed in-house, at our company. can we partner with a university and submit an STTR to NIAAA with this technology, even though the small business owns the IP?

Reply

writedit said
February 25, 2013 @ 11:27 am · Edit
Please just check with the NIAAA SBIR/STTR PO:Gary J. Murray, PhD, 301-443-9940, Gary.Murray@nih.gov He will be happy to answer this and all the other questions I suspect you have (or will have along the way).

Reply

D said
February 25, 2013 @ 11:31 am · Edit
The source of the technology is not important, as long as you meet the “work” requirement.

“Under STTR, the SBC must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the research institution must perform at least 30 percent. The remaining 30% may be with the SBC, the single collaborating non-profit research institution, or an additional third party.”

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir_faqs.htm

Reply

Jim said
February 25, 2013 @ 3:49 pm · Edit
Does anyone know what amount of rewriting will constitute a new applications vs re-submission? I had a previously triaged application with 2 aims. I changed one of the aims and added a new one. Is this passing the test for a new application.

Reply

writedit said
February 25, 2013 @ 4:02 pm · Edit
Possibly – but you should run both the aims and your plans for the new Approach by your PO for confirmation. Your PO will likely be queried about it if a flag is raised, so best to check with him/her first. If it is not sufficiently modified, he/she might be able to suggest additional changes. Also, your approach needs to change, as it should, if the aims are genuinely different, and you should have new preliminary data. Just changing the aims page is not enough.

Reply

doggeroo said
February 26, 2013 @ 1:02 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit and all others,
I applied for a K22 to NCI last June and got a score of 21. From other comments on this blog it appears that such a score would have been funded last year, but with budget issues this year its uncertain if it will be enough. The council meeting was completed on Feb 11th and my PO (who has so far far been very hesitant to tell me what my chances are) wrote the following in response to a question I had about resubmitting this March.

“I also suggest that you consider delaying resubmission until the next due date if possible. While NCI has begun funding for FY2013, we should know more about additional funding opportunities in the coming months. Resubmission for the March 2013 due date will be for FY2014 and the first cycle of this new year. Also, resubmission also carries with it the possibility of obtaining a higher score, especially if one gets new reviewers because the former ones either rotated off the panel or could not attend.
It is your choice though.”

Can I read between the lines and be optimistic? Should I take her advice and wait for submitting in the next cycle? For what its worth the critiques were that my career development plans were a little thin. Not so much the science itself.

Thanks very much for your insight!

Reply

writedit said
February 26, 2013 @ 3:59 pm · Edit
She is giving you good advice – but no extra insight into your funding chances. You should wait until summer to resubmit because if you send your A1 now (March), you will not know about funding any sooner than if you waited until July (we do not anticipate Congress suddenly being able to pass a budget on time for the FY14, so funding decisions will likely be delayed until Jan-Feb 2014 as well). It is interesting that she should mention the possibility of the score going higher, which is absolutely true. I have known of cases in which the A1 did score higher, but the A0 was funded after all – however, in these extremely tight budget times, it could be that a worse score the second time could negate the original better score.

With regard to withdrawing the application, if you do so after the review, the review is not negated (score stands), and you cannot submit the A1 again, so there is no point in withdrawing the application. If you withdraw the A1 prior to the date of review, you still have a chance to submit an A1 later. The IC will administratively withdraw the A1 if the A0 is funded (you don’t need to do that).

Reply

doggeroo said
February 26, 2013 @ 4:04 pm · Edit
Thank you, that makes sense. I will wait and see what my chances are.

Z PI said
February 26, 2013 @ 3:19 pm · Edit
i think you can resubmit, and withdraw your resubmission if your current application gets funded. we did this at NHLBI (not for a k22 though).

Reply

Jimmy said
February 26, 2013 @ 3:46 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit,
I just got my score back for an F32 application to NIDCR. It’s 26 so probably at the border of getting/not getting funding. Is there a way to look up past funding score cut off? I know that will probably be lowered this year given the funding cut…

Reply

writedit said
February 26, 2013 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
NIDCR doesn’t publish a payline, so there is nothing to look back for. In FY12, they received 20 F32 applications and funded 7 of them. My guess is that a 26 would have been funded last year and may still be this year, depending on how NIDCR distributes any cuts to its budget. You can’t resubmit until July, so sit tight and check with your PO in early April (at that point, you’ll have your summary statement to discuss, too). If the sequester goes through, it will be weeks before the ICs know the damage to their budget – and at the end of March, either the CR or an FY13 budget bill will need to be passed, which might restore some funding. In the meantime, your PO will not know whether your score is sufficient to receive an award, so (try to) concentrate on your science for the next month.

Reply

Newbie said
February 26, 2013 @ 8:30 pm · Edit
These are tense times for all of us who are dependent on the NIH. I feel like it’s New Years Eve all over again waiting for the votes to come in and avert the fiscal cliff. As Pumba once said, Hakuna Matata. Don’t worry, be happy.

jimmy said
February 26, 2013 @ 4:16 pm · Edit
Thank you very much!

Reply

ESI/NI said
February 26, 2013 @ 10:06 pm · Edit
My R01 A0 submission was scored in June 2012 cycle. The percentile was 39. The major concern is about the independence of the PI and modest innovation. The PO suggested to go for the A1 submission in March 2013 cycle. I have generated additional preliminary data to address the concerns raised by the reviewers. However, I didnt make any major changes to the aims.

Is this enough or good for an A1 submission ? Or should I make substantial change in the aims ? I know there is no hard rule about this. But still the opinion counts. Being the last attempt I am bit nervous about my A1 submission (although I am completely satisfied with my revision with additional preliminary data and some considerable revision of my significance and innovation sections)

Reply

writedit said
February 26, 2013 @ 10:38 pm · Edit
For the A1, you do not need to change any of the Aims, unless the reviewers were very unhappy with one (which it doesn’t sound like the case). You only need to substantially change the aims if the A1 is not funded and you need to convert part of this proposal into a new application. If the current aims address your hypothesis, then there is no reason to change them just for the sake of making a change (especially not with the application due in a week). I would suggest you find someone not involved with your science read the Specific Aims (and as much else as they have the time/inclination for) to see if you are communicating the story you think you are (it might not be coming off the page to a fresh reader the way you are reading it in your own voice in your own head). Regarding the independence issue, in addition to publishing on your own, I assume your Facilities & Other Resources page lays out your start up & institutional support. I have suggested some junior PIs get a letter from their Chair (not their mentor) confirming the Department’s support/commitment to their success as a research & recognition of/kudos for the progress they have made establishing their own research program. No biosketch or listing on the budget, of course. In your case, it might help confirm for reviewers that your Department sees you as an independent asset. Then start working on a different new R01 for June …

Reply

ESI/NI said
March 5, 2013 @ 12:10 am · Edit
Thank you very much for your response. As mentioned by you, as well as other senior faculties in our institute, I have included a letter from the chairman attesting my research independence. I submitted by application today. Hoping for the best to happen. If not, I plan to start over again with fresh application.

This blog is a very useful resource with lots of information shared amongst the researchers.

Thanks agin for you reply and I apologize for my delayed response.

writedit said
March 5, 2013 @ 12:52 am · Edit
Very happy to help – and best wishes for success with your application. Please check back in when you have your score/summary statement in June/July. In the meantime, if possible, you still might want to be formulating an RPG application for June or October.

Hopeful said
February 27, 2013 @ 12:55 pm · Edit
The status of my NINDS F32 updated from “Pending Administrative Review” to “Award Prepared”! It is still Pending in the list of applications, but it seems like this means the NoA is coming.

The score of my revised application was 20, which put me in the 6th percentile. Good luck everyone!

Reply

writedit said
February 27, 2013 @ 1:10 pm · Edit
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing the details with us. Once your award is activated, the status will change. Best wishes for success with the research and your career!

Reply

Z PI said
February 27, 2013 @ 2:40 pm · Edit
Does award prepared definitely mean that an award will be granted?

writedit said
February 27, 2013 @ 4:13 pm · Edit
I assume so – I cannot imagine it means anything else. You (and your institution) will need to submit a form, PHS 416-5 – though actually I think this can now be done through eRA Commons (check with your office of sponsored programs or research) and a signed payback agreement (PHS 6031) to activate the award.

Hopeful said
February 28, 2013 @ 12:38 pm · Edit
In this case, it certainly did! My NoA came this morning.

writedit said
February 28, 2013 @ 12:43 pm · Edit
Great. Thanks for confirming the outcome – and congrats again on said outcome!

Still Hopeful said
February 28, 2013 @ 12:47 am · Edit
I spoke with our Program Officer at NHLBI regarding our Fast-track SBIR, which had scored a 32. As we suspected, it was not funded at the Council mtg earlier this month. Without giving an exact number, he indicated the pay line is currently b/t 20 and 25, not the 35 listed in the current NHLBI funding guidelines. He encouraged a resubmission, but indicated the payline could increase if a new CR for NIH (DHHS) passed (he had no hope Congress would pass an actual budget) or if NIH completes implementation of the SBIR re-authorization, which would increase the SBIR set-aside by 0.1%.

Good luck to all and thanks to Writedit for this wonderful website.

Reply

writedit said
February 28, 2013 @ 2:16 am · Edit
Thank you so much for posting all this information. That’s pretty low for SBIR, and hopefully it will go up before the end of FY13. I don’t have much hope for an actual budget by the end of March either, but the CR might add some of the sequester cuts back, and the NIH would be one of the likely beneficiaries, should that happen. If you resubmit, your A0 remains active and could be funded before the A1 is considered. However, I would not suggest resubmitting this cycle but wait until August (the April & August submissions are considered for funding at about the same time with all the federal budget delays each FY – no sign of that improving anytime soon), though if you have a strong application for April & there is no need to wait, by all means give it a shot. Good luck with all this.

Reply

Newbie said
February 28, 2013 @ 8:56 pm · Edit
The NIH released the following on Feb 21.

The NIH continues to operate under a Continuing Resolution as described in NOT-OD-13-002, and therefore all non-competing continuation awards are currently being funded at a level below that indicated on the most recent Notice of Award (generally up to 90% of the previously committed level). Final levels of FY 2013 funding may be reduced by a sequestration. Despite the potential for reduced funding, the NIH remains committed to our mission to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

Should a sequestration occur, NIH likely will reduce the final FY 2013 funding levels of non-competing continuation grants and expects to make fewer competing awards to allow the agency to meet the available budget allocation. Although each NIH Institute and Center (IC) will assess allocations within their portfolio to maximize the scientific impact, non-competing continuation awards that have already been made may be restored above the current level as described in NOT-OD-13-002 but likely will not reach the full FY 2013 commitment level described in the Notice of Award. Finally, in the event of a sequestration, NIH ICs will announce their respective approaches to meeting the new budget level.

writedit said
February 28, 2013 @ 9:09 pm · Edit
More on this on the main blog page … https://writedit.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/plan-b-in-case-of-sequestration/

Z PI said
March 1, 2013 @ 10:12 am · Edit
Our Phase II SBIR from NHLBI (impact score 25) was awarded at the full amount. The program official and grants management specialist were extremely patient and helpful throughout the process of securing the award. It must be incredibly difficult for them to deal with all this sequester nonsense. Hope this information helps someone on this blog. Writedit- thanks for willingness to answer everyones crazy questions!! This blog is a great resource!

Reply

writedit said
March 1, 2013 @ 10:27 am · Edit
Congratulations on this great outcome and thanks so much for sharing your details. Best wishes for success with your development work.

Reply

New PI said
March 1, 2013 @ 2:18 pm · Edit
Writedit, thanks for this wonderful (and supportive!) resource. I received a K score a few points below the interim payliine, and just got the JIT email (automated NIH one) a few days ago. I was told that I need a categorical budget (i.e., how much of the $25K goes to data collection, assays, etc.). Much of this will depend on when things get started in Year 1, and how many sites we ultimately obtain data from. We’ll give it our best estimate, but how “binding” is this initial budget that we submit for JIT in regard to allotment for specific categories? Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
March 1, 2013 @ 3:45 pm · Edit
You are receiving a grant (vs a contract) and so have flexibility in shifting funds from one category to another. The NIH would want to know if such transfers account for a significant percentage of the budget, but this (the $25K) is already a small portion of the overall award, so shifts in spending assignments within this pot of money is not a big deal. You’re giving your good faith best estimate, and your actual spending will need to conform to how the research itself plays out (you could need to follow up on an unanticipated result, which of course you can’t budget for), which the NIH understands. Good luck with your application!

Reply

New PI said
March 1, 2013 @ 11:40 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit for the very helpful and reassuring reply! Now why can’t the SF424 and other NIH-related documents be as clear as your explanations?

writedit said
March 1, 2013 @ 11:52 pm · Edit
Very happy to help. BTW, this sort of information is in the NIH Grants Policy Statement: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2012/nihgps_ch8.htm#_Toc271264923

“In general, NIH grantees are allowed a certain degree of latitude to rebudget within and between budget categories to meet unanticipated needs and to make other types of post-award changes. Some changes may be made at the grantee’s discretion as long as they are within the limits established by NIH.”

You can always ask your GMS if you’re concerned about specific rebudgeting (or your institution Department fiscal/grant administrator), but I highly doubt anything you might do would require NIH approval.

NoMatterWhat said
March 1, 2013 @ 2:51 pm · Edit
Writedit, thanks for this wonderful site. We have an R21 which was scored 39% at the NIA and we are planning to resubmit in two weeks (mid-March). Is this a good time to submit, or you suggest to wait until 4 months later? Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
March 1, 2013 @ 3:37 pm · Edit
It depends on your flexibility and state of readiness. If the A1 application is strong and ready to go now, and if getting funding a little sooner is important (or applying to demonstrate to your Department that you are trying), you should apply now. If the application would be stronger (more data, additional publication, etc.) if you wait until July and if you can manage without funding until next spring, you might want to wait. A 39th percentile tells me you have fixable weaknesses that could impact the score (assuming the reviewers found the work significant and the overall approach compelling), so be sure to have some disinterested colleagues read your narrative to ensure you are communicating the story you think you are (and it grabs their attention and interest from the start).

Usually I tell people if they do not have to submit in Feb/March and (especially) if the application would be stronger by delaying, that they might as well wait a cycle, since in all likelihood, the federal budget would not be passed in time to make Cycle 1 awards on time (i.e., December), such that the time difference between start dates for Cycles 1 and 2 is not very significant. In other words, don’t apply to the first cycling thinking you’ll get funded a lot sooner. This year, of course, most applications from all 3 cycles will be starting at about the same time … eventually … we hope.

This year (FY13) is an extreme case, with the election, the sequestration, the debt ceiling negotiations, and the FY13 budget negotiations all contributing to uncertainty. Now, because Congress will have to come to some sort of long-term budget planning agreement in time to address the debt ceiling in May, it could be that FY14 will only be delayed slightly, since one hopes all the points of contention will be addressed now and applied to future FY budgets. But of course, we’re talking about Congress, and it could also be that the FY14 negotiations will simply be looked upon as yet another opportunity for each party to attempt to implement their priorities with regard to revenues and spending, resulting in more CRs and delayed appropriations bills.

The bottom line is to submit the strongest application when it’s ready, not rushed (especially now with just 2 shots), but that the reality of tenure clocks, appointment decisions, etc. may determine the timing regardless.

Reply

Matthew Webber said
March 2, 2013 @ 5:59 am · Edit
Thanks for the work you do to manage this site. I have followed for several months now, but thought I would share the details on my experience in the event it helps other waiting for funding. I submitted an F32 to NIBIB in December of 2011 that received an impact score of 28. The PO was originally optimistic about my funding, but unfortunately the end of the FY came and went and it was never able to be funded. I put in an A1 last August, the impact score thankfully improved to a 21, and again the PO is optimistic but assured me I would have a long wait ahead of me before all of the budget details are known. Due to the nature of my appointment, I need to secure funding very soon and am ineligible to apply for any K awards at the moment. Therefore, it seems like my only option is to wait it out and hope the budget gets worked out in the coming weeks and some of the cuts from sequester are restored. It is unfortunate that the current state of affairs means that it can take the length of postdoc to receive postdoctoral fellowship funding. It is definitely a discouraging time to be a young researcher.

Reply

writedit said
March 2, 2013 @ 2:15 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for posting all these details – very helpful to others. Good luck with your F32, which I would certainly hope would be funded at 21 by NIBIB. Regarding the K, if the issue is one of an appointment, you can apply without one as long as you have a very strong institutional commitment letter guaranteeing you a position (& much more) at the time of award. Of course, reviewers wonder why the Institution isn’t so committed as to offer you a position before you apply, but I have seen strong postdocs and research faculty rewarded for their excellent science and clear promise as independent investigators. Also, sometimes it is a matter of timing (e.g., applying for K while receiving F32 or T32 support, in which case the appointment would not be possible until after the K01 et al. application was submitted).

Reply

writedit said
March 2, 2013 @ 4:24 pm · Edit
For the inside scoop on a secret GOP plan for addressing sequestration at the NIH … https://www.ipscell.com/2013/03/literally-unbelievable-secret-gop-plan-for-nih-sequestration/

Reply

Al6123 said
March 2, 2013 @ 6:04 pm · Edit
It’s hilarious. Thanks for sharing!

Reply

Old Grantee said
March 2, 2013 @ 7:18 pm · Edit
What’s this? An ahead of time April 1 celebration?

Reply

D said
March 2, 2013 @ 9:40 pm · Edit
They need to add one more, $1,000–direct preferred phone access to your PO where he/she will tell you what the review committee reallllyyyy thought of your proposal. Plus, for an extra $1,000 will give you timed-tested insider tricks for lowering your percentile. (You don’t really believe that those multi-R01 PIs are smarter than you.) Guaranteed 5 percentile drop or your money back!

Reply

Z PI said
March 2, 2013 @ 5:27 pm · Edit
Having just received our 2-year PII SBIR award, I wonder if the second year of our funding is guaranteed at the amount on the NGA, or can it potentially be cut or delayed?

Reply

writedit said
March 2, 2013 @ 5:33 pm · Edit
It won’t be delayed unless you are not in compliance with the NIH Public Access law, but it could very well be cut, depending on the budget situation at the time of your non-competing renewal.

Reply

Z PI said
March 2, 2013 @ 5:57 pm · Edit
thanks. what % of our Y1 budget can be carried over to Y2, and are we definitely eligible for a no-cost extension at the end of Y2?

We are trying to take the most conservative approach to spending as possible- any suggestions would be appreciated?

writedit said
March 2, 2013 @ 6:08 pm · Edit
Less than 25% can be carried over without prior approval, more than that must be approved by your GMS & PO (you submit an explanation in writing). Please just communicate with your GMS about this (now) so you can plan appropriately – there is no risk to your award by asking, and they are there to be helpful.

writedit said
March 2, 2013 @ 7:18 pm · Edit
Actually, if you have your NoA, you should review the terms carefully (it occurs to me your terms are likely different than a typical RPG, especially with the latest SBIR re-authorization) and ask your GMS any questions you might have.

Jim said
March 3, 2013 @ 1:20 pm · Edit
Does anybody know whether the new CR may offset some of the sequestration to the NIH? Everything that I read in the news makes me believe that the sequestration is here to stay. Scary!!!

Reply

Dave said
March 4, 2013 @ 8:42 pm · Edit
The GOP CR proposal currently in the works only aims to restore the military cuts and does nothing for other government departments. If it goes through, the sequester is here to stay until the end of FY2013. I can’t see the dems passing it though. At least I hope not.

Reply

Karen said
March 3, 2013 @ 8:01 pm · Edit
My June R01 submission to NINDS received a 20 percentile (I have ESI status) and since council review has had the status of “Pending Administrative Review.” Under normal circumstances, I think this is good news. But does anyone know how the sequestration may affect this status. In other words, is there still a risk of it not being awarded? Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
March 4, 2013 @ 12:01 am · Edit
Whenever you have a change in your eRA status like this (vs just to “Council review completed”), you should feel comfortable just asking your PO what it means.

Reply

Karen said
March 4, 2013 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
I just got my NGA this morning! For those who are avid Commons status watchers, my status still says Pending but the status date updated to today.

writedit said
March 4, 2013 @ 12:30 pm · Edit
Great – congratulations and thanks for posting the update here. Best wishes for success with your research!

smithr said
March 4, 2013 @ 4:32 pm · Edit
Are you sure it is 20 percentile?

Reply

Karen said
March 4, 2013 @ 5:22 pm · Edit
Yes 20 percentile at NINDS with ESI status. Payline was somewhere around 12 (ESI status is ~10 percentile points); of course that was before sequestration. I am just glad it came through despite the sequestration.

Elisa said
March 4, 2013 @ 3:44 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit, thanks for all the helpful information. I have a nice score (<20) on my July 2012 K submission, but was told that it did not meet the preliminary payline this year. It looks like that the preliminary payline is not going to be lowered and I am not going to be funded due to sequester cut. I am wondering whether my application will be considered in the future? Will my application be considered for FY 2014? Basically, my question is, how long should I wait until the hope is totally gone?

Reply

writedit said
March 4, 2013 @ 4:08 pm · Edit
Your application will be eligible for funding through the end of FY13 but not in FY14. If you do not receive an award by September 30th, you will not. I would suggest that you start repurposing the research plan for an appropriate RPG mechanism, if you have not already. Which mechanism is appropriate would depend on how much preliminary data and publications you have and whether you need additional pilot data or to refine a component of your approach.

Reply

AntiOncogenes said
March 5, 2013 @ 12:36 am · Edit
Hi Elisa, would you mind letting us know which agency and which K mechanism you tried? Assuming that you meant a priority score of $500K per year and (higher) for new/ESI applicants.

Reply

LRM said
April 30, 2013 @ 4:53 pm · Edit
ProfBSU are you a NI and does it matter for R15s?

Reply

writedit said
April 30, 2013 @ 4:59 pm · Edit
I can answer that the new/ESI applicant status is only important for R01 applications, in terms of being discussed separately and being given a payline break. A PO might consider this in deciding between two applications to recommend for select pay, for example, but NIH new/ESI investigator policy only covers the R01 applications.

ProfBSU said
April 30, 2013 @ 5:03 pm · Edit
Dear LRM,
No I am not a NI and I believe that the NI status only applies to R01 applications.

Thanks writeedit for correcting my comment regarding the two different paylines that NIA has.

Reply

MM said
May 1, 2013 @ 8:23 am · Edit
Any idea on how much NIA is cutting off from the actual budget?

Reply

writedit said
May 1, 2013 @ 9:32 am · Edit
Well, sequestration & transfers left them with a ~5.5% cut to their FY13 appropriation, but I don’t know how they distributed the cut.

Smith said
May 1, 2013 @ 10:32 am · Edit
Hi, writedit, I have a pending RO1 with 7% percentile, which was reviewed in June, 2012 and went to council meeting in Sept. last year. We were requested to submit a JIT in July, 2012 and submitted it immediately. Nothing has been changed since then. I believe that NIH will request a new JIT if they decide to fund my project. However, one of co-I with 3% efforts (no salary requested) had resigned from his position recently. Could you please tell me whether I need to report it to the NIH now (I know I need to report it if it happens after I receive the funding but don’t know how to report it before I receive funding) or I just remove his name from the updated JIT and say nothing about it? Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

Reply

writedit said
May 1, 2013 @ 10:50 am · Edit
My advice would be to address this if (when, I hope!) you are asked for JIT again, which will happen if/when your application is selected for an awrad. If you need to and can replace him easily, that is when you would do so (send Biosketch & updated budget information with the new Co-I’s salary info). If it is not essential to replace him (for the completion of the approved aims), you would note his resignation & rationale for not replacing him when submitting the updated budget for JIT. It could be you assign the effort to someone else – or you drop it from the salary component and ask if you can reallocate to another budget category. However, you will have your budget cut, so it could be that losing this Co-I just allows you to absorb the reduction more easily.

Reply

Smith said
May 1, 2013 @ 11:05 am · Edit
writedit, Thank you for your insightful advice. This person is out of my field and it is not essential to replace him. Although he has 3% efforts, no salary has been requested for him in this application. As suggested, I may just note his resignation and the rationale for not replacing him in the updated JIT. Thanks.

writedit said
May 1, 2013 @ 11:15 am · Edit
Oh – sorry, you did say no salary before. If he was listed as key personnel, you would still acknowledge his resignation & rationale for not replacing him in the JIT, but it won’t be a big deal.

ESI-AP said
May 1, 2013 @ 9:33 pm · Edit
Does anybody hear anything from NHBLI with R01 grants that are in the range of 7-15%, which went into the Feburary council meeting? I am still anxiciously waiting for my 11% application as ESI. My PO confirmed that my grant would be funded in late Feb and I received a personal request of JIT in March and uploaded it but has not received any further information since then. WriteEdit, do you think it is good for me to ask my PO and/or grant manager again? Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
May 2, 2013 @ 9:43 am · Edit
You should hear something soon. The ICs had to have their revised spending plans finalized last week, so your PO or GMS should by now have a better idea when the award will be processed. They have a big backlog though, of course.

Reply

GI said
May 2, 2013 @ 6:55 pm · Edit
I’m just curious. Last year, NHLBI had an interim payline of 19 for K awards at the beginning of February. A couple of weeks later, I think, it was adjusted to 25. Any idea why that happened? Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
May 3, 2013 @ 12:26 am · Edit
All the ICs that post hard paylines initially set very conservative paylines and then adjust them up once they know their final appropriation. They start conservative because they do not know what Congress might do with their appropriation (even in years past when a sequester wasn’t hanging over them). All applications use the final payline, so those that were initially not funded due to the low interim payline are picked up later.

Reply

youngin said
May 4, 2013 @ 5:02 pm · Edit
This probably isn’t the best venue for my question, but as someone trying to land my first NIH grant, I greatly appreciate all of the helpful information from this forum.

I am preparing my A1 resubmission…. in my resubmitted documents, do I need to identify when I am making minor editorial changes to save space? I have been using legal-blackline to identify scientific changes and am wondering if I actually have to highlight less critical changes. My preference would be to not call attention to insignificant changes. Thanks in advance. This site is very helpful.

Reply

SG said
May 5, 2013 @ 7:40 am · Edit
My advice would be to only highlight the major changes in the app. Also, I am not exactly sure what legal black line is but I always prefer either a vertical in the margin or emphasizing the new/rewritten text with a change in font, e.g., italics. Make the changes obvious but don’t make it hard to read is my mantra. They don’t need to see the old text.

Reply

writedit said
May 5, 2013 @ 11:55 am · Edit
Thanks, SG – I agree completely. I think youngin is referring to the vertical line in the margin (legal way to mark changes), and I agree that he/she does not need to mark the minor changes – only where scientific concepts/methods have been updated. Otherwise, most of the narrative would be marked up in most cases. I will just add on the Introduction to the Revised Application that the key is to address concerns raised in the Resume & Summary of Discussion (no need to repeat statements of what the reviewers liked) and to highlight the import of any important new data, publications (your own), collaborators, and/or methods added to the proposal (& where these can be found).

youngin said
May 5, 2013 @ 1:00 pm · Edit
Many thanks SG and writedit… very helpful. … and that is what I meant by legal blackline. I appreciate it!

Reply

Demetris said
May 5, 2013 @ 11:37 pm · Edit
does anyone know what date is the Council Review in May?

Reply

writedit said
May 5, 2013 @ 11:39 pm · Edit
Which IC?

Reply

Demetris said
May 5, 2013 @ 11:42 pm · Edit
I have a transformative research R01 from the director’s office and it says that is pending council review. It does not specify which one.
most likely NHLBI would pick this grant.

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 9:49 am · Edit
The T-R01s awards are selected by the Director of DPCPSI in the OD (translation: Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives in the NIH Office of the Director), so the Council of Councils (which represents all the ICs) would be the “Council” meeting, not NHLBAC (NHLBI would administer the award if your application is funded). The next Council of Councils meeting is May 14th.

GrantWritingIs… said
May 6, 2013 @ 12:19 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit, that is very helpful information. I wonder if the same applies to RFAs (R01) that are supported by the Common Fund. Will these grants also be discussed in the Council of Councils? Thank you very much!

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 12:38 pm · Edit
You would look at Section V.2 (Review and Selection Process) of your RFA to see if the Council of Councils or the appropriate IC Council will be providing the second level of review.

GrantWritingIs… said
May 6, 2013 @ 12:44 pm · Edit
Thanks, Writedit. In the RFA, there is a statement “Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate National Advisory Council or Board. ” This statement seems to be identical to what’s in the Parent R01 RFA. BTW: the grants will be managed by NIMH. Thank you again.

GrantWritingIs… said
May 6, 2013 @ 12:47 pm · Edit
Sorry for being unclear. My question is: does this statement mean that NIMH council will discuss these grants, not the Council of Councils?

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 12:59 pm · Edit
Yes, the Council for NIMH or whatever IC is assigned to your application will provide the second level of review (not the Council of Councils).

GrantWritingIs… said
May 6, 2013 @ 1:13 pm · Edit
Thank you, Writedit!

Demetris said
May 6, 2013 @ 11:01 am · Edit
Thank you much for your help with clarifying the process. Not even the PO explains things that well. This is a very valuable site for all the biomedical research community

Reply

GI said
May 6, 2013 @ 12:12 pm · Edit
Dear writedit,

I received an impact score of 20 in my K25 A0 application to NHLBI that I submitted in June 2012. Given the current uncertainty, does it make sense to submit a revised A1 in July? What happens to the A0 if NHLBI decides to get it funded after July and I have submitted an A1? Am I giving up the chance to get the A0 funded? Thanks a lot for all your advice given here.

Reply

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 12:31 pm · Edit
You can and should resubmit in July. In your case, the A1 will not be reviewed until October, whereas your A0 will only be under consideration for funding through the end of FY13 (Sept 30th), so there is no overlap in funding consideration. However, even if the A0 were still under consideration, you would still be advised to submit the A1. The A0 application is not automatically removed from consideration when the A1 is submitted. The risk you run is the A1 receiving a higher score (or not discussed), but even then, if you are still in the A0 FY, the IC has the option to fund the A0 (just less likely – and not an option in your case, given the different FYs).

Reply

Glory Cassm said
May 6, 2013 @ 7:16 pm · Edit
Some ICs do select pay. Is it possible that, if the A1 is submitted, the PO will be less willing to advocate funding the A0 (which is one or two points beyond the payline)?

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 7:25 pm · Edit
Not at all. The availability of the A1 option might be a consideration if the IC must decide between two equal and equally high priority applications and one is an A1 (last chance) and one is an A0 (can try again). However, the goal remains to fund the best science sooner, so if your A0 represents the best investment for select pay funds, whether you have submitted an A1 won’t change that.

madness007 said
May 6, 2013 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
Dear writeedit or anyone else that might be able to help:
I’m a K99 awardee in the middle of negotiating a tenure track job – my timeline is that the K99 portion ends july 31, but as negotiations are dragging out it seems like the best solution is to start Jan. 1, 2014 (also to finish up papers in my post-doc lab). I will need to file the no-cost extension to stay the extra 6 months from Aug – Dec. My question concerns utilizing left-over funds (from the research support) on the K99 portion for salary support during the no-cost extension. I’m waiting on an email / call-back from my GMS, but I’ve been waiting for a long time. No stranger to administrative hurdles, I’ve started this process with plenty of time to figure things out, but still, if you or someone else knows where it might say this on the NIH website that would be extremely helpful. My home institution is just looking for written documentation that says this is an allowable use of leftover funds. I’ve looked through this site:

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2012/nihgps_ch8.htm

But nothing jumped out exactly in line with what I’m looking for, but I definitely might have missed it – it’s like reading a different language!

Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 1:07 pm · Edit
Your GMS is probably swamped with a huge backlog of awards to process (& the knowledge you have a couple of months before your NCE needs to be processed). You can ask your PO for confirmation the K99 $ can be carried over to cover your salary until the R00 is activated. I do not see a problem with your carrying the funds over – but your PO should be able to provide reassurance for your institution in this regard.

Reply

madness007 said
May 6, 2013 @ 1:15 pm · Edit
Thanks writeedit – so my PO is the one who sent me on to my GMS in the first place – the PO said that it should be fine but was unwilling to put anything in writing for my institution. I can just wait until I hear from my GMS. Thanks!

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 1:17 pm · Edit
Aha – well, you can ask your GMS again (perhaps clarifying that for now you just need confirmation this is possible versus actual action on the NCE). You might also ask the PO if there is a different contact in the grants management office who could provide this confirmation.

Smith said
May 6, 2013 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
Was requested by my GMS to send the most recent Rate Agreement for my University. Is it a good sign?

Reply

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 2:33 pm · Edit
Yep.

Reply

Rubber….meet the road. NIH Grant edition | DrugMonkey said
May 6, 2013 @ 2:48 pm · Edit
[…] leaves and to make inferences from what Program Officials are telling you, published paylines, the gossip at writedit’s blog and your anguished […]

Reply

GI said
May 6, 2013 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
Does this link:

http://silk.nih.gov/public/cbz2zoz.@www.recent.awards.csv

include also non-competing renewals? A lot of the awards have start dates in 2011 or 2010.

Reply

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 4:19 pm · Edit
Yes. The column titled “Application Type” tells you which awards to look at:

Type 1 – New (competing) Type 2 – Renewal (competing) Type 3 – Supplement (competing)

The rest are all non-competing. Type 5 is the standard noncompeting renewal. Type 6 is also common – change in grantee institution (i.e., PI has moved), whereas Types 8 & 9 indicate a change in the administering IC.

Early stager said
May 6, 2013 @ 4:54 pm · Edit
I had submitted my R01 last June to NHLBI, scored in October (13% as ESI) and council meeting came and went in February. I received an email today from my PO stating that “ESIs whose applications score greater than 5 but less than or equal to 10 percentile points above the A0 R01 payline may provide a written response to the critiques in their summary statement.”

The response should include ”
· should only address the primary issues and criticisms stated in your summary statement,
· may not modify the scope of the project or increase direct costs,
· may not exceed five pages in length (including tables, graphs, references, etc.), and
· may not include any appendices.”

Any advice on what they want to see apart from what is detailed above? If the issues aren’t major or are things that are not possible to address, how are they best addressed ? Is it similar to the responses for a manuscript reply to the reviewers?

Thanks for the advice and a great site.

Reply

writedit said
May 6, 2013 @ 5:39 pm · Edit
You should structure this as you would an Introduction to the revised application for an A1. Starting with the Resume and Summary of Discussion, create bullets that quote (verbatim) weaknesses/concerns raised during discussion and by reviewers followed by your response to these concerns. NHLBI wants to be sure the concerns are procedural and easily fixed by tweaking your approach rather than related to the underlying science, the significance of the work, and so on. If you were criticized for being overly ambitious, you can indicate what you would scale back in response. If you haven’t discussed your summary statement with your PO yet, this would be a very good time to do so. If you have new data since the application, you should be able to use these to bolster your case in the response, but you might check with the PO first on this as well.

Reply

hoping for the A1…. said
May 7, 2013 @ 12:21 pm · Edit
Should the response be limited to one page long as in the introduction to a resubmission? Or, as long as it take to address each individual point? I had 4 reviewers on my A1 and while they said some of the same things, they all had distinct comments that need to be addressed.

writedit said
May 7, 2013 @ 12:31 pm · Edit
If you are referring to a rebuttal requested by your PO in support of a select pay decision, I have not heard anyone being limited to 1 page, but Early Stager was limited to 5 pages (with other instructions, such as no appendix), so you should check with your PO for guidance in your case. You would focus on the concerns raised in the Resume & Summary of Discussion – if covering these plus each of the individual reviewers will require several pages, you might also ask your PO if you should limit your response to the Discussion concerns.

LL said
May 6, 2013 @ 5:49 pm · Edit
What’s the payline for nhlbi? Thx

Reply

Early stager said
May 6, 2013 @ 5:54 pm · Edit
Thanks so much writedit – extremely helpful site.

LL – NHLBI payline for 2013 is 6%. From the email I got, it appears that they are treating ESI the same as last year.

Reply

GI said
May 6, 2013 @ 7:31 pm · Edit
This is the interim payline, right? According to their website they have not decided on the final paylines yet.

Reply

brafal said
May 6, 2013 @ 7:45 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit

I received 14% on my A1 (ESI, NHBLI). I reveived a request to address summary statement (only minor criticisms). Tenure is on the line. Thanks for any advice.

Reply

SG said
May 7, 2013 @ 7:23 am · Edit
My advice is to do a great job replying to the reviewers’ criticisms in the summary statement. Sounds very promising.

Reply

writedit said
May 7, 2013 @ 9:31 am · Edit
Please see my reply just above for Early Stager.

Reply

writedit said
April 7, 2013 @ 2:54 pm · Edit
Thanks for the heads-up – these numbers should improve a bit in May.

Reply

Andrew said
April 9, 2013 @ 9:33 pm · Edit
A good strategy for SBIR and any other grant application is to submit it early, even before you have it finished. Just substitute blank or interim pdfs for things that are not ready. This will allow eraCommon to check the package for any pesky errors that you can fix well ahead of time. Just keep updating the submission with corrected versions. No need for last minute drama.

Reply

writedit said
April 9, 2013 @ 10:35 pm · Edit
An interesting strategy, and feasible for a small institution with few applications (or just one, as possibly may be the case with your company), but most universities and large research institutes will not allow their faculty/research associates to keep resubmitting updated versions (the PIs do not do the actual submission themselves). At BICO, the application will not be submitted the first time unless it is complete and final, and application cannot be resubmitted except to correct errors (rare, due to multiple pre-checks) without excellent justification to do so. The submission process and protocol is specific to the applicant institution, though, so I am sure there is a wide range of practices out there.

Reply

Andrew said
April 10, 2013 @ 2:28 am · Edit
Yes, just good for small biz, usually 2 grants. Point taken.

Reply

SG said
May 7, 2013 @ 7:23 am · Edit
My advice is to do a great job replying to the reviewers’ criticisms in the summary statement. Sounds very promising.

Reply

writedit said
May 7, 2013 @ 9:31 am · Edit
Please see my reply just above for Early Stager.

Reply

hoping for the A1…. said
May 7, 2013 @ 12:21 pm · Edit
Should the response be limited to one page long as in the introduction to a resubmission? Or, as long as it take to address each individual point? I had 4 reviewers on my A1 and while they said some of the same things, they all had distinct comments that need to be addressed.

Reply

writedit said
May 7, 2013 @ 12:31 pm · Edit
If you are referring to a rebuttal requested by your PO in support of a select pay decision, I have not heard anyone being limited to 1 page, but Early Stager was limited to 5 pages (with other instructions, such as no appendix), so you should check with your PO for guidance in your case. You would focus on the concerns raised in the Resume & Summary of Discussion – if covering these plus each of the individual reviewers will require several pages, you might also ask your PO if you should limit your response to the Discussion concerns.

Reply

Gianluca said
May 9, 2013 @ 5:39 pm · Edit
Thanks for sending this link. If I read it right, this year they will be awarding 3840 research career (K?) awards versus 4007 last year. It sounds encouraging. Please, correct me if I’m reading it wrong.

Reply

Glory Cassm said
May 13, 2013 @ 9:57 am · Edit
or tweet NIH Director Francis Collins: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/nih-details-impact-of-2013-seque.html?ref=em

Reply

writedit said
May 14, 2013 @ 8:32 pm · Edit
If the budget is cut ~25%, the scope of work can be renegotiated. Otherwise, concentrate on what the reviewers were most enthusiastic about and publish on what you can get done. You are right that everyone knows the now-standard budget cut makes it difficult if not impossible to accomplish everything proposed (that you didn’t complete before the grant started). They will look for a demonstration of productivity with what you did receive though and evidence that your results moved the work forward toward your new set of aims (in the renewal).

Reply

GI said
May 14, 2013 @ 8:38 pm · Edit
It’s encouraging that the payline for R01 went up from 7% last year to 9% this year. What about K awards? I can’t find any information about K awards from NCI.

Reply

writedit said
May 16, 2013 @ 11:11 pm · Edit
Not to worry – they have a lot of catching up to do, and each IC is managing the award process in its own way. If you haven’t checked in with your PO since before March 1, you could contact him/her again for a status update.

Reply

writedit said
May 16, 2013 @ 11:17 pm · Edit
Total costs = Direct + Indirect Costs. This means that $250K (Total Cost) – institutional Indirect Cost = PI Direct Cost. So, if your university/institution has a 50% indirect cost (F&A) rate, depending on how it is calculated (often on everything except equipment), $160K in direct cost + $80K in indirect cost = $240K total cost (but it would be worked out to expend the full $250K). Plus, you need to remember that the university/institution is the R00 grantee/awardee – not the PI.

Reply

Worried PI said
May 8, 2013 @ 12:30 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit,
Do you think it is a good time now to ask PO for grant status? JIT was requested via email March and PO said he felt optimistic by then.
Thank you.

Reply

writedit said
May 8, 2013 @ 1:12 pm · Edit
The ICs have their operating plans in place now (but maybe not the money). If your application is for the May Council, you should probably wait until after the meeting to ask, but if your application already went to Council (i.e., you submitted last Feb or June), then your PO should have an idea of the application status, if not now, within the week.

Reply

Worried PI said
May 8, 2013 @ 1:25 pm · Edit
Thank you! Mine always went to Council (this Feb). So it is almost time to hear from PO!

RR said
May 8, 2013 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
http://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dea/nia-funding-policy-fy-2013

Updated NIA 2013 payline

Reply

writedit said
May 8, 2013 @ 1:07 pm · Edit
Thanks for the heads up. I’ve updated the link above. No change from FY12 for RPGs (NIA will make more competing awards than in FY12 – one of only a couple ICs to do so – but significantly cut administrative supplements).

Reply

GI said
May 8, 2013 @ 3:14 pm · Edit
Do you know which other ICs are also awarding more grants than F12? Thanks for the information! I’m still waiting to hear back form NHLBI and NIBIB. The PO at NIBIB told us that they will make a decision on our R03 after May council, although the grant was submitted in March and it went through October council.

writedit said
May 8, 2013 @ 3:37 pm · Edit
Fortunately for you, NIBIB and NHLBI are also awarding more competing RPGs than in FY12 (at least on paper – FIC is the only other IC in the positive column). If your R03 is not clearly within the payline, it might be under consideration for select pay, and hence the wait, since all 3 cycles are in the running for these limited $.

hoping for the A1…. said
May 8, 2013 @ 3:49 pm · Edit
Writedit, how do you know about NIBIB and NHLBI since they haven’t released their final FY13 paylines or approprations for RPGs?

Sylvia said
May 8, 2013 @ 4:31 pm · Edit
I spoke with my PO from NICHD at the end of April, and she said there were “rumors” that the final paylines would be higher than the interim paylines, but she couldn’t say for sure. Have you heard any updates about NICHD writedit? Thanks so much!

writedit said
May 8, 2013 @ 4:56 pm · Edit
Well, I don’t know about paylines (also in response to hoping for the A1) or final appropriations to individual mechanisms. I learned about broad level operating plans, of the sort Harold describes, which are still being tweaked but in general indicate that all the ICs will be making fewer competing RPG awards than in FY12 (except NIA, NHLBI, NIBIB, FIC). This means paylines will be lower than FY12 but how much lower varies with each IC and mechanism (they are all taking different approaches to dealing with the cuts). My assumption is that R01 paylines will go up from the interim levels (not published by most ICs in any case) though.

GI said
May 8, 2013 @ 5:25 pm · Edit
Hopefully, this doesn’t mean that they are doing it at the expense of K awards. While I’m waiting to hear about a NIBIB R03 (impact score of 20), I am also waiting to hear about a NHLBI K25 award (also impact score of 20).

writedit said
May 8, 2013 @ 5:30 pm · Edit
Some ICs are cutting Ks, NHLBI does not seem to be.

Newbie said
May 8, 2013 @ 9:13 pm · Edit
Any idea what the impact for K awards at NIA is? Similar impact scores compared to prior years or significant cuts?

writedit said
May 8, 2013 @ 10:27 pm · Edit
No idea about the priority scores involved, but close to FY12. There will be a few fewer Ks, but I don’t know which mechanisms. You might check in with your PO in a week or so.

FadiK said
May 8, 2013 @ 11:51 pm · Edit
Did anyone receive R15 funding this year (2013), and if so, do you mind sharing your score with us? Also, does anyone know what was the priority score of the R15s that NHLBI funded in 2013?

Reply

Old Grantee said
May 9, 2013 @ 1:30 am · Edit
NIH financial situation with sequestration and so on is truly scary. Anything to be done to correct it?

Reply

writedit said
May 9, 2013 @ 9:56 am · Edit
Keep reminding your Congressional delegation how important biomedical research is to the health of the country (physical, mental, economic).

Reply

Glory Cassm said
May 13, 2013 @ 9:57 am · Edit
or tweet NIH Director Francis Collins: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/nih-details-impact-of-2013-seque.html?ref=em

Scott said
May 9, 2013 @ 5:29 am · Edit
Updated NIDDK FY2013 Funding Policy just posted-

http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/FundingPolicy.htm

Reply

writedit said
May 9, 2013 @ 9:58 am · Edit
Thanks for the heads-up. A 2 percentile drop from FY12 (11th vs 13th percentile for established PIs with 5% outside the payline for established investigators; however, no one seems to know what the actual payline is.

Reply

Early stager said
May 13, 2013 @ 3:46 pm · Edit
I had posted about having received an email last week asking to submit my comments to the summary statement. I took writedits comments to heart and had a long chat with my PO. I do not know if these are the official paylines and how they will change throughout the year, but the impression I got, which also applies to me, was that for now the payline is 6%. Same as last year, ESIs within 5% (so up to 11%) will get funded right away and those within 10% (up to 16%) will get funded so long as they address the issues raised in their summary statement. I have until this Friday to submit my response (I was 13%), and then was told to expect a start date sometime in June (instead of 4/1/13).

Reply

writedit said
May 13, 2013 @ 4:01 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for sharing your experience, Early Stager. Best of luck with your own application.

hoping for the A1…. said
May 13, 2013 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
Thanks Early Stager, I’m on the outside looking in…17%ile. Hopefully, the payline will go up 1% and I’ll squeak in. It is good to know (or infer) that the 10% ESI bump is still being used by NHLBI.

hoping for the A1…. said
May 15, 2013 @ 1:02 pm · Edit
To kinda my own question above, my PO just called me and told me that my A1 R01 as an ESI is on the NHLBI pay plan for funding over 5 years. Whew!

writedit said
May 15, 2013 @ 1:50 pm · Edit
Congratulations, Hoping, and best wishes for success with the research!

Sylvia said
May 15, 2013 @ 1:21 pm · Edit
Congrats hoping for the A1! That’s excellent news. I’m waiting for NICHD to publish their final paylines. You give me hope!

Reply

ESI said
May 13, 2013 @ 4:48 pm · Edit
Does anybody know NIEHS FY13 payline for RO1 and R21?

Reply

bfg2sju said
May 24, 2013 @ 6:07 pm · Edit
“For FY2013, NIEHS initially established paylines of 15% for investigator-initiated R01, R03, and R21 applications. This payline applies to applications received for the September Council Round. However, these paylines were adjusted to 13% for February and May Council Rounds, due to mandated budget reductions.”
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/funding/grants/priorities/strategies/

Reply

CD0 said
May 14, 2013 @ 6:49 pm · Edit
NCI has announced its funding strategy for the remaining of 2013:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/FinalFundLtr.pdf

Reply

GI said
May 14, 2013 @ 8:38 pm · Edit
It’s encouraging that the payline for R01 went up from 7% last year to 9% this year. What about K awards? I can’t find any information about K awards from NCI.

Reply

2Laroc said
May 14, 2013 @ 6:56 pm · Edit
I would be curious to know how an investigator then justifies getting less work done when their competitive renewal is up? Should a statement be made in the progress report that due to budget cuts (not just this one) all of the science could not be completed? It seems everyone will be in the same boat and is something reviewers will need to consider as well.

Reply

writedit said
May 14, 2013 @ 8:32 pm · Edit
If the budget is cut ~25%, the scope of work can be renegotiated. Otherwise, concentrate on what the reviewers were most enthusiastic about and publish on what you can get done. You are right that everyone knows the now-standard budget cut makes it difficult if not impossible to accomplish everything proposed (that you didn’t complete before the grant started). They will look for a demonstration of productivity with what you did receive though and evidence that your results moved the work forward toward your new set of aims (in the renewal).

Reply

R15 said
May 15, 2013 @ 1:14 pm · Edit
Any information as to the Pauline for R15s in NHLBI? Is there a way to fund out what the score is for those which were funded in 2013? Thanks!

writedit said
May 15, 2013 @ 1:52 pm · Edit
Your PO should have a status update by now (or soon).

FadiK said
May 15, 2013 @ 2:24 pm · Edit
She has not been saying much as of late. Just said “waiting for DO to release paylines” without giving me a tentative timeline. My R15 was reviewed last year and scored “14″ in October 2012.

Reply

GI said
May 15, 2013 @ 3:06 pm · Edit
NHLBI R15 has a payline of 20.

Reply

GI said
May 15, 2013 @ 3:05 pm · Edit
NHLBI just posted the paylines:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/operguid.htm

Like last year or better At least those that I compared !

Reply

FadiK said
May 15, 2013 @ 10:19 pm · Edit
Thank you GI for sharing the info about the updated paylines from NHLBI. I was not aware of them. I guess I should expect some good news soon. Good luck to all…

Reply

GI said
May 16, 2013 @ 1:27 am · Edit
You should start putting together the JIT information, like budget, other support, etc. I think that you can already submit it even before hearing back from the PO. You can always update it later.

Reply

writedit said
May 16, 2013 @ 9:01 am · Edit
The key is to be sure you have any IRB/IACUC approvals and training certifications ready and the rest of the JIT information at hand. You can submit any time via eRA Commons, but you can also just wait to hear from the PO/GMS. When you do, submit immediately.

ssh81 said
May 16, 2013 @ 3:25 am · Edit
I applied for SBIR Phase II (r44) on Dec 5 2012 (NHLBI). Got a disappointing score of 33 . The NHLBI paylines published yesterday reflect 29 as the cutoff. Think there is any chance (precedent) that paylines can go up to 35 or so like last year (fy12) with the current budget situation? I know my chances are dim, and still I am unable to extinguish last remaining hopes. Darn.

Reply

writedit said
May 16, 2013 @ 9:13 am · Edit
You can check with your PO to see if there is any hope, but these are probably final, especially for the SBIR/STTR, which has a set percentage set-aside of the budget.

Reply

Andrew said
May 16, 2013 @ 1:57 pm · Edit
I am in a similar position with a 31 score, from an April 12 submission. I also have a 22 score from a December submission. Both together due to the nightmare of the last year of indecision.
I can re-submit the 31 to get nearer 22 with new data, but had I foreseen the massive cut I could have resubmitted Dec/April.

Reply

FadiK said
May 16, 2013 @ 1:44 pm · Edit
Thank you GI and writedit. Excellent suggestion. I am goign to start working on the JIT, etc right away so that I am ready when the PO contacts me.

Reply

writedit said
May 16, 2013 @ 1:52 pm · Edit
This is a good point for anyone out there with an application scored in the gray zone: be sure to have your JIT ready now, especially if you need approvals that will take some time to secure (IRB, IACUC). ICs cannot wait months for you, and you may be given a short turn-around time when the request comes.

Reply

Newbie said
May 16, 2013 @ 9:14 pm · Edit
Should I be concerned because I haven’t heard from my PO and I am in the gray zone. My PO had positive comments before the sequestration, but I haven’t heard anything since. Are they still processing awards or is it in the tail end?

writedit said
May 16, 2013 @ 11:11 pm · Edit
Not to worry – they have a lot of catching up to do, and each IC is managing the award process in its own way. If you haven’t checked in with your PO since before March 1, you could contact him/her again for a status update.

KateWells said
May 17, 2013 @ 4:37 pm · Edit
I have a gray zone SBIR. The primary (and requested) IC was NIDDK, but after the scientific review was completed, NINR was added as an IC in the eRA Commons. Why would this happen? We haven’t spoken to NINR about the application. Does this mean NINR might want to fund the application? Is there any point to contacting NINR and asking?

writedit said
May 17, 2013 @ 4:55 pm · Edit
NINR picks up a lot of applications out of the blue, but this would be a bit unusual in this budget climate. You can just ask your PO what’s up with the application.

Richard said
May 17, 2013 @ 11:52 am · Edit
The snap indicator code switched to Y. A good sign?

Reply

writedit said
May 17, 2013 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
Hmm. I haven’t paid attention to that- just assumed it was set based on mechanism vs in conjunction with award processing, but possibly, if this a pending probable award. Is the status Pending administrative review? You could check with your GMS, too.

Reply

Richard said
May 17, 2013 @ 4:23 pm · Edit
The status is still “council meeting completed” (meeting on Oct. 2012). We received a request for most recent Agreement Rate last week and then I noticed that the snap indicator code switched to Y.

writedit said
May 17, 2013 @ 4:57 pm · Edit
Interesting (& does sound positive). Either your PO or GMS could shed some light on the situation.

Richard said
May 17, 2013 @ 5:19 pm · Edit
It is for a pending RO1 with a 7th percentile.

Z PI said
May 20, 2013 @ 4:21 pm · Edit
Does anyone have experience in submitting NCI NExT applications? They use proposal central and it is the worst website I have ever seen…..looks like a site from 1994.

Reply

Red said
May 21, 2013 @ 9:28 am · Edit
Dear writedit:
My grant was reviewed in October, January council. JIT was requested in March. Yesterday I asked my GMS at NCI about the status of my grant. S/he replied: ” Thank you for submitting the JIT. Your application has been reviewed and is in the process of being awarded. NIH is operating under a continuing resolution and we are issuing awards as we receive funding to do so. I will let you know as soon as I am able to issue the award.”

What does that mean?

Reply

writedit said
May 21, 2013 @ 9:35 am · Edit
Congratulations – it means your application is being funded. Your GMS just doesn’t know the exact date your notice of award will be issued.

Reply

David said
May 21, 2013 @ 9:41 am · Edit
I was requested to provide updated IACUC information for animal work, is it a good sign?

Reply

writedit said
May 21, 2013 @ 9:46 am · Edit
Yes (should be funded if everything checks out). Be sure to send the updated IACUC approval promptly, if you have not already.

Reply

CVT said
May 21, 2013 @ 9:43 am · Edit
Thank you, Writedit for this tremendously helpful website! There are not a lot of timelines published on this page for F32 awards, so I thought I would share my timeline for an F32 (NIAMS). My A0 was submitted in April 2012, and received a score of 24 (percentiles not used for this award). This would have been funded in previous years, but my PO suggested preparing an A1 due to the budget uncertainty and likelihood that pay lines would change. My A1 was submitted in fall 2012, shortly after which interim payline for F32 awards was announced as 18. The A1 was reviewed this spring. Two of the reviewers gave it much improved scores, but one was obviously not a fan of the application. The summary statement noted that there was “a great deal of disagreement between reviewers,” which actually caused the score to go UP a point from the A0. I figured hope was lost, and started searching for new positions.

A few weeks later, updated paylines were published. The payline for F32 awards was left unchanged from the previous year at 24. This meant my A0 was within the payline, and my PO contacted me last week to notify me that it would be funded. The NOA was published yesterday…13 months after initial submission. So postdocs in limbo, don’t give up hope!

FWIW, a JIT link was never available on commons, and one was never requested. I did have to provide a final transcript to show that I really had earned my PhD, as well as a letter showing IACUC approval for our protocol. That’s it!

Reply

writedit said
May 21, 2013 @ 9:50 am · Edit
Congratulations and thank you so much for posting all your details, CVT, especially that your A0 was funded even after the A1 went up a point (I expect your PO & the SRO talked about the SRG discussion, too). Lots of people worry about submitting the A1 for just this reason, and sharing your experience is a tremendous benefit to the community. Kudos for persevering and best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research!

Reply

HopingforFirstR01 said
May 22, 2013 @ 6:38 pm · Edit
I have an R01 submission to NHLBI that is under the payline (I’m an ESI) at the 18th percentile. I have checked in with the PO several times in the last year since it was reviewed, and she has been very non-committal about the chances of it getting funded. Yesterday, I received a request to send an updated IRB approval since it had just expired (sent JIT in Oct 2012) and we submitted it right away, and today the status on ERA Commons changed to ‘pending’ from ‘council review completed’ (oh, and the SNAP code was filled in as well). Despite the PO’s very non-committal response several days ago, does this indicate it will be funded, or is it still possible it won’t be? This has been a very long haul, and I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch, so to speak.

Reply

Red said
May 23, 2013 @ 9:43 am · Edit
Probably very good news – if you look here on page 166, “pending” in your case likely preceeds “awarded”.

http://era.nih.gov/Docs/COM_UGV2630.pdf

Reply

writedit said
May 23, 2013 @ 10:23 am · Edit
Yes, this is good news – they will not do administrative work (JIT) on any applications not in line for an award. The award is not guaranteed until the administrative review is complete and the notice released, but I think you can start counting.

Reply

HopingforFirstR01 said
May 23, 2013 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
Thanks! This morning the status changed to ‘awarded’, and there is now a start date (6/1/13) and first year award amount listed. I am guessing it is just a matter of days until I get the NOA. After very nearly a year in limbo, this is indeed great news!

writedit said
May 23, 2013 @ 12:58 pm · Edit
Congratulations (officially)! Best wishes for success with the research!

stillwaiting said
May 23, 2013 @ 4:23 pm · Edit
Congratulations!!! When was your application reviewed?

Reply

HopingforFirstR01 said
May 23, 2013 @ 4:32 pm · Edit
Thank you! It was submitted as an A1 in March of 2012, and reviewed June 4, 2012. Once I received the score shortly after the review and saw it was under the 2012 payline, I contacted the PO and found that it was going to October council, so would be under FY2013. Since then, it’s been in limbo while waiting for the FY2013 paylines to be determined.

Andrew said
May 22, 2013 @ 8:39 pm · Edit
NINDS:- R43 payline is rumored to be ’25′ FY2013

Reply

Kate Wells said
May 28, 2013 @ 9:10 am · Edit
Does this mean 25 is paid or only 24 and lower? Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
May 28, 2013 @ 9:43 am · Edit
Paylines include the published threshold, so if the payline is indeed 25, applications scored at 25 and lower would be considered for awards (pending administrative review etc.). If you have an R43 with a score of 25 at NINDS (submitted for FY13), you should get in touch with your PO for a status update.

JR said
May 24, 2013 @ 4:05 am · Edit
Writediters,

I submitted an F31 NRSA to NEI that was reviewed April 2013. NEI only funds NRSAs from students with documented disabilities so the applicant pool is significant smaller. For example, last year in 2012, 13 applied, 6 were awarded. In 2011, 13 applied, 4 were awarded. You get the picture.

Anyway, my advisor became very stressed during the semester and was unable to edit my application. I submitted regardless and received a priority score of 30 and percentile of 23. I realize my application floats in a sea of uncertainty, but if possible, I wanted to know if it’s closer to being rescued or drowned. Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
May 24, 2013 @ 9:15 am · Edit
The good news is that NEI did not cut any F awards as part of sequestration (whereas the number of competing RPG awards was cut by nearly 10%). At this point, your PO will know where your application stands, so don’t hesitate to ask.

Reply

nei_sayer said
May 24, 2013 @ 3:17 pm · Edit
Do you (or anyone) have any information about how NEI is treating K99′s after sequestration? Again, this is a small program for them, they seemed to fund only 4 per fiscal year prior to 2013.

Optimistic said
May 24, 2013 @ 3:38 pm · Edit
According to the 2013 operating plan, NEI will be funding 14 more “Research Careers” grants than 2012 (from 67 to 81). I believe this category is where K’s fall into. Now, it’s not clear how many of these will be allocated to which specific K mechanism but nevertheless, they didn’t cut the overall number so perhaps you can be slightly optimistic. Hope it works out.

writedit said
May 24, 2013 @ 4:26 pm · Edit
That’s exactly right, biosapien … thanks for jumping in. You’re hired.

Optimistic said
May 24, 2013 @ 4:56 pm · Edit
Haha! I would take you up on your offer but I’m currently waiting for final confirmation on my own K99 that I’ve been waiting for for close to a year so I’ll have to respectfully decline🙂. I got a hold of the 2013 NIH operating plan and ever since, it has served as my own personal Xanax. Hopefully, the info I provided will serve a similar role for nei_sayer.

Again, thanks for maintaining this great site!

writedit said
May 24, 2013 @ 5:01 pm · Edit
Glad to hear you don’t need a job. I won’t jinx it with premature wishes, but keep us posted …

ESI/NI said
May 25, 2013 @ 3:09 pm · Edit
When is the GMS assigned to the grant application ? Does the assignment of GMS in era commons mean anything ?

Is there any specific time frame, after the grant submission, to expect the GMS assignment.

Reply

writedit said
May 25, 2013 @ 4:22 pm · Edit
If you did not previously have a GMS assigned and your application has gone to Council, then this is good news. If you submitted an application in Feb/March, then it does not mean anything in particular. Some ICs assign at referral/review, some not until after review, some not until an award is under consideration. You can check in with your PO about the status of your application, if you are waiting to hear about an FY13 award (if FY14, your PO will not have any news until, well, maybe not until early 2014).

Reply

ESI/NI said
May 28, 2013 @ 2:50 pm · Edit
Thanks for the immediate response. Mine is slated for FY14 and I may have to wait for few more months before hearing anything about my grant.

writedit said
May 28, 2013 @ 3:14 pm · Edit
Aha. Then your IC assigns the GMS early. You will be waiting more than a few months to learn where you stand. I wouldn’t anticipate a federal budget shaping up before December, and we have no idea what it will look like now (whether FY14 sequester will be applied or how etc.).

Z PI said
May 28, 2013 @ 2:20 pm · Edit
Writedit- do you know what the NCI fundable range is for STTR in 2013?

Reply

writedit said
May 28, 2013 @ 2:25 pm · Edit
Unfortunately, I do not, but perhaps someone will jump in with their experience to date – or you would now be okay asking your PO for a status update.

Reply

akas said
May 28, 2013 @ 3:38 pm · Edit
Does anyone know what the payline is of K99 applications through NCI? I applied in October, Scientific Review in February, and er Commons says that the Council Review will be in May. I thought that the NCI meets at the end of June. Just a little confused. If anyone has insight I would appreciate it. Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
May 29, 2013 @ 12:15 am · Edit
Your PO should be able and willing to comment on your likelihood of funding at this point. Unless it gives a specific date, I assume your eRA commons status refers to the May Council meeting in general (true for most ICs, which meet 3x per year, but NCAB meets 4x per year).

Reply

ESI/NI said
May 28, 2013 @ 4:15 pm · Edit
Does any one know the NIDCR payline for R01 ? I am on 22nd percentile, which I believe is in the grey zone for funding.

Reply

writedit said
May 29, 2013 @ 12:16 am · Edit
If you are referring to FY13, your PO should be able to give you a status update by now. If you mean for FY14, you will need to wait until the end of this year or, more likely, the beginning of next year.

Reply

ESI/NI said
May 29, 2013 @ 1:52 am · Edit
Thank you very much for your reply. I just got my score and will certainly fall under FY14 funding.

Hopeful Junior PI said
May 29, 2013 @ 4:56 pm · Edit
Does anyone have any idea about when the final NIAID payline for K awards will become available?

Reply

writedit said
May 29, 2013 @ 4:59 pm · Edit
You can ask your PO about the funding likelihood your score (he/she would know by now).

Reply

h123 said
June 4, 2013 @ 11:30 am · Edit
My F31 grant was just transferred to NINDS from a different Institute to be recommended for funding. Does this mean I am going to be funded, or is this just another step in the process?

Reply

writedit said
June 4, 2013 @ 11:39 am · Edit
Did you submit your application this past April for FY14 or last year (April, Aug, Dec 2012) for FY13? If the former, you are just being reassigned, but you should check in with your new PO.

If the latter, I think they would only undertake a transfer at this point if there were negotiations to facilitate an award for your application. You should check with your original PO and whomever you’ve been assigned to at NINDS to see what is going on.

Reply

h123 said
June 4, 2013 @ 3:13 pm · Edit
I submitted in Dec. ’12. It seems from the email that it will be funded!

jpl said
June 4, 2013 @ 4:11 pm · Edit
Dear Group–I am part of a team who submitted an R15 application to NIDDK (second submission) and in March 2013 got an impact score of 17 (which as far as we can tell falls between “Exceptional” and “Outstanding” but no percentile).

Despite this, the PO has been pessimistic about our R15 being funded. The PO said that R15s did not have a good “track record” of being funded in the portfolios that he/she managed (he/she could not or did not elaborate). The PO is encouraging us to re-package as an R01, but this seems to defeat the purpose of the R15 and we don’t have sufficient preliminary data to likely be competitive (as the R15s don’t require preliminary data).

Is anyone aware of pay lines for NIDDK R15s? Does anyone of any advice or thoughts for us? Is it worth waiting it out? Does it make sense to talk to the division director? If R15s are not being focused on, it seems like PIs should be made aware of this before making the massive investment of time in submitting.

Many thanks…

Reply

writedit said
June 5, 2013 @ 1:07 am · Edit
This is unusual advice indeed. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell from the FY13 operating plan if NIDDK plans to cut R15 awards (or whether your PO is just unfamiliar with the mechanism). You are correct that a competitive R15 application is not necessarily competitive as an R01. You could check with the Division chief (for your Division of interest at NIDDK) or the Director of Extramural Activities to inquire as to whether the number of R15 awards are being cut to save $ for R01 and other RPG mechanisms at NIDDK and whether it is worth pursuing AREA funding in the future.

Reply

jpl said
June 5, 2013 @ 10:16 am · Edit
Dear writedit–Thank you for your advice.

Greg said
June 4, 2013 @ 5:09 pm · Edit
Anyone heard about F32s from the winter 2012 submission or gotten NoAs?

My app placed in the 9th percentile, impact 20 at the NCI study section and they requested extensive follow-up info about our animal protocols (eventually approved after 2 rounds of back and forth).

My PO has been very vague and non-helpful about funding potential/paylines, other than saying we were being recommended for funding at council. Council meeting has also been pushed to late June, as opposed to the printed date of May on ERA commons (even though the projected start date of the F32 is July 1st). Thus, I’m relatively unsure where I stand with regards to this app and am starting to get a little paranoid about what should be a slam-dunk.

Reply

writedit said
June 5, 2013 @ 12:59 am · Edit
The NCAB always meets in late June (23-25 this year). eRA Commons refers to “May Council”, since that is when most Advisory Councils meet. NCAB meets 4 rather than 3 times per year, so the timing is a bit off from the rest of the ICs. If they are now happy with your IACUC status, you should be okay – they would not bother with all that if they were not going to make an award, and your PO would not say that you were being recommended for funding. NCI is even more backed up administratively than other ICs because they only gave 6-month rather than 12-month non-competing renewals for much of FY13, so they have a huge backlog of all types of awards to issue (i.e., thousands of awards to issue twice in the same FY). Your PO genuinely has no idea when an award might be issued. NCI issued 16 F32s in March-April – their FY13 operating plan indicates that they are not cutting any individual NRSA fellowships, so they have more than 250 more F awards to make. I would not want to be an NCI GMS …

Reply

Greg said
June 5, 2013 @ 1:18 am · Edit
That is one hell of a grants traffic jam. I was combing Reporter earlier to see if any F32s had been issued this year by NCI. I guess I will just forge ahead and try not to think about it.

Regardless, this experience (and others with R01s and R21s I’ve been helping out on) paint an unappealing picture for prospective TT faculty here in the US. I will be cultivating other options abroad when I go on my faculty search, particularly where I have connections in Switzerland.

writedit said
June 5, 2013 @ 9:41 am · Edit
The best way to check recent awards (to see what your IC is doing) is to go to http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx and look at the Excel file for Notice of awards issued in the last 90 days. If you can hang on with F32 and then K funding, you should be looking at your first R01 at a time when hopefully the applicant pool will have been “right-sized” for the amount of $ available.You’ll want to check with your connections on funding trends in Switzerland and the EU (depending on where else you might look) as well.

Greg said
June 5, 2013 @ 1:19 am · Edit
Thanks for this great blog, by the way.

Need funding said
June 6, 2013 @ 11:39 am · Edit
Dear Writedit,

I didn’t know about the recent Notice of Awards file and it is another great resource. However, I couldn’t figure out which award is from which IC. Is there a code for this in the award number? I’m specifically interested in NIGMS F32 awards. Thanks!

writedit said
June 6, 2013 @ 11:57 am · Edit
The two-letter code identifies the IC, which is GM for NIGMS. You can find the full list of IC codes here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm#I (scroll down to Institute/Center)

Also, Type 1 = new applications, Type 2 = competing renewal applications, Type 3 = competing revisions (supplements), Type 5 = non-competing renewals. The other types are all administrative changes.

You would search for F32GM – those with a “1″ next to them (vs “5″ or another number) would be all the new F32 awards issued by NIGMS.

Early stager said
June 4, 2013 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
I got an email response from my grants management specialist today after inquiring when I would get my NOA for my NHLBI ESI 13% grant which had a start date of 4/1/13. In essence, he stated that the sequester has completely screwed up their regular funding timing and they hope that it will return to more normal in June. He also stated that they fully anticipate funding all awards within the payline by the end of the fiscal year, which is end of September.

Reply

Greg said
June 4, 2013 @ 5:48 pm · Edit
Jeez, that is ridiculous. So you submitted Fall 2012 for FY13/start 4/1/13 and still didn’t even get an NOA and it’s June now? You are well within their published payline for NHLBI ESI too…my mentor was suggesting that maybe we would see my salary money from this F grant by December and that we would probably have already finished and published the proposed studies. I initially laughed, but maybe that is closer to reality than it should be…

Reply

writedit said
June 5, 2013 @ 12:45 am · Edit
Well, all FY13 awards must be made by Sept 30th, so it will be before Dec, but not a lot.

jpl said
June 5, 2013 @ 10:14 am · Edit
Dear writedit–Thank you for your advise.

Reply

grad student said
June 5, 2013 @ 1:01 pm · Edit
First off, thank you for this blog. It is tremendously helpful, particularly to a newbie like myself.

My situation is this:

I submitted an F31 to NINDS in December (with a start date of 7/1/2013) and received an impact score of 20, 5th percentile and the application was recommended for funding. I was told to wait until the Advisory Council meeting that occured (according to commons) on 5/23. I still have received no word about anything, and my application status shows ‘pending.’ Furthermore, I have not received a request for a JIT, but I did receive an email asking for follow up information (to which I immediately responded).

My PO has not been very forthcoming with information. Obviously, I’d like to know the probability of funding, but I would be very happy with info about payline and even a tentative timeline. Is there a way to tactfully press for this kind of information?

Thanks

Reply

writedit said
June 5, 2013 @ 2:16 pm · Edit
With a 5th percentile score, you should be getting an award. NINDS did not cut any fellowship training slots in their FY13 operating plan, so the payline should be the same as last year, and I cannot imagine it is lower than the 5th percentile. You didn’t mention what information was requested, but they would not ask for anything if they were not considering your application for an award. If you have a GMS assigned, you could ask him/her. However, all the ICs have a backlog of awards for applications that should have started April 1 (and maybe earlier), so yours will wait until those are done. It would be nice if the PO would at least confirm that you are getting an award – perhaps if the request for information was to clear up a potential administrative concern, your PO can now give a better response.

Reply

grad student said
June 5, 2013 @ 2:45 pm · Edit
Thanks for the quick response. They requested my academic transcripts from my current institution as well as confirmation on the date I started my doctoral program. I sent an email to my GMS on 5/30, but haven’t received a response.

Given the current state of things, a backlog is understandable. But as you state, it would be nice to receive some sort of confirmation one way or another.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I’d like to keep pressing, but I’m not sure the best way to do it. Would it be best to go try my PO or GMS again? Or should I just wait it out?

writedit said
June 5, 2013 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
If you sent the academic information last week and have not communicated with your PO since the Council meeting, you could send a message simply inquiring whether the recent request for transcripts indicates that you will receive an award (not asking when – just whether). Your PO might not want to respond with a date but should be willing to confirm that yes, you will eventually receive an award (barring any unforeseen circumstances).

OnTheMarketPhD said
June 5, 2013 @ 1:27 pm · Edit
FYI Fiscal year NIAID K payline’s are out (26)

Reply

David said
June 5, 2013 @ 10:12 pm · Edit
I was requested to provide IACUC information, I guess it is a good sign.

Reply

writedit said
June 6, 2013 @ 12:46 am · Edit
Yep – I cannot imagine that any IC has the time to do administrative checks on applications not on the paylist.

Reply

John Worth said
June 6, 2013 @ 8:37 am · Edit
I submitted my K08 (A1) (NICHD) in November 2012, was reviewed in March (13-14) and received an impact score of 20. The grant will be reviewed this week in council. I received my summary statement only last week (is this unusual?), and I have not spoken to my PO. I just saw on your blog that the NICHD payline for K is 18! Please let me know if I still have a chance and if they will increase the payline before September 30. Also, my grant is dual assigned to NHLBI, and the payline is 25. Will my grant be automatically considered and funded by NHLBI or should I speak to someone there. Please advise.
John

Reply

writedit said
June 6, 2013 @ 12:14 pm · Edit
First, receiving your summary statement so late is somewhat unusual but not unheard of. If the summary statement has not appeared in your eRA Commons account by 8 weeks after the SRG meeting, you can send a polite note to the SRO inquiring about when it might be available. Sometimes the SRO is slammed with a huge application load, and the SRO might finish the A0 summary statements before the A1s (since they are less time sensitive in terms of resubmission).

The NICHD funding strategies page was just updated in May, so I suspect the 18 is about final in terms of the payline, but you can check with your PO. Certainly it will remain under consideration until Sept 30th, but you should be working on an R01 or other RPG application for October.

You can talk with your NICHD PO about the likelihood of NHLBI picking up your application and whether he/she will help with transferring the application if there is a possibility of funding through NHLBI. It doesn’t sound as though you have been working with a PO at NHLBI, but if so, you could ask him/her about the likelihood of their accepting the application as well. However, I suspect very very few applications will be picked up by secondary ICs in FY13.

writedit said
June 6, 2013 @ 2:03 pm · Edit
No, no such letters or emails are sent out. Nor are any messages indicating that you will not be funded. You only know that you have received the award when the Notice of Award is issued. Until then, you may have some communication from the GMS seeking administrative data. Because your application is a Sept 1 start date at NCI (NCAB meets in June, also), your award will likely not be processed for many weeks. NCI has a huge backlog of both competiing and non-competing awards that are past their start dates to catch up on first. Your award will be issued in time for your Sept start date but probably no earlier. Your PO has confirmed that you will receive an award, so now you just need to wait a few months – but at least you have good news at the end of this wait.

Reply

writedit said
June 7, 2013 @ 2:49 pm · Edit
Ah. Well, with a score of 38, I am not sure you can be optimistic, unless this is an SRG that did a good job of spreading the scores. If this was an A0 application, you should definitely be working on the A1 if you haven’t started doing so already. You can check with your PO to see if he/she heard or saw anything at the review meeting that would provide additional insight in how you should respond to the weaknesses cited and revise the application. The start date, as an aside, does not dictate precisely when an award will be made. Often awards are issued after the start date, sometimes before.

Reply

writedit said
June 19, 2013 @ 12:18 pm · Edit
The House & Senate are miles apart on the budget still, with the best outcome being a return to FY12 levels. With debt ceiling negotiations & full implementation of the Affordable Care Act ahead, it’s hard to say what will happen right now.

Reply

Dave said
June 20, 2013 @ 4:51 pm · Edit
I think we can expect at best some kind of CR, but I would not be surprised if we are looking at a government shutdown for FY14. The failure of the Farm Bill today is a great indicator of where we are at – GOP rejects it because the cuts are not deep enough, while the DEMs reject it because it cuts too much. Expect similar fights over everything. Embarrassing situation if you ask me……..

Reply

Dave said
June 20, 2013 @ 4:53 pm · Edit
Oh, and the fight has nothing to do with deficits or economics at this point. There is no sane reason for the sequester in the first place, and it certainly makes no sense macro-economically. It’s all 100% politics now.

Reply

Jane said
June 22, 2013 @ 2:30 am · Edit
Thanks, writedit, for your immediate and insightful answer. I had a couple of discussions with the PI these days. I have found out and found out that after the conversion, the grant would not be able to retain its automatic carryover status if it is converted to a U01. Thus, if there is a balance I have to submit a letter and budget requesting any carryover. It would have to be approved by Notice of Award. This is basically the only difference.

Reply

writedit said
June 23, 2013 @ 8:20 am · Edit
Thanks for the update and sharing what you learned – best wishes for success with the research.

Reply

writedit said
July 1, 2013 @ 7:04 pm · Edit
Not to worry (yet). When there are 100 or more applications, it can take the SRO a few days to post the scores, so yours will likely be posted tomorrow or Wed. You will get an ND if you were not discussed, and the status will change to Pending council review.

Reply

writedit said
July 2, 2013 @ 10:06 am · Edit
No, the JIT can come at any point before the NoA is issued. If your research requires any regulatory (IRB, IACUC, etc.) approval, documentation will be required before any funds are released.

Reply

FadiK said
July 5, 2013 @ 1:32 am · Edit
I am still waiting for a formal word regarding my revised R15 (area grant) application. It was reviewed October 2012. I thought I would share the chronology of updates to my eRA commons:

07/02/2013 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/14/2013 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
02/19/2013 Council review completed.
10/26/2012 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
06/28/2012 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
06/25/2012 Application entered into system

Good luck to everyone…

Reply

Cautiously Optimistic said
July 5, 2013 @ 2:27 pm · Edit
FadiK,

Could you tell us what your priority score was for this chronology? I’m curious if the lengthy time was for most proposals through the R15, or if it was lengthy because the score was on the cusp.

Reply

writedit said
July 31, 2013 @ 2:18 pm · Edit
You are fine. The GMSs are incredibly busy right now, so do not take the lack of response as a problem or anything to worry about. Your GMS just hasn’t gotten to your application yet. If your PO said the JIT was fine, it is – and it is just a matter of waiting for your turn in line.

Reply

HOPE said
July 31, 2013 @ 2:33 pm · Edit
Thank you writedit for your alway quick response and great support!

Ping said
July 1, 2013 @ 1:28 pm · Edit
I encountered a similar situation as you had. I had a score of 20/10th percentile for our R01 from AHRQ. The PO said they had no idea about the funding likelihood. Have you figured out the payline of AHRQ. Thanks,

Reply

Murli said
October 24, 2013 @ 2:01 pm · Edit
Congratulations and best wishes. Will it be possible to share your experience and a copy of your K22 proposal with me? I am submitting an application to NCI in two weeks.

Thanks
Murli

%d bloggers like this: