Archived Comments: NIH Paylines & Resources (June-Dec 2012)

imho said
November 11, 2011 @ 12:06 pm · Edit
Thats an awesome score. My PO at NICHD told me that they will fund anything under 20 for the K grants.

Reply

QP said
June 2, 2012 @ 4:40 pm · Edit
Hello,
I have a question about K99 salaries.
I was recently funded the K99/R00 award, and the NIH website states that the awarded budget allows up to $75K for the salary and $25K for supplies. Given that a postdoc with 5yrs experience has a salary of <$50K according to the NIH NRSA standards, is the K99 award not considered a postdoc fellowship? I’m asking because the institute where I am at says that they cannot allow me to be paid above the NIH postdoc standard, despite what salary is stated for the K99.
Anyone have experience with this?

Reply

abcd said
June 2, 2012 @ 4:43 pm · Edit
Congratulations on your award! How about getting promoted to the next level such as lecturer or research associate or instructor.

Reply

writedit said
June 2, 2012 @ 11:41 pm · Edit
The K99 part is for mentored postdoctoral training, and the NIH salary guidelines would still apply, no matter the title (salary defined by years of postdoc training).
writedit said
June 2, 2012 @ 11:39 pm · Edit
The salary limit varies a bit by IC, but the key words are “up to” … you should be paid according to your postdoc status (years of postdoc training) unless there are special circumstances through which an exception may be requested (this must be approved by the NIH in advance of your application, I believe). Your institution would be the one to make the request (not you), and apparently they do not believe you qualify for an exception to the standard postdoc salary level.

Reply

anonymous said
June 4, 2012 @ 8:54 am · Edit
NOT-OD-12-033 (the stipend levels for 2012) applies to “institutional research training grants or individual fellowships, including the Minority Access to Research Career (MARC) and Career Opportunities in Research (COR) programs.”

. The K99/R00 is not a NRSA award and thus there is no requirement that the a K99 recipient’s salary follow the NRSA stipend schedule. However, PA-10-063 (FOA for the K99/R00) states: “The requested salary must be consistent both with the established salary structure at the institution and with salaries actually provided by the institution from its own funds to other staff members with equivalent qualifications, rank, and responsibilities in the department concerned.”

I’d recommend contacting your grants specialist for further clarification, but keep in mind your institution determines their salary structure (and may choose to follow the NRSA schedule even if it is not required by the K99/R00).
writedit said
June 4, 2012 @ 10:01 am · Edit
Aha. This is why I don’t work on budgets … thanks for this great clarification. I think here at BICO, they do follow the standard postdoc training levels to maintain consistency with the institutional salary structure, though when they are recruiting K99 awardees from other institutions, exceptions are made to accommodate higher salary levels. Good luck on the negotiations, QP.
QP said
June 4, 2012 @ 11:43 am · Edit
I see! This is why people I know who got the K99/R00 got promoted to a “higher than postdoc, lower than assis. prof” position and got into a higher salary rank.
I guess the “training” aspect of the K99 extends beyond experiments/science and into the realm of administrative negotiations.
Thanks very much. This forum has been incredibly informative.
mph said
June 4, 2012 @ 1:39 pm · Edit
it seems like you have gotten clarification, but i thought i’d chime in that it really depends on IC and institution. for nichd, the salary can go up to 75K, with fringe (which includes benefits and taxes at my institution), 25 K for research, and indirects on top of that. in the 14th months i waited to get my funding, i transitioned out of the postdoc position. good advice that i got from the PO was that roles and responsibilities from the PAR may be a better barometer for whether a position is independent or not (and thus qualifies for the K99 phase).

Reply

QP said
June 4, 2012 @ 1:52 pm · Edit
My K99 is actually through the NICHD too, so thanks for sharing your experience. Do you mean that since the K99 comes with more PI-like responsibility, that should be the barometer to justify a higher position than a postdoc?
mmm said
June 3, 2012 @ 12:47 pm · Edit
As someone we had two fellowships at the same time and was given a chance to be promoted to non-tenured faculty (research associate) while back, I can tell you that you might want to make sure what is involved before trying to go for the available money from K99. If you get promoted, though your salary will go up, you might end up covering for your healthcare (NIH fellowships cover health benefit for trainees), but non-tenured faculty have to pay a portion of healthcare at my institution. Additionally, you will end up paying FICA tax that trainees do not have to if you have a different title. Plus your institution might want 25-35% fringe benefits.
However, as mentioned before you already got the award and it might be too late.

Reply

writedit said
June 3, 2012 @ 1:11 pm · Edit
Well, there is still the issue too of confirming with the awarding IC what would be allowed in terms of promotion/position for the K99 portion. They’re flexible with these awards, but you need to consult with them in advance.

Reply

QP said
June 3, 2012 @ 7:36 pm · Edit
Thanks everyone for clarifications.
As for healthcare costs, doesn’t the K99 pay for that no matter what your title (either through “fringe benefits” directly from the grant, or through your salary).
And if you decline coverage through the institute because you’re on a spouse’s health plan, for example, then theoretically, it seems that you can keep more of the K99 money for your research supplies/salary?
Also, doesn’t the K99 grant still have to pay for all the so-called “extra costs” mentioned by mmm regardless of the title (fringe benefits, taxes)?

Reply

Silverpark said
June 3, 2012 @ 1:59 pm · Edit
Anyone have any updated info on the NCI PQ RFA besides the Council meeting date of June 26th? I received a Summary Statement on an R01 submission but no further info.

Reply

CD0 said
June 3, 2012 @ 2:25 pm · Edit
To my knowledge, nobody knows. From what I know, the PO may be dead. Hopefully, not, but she does not respond to any stimuli and I start becoming worried…
There were ~750 applications originally reviewed and ~80 went for re-review in the second phase. So my application, for instance, got comments from 6 different reviewers.
I have no idea of whether funding will be based on priority scores, programmatic diversity (meaning funding applications for the highest number of questions), or HV’s mood. I suspect that a combination of all of them, with the latter being more important.
I have never seen such an opaque mechanism, but probably they are still debating how o proceed…
I believe that all summary statements should be in by now, no matter whether you were selected for the second phase or not. So that (I believe) grants can be legally sent for this cycle…

Reply

Silverpark said
June 3, 2012 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
Thanks for the info. Mine had 6 reviews as well. I am assuming that actual JIT requests (as oppossed to a JIT link) have not yet happened?
I guess based on your comments there is no way to know what a good impact score is in this case?

Reply

CD0 said
June 4, 2012 @ 6:35 am · Edit
I suspect that with so much selection there should be a bunch grants with final outstanding scores, but all I know is that the final score of mine was a little lower. Obviously, to get to the second phase, the original scores should have been higher than average, but I do not know how they will judge the opinions of the 6 reviewers. …Whether programmatic priorities, portfolio diversity, etc will get more weight than priority scores, I do not know either… That’s my complain with this process, which is intended to be recurrent. There is no transparency in the criteria, review procedure, etc.
I have not got the JIT specific request either…I guess that we will know who gets funded at the end of June…

Reply

Waiting said
June 3, 2012 @ 4:34 pm · Edit
Excuse the naiive question. From what I can tell based on a number of threads, it seems like R01 RFAs are much more competitive than, say R01 parent grants. Is that right? Would you say that funding depends on both a better score AND even more emphasis on programmatic interest compared to funding for a more generic R01 mechanism?

Reply

writedit said
June 3, 2012 @ 10:36 pm · Edit
It depends. With the RFA, you know the IC(s) have an interest in funding that specific research & have set aside some $ for these applications. If your research falls in the area of the RFA and you do not apply or get funded, you are probably at a disadvantage applying through the parent announcement or another PA since the IC will have already invested $ in that area of research (no gaps in the portfolio). I tell PIs to go for an RFA or PAR if it matches their area of research closely. However, some RFAs receive an avalanche of applications, such as NCI provocative questions (and many less provocative RFAs & PARs), in which case the odds are no better for funding. An application submitted in response to an RFA can be recycled as a regular R01, though, and improved upon submission by the RFA summary statement. With regard to the funding decisions, all applications that are responsive to the RFA will be of programmatic interest, so then it is mainly score and any special IC interest in a particular approach.

Reply

Waiting said
June 4, 2012 @ 12:40 am · Edit
Thanks for the info–very helpful, indeed!
Silverpark said
June 3, 2012 @ 5:37 pm · Edit
You are probably right.

Reply

Jerry said
June 4, 2012 @ 1:18 pm · Edit
My R01 application was approved by the Council as a NI, but my PO told me that because my score is not perfect, even my application was approved by the Council, the final approval from the Director is not guaranteed. What is the possibility of getting approved by the Director?

Reply

writedit said
June 4, 2012 @ 2:18 pm · Edit
Not all applications approved by Council are selected for funding by the IC Director. The Director cannot fund applications that have not been approved by Council, so Council often approves a larger pool than will be awarded. However, at this point, there is nothing you can do (initiate) to secure approval from the Director. If your PO had the opportunity to submit additional information on your behalf that might improve your chances of being selected, he/she would have asked you. While some POs recognize when they can convey optimism, POs are generally conservative in communicating the likelihood of funding to PIs, so you shouldn’t assume the worst, especially at ICs like NCI, where the selection process is subjective above the hard payline.

Reply

Oriade said
June 4, 2012 @ 2:23 pm · Edit
Does this mean an application below the payline can be approved by council and not funded by the director?
writedit said
June 4, 2012 @ 2:37 pm · Edit
In very rare but well-justified circumstances, yes. I do not know all the situations in which this might occur, but most likely if the PI is already very well funded already or if something significant has changed related to the proposal (PI not available or relocated to institution not appropriate for research proposed & no qualified replacement PI available or the same research funded by another sponsor in the meantime etc.). But, for 99.9+% of applicants with scores within the payline, not something to lose sleep over.
Jerry said
June 5, 2012 @ 9:28 pm · Edit
After approved by the Council, I was asked to provide the JIT information, not the automatic one, does this mean my application is more likely to be funded? Is it still up to the Director?

Reply

writedit said
June 5, 2012 @ 9:34 pm · Edit
The Director makes all final decisions on applications to be funded, but the fact that you have a personal JIT request at this point suggests you are likely to be funded, since they don’t do busy work at this stage. Your PO may have updated info now, too, if this is a new request.
Oriade said
June 4, 2012 @ 2:41 pm · Edit
Whew! On a related note, how soon after a council meeting does one get NOA or at least a status change on an application that scored below the payline?

Reply

writedit said
June 4, 2012 @ 2:45 pm · Edit
If you don’t have a GMS assigned yet, being contacted by one (or seeing one added online) should indicate an award is being processed. You can just ask your PO what the timeframe might be, especially if you need to start the work sooner than later. Some awards are processed very quickly, others not so much.

Reply

Richard said
June 4, 2012 @ 7:26 pm · Edit
If a grant in gray zone which had been approved by the previous council meeting but not funded, is it needed to be approved again by the council if it is selected for selected pay?
writedit said
June 4, 2012 @ 11:45 pm · Edit
No – Council is ensuring there are no administrative or institute reasons not to consider the application for funding. They need only approve the application once.
Elemental said
June 4, 2012 @ 9:53 pm · Edit
Writedit, we were contacted by our GMS (NCI) for our SBIR. The GMS requested a verification statement. Does this mean we will get funded, or do we have to wait for council
writedit said
June 4, 2012 @ 11:51 pm · Edit
You have to wait for an NoA. If your application hasn’t gone to Council (Board), that needs to happen first. I doubt NCAB is doing any electronic approvals in advance of meetings, except perhaps for the sub-7th percentile applications. In the meantime, you can ask your PO for an update – you’ll want to establish a working relationship with him/her if you haven’t already.
KB said
June 4, 2012 @ 9:01 pm · Edit
The eRA status of my R01 application just changed to “pending administrative review” over the weekend. It was (A0) submission scored in the grey zone. What is the chance of getting funded? How long does it take from pending status to change into a decision?

Reply

writedit said
June 4, 2012 @ 11:48 pm · Edit
Did you have a JIT request recently? You can just ask your PO … he/she likely knows what will be happening (roughly).

Reply

Oriade said
June 5, 2012 @ 12:41 pm · Edit
Do GMS typically contact all PIs and does this happen before or after council meeting?

Reply

writedit said
June 5, 2012 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
The GMS contacts the PI whenever he/she needs information related to the approval (JIT) or processing of the award.

Reply

Richard said
June 6, 2012 @ 10:18 pm · Edit
In addition to PO, should we have a good working relationship with GMS? I know my PO very well but know nothing about my GMS. Thanks.
writedit said
June 6, 2012 @ 10:22 pm · Edit
You certainly want to be cooperative and pleasant during any interactions, but your sponsored programs office & fiscal administrator will have more dealings with the GMS than you will. The PO is important because he/she can give direction to your research program & application strategy.
PB said
June 6, 2012 @ 5:21 pm · Edit
My SBIR submission for Dec 2011 deadline to NIBIB got an impact score of 20. What are the chances of getting funded? I have talked to the PO, and he said that the process of awarding SBIR grant is in progress, but he gave no indication of chances of us getting the grant.

Reply

writedit said
June 6, 2012 @ 5:32 pm · Edit
With an impact score of 20, you should be funded. It sounds like your PO was saying that your award is being processed, though it is a bit early (start date should be ~July 1). You should just ask for clarification, but I imagine you will be receiving an award. Congratulations on the excellent score!

Reply

PB said
June 7, 2012 @ 11:31 am · Edit
Thanks. The PI said that they have not started disbursement of the SBIR grant, which is surprising given that the council meet was May 21. Is that typically the case? He also says that since NIBIB got some of the projects due to shutting down of NCCR, the award process might be getting delayed.
writedit said
June 7, 2012 @ 12:00 pm · Edit
No, not surprising – the Director makes all the final decisions & it takes time to manage all the new awards for all the mechanisms, of course. The added complexity of absorbing NCRR programs is an issue at recipient ICs, such as NIBIB & NCRR.
PB said
June 11, 2012 @ 8:04 am · Edit
Thanks for the wonderful blog!
I have another question. Our proposal involves non-invasive studies on mice. All the mice studies will be done by a university group that we are collaborating with. The university group has IUCAC approval. Does our company need to take IUCAC approval even if our company wont be doing any of the mice experiments? Also, we have not as yet submitted JIT information. Should we submit the information, or wait for a request from NIBIB before doing it?
writedit said
June 11, 2012 @ 10:39 am · Edit
Only the institution/individuals conducting the animal research need IACUC approval – and this will be required for JIT. You will get a request for JIT, whether in response to the impact score of 40 trigger or an earlier score within the funding range of NIBIB. You don’t want to submit the info until requested.
AZC said
June 7, 2012 @ 8:23 am · Edit
I’m pleased (who am I kidding? I’m psyched) to report that I received word from NIDDK that my K01 will be funded. They cut a year off the budget, but I hear through the grapevine that this is becoming more common as the congressional spending cuts loom. Anyways, best of luck to everybody!

Reply

writedit said
June 7, 2012 @ 8:34 am · Edit
Congratulations! Best wishes for success with your project and career in academic research.

Reply

Mouseter said
June 7, 2012 @ 11:40 am · Edit
I’m delighted to report that my PD has notified me that my K22-A1 is being recommended for funding by NCI. The final decision will be after the NCAB meeting on 6/25-26, but she said in majority of the cases the NCAB goes with the recommendations. She gave me an “unofficial congratulations!” I had a priority score of 21. I’m ecstatic to say the least.

Reply

writedit said
June 7, 2012 @ 11:47 am · Edit
Congratulations again and best wishes for success with your project and career in academic research!

Reply

Mouseter said
June 7, 2012 @ 11:54 am · Edit
Thanks writedit. This page has been an incredible resource of information, encouragement and support.
abcd said
June 7, 2012 @ 11:43 am · Edit
Congratulations mouseter, what was your A0 score?

Reply

Mouseter said
June 7, 2012 @ 11:59 am · Edit
Thanks abcd. I submitted my K22-A0 in Feb 2011, scored 28 in June 2011. Then submitted A1 in Nov 2011.

Reply

abcd said
June 7, 2012 @ 6:32 pm · Edit
hi mouseter, do you mind elaborating what improved the score. Was it a new publication or tightening the aims with more preliminary data or both or perhaps other things.
Mouseter said
June 7, 2012 @ 9:22 pm · Edit
abcd, it was multiple relatively minor things: one subaim was misunderstood by the reviewers and I explained it in my response; also defended use of the mouse model I was proposing to use; one new piece of preliminary data; one new intramural award; one review paper with corresponding authorship; power calculations for the number of mice to be used in the vertebrates section; more details of ethics training and about animal sharing plans.
Delia said
June 7, 2012 @ 1:05 pm · Edit
I submitted my K23 in October 2011 and received a score of 20. I recently contacted my PO to get an update on when applicants might expect to receive information about funding status, particularly because I wanted to know whether I should start the process of resubmiting next month. I was told I should plan on re-submitting because right now there are no plans to fund my k23. Can I pretty much assume I will not get funded this time around. Would the PO have said something else if I had a chance this time around???

Reply

abcd said
June 7, 2012 @ 1:38 pm · Edit
Given that the lower bound on scores is 10, I wonder how low of a score is a guarantee of funding. It seems like you narrowly missed it.

Reply

writedit said
June 7, 2012 @ 2:52 pm · Edit
Wow – 20 is an excellent score, but I know K23s can be very competitive, depending on the IC. If he told you there were no plans to fund your K23, then you should certainly resubmit. If something changes at the last moment, your resubmission won’t interfere with the funding of your A0 (that decision would be made before your A1 was even reviewed, actually, since the FY ends in Sept). I hope you can tell from the critiques what you can tweak to improve the score sufficiently. You might ask your PO if he/she attended the study section meeting and had any additional insight to offer as you prepare your A1. If you have published since the A0, that should help.

Reply

Jeff said
June 7, 2012 @ 1:37 pm · Edit
Delia, what IC did you submit to?

Reply

Oriade said
June 7, 2012 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
I am working on an R01 resubmission. The reviewers on the A0 asked for new experiments – essentially in vivo work – which I am able to respond to. HOwever, I am thinking proposal would flow better if I had 4 aims. However, I am only seen and review grants having 3 aims. Any thought on whether 4 aims is a good or bad idea? The A0 had 3 aims and I cannot remove any of the previous proposed aims as it would weaken the proposal. Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
June 7, 2012 @ 2:59 pm · Edit
Having 4 aims is fine – there is no right or wrong number of aims to have, so long as they all address your central hypothesis. The key is to be able to accomplish everything you propose in the 4-5 year time frame available (assume 4 years unless you are ESI). Adding an aim in response to the prior review should be a welcome addition, assuming it is integrated with the rest of the proposal appropriately.

Reply

lakers said
June 8, 2012 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
Hi, I am working on K25 proposal, page limit is 12. I wonder if Specific aims and Project Summary (or Abstract) counts to this page number limit? Because NIH website says:

First three items of Candidate Information (Candidate’s Background, Career Goals and Objectives, and Career Development/Training Activities During Award Period and Research Strategy – 12 pages (for all sections combined)

Reply

abcd said
June 8, 2012 @ 4:16 pm · Edit
Specific Aims is separate 1 page. Project summary is also a separate page. candidate information+research strategy is 12 pages

Reply

writedit said
June 8, 2012 @ 4:18 pm · Edit
The Specific Aims page does not count toward the 12-p limit for Ks. The Project Summary is a separate upload, also not part of the 12-p limit.

The SF424 instructions are a bit more clear, since you have the application field numbers for reference. Items 2-4 and item 11 (Research Strategy) count toward the 12-p limit. The Specific Aims page is item 10.

Reply

Amy sanders (@hirnartz) said
June 9, 2012 @ 7:32 pm · Edit
Hi,
My K23 A1 application was reviewed on 6/7-6/8 and no score is posted yet at the Commons. For the A0, I had the score by mid afternoon on the second day of the review. Application status is still ‘pending IRG review’ and there has not yet been a snap-out email. Anyone have any idea whether this means it’s likely I’ve been triaged?

Reply

abcd said
June 9, 2012 @ 7:37 pm · Edit
My A0 which got a decent score took 4 business days to post on the era commons after the second day of review meeting. You probably should wait till Wed before getting worried.

Reply

curious said
June 10, 2012 @ 12:16 pm · Edit
Strangely, my A0 RO1 not get discussed, but the JIT link is there. Could there be some mistake? (probably on the JIT side. . .). Are these things entered manually? This info posted the day after they met; hopefully comments will come along soon. Should I call my SRO or wait for comments?

Reply

writedit said
June 10, 2012 @ 12:21 pm · Edit
The JIT link is automatic – just ignore. Sorry to hear your application was triaged. You need to wait for your summary statement, which will be posted anywhere from a few days to a few weeks from now. Once you have it, you can discuss resubmission strategy with the PO, not the SRO. Good luck.

Reply

Silverpark said
June 10, 2012 @ 10:19 pm · Edit
If you do receive a JIT request, when would you receive it? I assume before the Council meeting but how far before?

Reply

writedit said
June 10, 2012 @ 11:01 pm · Edit
It used to be each IC handled this a bit differently, but a new NIH-wide policy on JIT requests has standardized who is asked for JIT (all applications with impact scores of 40 or less) and when (2 weeks after the impact score is released). See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-101.html for details.

Reply

Silverpark said
June 11, 2012 @ 7:50 am · Edit
I received an impact score well below 40 and the JIT link appeared on my Commons list, but that was two months ago and I have not received any emails requesting JIT.
writedit said
June 11, 2012 @ 8:02 am · Edit
Ah – the new policy started April 20. Most ICs had requested JIT close to Council meeting. If your real question is about your likelihood of funding, you should simply ask your PO, though. If your PO has already said you are likely to be funded, don’t worry about when the JIT request comes.
Silverpark said
June 11, 2012 @ 8:14 am · Edit
I just don’t want to miss sending in requested information and put the award in jeopardy. The PO has no idea about likelihood of funding because it is the NCI PQ RFA and no one knows how those awards will be selected. I was told to be “cautiously optimistic” but it was also suggested I could submit a regular R01 in June just in case. I elected not to submit the regular R01 at this time because I think more preliminary data is needed for that review compared to this RFA and I am working on that for October if I don’t get funded through the RFA. I just want to make sure I don’t blow it based on an administrative oversight on my part.
writedit said
June 11, 2012 @ 10:42 am · Edit
Not to worry. JIT is needed to issue the NoA, but not having it in advance won’t jeopardize your consideration for funding, especially for this RFA. Keep working on your October submission and sit tight until you receive a JIT request, realizing this might not be until just before the award is going to be issued (request can come that late). You aren’t putting yourself at risk by waiting, and you won’t “miss” the request. Good luck!
ZHUOLI ZHANG said
June 11, 2012 @ 12:02 am · Edit
Today, I received notice:
My R21 (NCI) resubmission score: imapct/priority score: 27
percentile: 16. I am an NI. is there is any opportunity for funding or what I should do for it. Thanks.
mika

Reply

writedit said
June 11, 2012 @ 12:13 am · Edit
If this was an A0, you should resubmit, certainly. Grants being reviewed now will be considered in FY13, and those paylines won’t be known until next winter/spring. However, the payline is not likely to go down next year, and your NI status is not relevant for R21 applications (only for R01). If this was an A1, then you need to think about developing a new application for October.

Reply

Jane said
June 11, 2012 @ 1:45 am · Edit
Are you sure Writedit? Based on my understanding, NI status is for the first grant, including RO1, R21, or U, or P grant. I may be wrong.
writedit said
June 11, 2012 @ 7:49 am · Edit
The policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-013.html) is to achieve success rates for NI/ESI applicants that are comparable with established PIs. SROs try to cluster all NI/ESI applications together for discussion. The rapid resubmission perk is only for R01s, and I do not know of any ICs that publicize special paylines for NI/ESI for any mechanism except the R01. The NIH wants NI/ESI to submit R01 rather than R03 or R21 applications … and they shouldn’t be submitting U or P level mechanisms at that stage of their career (as sole PI – their NI/ESI status doesn’t affect review/payline if they are project leaders or part of a multiple PI submission). Not all ICs participate in the parent R21 announcement, too.
nick said
June 11, 2012 @ 11:47 am · Edit
I got an impact score in the grey zone for first submission and my JIT link in eracommons got activated soon after. I was told everyone with score till 30-40 has that link activated in eracommons (while the funding range is 20-25). When I spoke to our research office as well as PO, they told me not to make much of that and in case of funding I will get a formal email from NIH requesting JIT. Also my PO was very non-commital about my funding at that time. Finally few months after the council meeting I got an email informing me of funding of my grant and requesting JIT. I would advice to wait for the formal request….

Reply

firsttime said
June 11, 2012 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
This is my first experience applying to NIH and I have a few questions on the process (despite having read many of the great threads above!).

How long does it typically take to be notified of a grant award after a council meeting has occurred? How is this notification made? Is contacting a PO usually informative or is it best to just wait for some kind of confirmation (either positive or negative)? If contacting the PO is informative, is it better to contact them after a certain amount of time has elapsed since the council meeting (i.e. will they have more info several weeks after the meeting versus in the first week or two after the meeting)?

I applied for an F32 in December (NIGMS), got my priority score (20) and review summaries in early/mid March (feels like an eternity ago) and the Council Meeting was May 24th. I have heard from several people that my score is pretty good and often in the funding zone (from friends awarded the fellowship in previous cycles), but I also know that anything can happen. I don’t want to bother the PO if they won’t be able to provide any info but am also not sure if I should bother logging into eRA commons everyday to see if anything has changed. If one is unlikely to get funded, is there notification of that?

Thanks for any info for a first timer.

Reply

writedit said
June 11, 2012 @ 2:05 pm · Edit
So – you should feel free just to ask the PO about your funding likelihood, which I think should be high with a score like that (congratulations). Your PO is there to support extramural investigators with their research efforts, both pre and post award. Some are better than others, but yours will certainly not be bothered by your asking about whether/when an award will be issued. Because you will be funded in FY12, your PO can give a response …. applications that were submitted in February and are just being reviewed now will be funded in FY13, and right now, no one can predict how those paylines might go.

To answer your other question, some POs will send out a notice to scored applicants who will not receive an award, but I believe this remains the exception rather than the rule throughout the NIH (i.e., you are usually not told if no award is forthcoming), so I always recommend that folks simply ask about funding likelihood.

You can learn about how to work with NIH program officials via this archived presentation from an NIH Regional Grants Seminar (http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/upload/Working-with-NIH-Program-Officials-PreAward-PostAward-2.ppt), and NIAID has a tutorial on when to contact your program officer (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/checklists/Pages/checkpo.aspx).

Reply

firsttime said
June 12, 2012 @ 10:06 am · Edit
Thanks for providing more helpful information! There is definitely a lot to figure out when new to the NIH funding process and I appreciate the resource. Even after reading so many posts saying that the PO is there as a resource and one shouldn’t hesitate to contact them, it still feels intimidating to pick up the phone, but I’m glad I did.
firsttimer too said
June 21, 2012 @ 10:22 am · Edit
firsttimer and writeedit, I am in the same shoes, more or less. council meeting finished on may 24th. it has been almost one month since the meeting. i didnt receive anything from GMS or PO. my score is in the gray zone. what should i do? keep waiting? i called PO two months ago and he told me to wait.

Reply

writedit said
June 21, 2012 @ 10:49 am · Edit
You could check in with the PO again, especially if you need advice on resubmitting (if the score you are waiting on was an A0) or reworking the application for another mechanism (if the application was an A1).
Susan W said
June 12, 2012 @ 2:42 am · Edit
I submitted my R15 (NIDDK) in Feb 2012 and got impact/priority score of 19 this week. What is the opportunity for funding? Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
June 12, 2012 @ 6:06 am · Edit
The score seems likely to be in the funding range for the R15 mechanism, assuming paylines do not significantly drop for FY13, but you can check with your PO. He/she won’t know about FY13 paylines, of course, but can say how this score would have done in FY12.

Reply

Susan W said
June 12, 2012 @ 11:20 am · Edit
Thanks for your input.

Reply

John said
June 12, 2012 @ 9:57 pm · Edit
My PO told me that there is a very good chance that my K01 will be funded in this funding cycle. I was recently offered another job at a different institution and if I accept the offer, I will need to transfer my K01. Does moving a K01 award have any negative ramifications on the grant or its funding? When is the best time to transfer the grant (before funding starts or after?) Who approves the transfer? How long does it take to transfer a grant? In addition to transferring funding, can the project location (data collection/study site) be moved as long as the research question remains the same? Is there anything else I should consider?

Reply

writedit said
June 12, 2012 @ 11:28 pm · Edit
Assuming you can do the same research/collect the same data at the new institution, you will be fine – these awards get moved all the time. You need to be able to demonstrate you will have access to the same equipment, animal models, cell lines, reagents, etc. – whatever it is that you need to complete your project – at the new place. Good mentoring, too. Who accepts the award depends on the timing of your move. The award will be made before Sept 30th. What is best is if the NoA (notice of award) is delayed until you change institutions. If you are definitely going to a stronger institution better suited to support your research, then you should be okay talking with your PO about this (without endangering the award). If the new place is about the same, with the possibility of being perceived as not as good, then you might want to wait. If the award is made to your current institution, they will transfer it to your new institution … and there is no jeopardy that they might not. No university who wants to be able to recruit good trainees & faculty wants to have the reputation of seizing grant awards or obstructing their transfer. It will take time & be bureaucratic, but it will happen. That’s why your relocating before the award is issued (which requires the approval/involvement of your PO) is best in terms of timing of funding – though sometimes award transfers move smoothly and quickly.

Reply

John said
June 13, 2012 @ 8:30 pm · Edit
Thanks, writedit. This is really helpful. Assuming the second scenario (the transfer happens after the NoA), what is involved in the changing of mentors? Do new letters of support and “other support” need to be submitted? Does anything else have to be resubmitted or re-reviewed?
writedit said
June 13, 2012 @ 10:38 pm · Edit
Yes, the new mentor needs to be approved by the PO/NIH and will need to submit a letter of support, biosketch, and other support. The Dept chair may also need to write a letter of support, and you’ll need to redo the Facilities & Other Resources, Equipment, etc. I assume you can do the same research (same aims) at the new institution – in which case, no, nothing gets re-reviewed at study section, though it will by the folks at the NIH. Your new institution will know how to handle all this.
KC said
June 13, 2012 @ 2:19 pm · Edit
Hi

Is there any chance for NHLBI increasing paylines for FY2012 after council meeting today?

Thanks

Reply

writedit said
June 13, 2012 @ 2:24 pm · Edit
Not likely at all. At this point, they know how many applications have been scored & how the scores fall & how much money they have to spend. Earlier in the year, all these data were not available, so the potential for some movement remained.

Reply

Waiting said
June 13, 2012 @ 2:31 pm · Edit
Will they know about possible select pay funds for applications in the grey zone?
writedit said
June 13, 2012 @ 2:40 pm · Edit
Yes, they’ll start figuring out their final selections once the payline awards have been sorted out. POs interested in having an application funded by exception are probably already working these requests through the system, though I do not know how this works at NHLBI specifically. If your PO has not talked with you about pushing your application for consideration as a select pay award, you probably aren’t on the list … but you can ask your PO about this.
Oriade said
June 13, 2012 @ 4:00 pm · Edit
HOw soon after a council meeting could I bug the PO about the funding for a grant that was below the payline? This was a FY2012
writedit said
June 13, 2012 @ 4:06 pm · Edit
Has a GMS been assigned (& in contact with you)? Your PO can’t speed up the NoA, though he/she might be able to give a rough time frame for its processing.
Oriade said
June 13, 2012 @ 4:48 pm · Edit
So a GMS is assigned on commons, we got the JIT request from NIH way back in Feb and got it completed. However, I have not had any GMS directly contact me about the grant.
SAM said
June 13, 2012 @ 6:50 pm · Edit
Dear writedit,
I know one person above the current pay line got funding notice recently (NHLBI K grant). My score is exactly same. The same K grant but a different PO. Different study section and different cycle as well (NHLBI usually review K grants in a special study section but mine got reviewed in a regular study section). Is this “select pay”? (already?). Is this irrelevant to my chance of getting fund because of different PO and different study section? My PO seems not dealing many K grants. I appreciate your comments. Very nervous.
writedit said
June 13, 2012 @ 10:43 pm · Edit
Yes, this would be select pay if it is above the payline … and the decision is made based on programmatic interest/need, so the fact that this other application was funded at the same score does not mean yours will. You can just ask your PO if your application might be considered for select pay. If this was an A0, you could ask in the context of whether to resubmit (yes, of course). If this was an A1, you could ask in the context of seeking advice on your best grant strategy – whether to develop the project into an R03 or R21 (if you need preliminary data) or an R01 (if you have good preliminary data already).
j said
June 13, 2012 @ 3:57 pm · Edit
Writedit: do the study section members and the PO have an opportunity to see the assigned reviewers’ scores before the meeting of the study section? If so, when does this usually happen? And if not, do they all see the reviewers’ scores for the first time at the meeting? And is that the time when the upper 50 percent are decided to be “not discussed”, or is this decision made before the meeting?

Reply

writedit said
June 13, 2012 @ 4:52 pm · Edit
Perhaps an SRO can comment, because I do not know if practices are uniform across all SRGs. I believe once a reviewer uploads his/her reviews & scores, he/she can see the scores of the other assigned reviewers for that application. This is just before the meeting, though – I’m not sure the point of asking (reviewers don’t change anything at that point, though scores can & do move as a result of the discussion). The SRO (not the PO) ranks the applciations by preliminary impact score (which PIs never see) to set the cut-off for discussion. At the outset of the meeting, a reviewer can ask to have an application slated for triage discussed, time permitting.

Reply

CD0 said
June 14, 2012 @ 8:04 am · Edit
It may vary among different study sections, but all preliminary scores, with the exception of those for the applications in conflict, are available to all reviewers ~4 days before the meeting. Reviewers are encouraged to read the comments of other peers, particularly if there are big discrepancies. In my experience, most people do it.
The review order is sent ~2 days before, and includes the applications that will be proposed for discussion. Triage is decided at the beginning of the meeting. Every application proposed for no further discussion is specifically named and typically a few are rescued, due to score disparity or other reasons.

Reply

writedit said
June 14, 2012 @ 8:22 am · Edit
Great – thanks so much for sharing your experience.
KE776 said
June 14, 2012 @ 10:01 am · Edit
Anyone receive their impact score yet from this latest round (June 12) of IRG review for a K grant? I know they say it will be posted within 5 business days, but I’m running out of Zantac….

Reply

wondering said
June 15, 2012 @ 11:36 am · Edit
Same boat here. Where did you hear within 5 business days? Are some institutes just more slow to post these?

Reply

Y said
June 14, 2012 @ 7:36 pm · Edit
I’m writing an R01 grant, and realize that one of the aims would be great for an R21 too. Would it be ok if I write up both the R01 and R21 proposals, submit them to different study sections, with the R21 overlapping with one of the R01 aims? I’ll certainly declare scientific overlap in the JIT report, but wanted to know whether I’m allowed to do this.

Reply

writedit said
June 14, 2012 @ 10:47 pm · Edit
No, you cannot have the same aims/science under review at the same time, even if they go to different study sections. If you are caught, both applications are removed. You can try as an R01 and then, if neither the A0 nor A1 are funded, submit the same science as an R21 – or vice versa – but not both at the same time. If you have preliminary data & publications, go for the R01 (the exploratory aim could add to your innovation if it’s especially cool – and rational). If not, you might want to scale back the entire effort for the R21 (assuming your target IC even accepts R21s through the parent announcement or has an appropriate PA through which you can submit an application if not).

Reply

Y said
June 15, 2012 @ 11:08 am · Edit
Hi Writedit: Thanks for your comment. Is there a written policy regarding what would be considered as the “same science”? When we submit JIT report for pending grants, we need to indicate scientific overlap with other current or pending grants – so it seems like certain degree of overlap is acceptable. I am just wondering what exactly is the line here. Thanks!
writedit said
June 15, 2012 @ 11:38 am · Edit
The same aim/approach would be the same science. The reason they ask about potential overlap on your JIT materials is that they will then negotiate changes to the award so the NIH is not paying for the same research funded through other means … but this is at award time. You are talking about having two applications with the same aims reviewed at the same time, which the NIH does not allow (see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2011/nihgps_ch2.htm#similar_identical_applications).

You can talk with your PO about whether you can tweak the R21 enough so it is different, but I assume they would have to go to the same study section (if at the heart they share an aim/science). No matter what, though, check with the PO to be sure you are not violating NIH policy if you decide to submit the two applications (that is, send him/her the specific aims pages for each application).
Y said
June 15, 2012 @ 11:42 am · Edit
Excellent. Thanks for your clarification!
poorgradstudent said
June 15, 2012 @ 11:04 am · Edit
This is my first post on here. I resubmitted an F31(diversity) April cycle. I received my score yesterday (19). Is this a fundable score? How long should I wait to contact the PO? Sorry if these are silly questions, but I am new to the NIH grant process and would love some insight.

Reply

poorgradstudent said
June 15, 2012 @ 11:05 am · Edit
Sorry but this was to NIDDK.

Reply

writedit said
June 15, 2012 @ 5:49 pm · Edit
Depending on the IC (institute) involved, I would expect that to be within the funding range, but it will be a long time before you know for sure. You can contact the PO to see how your score would have fared this year (FY12). The FY13 paylines won’t be known until after the federal budget passes, which won’t be until quite late this year, due to the election. But – your PO should be able to give guidance on whether to resubmit, which you’ll need to know to have time to revise your application, if needed, for the next cycle. I would suggest waiting until you have your summary statement and then contact the PO.

Reply

nervousk said
June 15, 2012 @ 4:59 pm · Edit
I submitted a K application in October 2011, scored a 25 (in fundable range at the IC I applied to), council meeting was held in May. I haven’t heard anything about funding. Talked to the PO a week or two ago and he indicated they hadn’t held the payline meeting yet and it was not scheduled yet. I’m stuck in a funding eligibility window – if I don’t resubmit in July, my eligibility to submit for this K mechanism expires. Any thoughts or suggestions? Should I be giving up hope because I haven’t gotten any JIT requests from the PO? Are things just running slow at some ICs right now? I’m reluctantly prepping a resubmission to hedge my bets, but I’m just wondering if I need to give up hope re: the A0.

Reply

writedit said
June 16, 2012 @ 12:55 pm · Edit
Did you ask your PO about resubmitting? If you have the A1 application ready (or almost so), submitting it will not affect consideration of your A0, so you shouldn’t avoid doing so for that reason. It is extra work, though, so if you haven’t specifically asked your PO, go ahead.

Reply

nervousk said
June 26, 2012 @ 10:44 am · Edit
Still waiting on funding word. Making good progress on my A1 application, close to finishing it. The PO agreed with everyone else I’ve talked with, that because of the eligibility window, I should just go ahead and submit the A1. He was very careful to avoid implying anything (positive or negative) about funding status. Honestly, the changes I’m making in the A1 are all things I needed to do anyway for the best research/career dev design.

This whole process is really stressful – I didn’t have good preparation for such a long wait between peer review and final decision.
writedit said
June 26, 2012 @ 11:00 am · Edit
Sounds like a good plan, a good attitude, and a good PO. Unfortunately, the process has become increasingly stressful in recent years due to budgetary ambiguities, limited resources, and an expanding applicant pool. No one could have prepared for the need to wait a year or more (for Feb submissions in some cases) to learn about final funding decisions. Good luck with your application and your career in academic research.
Richard said
June 16, 2012 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
Writedit, I was asked by my PO to write a rebuttal for one of my RO1 application which is in graze zone one month ago. After that, I was told by my PO to be “cautiously optimistic”. I did not hear anything since then. I received a fundable score from my another (totally different) RO1 application this week. I am wondering whether the excellent score for this RO1 will diminish the chance of my previous RO1 to be funded by select pay. Thanks for your input.

Reply

writedit said
June 16, 2012 @ 12:52 pm · Edit
No (or at least, no, it shouldn’t) … the select pay decision would be made because of the science of the gray zone R01 (of sufficient interest to the IC to fund out of order), and you’ve said it is different from the just-scored application. Also, your current score is for FY13, and, unless it’s a 10, who knows what the fundable range will be.

Reply

Richard said
June 16, 2012 @ 1:03 pm · Edit
Writedit, thank you for your prompt response. Although these two RO1s are totally different, they are administrated by the same PO. Most people will think that my score from the new application will be in the fundable range. That is why I worry about it.
writedit said
June 16, 2012 @ 1:08 pm · Edit
Plenty of PIs have 2 R01s … your PO knows about both, obviously, so you should just ask him what he thinks. Then at least you know whether to lose any neurons worrying about this.
Richard said
June 16, 2012 @ 1:12 pm · Edit
Thanks again, writedit. Have a nice weekend.
abcd said
June 17, 2012 @ 8:56 am · Edit
Hi writedit, is the budget for K applications finalized during the initial submission or is there any scope for modification after scientific review? Suppose I requested for 2 year of K99 and 2 years of R00, can I switch it to 1 year of K99 and 3 years of R00? What about the salary during these stages. Can we change it from a postdoc grade to PI grade when we transfer to the new institution.

Reply

writedit said
June 17, 2012 @ 9:22 am · Edit
In my experience, these are flexible awards, though I have not had experience with all ICs. The odd nature of the award’s structure is difficult to enforce: you apply as an established, successful postdoc for yet more postdoc training but become immediately employable (& highly recruited) as faculty upon receiving a fundable score. You won’t be able to ask for more money, but you should be able to adjust the budget particulars to your current situation. This is all negotiated at the time of award. Unless you have been told you will definitely receive an award, you can sit tight for now, though you could make some preliminary inquiries with your PO about what is feasible at your IC.

Reply

Idostress said
June 17, 2012 @ 11:40 pm · Edit
Thank you, writedit, for this amazing resource. I recently received a score of 27 on a K01 with NIA as the primary institute. NIMH is secondary. Since this is a lost cause at NIA, is it worth seeing if NIMH will take on this application? My understanding is that their K payline is running about 25.

Reply

writedit said
June 18, 2012 @ 7:09 am · Edit
Well, no one will no anything about FY13 paylines for many many months (probably not until next year), so if this is an A0, you should certainly be working on the A1. You can ask the NIMH PO what he/she thinks about your chances with that score in relation to what they funded for FY12 (& whether NIMH would be enthusiastic about your research focus), but nothing can happen with transferring the application until NIA declines it, which won’t happen until later this fall.

Reply

Silverpark said
June 18, 2012 @ 2:50 pm · Edit
Has anyone heard any more updates on the NCI Provocative Questions RFA? Rumors welcome!

Reply

lakers said
June 18, 2012 @ 6:20 pm · Edit
Hi, does anyone know answer to this question? I submitted a K01 grant recently, am I eligible to submit another K grant to different IC on different research strategy? Thank you in advance!

Reply

writedit said
June 18, 2012 @ 8:55 pm · Edit
Another K01? There is the statement in the parent K01 announcement that “An individual may not have two or more competing NIH career development applications pending review concurrently.” This is separate from the blanket statement that they will not accept applications that are “essentially the same”, so I do not think the “two competing” just refers to applications with the same science. I suspect this statement is to prevent people from submitting, say, a K99 and a K22 at the same time. Whether it specifically precludes 2 K01s with different research projects & different training plans, I am not sure, especially since you are allowed (with K01s) to submit the research project as an RPG application (e.g., R21 or R01). If no one else posts here with definitive guidance, I would suggest asking the PO at the second targeted IC. Can you develop either (or both) of your research ideas into a competitive R01? That might be the better use of your time, if you have publications (which you need to look attractive as a K applicant anyway) and preliminary data.

Reply

xiaoling qu said
June 19, 2012 @ 7:30 pm · Edit
Has anyone gotten your NHLBI RO1 score for Feburary submission? They meet @ June 13.

Reply

journaltechs said
June 20, 2012 @ 10:00 am · Edit
Some of the February scores (e.g. the Career Development/K awards that met on June 14) are on eRA commons. Guess the R01 scores can’t be that far behind.

Reply

abcd said
June 20, 2012 @ 10:44 am · Edit
Do submissions from the Feb/March 2012 cycle that received fundable scores have to wait till 2013 appropriations next March to be awarded. Can they not be awarded before?
writedit said
June 20, 2012 @ 10:56 am · Edit
Nope. The Cycle I applications are the first to fall under the next FY. The Council meetings to consider these applications do not meet until after the current FY ends. Although PIs should always submit their applications when they are competitive for review & when their tenure/career decisions dicate the timing, my grant strategy advice is generally to avoid the Cycle I deadlines (Feb/March) – especially if delaying might result in a stronger application (more data, publications) – since decisions on these have been, for the past several years and will be for the foreseeable future, delayed due to the usual Congressional impasse with regard to legislating a federal budget and fall under the conservative interim paylines (since ICs do not know what their final appropriation will be).
xiaoling qu said
June 20, 2012 @ 10:53 am · Edit
abcd, have you gotten your score yet?

Reply

abcd said
June 20, 2012 @ 11:50 am · Edit
xiaoling qu: yes, I did get my priority score on Monday after the meeting on june 14. This is for a K application and not the R01 though.

Reply

KE776 said
June 20, 2012 @ 3:49 pm · Edit
xiaoling qu, I would check eRA commons. My priority score (for a K, though) that was reviewed June 14 was posted on commons three days before I actually received an email telling me it was available. Best of luck!

Reply

me98402 said
June 20, 2012 @ 3:52 pm · Edit
does anyone know why only priority scores and not percentile scores are given out for K’s.
writedit said
June 20, 2012 @ 4:28 pm · Edit
K applications are reviewed by the ICs, not through CSR, and I do not believe any applications reviewed by an IC are percentiled (insufficient & variable numbers across cycles, I assume). Of course, not all mechanisms reviewed at CSR get percentiles either (& not all ICs use percentiles for mechanisms other than the R01). I believe the only mechanism whose payline is pegged to percentiles (except applications submitted in response to RFAs or PARs) across the NIH is the R01.
KB said
June 20, 2012 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
Writedit and All,

This is to ask a question and share some of my experience.

I am ESI and NI. My original R01 submission to NIAID (reviewed in Feb.) was scored in grey zone. I re-subimitted the revised A1 in Feb cycle (4/10), which was scored 4% from June review. One day after I knew the score of A1, I received JIT request for -01 (A0) original application. My GMS informed me that -01 (A0) would be funded for 4 years instead of requested 5 year funding. I can choose to wait for the decision on the A1 which had a better score, but there is a chance that a general reduction will take place in the new fiscal year.

My experience: Working on re-submission right away was definitely the right thing for me. Addressing reviewers’ questions did help me to improve the grant.

My questions: Does anyone know the chance of general reduction of the new fiscal year? In addition, who will make decision on full vs reduced funding on individual application.

Thanks and good luck to everyone.

Reply

writedit said
June 20, 2012 @ 3:32 pm · Edit
What a nice dilemma to have. I think the main question is how soon do you need or want funding. The A0 will be funded this summer. Your A1 will not be funded until 2013 (probably spring), though with a 4th percentile score, your award should not be delayed too much (i.e., not in the grey zone at all). If you have only heard from the GMS, you could ask your PO if the A0 project period might be reconsidered in light of the 4th percentile A1 score.

Normally I would assume that your 4th percentile ESI application would be funded for 5 years, though the budget would be cut each year (that will happen if you accept the A0 award, too). However, depending on what happens with the federal budget & debt/deficit reduction, if the ICs need to start planning ahead for an across-the-board 7% budget reduction (sequestration), they may be even more conservative about making 5-y awards … and who knows what will happen with the election this fall and another debt ceiling showdown at the end of 2012 or early 2013.

Reply

KB said
June 20, 2012 @ 9:16 pm · Edit
Writedit,

Thanks for your reply and suggestion. This website has been so helpful!
Anya said
June 20, 2012 @ 9:08 pm · Edit
I submitted three R01s in the past two years (my first years as a faculty member). In the past six months I have learned that all three have some chance of funding. My first R01 received an impact/priority score of 10 (1st percentile), my second received an 18 (9th percentile), and the third received a 10 (5th percentile). They were all assigned to NIDDK. I know that I am very fortunate to be in this situation, but I was wondering if anyone could advise on the likelihood of NIDDK awarding at least 2 of the 3 grants? I talked to one of the project officers and he was very helpful and responsive. But, he said that they would consider 2 but not 3, since I am still a new investigator (for another few weeks) and an Assistant Professor (relatively junior).

Does anyone have any advice on perhaps asking for one of the grants to be transferred to a Co-I? The first grant is slated to begin July 1, so that one is squarely in this current fiscal year. The other two cross into next fiscal year, which could be a problem given that it’s an election year and we will have to wait on congress to appropriate a new budget. Anyone have experience with multiple awards, especially in light of the new $1.5mill additional review for investigators?

Reply

writedit said
June 20, 2012 @ 9:27 pm · Edit
Honey, I could be wrong, but I am guessing no one in recent years has been in your situation. Congratulations on writing two perfect R01s (the 10s) and another exceptional application (18) … an amazing accomplishment to score so well on three distinct proposals in the span of two cycles. Are you also suggesting that together they exceed $1.5M in total costs? The FY12 application you should simply accept. Were any secondary ICs assigned to either of the applications for FY13? Pushing one of the applications to a secondary IC could be an option if so. You can request a change in PI for an application that has already been awarded (e.g., the R01 that scored 10 to be awarded this summer), but the justification must be reasonable, and the IC must approve the change. Doing so just to be able to accept a third award will almost certainly not fly as good justification. The alternative PI choice would also need to be a faculty member playing a significant role on the project (not a postdoc, not a low-effort collaborator/consultant). Good luck sorting out this happy problem and with the research itself – congratulations again on this remarkable success.

Reply

BB said
June 21, 2012 @ 10:32 am · Edit
I was told by my PO that my R15 will be funded, received and returned my JIT, and now my commons status is “pending”. Since then, I have been waiting a few weeks and have not yet heard anything from my GMS. Am I in the clear or do I still need to remain nervous?

Reply

writedit said
June 21, 2012 @ 10:48 am · Edit
You don’t need to be nervous – you can ask the GMS or PO about the time frame for the notice to be issued.

Reply

walking on eggshells said
June 22, 2012 @ 10:04 am · Edit
Question: I am attending a meeting of which the organizer served on my study section and likely was a primary reviewer (assuming that based on research focus). The grant was triaged; the comments were constructive–they were intrigued but wanted some sections to be further developed–and we plan to try once more as we can probably clear up the issues. My question is–what are the guidelines in this situation; I hope to meet the meeting organizer; am I prohibited from even mentioning my grant? Will it be the ‘white elephant’ in the room? Or can I say the comments were good and we’re going back in?
thanks for any advice.

Reply

writedit said
June 22, 2012 @ 10:20 am · Edit
You can do exactly what you suggest – meet the organizer, talk about your research & your grant application in the context of making progress, mention that you did receive useful comments, which you felt optimistic about using to improve the proposal. You do not know this person is the reviewer. Your research brought you to the meeting, so of course you want to talk about your science (and everyone talks about how their grant applications did). Just don’t express your belief that this person reviewed your application … no need to talk about the SRG composition either.

Reply

Comradde PhysioProffe said
June 22, 2012 @ 10:37 am · Edit
This is completely totally wrong. You should not make any explicit reference in conversation with a study section member to a grant application reviewed by that study section. Regardless of whether it is within the rules of NIH, it creates a very uncomfortable situation for the study section member–who will likely feel as though you are fishing for additional information concerning review of your grant–and not make them feel kindly towards you then or in the future.
InsightFul said
June 22, 2012 @ 10:44 am · Edit
I fully agree with Comradde PhysioProfile. It is a BAD idea to discuss your review with a study section member. The person knows that you know about him/her being on the panel. Yet you chose to bring up the topic. He may even report this conversation to the study chairperson and may even recuse himself from further review of your application.

Reply

writedit said
June 22, 2012 @ 10:56 am · Edit
I apologize – you are absolutely correct. I hurriedly focused on Walking’s assumption of the identify of the reviewer, but of course the meeting organizer would know his/her name was on the roster (seen by the applicant), so it doesn’t matter whether the organizer reviewed the application. But, Walking on Eggshells should still not avoid talking with the organizer, and such a conversation would likely be more productive/interesting if it centered on stimulating new ideas & reports in the field in any case.

Reply

Walking on Eggshells said
June 22, 2012 @ 12:08 pm · Edit
Thanks, all; I will then talk just about science and not even bring up the grant or anything to do with it.
Thanks!

Reply

CSTEW said
June 22, 2012 @ 4:26 pm · Edit
I just received my K01 (NIDDK) priority score of 29 today. My first score was a 33. I’m afraid it’s not enough of an improvement to get funded. Of course I don’t have the comments back yet – have to wait FOREVER.

Do I have ANY reason to be optimistic? I was told the first time that a 33 was in the “gray zone”, but maybe a 29 is in the same place (?)…

Any comments would be great!

Reply

Jerry said
June 22, 2012 @ 5:31 pm · Edit
writedit:

My A0 is in the grey zone and has a possibility to be funded. I was asked by PO to provide JIT. However, I was suggested to resubmit my application in case it will not be funded. TO increase the possibility of funding, I plan to change the primary IC to another IC with better payline this year and request the previous primary IC as the secondary IC. Will the change of the primary IC decrease the possibility of funding for my first submission? If I keep the previous primary IC and request a secondary IC, will the possibility of funding from the new secondary IC decrease? Which way is better? I did not request a secondary IC for my first submission. It was a mistake. I did not contact my PO because she has been helpful. I am afraid that she will be unhappy and will not do her best to help me get my first R01 if she knows that I intend to change the primary IC for my resubmission.

Reply

writedit said
June 22, 2012 @ 6:28 pm · Edit
I cannot recommend that you ask to have your A1 submitted to a new IC and am not entirely sure you can (since the grant number reflects the original primary IC), though I do not know offhand whether this is specifically prohibited by NIH policy. Your institution grant administrator or sponsored programs/research office could tell you. It sounds as though your current PO has been helpful, and you have no idea what the budget/payline will be like for FY13 (for any IC). Have you established a relationship with an appropriate PO in the IC you now intend to target – and has this PO indicated an interest in accepting assignment of your A1 application (& whether this is possible/advisable)? If not, you should not simply ask for reassignment in your cover letter without having communicated with someone in the new IC. You could ask for a secondary assignment for the A1 – but, again, you would want to communicate with someone at the secondary IC and let your primary IC PO know you intend to do this (she will find out soon enough).
writedit said
June 22, 2012 @ 5:54 pm · Edit
Well, the 33 was in the FY12 gray zone, the 29 is in the FY13 gray zone, which is even murkier right now. My guess is that the PO won’t have anything more definitive to tell you, but you could contact him/her and ask about the next application strategy, whether an R01 or an R21 or R03 (to get more preliminary data) based on your research plan. You should start down that road no matter what, since you won’t know about the K01 A1 until next year.

Reply

PatientAndHopeFul said
June 22, 2012 @ 6:07 pm · Edit
writedit, can you explain a little bit about interim budgets and what they mean. Specifically, in the Sept/Oct council meetings, can the Cycle I with high priority scores be funded based out of an interim budget?
writedit said
June 22, 2012 @ 6:35 pm · Edit
There will almost certainly be a continuing resolution (CR) based (hopefully) on FY12 funding levels (but Congress could use any FY). During the CR, interim paylines will be conservative, but applications with low score/percentile will be considered for an award. No gray zone applications will be considered until the final appropriation is known, probably not until well into 2013.
CStew said
October 25, 2012 @ 6:13 pm · Edit
Writedit, I agree. My ‘gray zone’ K01 was recommended by the Advisory Council for 3 years of funding (down from 5 years). I was initially elated, but with all the funding mysteries, am now less optimistic. I was told that it would be several more months before the budgets are straightened out. I was also recommended to publish a couple more papers to bolster my position. (One down, one to go…).

Let’s just all hope the sequester is averted…

Thanks for all the insight!
writedit said
October 25, 2012 @ 6:42 pm · Edit
Good luck with the papers and K01 …
Jerry said
June 23, 2012 @ 9:57 am · Edit
My status is that A0 is waiting for the final decision from the IC Director, but approval is not guaranteed. The new IC PO agreed that I can request the change for the A1, but he is not sure if this can be done. Will my primary IC PO be unhappy with this potentail change? Will an application be funded from the IC with the same possibility no matter the IC is assigned as the primary or secondary?
Thanks

Reply

writedit said
June 23, 2012 @ 11:24 am · Edit
Do you mean he is not sure CSR can change the primary IC (even if you ask for it)? That is what I am not sure about either.

If you submit the A1 with the same primary and request a secondary IC this time, the primary IC needs to decline the award, but then the secondary can make an award – assuming the science is of programmatic interest. It sounds as though you have talked with this other PO and confirmed his interest in having your project in his portfolio. This takes a little longer, and having the secondary pick up your award even if it is within their payline is not guaranteed (secondary IC director needs to agree). Did you ask the new PO about the likelihood of an award if they are assigned as secondary IC? (that is, how many secondary applications does his IC typically pick up)

If you have a good relationship with your primary PO, you might just talk with her about resubmission strategy generally (for example, have you asked her for guidance on what to focus on changing in your A1?) and bring up the question about changing primary or adding a secondary in this context (I am thinking conversation rather than email here). She’ll understand you are anxious to get the project funded, and primary IC POs who are enthusiastic about the science are usually happy to help move an application to a willing secondary IC. If you don’t say anything, she will find out when your A1 goes in that you have either requested a new primary or added a secondary. At least, I assume CSR referral folks will need to contact her if you try to change primary IC (she would see the addition of a secondary IC).

We’ll see if you get other advice here … or if someone jumps in to correct me on these suggestions (for which I am always grateful!).
Oriade said
June 22, 2012 @ 10:29 pm · Edit
Is this a mistake. I just had an R01 (NHLBI) score at 34% and I had a JIT link show up, which I took as a generic automatic thing. Now I am getting an email from NIH to submit a JIT. This does not make sense. Anyone else having the same issue?

Reply

writedit said
June 22, 2012 @ 11:52 pm · Edit
Your impact score must be 40 or less. There is a new NIH-wide practice of sending out JIT requests for all applications scoring 40 or less, regardless of the IC payline (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-101.html). You can contact your GMS to see if you need to submit the JIT material.

Reply

Jerry said
June 24, 2012 @ 7:49 am · Edit
Writedit:

Regarding my issues above:

Yes, the new PO is not sure if CSR can change the primary IC even if I ask for it. As you suggested I need to get information from the new PO on how many secondary applications does his IC typically pick up. I also need to talk with my primary PO about the possibility of changing the primary IC and adding a secondary IC. It seems like the change of the primary IC is the best choice here, but not sure if this can be done. Does anyone have the similar issues before?
Also, when will the primary IC director make a final decision on my A0, in July? My deadline to submit JIT is June 26. The fiscal year ends in June. He should know if they have available funding to support my A0 at this time, right?
I greatly appreciate your suggestions.

Reply

writedit said
June 24, 2012 @ 7:54 am · Edit
The NIIH fiscal year (& all federal agencies) ends Sept 30th, but yes, you should know about the A0 by July or Aug (probably July). You should submit the JIT no matter what, though – there is absolutely no reason not to (and your delaying its submission could be delaying its consideration – the Director can only assess applications that have been cleared of any administrative bars). The A0 will remain under consideration after you submit the A1.

Reply

Jerry said
June 24, 2012 @ 11:07 am · Edit
Thanks for your prompt reply at weekends. I have submitted the JIT last week. The A0 will remain under consideration after I submit the A1 EVEN the primary IC is changed for the A1, right?
Thanks again.

Reply

writedit said
June 24, 2012 @ 11:11 am · Edit
Yep. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and good luck with both applications.

Reply

srp said
June 25, 2012 @ 10:53 am · Edit
Hi,
It is first time here for me and it is first grant I have ever submitted (R21, NIAD) – I am just second year after starting my new independent project and being research associate. I got priority score 32, from this what I see the payline is 28. What should I do now? Sort of shy to ask anywhere else and not sure I should bother the PO or others. I know it might be silly but the entire system seems to be complicated and simply overwhelming. I read this blog and learned really a lot. I actually can sort of understand what certain things mean in era commons and beyond. My other question is about the JIT (activated), should I do something about if yes actually what? I really feel like first year in the kindergarten…. Thanks for all the work!

Reply

writedit said
June 25, 2012 @ 11:02 am · Edit
Nobody is born knowing this stuff, and it’s rarely explained in grad school or by advisors (some are better than others), so you are not alone and shouldn’t feel shy or awkward about asking. The NIAID payline is pretty firm, but you can ask your PO (again, don’t be shy – this is what he/she is there for) about whether your application might be considered for select pay (doubtful, but worth an ask) and what your best resubmission strategy might be (assuming this is an A0 – first submission). The PO might have attended the study section meeting, so might have additional insight beyond the summary statement on how to focus your revision. The JIT is active for all applications (throughout the NIH, not just NIAID) receiving an impact score of less than 40 – again, you can ask your PO whether you need to submit the JIT material. Just send a short, polite e-mail with these questions and you’ll be fine. NIAID has the best online information about the grant application, review, and award process, so please check their site for any concepts you don’t understand: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/aag.aspx (a glossary to explain the terminology, too). Good luck – and don’t hesitate to ask again here.

Reply

writedit said
June 25, 2012 @ 11:43 am · Edit
Sorry – scratch the select pay query … I am getting queries about scores for both FY12 & FY13 and forgot that you are no doubt asking about an application that was just reviewed in June, which means FY13. Because the payline will likely get tighter if anything (& won’t be known for many months), you should plan on a resubmission (if this was an A0) but should still ask the PO if he/she has any additional insight for planning your A1 submission in Nov.

Reply

MKIM said
June 25, 2012 @ 11:25 am · Edit
Hi, in my R43 SBIR application, I have got an impact score of 34. I was wondering about the paylines for NINDS and if that score is fundable.

Reply

writedit said
June 25, 2012 @ 11:37 am · Edit
You can ask your PO whether your score would have been fundable in FY12 … the FY13 payline won’t be known until next year, probably.

Reply

MKIM said
June 25, 2012 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
Thank you, I was wondering if in your knowledge what was the typical score that is considered fundable in R43.R44

Reply

writedit said
June 25, 2012 @ 12:23 pm · Edit
It varies by IC, but your PO should be able to tell you how this would have fared in FY12 … the score seems a tad high but could be close to their typical payline.

Reply

srp said
June 25, 2012 @ 12:42 pm · Edit
Thank you so much! It is A0 and I will try to resubmit in November. I am waiting curiously for the reviews and the summary statement. I think I will write the PO first, when I get them. Although I did not get the grant I feel lucky to be scored, considering the grant is based only preliminary data and no single publication supporting it. Again thank you for all you do and the kind words! P.S. Do they give any score points for free to new mothers with infants ;)?

Reply

writedit said
June 25, 2012 @ 2:12 pm · Edit
Yes, you should wait for the summary statement so you can discuss this with the PO. Sadly, no payline break for new moms (& no new/ESI break for the R21 mechanism).

Reply

Boom’nBrads said
June 25, 2012 @ 8:55 pm · Edit
Does anyone have any idea about NIBIB paylines for K99s? I got my score today for my first submission and am in the mid 20′s. I wanted to wait at least a couple of days before I start bothering the PO, but I’m not sure how to interpret the score. I figure it should be somewhat competitive, but not sure how funding might work with falling paylines.
Any info would be helpful as NIBIB doesn’t seem to publish K award paylines anywhere.

Reply

writedit said
June 25, 2012 @ 9:07 pm · Edit
Hmm. First, FY13 paylines won’t be known for many, many months (and will not be better than FY12), though your PO could give you an idea of how your score would have funded in FY12. However, since NIBIB only funded 4 K99s in FY11 and 5 most FYs prior, your score, as good as it is, is almost certainly not good enough. Some ICs only fund a score of 10 for this mechanism. You should wait until you have your summary statement, then ask the PO for resubmission strategy tips (he or she might have gone to the study section meeting or know the panel well enough to suggest what they really want to see).

Reply

EH504 said
June 26, 2012 @ 2:02 am · Edit
Hi writedit,
You mentioned “Some ICs only fund a score of 10 for this mechanism”. Does it mean that every reviewer in the study section gives a score of 1? Then the K99 is way too competitive. I am so shocked.
Does this apply to other types of K awards?
Thanks!
writedit said
June 26, 2012 @ 8:05 am · Edit
Some ICs fund a lot more K99s at higher scores, so my point is to check your target IC to see how many they fund each year. I can recall at least one prior poster here who reported receiving a score of 10 on a K99, so it does happen. Each IC is different in the number of awards they make for each mechanism, so you should always check, especially if you can target your research to an IC that makes more awards in your mechanism of interest (not always possible, though).
Jane said
June 26, 2012 @ 1:53 am · Edit
Dear Writedit,

These years have been extremely tough for me. I just learned that my 13th percentile grant was not recommended for funding again. When I asked my PO for reasons, he was very impatient and just replied the SPL made the decision. Last year, he was the PO for my 12%percentile grant and it did not get funded either. I understand how important to have a support PO in the current situation. It’s so frustrating. The POs have much more power these days. What can I do? Any suggestion? Thank!

Reply

writedit said
June 26, 2012 @ 8:18 am · Edit
Actually, the SPLs and Harold have the power at NCI. Your PO is likely as frustrated as you that projects he would like to see in his portfolio – proposals that did well in scientific peer review – are denied funding. The PO cannot do anything more than make a case for your application to his superiors, and it sounds like he is doing that – he does not have “much more power” that he is not using on your behalf. The frustration is that many, many applications in the 12-14th percentile range are not being funded (including those at other ICs), and budget realities suggest that even lower scoring applications may be passed over in years to come, depending on what happens with debt/deficit reduction measures in Congress. No one wants to see good science left on the table unfunded … if you want to help protect federal funding for research, please keep reminding your Congressional delegation how important this is to protect when setting budget priorities.

Reply

Gme said
June 26, 2012 @ 2:22 pm · Edit
Jane,

When did you find out that your 13% would not be funded? Did your PO comment on why your grant was not picked up? Does your research fit into their “priority” (whatever that is)? I would think that they would pick up your A1 when both applications received such great scores. Did your PO asked you to write a rebuttal? It is very frustrating for all of us.

Reply

Jane said
June 26, 2012 @ 9:48 pm · Edit
He informed me yesterday by the phone, and did not give any reason. I don’t know what is their “priority” now, but the grant is about hormone resistant tumor growth. My 12th percentile grant was a different one. My PO has never asked me to write a rebuttal for the both grants. But he told me that he did forward these two grants to the SPL with his “strong” recommendation….. It is heartbreaking with these two unfunded grants…..
Gme said
June 27, 2012 @ 12:09 pm · Edit
That’s devastating. Are you ESI/NI or established PI?
journaltechs said
June 26, 2012 @ 9:01 am · Edit
Hi Writedit

I submitted a K award to NHLBI in February, and got a score in the mid-teens for my initial (A0?) submission. While initially elated (given that it was well within the FY 2012 payline), all the talk about the FY 2013 budget crunch has started to make me a little paranoid, as my council meeting won’t be until October. If there are simple fixes when I receive the SRG comments, should I think about submitting an A1 to try and drive the score even lower? Or should I just relax, speak to the PO after I get the comments, and get back to work..?

Reply

writedit said
June 26, 2012 @ 9:19 am · Edit
You should relax a bit, wait for your summary statement for your A0 application, and then get in touch with your PO as to whether you should start planning to submit an A1 application in November. Keep in mind the PO will truthfully say that he/she does not know your funding likelihood due to the many budget unknowns. However, if you are well within the FY12 payline, you could be fine, since FY13 will likely start with a continuing resolution (CR) that maintains the federal budget at FY12 appropriation levels. Alternatively, Congress could peg the FY13 CR to an earlier FY (which would mean lower paylines), but this isn’t likely during an election year. However, we hit the debt ceiling again this winter, and Congress would actually need to cooperate to avoid the sequestration measures (across the board cuts that would kick in Jan 2013).

Reply

journaltechs said
June 26, 2012 @ 4:02 pm · Edit
Ok, thanks – I’ll try and keep my paranoia in check…

I have one other question about K awards (and applications in general). How long does an application (or impact score) persist in the system? As a hypothetical example, say at the first FY13 council meeting they set the payline at 10, and someone with an A0 at 25 doesn’t get funded. Then later in the year the financial situation improves, and they move the payline to 30. Would the score of 25 be automatically re-analyzed for funding at that point, or would they have to submit an A1 application to have a chance? In extreme cases, would a application/score persist across financial years (e.g. FY13 to FY14) until the payline improved, or does it only count for a single year?

Apologies if this has been answered above. Thanks for all your help and advice.
writedit said
June 26, 2012 @ 6:22 pm · Edit
Your application is administratively active throughout the FY in which it was reviewed and sent to Council. Applications that are passed over early in the FY (due to conservative paylines) can be picked up later, any time before the end of the FY (Sept 30th). To the best of my knowledge, applications do not cross FYs … but I do not know for certain whether exceptions can be made.
Silverpark said
June 26, 2012 @ 3:17 pm · Edit
How long after Council should one expect to find out if a grant was funded? What appears in Commons to indicate a positive result or do you receive an email from the PO?

Thanks

Reply

writedit said
June 26, 2012 @ 6:15 pm · Edit
Joe Gindhart just answered this for NIGMS on the Feedback Loop (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2012/06/25/did-council-fund-my-grant/): it takes 2-3 weeks after the Council Meeting for the program staff and IC Director to come up with a list of applications to be funded (the paylist at NIGMS). I expect the process and timing is similar for other ICs – probably faster for those like NIAID that fund predominantly according to their payline. Your PO can give you an idea of timing, and if you wait a couple of weeks, can tell you whether you are on the list.

Reply

can’t stop writing… said
June 26, 2012 @ 7:46 pm · Edit
If the sequestration were to occur post-election, does anyone have a sense of how significantly that would cut into the institute paylines and when the cuts would take effect? Maybe everyone is assuming an 11th hour solution, but given the current dysfunction in congress I have my doubts. My recent grant received 8th percentile, but will be going through Council at NIGMS in October. Since this is shortly before the election, after which that whole budget mess begins, it would be useful to figure out what kind of wrench that may throw into things.

Reply

writedit said
June 26, 2012 @ 8:06 pm · Edit
Congratulations on the exceptional score. Sequestration won’t happen until Jan 2013, if it does. When NIGMS Council meets in Oct, we’ll be under a CR (continuing resolution). This will probably just continue FY12 funding levels, but the Republicans could try to base it on an earlier FY (Eric Cantor tried to do this last year, I think). Because you’re at the 8th percentile, you could be an early pick for funding (i.e., under the CR). Since this pattern has been ongoing for the last several FYs, your PO should have some idea of how many applications they will fund at the outset of the FY and whether yours might be one of them, based on the score and programmatic interest. The Budget Control Act does throw in another unknown (sequestration), but the ICs should be getting their contingency plans in order, and your PO should – I would hope – have some idea whether all funding decisions will wait until Jan or whether some clearly fundable applications will receive awards sooner.

Reply

can’t stop writing… said
June 26, 2012 @ 9:02 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for the quick and thorough reply! I’ll get in touch with my PO as the end of year politics shape up and see what the contingency plans for GM and time lines look like.

Reply

KB said
June 26, 2012 @ 9:48 pm · Edit
Will sequestration affect grants awarded in FY12 or only grants to be awarded after FY13?

Reply

writedit said
June 26, 2012 @ 9:58 pm · Edit
Only FY13 and after … FY12 ends Sept 30, 2012.
WFE said
June 27, 2012 @ 9:35 am · Edit
Writedit, is no cost extension allowed on R56?

Reply

writedit said
June 27, 2012 @ 11:07 am · Edit
Hmm. I know they can’t be renewed, of course, but I’m not sure about the NCE. You can ask your PO or GMS.

Reply

WFE said
June 27, 2012 @ 11:42 am · Edit
Thanks Writedit, I will check with the PO.
AB said
June 27, 2012 @ 11:18 am · Edit
So I was told today from my PO that my F31 from NCI was cleared and that it will take another month for my institution to be contacted. What happens next? Should I be happy?

Reply

CD said
June 27, 2012 @ 11:37 am · Edit
That’s awesome! Did your PO contact you or did you contact them? I am also waiting for a decision…

Reply

writedit said
June 27, 2012 @ 11:45 am · Edit
Yes, on the being happy. Now you just wait (you’ll be contacted when the award is going to be activated). Congratulations & best wishes for success. I’m sure a lot of folks who follow this page would be interested to know what your fundable score was.

Reply

AB said
June 27, 2012 @ 12:40 pm · Edit
I contacted my PO a few weeks back since I got an email saying that I was being considered for funding and they said to call back today when they would know more. My score from August 2011 NCI F31 study section was 23rd percentile. I was told from PO when I discussed my comments that it can take about a year from score to funding decision/money so that is just about spot on.

Reply

CD said
June 27, 2012 @ 3:31 pm · Edit
Thanks for the info! I’m in the same situation but just haven’t had the courage to call yet. My priority score was a 25 in the 24th percentile. Crossing fingers…

Reply

AB said
June 27, 2012 @ 4:15 pm · Edit
Much luck you! I would say call and find out. The PO is your lifeline to funding so better to get to know him/her and that way you’ll at least know one way or the other. From what I heard they are funding up to the 25th percentile (originally they were conservative and up to the 20th only) What submission date was your grant from if I may ask because they are just now discussing additional funding for April 2011 (August 2011 study section)?

Reply

CD said
June 27, 2012 @ 9:19 pm · Edit
Thanks! I actually emailed my PO and found out that my app has also been approved! I submitted December 2011 and had my SRG meeting in March. I also quickly resubmitted again in April and that resubmission is getting reviewed in the next couple of weeks. Congratulations again!

Reply

BOK said
June 27, 2012 @ 6:28 pm · Edit
Do we have to send in the actual animal protocol to the GMS/PO or just the IACUC approval date for the JIT request?

Reply

writedit said
June 28, 2012 @ 9:55 am · Edit
Just the IACUC approval information.

Reply

apin said
June 28, 2012 @ 9:53 am · Edit
Hi,
I am a junior faculty (non-tenure) and was recently awarded a K08 grant. I want to apply for R-21 soon on a new direction and wondering if its too early or I should still submit it?

Reply

writedit said
June 28, 2012 @ 11:46 am · Edit
This is tricky – you are allowed to reduce effort during the last 2 years of your K08, but of course you may need to apply twice before you secure R21 funding. If you are still in your first year and have 5 years of support, you should probably wait until your second year to start applying. The idea is that you need some time for mentored career development – if you were ready to just start applying for RPG awards, you didn’t need the K support. You can ask your PO how far out you can apply, in case you do get the A0 funded. I expect others have run into this and might be able to share their experience. Here is the policy on concurrent K & R funding: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-065.html

Reply

mef said
June 28, 2012 @ 2:39 pm · Edit
Writedit: what do you think my prospects for “select pay” might be on a NIDA K with an A1 score of upper 30′s? I know you usually encourage people to ask the PO, but I cannot contact him until the summary statement comes out. Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
June 28, 2012 @ 8:42 pm · Edit
Well, you don’t want to contact him until you have your summary statement. I would not be too optimistic about select pay, though, unless he has been very enthusiastic & encouraging about your work. This will be for FY13, so even less likely, I’m afraid.

Reply

mef said
July 5, 2012 @ 10:26 pm · Edit
Writedit: Thank you for your response. Yes, the PO has been very enthusiastic and encouraging about my work. I agree that the FY13 prospects in general are less optimistic. But, given that the PO was supportive thus far, how much can he actually do to help fund a K in the high 30′s? Have you ever heard of this type of score being funded in the past? And, although I cannot speak to the PO yet (still have not received summary statements), should I begin preparing an R-series application, or would it be best to wait until talking with him first?
writedit said
July 5, 2012 @ 11:59 pm · Edit
Adding to the mix the fact it is NIDA (to be merged with NIAAA by FY14 to form the new addiction research institute – http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-045.html), I am not sure your PO can help an impact score in the high 30s – but it’s not impossible. Since you would be looking at an October submission, you can probably wait for your summary statement, particularly since it should provide some guidance on revising the research strategy for an R21 or R01, but you should definitely plan to prepare an RPG application for October. If you were light on publications, you’ll want to concentrate on getting another manuscript or two submitted/accepted before then so reviewers take you seriously.
Dave said
June 28, 2012 @ 3:38 pm · Edit
Hi writedit,

You are a great resource, espeically for you peoplle like myself. Thank you.

Now for my question. I submitted an NCI K99 in Feb (first submission) and received a priority score of 22. Last years playline was 27. PO will not talk to anyone until we get the summary statements. However, I did receive an email requesting JIT yesterday.

I know with the budgetary issues no one can say if the grant will be funded. I am hoping that they will adopt last years budget via continuing resolution. If so I should be out of the gray zone.

I was wondering what you thought my chances were, and when I might find out?

Thanks again!

Reply

hagancr said
June 28, 2012 @ 4:50 pm · Edit
My NCI K99 for FY12 had a priority score of 25, and I recently received word that I did make the cut, barely. However, my JIT link was up right away, and I was told that didn’t mean anything. So I agree, don’t get your hopes up yet.

Reply

writedit said
June 28, 2012 @ 8:38 pm · Edit
Congratulations & best wishes for success with your project & your career in academic research. Thanks for sharing your application particulars.
writedit said
July 1, 2012 @ 2:31 am · Edit
Congrats on the excellent score, which triggered the JIT request (JIT requested for all applications receiving a score of 40 or less). I would like to say you should be in good shape with a 22 at NCI – but who knows. Not even your PO. When you get your summary statement, think about how each criticism can be addressed before you contact the PO. This will also be important if you prepare an A1, which your PO will likely still recommend as a safety net (nothing lost except the time to revise). NCI was incredibly late in making awards in FY12, and that trend probably won’t change in FY13, so you’d miss the Nov resubmission date if you wait until you’re sure.

Reply

apin said
June 28, 2012 @ 3:44 pm · Edit
Dave,
I didnt get the JIT request by email until they were ready to fund my K and thats what I also heard from other folks. I think its a very good sign for funding.

Reply

me98402 said
June 28, 2012 @ 3:55 pm · Edit
I would not read much into it especially since you have not received your summary statement.

Reply

Dave said
June 28, 2012 @ 5:00 pm · Edit
Sorry-just to be clear-I received an email about the JIT. I know there is a wide range of grants who have a JIT link posted on era commons.

Looking forward to talking to the PO. Just a huge career event!

Thanks for the comments!

Reply

abcd said
July 3, 2012 @ 2:04 pm · Edit
Dave, did you talk to the PO and find out whether the status of your grant and the JIT request are related? I too received an automated JIT request by email although I am yet to receive a summary statement. I had submitted a K application in March and got my scores two weeks back.

Reply

D said
July 3, 2012 @ 2:36 pm · Edit
Hey-seems like (according to writedit) the NIH issues JIT requests for every grant that receives an impact score of 40 or less. I think this is a newer policy. I have not talked to the PO yet because I don’t have summary statement either. I think the big issue is that there is no budget yet to fund our grants yet, since we are in the first cycle.

Based on what I can gather, if congress passes a continuing resolution based on a previous fiscal year, and if your grant receives a score that puts it out of the “grey zone” for funding from the fiscal year that was selected, you stand a good chance of getting funded. I will keep my fingers crossed for both of us!
writedit said
July 3, 2012 @ 2:45 pm · Edit
This is about right, though FY13 (which starts Oct 1, 2012) may be more conservative (even if the CR keeps FY12 funding levels) due to concerns over potential sequestration-driven budget cuts, which would take effect in Jan 2013. And yes, the new JIT policy just started this past April.
PB said
June 28, 2012 @ 5:25 pm · Edit
My December 2011 SBIR submission to NIBIB received an impact score of 20. I communicated with my PO around three weeks back, and he says that my grant has a reasonable chance of funding, but they have not decided the payline for SBIRs. Has anyone else heard from NIBIB or other centers about SBIR/STTR grants? I am just wondering if it takes this long for decision, or if my grant was not approved for funding.

Reply

writedit said
June 28, 2012 @ 8:36 pm · Edit
Takes a few weeks after Council meets. Since you’re close, I would expect him to let you know one way or another. If you haven’t heard by mid-July, you should check in again.

Reply

first time app said
June 28, 2012 @ 7:54 pm · Edit
I submitted a K25 to NCI last February. I received a score of 30 about two weeks ago, and also noticed that there is a JIT link posted on my eRA Commons. I was not optimistic about this score, so I am emotionally well-prepared for a resubmission. However, today, I received a “request for JIT information” email from the NIH, but it says it is an automated notification.

How do I interpret this? Is it better to for me to talk to the PO now, or should I wait until after I receive the summary statement? Any help/comments/suggestions would be much appreciated!

Reply

writedit said
June 28, 2012 @ 8:32 pm · Edit
The new NIH policy is to request JIT from all applications scoring less than 40. Your PO will likely tell you to resubmit, but you should wait until you have the summary statement to contact him.

Reply

first time app said
June 28, 2012 @ 8:57 pm · Edit
Thank you very much, writedit. That is helpful.
Will said
June 30, 2012 @ 8:47 pm · Edit
Hi Jeff, What was the outcome of your K99 application at NIDDK? Was 17 enough to get funded? If not, did you resubmit?

Reply

jeff said
July 9, 2012 @ 4:13 pm · Edit
Hi Will, no, score 17 was not good enough for K99.. If it only awards 5-6 lucky guys, it is wasting our time and money… this K99/R00 program is a joke..

Reply

Dave said
October 3, 2012 @ 6:01 pm · Edit
NIDDK will never fund a K99 with a score of 17 these days, so this is not surprising to me at all. I posted last year that the PO there told me they had grants with scores of 10 that they probably wouldn’t fund. It’s a dead mechanism at NIDDK. A complete waste of time.
DJ said
October 26, 2012 @ 7:57 pm · Edit
Can’t agree more the dying K99 system at NIDDK. As far as I know, NIDDK has 3 divisions for K99. For each round, they only found ONE person per division, no matter how many applications. Than means, if one lucky guy get below 13, all the others even with score 14 will lose the game. For the science part, is there any real difference between 13 and 14? I don’t think so.
writedit said
October 27, 2012 @ 1:33 am · Edit
In FY10, NIDDK funded 12 K99s, whereas 17 ICs (out of 23) funded 9 or fewer applications (including 4 that made 0 or 1 award for the entire FY). The K99 hasn’t worked well as a mechanism, I think in part due to the time lag between application and award (by then, often the applicant has a faculty position, though ICs have used the mechanism flexibly to accommodate such situations, too).
Dave said
October 30, 2012 @ 12:14 pm · Edit
NIDDK appears to be trying to keep the K01 steady at the expense of the K99, which is a more expensive award. It is worth noting that the NIDDK was traditionally one of the most generous in dishing out K99s many years ago, but recently they have started to turn their backs on it. I think a major review of the K99 mechanism is needed, but I can see many ICs completely dropping it before that even happens.
john said
December 28, 2012 @ 2:25 pm · Edit
I received 18 on a resubmitted K99 to NIDDK. My lab is very optimistic on it getting funded but after reading here i think not. My PI said that he has already started spending my future salary (that he was paying out of his grant). I wonder if I should break the bad news to them or just wait for the actual news to come from nih.
writedit said
December 28, 2012 @ 2:37 pm · Edit
Wow. I am not sure what you mean by “My PI said that he has already started spending my future salary” … it shouldn’t be spent on anything but your salary, but perhaps that is what he means. It is allowable to start spending anticipated grant money up to 90 days in advance of the notice of award, but in the current fiscal situation, there is absolutely no guarantee of an award … and as you note, a score of 18 on a K99 at NIDDK is not a sure thing. If sequestration occurs, it is even more unlikely. However, your mentor should know better than to make any assumptions as to an award and start spending money, especially if he has not communicated with the program officer. You will probably not be notified if you are not going to receive an award (you only hear if you will receive one), and your score will remain under consideration until the end of the fiscal year (Sept 30, 2013), so you would be waiting a long time. I don’t think you need to “break the bad news” but simply suggest that the program officer be consulted as to the likelihood and timing of an award. Clearly with a score of 18, you are doing good research, and your mentor should want to support you (financially) in the meantime no matter what.
notsosure said
July 1, 2012 @ 4:15 pm · Edit
My grant was triaged. I am not sure if I should resubmit it as A1 after revision or submit as a new grant. If submitted as a new grant, should I make substantial changes as required after A1.

Reply

Richard said
July 1, 2012 @ 11:02 pm · Edit
Yes!

Reply

writedit said
July 2, 2012 @ 1:52 am · Edit
Whether to submit an A1 of this application or a new (and different) A0 application depends on your summary statement and your science. If the summary statement suggests reviewer interest in your science if you address specific, well-defined concerns, then certainly go with the A1 (and ask the PO for additional guidance, as he/she might have advice to help improve your chances with this study section). If the reviewers clearly did not find the science in your last application significant or compelling, you would need to substantially change the aims and approach to submit a “new” A0 application. CSR guidance on what qualifies as “new” (and what happens if your application doesn’t qualify): http://public.csr.nih.gov/applicantresources/receiptreferal/pages/evaluation-of-unallowable-resubmission-and-overlapping-applications.aspx NIAID guidance on what to do if your application is not funded: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/strategy/Pages/6options.aspx

Reply

notsosure said
July 2, 2012 @ 5:11 pm · Edit
Thank you very much for your answer! It’s very helpful.

Reply

Dave said
July 2, 2012 @ 5:42 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for the kind workds and sound advice. I will focus on the comments and talk to the PO. Thanks again-D.

Reply

frank said
July 3, 2012 @ 9:07 am · Edit
I have one k25 submitted to NCI in last October and got an impact score of 23 in Feb. I contact PO and got an answer of “optimistic”. The council meeting was held last week. However, so far, i have not got any response. I contact PO again yesterday. Still no response. Anyone has any idea of what is going on here? What should i do? Thanks a lot.

Reply

writedit said
July 3, 2012 @ 10:21 am · Edit
The paylist may not be available for a couple of weeks (I assume the SPLs meet after Council), so your PO will probably contact you as soon as he/she knows. Just need to be patient a little longer …

Reply

frank said
July 3, 2012 @ 4:34 pm · Edit
Thanks a lot. One NIH representative from OGA just contacted me for JIT documents. I suppose this is a positive signal that i have a high chance to get the grant. Am i right?
Silverpark said
July 3, 2012 @ 3:37 pm · Edit
What does it mean if a Grant Management Specialist name and contact info now appears under the list of contacts along with the PO and SRA? My grant got a competitive score and recently completed council review, but I have not heard anything definitive from the PO.

Reply

writedit said
July 3, 2012 @ 4:31 pm · Edit
Your PO would need to confirm, but it means good news (or it should, if this is a new listing). Check on with your PO again (or ask the GMS if they need any info to process your award).

Reply

Silverpark said
July 3, 2012 @ 5:19 pm · Edit
The listing just appeared today as I compulsively check everyday because I am a freak. I don’t want to contact my PO at this time because the PO said they would contact me when a final decision was made. Would a GMS show up in the list for any other reason?
writedit said
July 3, 2012 @ 5:34 pm · Edit
We had a discussion about this, and it seems some ICs do list a GMS from the time the application is assigned, whereas others add the GMS when such an individual is needed (i.e., award being considered/processed). I am sure the image of your eRA commons screen is burned on your retina, such that any change immediately jumps out like this. I hope this is good news for you – I suspect it is.
Silverpark said
July 3, 2012 @ 6:22 pm · Edit
The IC is NCI. I hope you are right.

Thx
frank said
July 3, 2012 @ 4:39 pm · Edit
I also have GMS name and contact info listed along with the PO and SRA. But it has been there for a long time (if my memory is not wrong). I did not notice that until you mentioned that (and then i checked that just now).

Reply

Gme said
July 5, 2012 @ 1:10 pm · Edit
Silverpark and Frank, do you mind sharing your scores? Is it a RO1? I do not see a GMS.
grantnewbie said
July 3, 2012 @ 9:17 pm · Edit
I just got a score of 24 (12th percentile) for an NIMH F31 resubmission that was submitted for the Cycle I deadline. Funding wouldn’t start until I guess the FY 2013. Waiting to hear back from PO to schedule a call, but any guess as to how likely this is to get funded?

Reply

writedit said
July 3, 2012 @ 11:52 pm · Edit
This is a promising score, and your PO can tell you how you would have fared in FY12 and whether you should consider resubmitting to hedge your bets. You want to wait until you have your summary statement to talk with the PO. If this application does receive an award, although your start date is Dec 1, 2012 (or thereabouts), your funding probably wouldn’t start until calendar year 2013, either, so you have a bit of a wait ahead of you regardless.

Reply

mciuc said
July 5, 2012 @ 2:10 am · Edit
I just received an impact score of 17 on my NHLBI K23 resubmission (submitted March and just reviewed by SRG 6/28). Any insights into the likelihood of having this in the fundable range ? Also would FY2012 or 2013 paylines apply for this ? Given how FY2012 paylines have shifted at NHLBI – I wonder what paylines will look like for this review cycle.

Reply

writedit said
July 5, 2012 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
Your application submitted in March 2012 will fall under FY13. Your score seems reasonably safe, even with all the unknowns, but again, no one can say for sure at this point. Since it is an A1, there is no question about preparing a resubmission, though you could ask your PO if you should be trying to rework the research project for an R01 or R21 application as a back up.

Reply

mciuc said
July 5, 2012 @ 4:59 pm · Edit
Thank you for your quick and insightful reply.
apolipo said
July 5, 2012 @ 11:53 am · Edit
I am a NI/ESI and I got a score of 18 on my NHLBI RO1 (submitted last October, reviewed in February of this year). I was asked and provided with JIT before the Council meeting. Council met three weeks ago and my status in commons is now “pending administrative review. consult the PO or the GMS”.The snap also switched to Y. Can you estimate whether/when I willl receive a NoA? Many thanks!

Reply

Oriade said
July 5, 2012 @ 12:03 pm · Edit
I am in the same boat, but my status has not changed. It just says council review completed. Can you (or any one with experience) tell me if your status was ever “council review completed” before changing to pending administrative review? Should I contact the GMS?

Reply

Oriade said
July 5, 2012 @ 12:05 pm · Edit
Also what does the “snap indicator” mean?

Reply

writedit said
July 5, 2012 @ 2:09 pm · Edit
You will be getting an award, probably in the next week or two, but you could contact the PO or GMS to get a better idea of when. I assume the “snap” switch indicates your award can be managed via eSNAP, but I’m having trouble picturing what you mean.

Reply

frank said
July 6, 2012 @ 2:58 am · Edit
I am preparing JIT documents for my k award now, which includes budgetary information. Since my original budget is based on my current salary (I am a RAP now and my current salary is about 40% lower than the normal pay for a tenure-track AP in my department), can i ask for a higher salary (the same salary as the pay for a tenure-track AP in our department)? Does this affect the chance to get funded (review the proposal again?)? If yes, what should i do? talk to my department chair? Thanks a lot.

Reply

writedit said
July 6, 2012 @ 8:13 am · Edit
Your JIT information must reflect your actual salary now, not what you might hope it to be. Your institutional signing official needs to sign off on your JIT, and that includes checking salary levels for accuracy. If you get a tenure-track appointment, you can contact the PO about adjusting the budget (application does not get reviewed again, though you may need to shift $ from other budget items to accommodate a higher salary). You don’t want to delay the JIT to negotiate a tenure-track position, though, unless this is for an FY13 award (if for FY12, submit the JIT ASAP).

Reply

Paola said
July 6, 2012 @ 3:48 pm · Edit
Hello, this is a wonderful resource! I have submitted my first grant, a NCI K07, in June 2012 and have just found out about NCI K01s. As a minority I am now thinking that I would have had a much better chance at getting funded if I had submitted a K01 instead. Now I am wondering if I should withdraw my K07 application so that I can submit the K01 for the October deadline. Where can I get information on number of applications and paylines for each mechanism in 2012. I have looked extensively in their corresponding websites but have failed to find this information…

Reply

writedit said
July 6, 2012 @ 5:43 pm · Edit
You can compare the Career Development award success rates by mechanism, IC, and year (& can tailor the data to what you need to see, such as just K01 and K07 for NCI, by clicking on the down-pointing tabs for each column & selecting just the fields of interest): http://report.nih.gov/UploadDocs/T204%202011%20-%20Career%20Dev%20Succ%20Rate.xls

The NCI diversity K01 has had a better success rate in recent years, but these are pretty different mechanisms. I’m not sure it’s worth withdrawing the K07 to submit the K01 if your science is in fact more appropriate for the K07 … but you should definitely talk with the POs, since they will know where/how you and your science will be best reviewed.

Reply

Paola said
July 16, 2012 @ 3:24 pm · Edit
Thank you for your reply writedit. The grant fits in perfectly for both mechanisms in terms of the science. It is cancer prevention control population science (specifically statistical genetic epidemiology)which makes it fit in with the K07. For the K01 the criteria are for the science to be related to cancer biology, etiology, pathogenesis, prevention, diagnosis and/or control, which makes it overlap with the K07, but for principal investigators from underrepresented groups. It also invites any candidate doing research on cancer health disparities to apply. I am both a minority and conducting research on cancer health disparities. What throws me off is that I assumed that there would be a smaller pool of applicants for the K01 since it seems directed towards minorities. From the data you sent me the link to, it appears that a more or less equal number of applicants apply to both mechanisms. Do you have any clues about why this is the case and whether or not being a minority would in fact give me an edge on the K01? Thanks.
writedit said
July 16, 2012 @ 4:20 pm · Edit
I am not sure I understand your question. There is a much smaller pool of applicants for the K01 (27 in FY 11 compared with the 65 applications to the K07). Applicants to the K01 can come from soiceconomically disadvantaged backgrounds as well (low income, inner city, rural), so it is not just racial-ethnic status, if you were thinking 27 applications was too many. I suspect the number of applications to each mechanism was more equal a decade ago because the K01 had not been limited to underrepresented applicants at that point … but then the K07 was also a different animal (geared toward education rather than research). You should look only at the last 1-2 FYs (FY10 & FY11) for a better picture of success rate now.
emomonster said
July 7, 2012 @ 11:09 am · Edit
Received a score of 20/9th percentile for our R21 from AHRQ. is anyone familiar with paylines from AHRQ? Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
July 7, 2012 @ 11:31 am · Edit
AHRQ gets fewer applications but also has less money. I’d say your score is promising, but you’ll need insight from the PO about funding likelihood, especially since they probably use a lot of program discretion in selecting applications for award.

Reply

emomonster said
February 7, 2013 @ 10:34 pm · Edit
Thanks. FYI, it was funded.
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,
Judd said
July 8, 2012 @ 8:13 pm · Edit
Hi, thanks for all your work on this site – it is so very useful.

Here’s my question: Last year I contacted my PO before submitting my first R01 as an ESI; he confirmed it would be interesting to the institute. I got a (barely) fundable score on the first try, but (with no comments about how to improve it) he suggested I submit a revision, which I did last fall. On the second try I got a score in the 17th percentile – much improved but still borderline under the 2012 budget. My problem is that the PO has been extremely tight-lipped and non-informative (about possible/needed revisions or about any further detail from the review committee), and actively discourages communication. I feel this PO is not doing his job, and am so frustrated that my career is in this person’s hands. I feel like I am being blackballed for no objective reason, with no communication or recourse. I have no idea how I can work around this without giving up on him and the institute, if not academia, altogether. If he would just tell me he doesn’t intend to recommend my research for funding, I could move on to greener pastures, but this institute is by far the best fit for my research, and my reviews are positive. How would you recommend I optimize my chances of getting funded, or barring that just getting honest, direct guidance from the PO?

Thank you.

Reply

writedit said
July 8, 2012 @ 10:38 pm · Edit
I think your PO is fine. You don’t say which IC this is, so he may not even have the opportunity to advocate for consideration of your application. Even if he does, it is up to him to assess all the assigned unfunded applications to decide which should be pushed for possible select pay. You are one of dozens – possibly scores – in that category, so it could be your PO feels other applications in the pile have higher programmatic priority. Your PO is also getting tragic stories from established PIs who are facing laying off their techs and/or postdocs, shutting down labs altogether, etc. You can’t imagine the pressure they feel from all sides, how many people desperately need funding. Please don’t feel blackballed just because he cannot help you and does not want to keep communicating this unfortunate fact. My guess is he would be happy to communicate if there was something he could do on your behalf. A more constructive line of communication could focus on how to recycle your science, such as pulling part out as an R21 or revamping the aims and approach to satisfy the criteria for a new R01 application.

Also, if you can submit another line of research to another study section for consideration by another IC, please do so regardless of how this application turns out. The best strategy is always to pursue different projects of interest to different ICs (& SRGs) and to do so in addition to, not instead of, your original IC application.

Good luck with everything … these are very difficult times, and a recent Washington Post article is spot on.

Reply

Judd said
July 9, 2012 @ 5:57 pm · Edit
Thanks for your thoughts and constructive ideas. I certainly understand the difficult position funders are in (POs included). The problem is not that I might not be selected; the problem is that the non-priority of my research is not being communicated to me *at all*. I just find out after months of waiting and empty conversations that I didn’t get funded. I do not find this a respectful and productive way to foster good science. I have worked with other POs who are direct and communicative, who will “form a relationship” and try to help strengthen proposals so they have a good portfolio. This is not one of those people. Do you have any generic advice for a new investigator like me trying to work with this kind of PO, who does not seem to want to engage with investigators? (PS I did not reveal the IC to protect the anonymity of the PO and myself)
writedit said
July 9, 2012 @ 8:56 pm · Edit
That’s fine about not naming the IC – I just meant, as you know, some stick pretty close to their paylines, while others use more programmatic discretion (so more of a role for POs). With this sort of PO, they key would be to be very clear on what information you want, so there is no ambiguity or open-endedness. You can check other POs to see if they might be able to fit your science into their portfolio (look around online & send an inquiry if one looks close). You could also politely ask the Division/program chief for the same information (clear question) and, if he/she asks why you do not send this inquiry to the PO, you can indicate you have not received a response – and would another PO be more suitable. This runs the risk of making your original PO upset if it gets back to him/her, but if you are sure this person is not being helpful, then you don’t have much to lose. However, it sounded as though the PO at least gave advice to revise, and your score improved – though perhaps not to the point of capturing one of the limited select pay awards. If directly asking your PO whether you should continue to submit your science for funding to his/her portfolio does not get a response, you ask the next level up whether your science is of interest/programmatic priority to the Division/program (and should you keep trying). In my limited experience (only a few such encounters), program officials who work with an unhelpful PO recognize this individual as such and are willing to chip in here & there with advice – but they can’t take over all these unhelpful individuals’ grants, unfortunately.
Florian said
July 9, 2012 @ 4:35 pm · Edit
Dear all,
I was curious if NIA has published paylines for R21 grants for 2012 (final) or 2013 (interim) ? My colleague just received a 28.
Thank you

Reply

writedit said
July 9, 2012 @ 8:43 pm · Edit
If your colleague just received an impact score of 28, this will be for FY13 (which does not start until Oct 1). My guess is that the score is too high to be funded, unless it is for a PAR or RFA (special submission – not one of the 3 routine NIH cycle deadlines). R21s are as competitive as R01s, usually, and there is no payline break for ESI/NI. If this was an A0 submission, your colleague should start working on the A1.

Reply

Florian said
July 9, 2012 @ 9:57 pm · Edit
Thank you. In fact my colleague just received the same feedback from the PO.
abcd said
July 9, 2012 @ 7:44 pm · Edit
Hi jeff, its terrible shocking that with a score 17, you did not get funded. Do you have an idea of how many people were ahead of 17?

Reply

KA said
July 11, 2012 @ 7:12 am · Edit
I just received an email from NIBIB asking for JIT for an SBIR grant (submitted Dec 2012, impact score of 19). The problem is that the PI on this grant is planning to leave the company in two months. What is the best strategy for us? Should we change the PI before or after receiving the grant? Does changing the PI now impact the chances of getting the grant?

Reply

writedit said
July 11, 2012 @ 2:44 pm · Edit
The award is made to the company, not the PI. Is someone else at the company qualified to take over the research? The NIH must approve the new PI, so it must be someone genuinely qualified. Will the PI still leave if the SBIR is awarded? (you say “planning”, as if this might not be definite) Depending on where the PI is going & how much of the award you already plan to have subcontracted out, you can pay him/her a certain percentage if his/her expertise is needed on a consulting/collaborative level (but the project can be taken over by someone else at the company). If you are confident you can do the work without the current PI there, you can negotiate the change in PI when the current PI leaves … and send the JIT reflecting the current status right now – again, especially if there is any chance the PI might not leave, or might leave later than 2 months from now – the award will be made within a month, I would guess. You could either negotiate the change in PI at the time of the award or later, if the current PI wants to get things started before leaving.

Reply

gugugaga said
July 11, 2012 @ 1:26 pm · Edit
I submitted an R01 application to the NCI- 12%. Based on my conversations with the PO it successfully underwent three rounds of review. Prior to the council meeting, I received a personalized JIT request from my PO so that “after council approves there is no delay in releasing the fund”. Council met on June 26. The day after my status on Commons changed to “council review completed”. Since then- nothing. I called the PO who cannot tell me anything about where my grant is in the process. What does all of this mean? Should I be alarmed? I am…

Reply

writedit said
July 11, 2012 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
Council has met, but the SPLs and Harold still need to discuss which applications to fund, so don’t be alarmed yet. Your PO needs to wait to see the paylist and won’t have any interim updates (and there is nothing he/she can do in the meantime). Your funding is not assured, but you are in much better shape than those in the 8-15% range who did not receive JIT requests. Good luck …

Reply

IACUC said
July 11, 2012 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
In the JIT, does the PI have to provide the approval date of the IACUC for the proposed research or the PI can provide it later on if the IACUC is still pending? Will this delay the start date? Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
July 11, 2012 @ 4:20 pm · Edit
You must have IACUC approval when you submit the JIT (you didn’t need it when you applied, but when you got a potentially fundable score, you should have submitted your protocol for review/approval then). That is the whole idea – you get approval just in time for the award. The award cannot be made without all regulatory approvals in place. If you do not have IACUC approval yet, contact the GMS or PO ASAP to see how long they can delay a decision about your award. At some ICs, if you do not have your approvals in time, you do not get the award, especially at the end of the fiscal year.

Reply

gugugaga said
July 11, 2012 @ 4:30 pm · Edit
Dear writedit, thank you for your valuable comments. Your website is a wonderful resource. I am still a bit confused, though, because according to my PO, SPL met and approved my application prior to council.

Reply

writedit said
July 11, 2012 @ 4:37 pm · Edit
Aha. Some decisions are still outstanding (or I believe so, based on other feed back), but if your PO said they had approved your application, then you really have nothing to worry about. You could contact your GMS for an update on when the NoA might be processed – it does take time to work through the pile.

Reply

firsttimer too said
July 12, 2012 @ 3:57 pm · Edit
writedit, terrific resource here, thank you! do you know what is in the JIT submission? i know other support is required. is detailed budget required, since i used modular budget at the time of submission?

Reply

writedit said
July 12, 2012 @ 5:37 pm · Edit
The JIT requirements are summarized in the notice indicating all awards scoring 40 or less would receive a JIT request: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-101.html

In addition to the other support (which refers to funding from other sources – any new awards you might have received or are likely to receive since this application was submitted), you will need to include any regulatory approvals/certifications (IRB, IACUC), any changes to the budget, and any changes to personnel.

Reply

frank said
July 16, 2012 @ 12:28 pm · Edit
Hi writedit:

It is such a wonderful and resourceful website. I got lots of useful information here. I have the following question:

I submitted JIT documents last Wednesday as required by PO. In the email PO asked for “Inclusion of women, minority and children”, “Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research” and “IRB approval”. After one week, I sent all required documents to eRA commons via Institutional Business Official as required by GMS and PO. However, so far i have not got any response. How long do i need to wait for the NoG (PO never said the application was approved, just said “the grant is impending”)? Do they need to organize another council meeting to review those documents?

Thanks a lot

Reply

writedit said
July 16, 2012 @ 12:33 pm · Edit
Assuming you are talking about an application submitted in 2011 for FY12 (i.e., not submitted last Feb/March & just reviewed in June), then no addtional review by Council is required. It’s not unreasonable for a week or two to pass before the award can be processed – they’re busy doing an entire cycle worth of applications right now. You can ask your PO or GMS when an award might be expected.

Reply

Dim said
July 16, 2012 @ 1:26 pm · Edit
Hi All,

I just got a 28 score on an NHLBI SBIR proposal. It will be reviewed in next council which means that the current payline is irrelevant. Does anybody have any expectations what next council interim payline maybe, given that NHLBI’s this year SBIR payline was 35.

Reply

writedit said
July 16, 2012 @ 1:38 pm · Edit
The big question is whether sequestration will go forward. If so, the CBO estimates the NIH will make 2300 fewer awards in FY13. The SBIR/STTR is a set percentage of the overall NIH budget, so the number of these awards would go down proportionately. The payline will depend on how/if Congress deals with sequestration and the debt ceiling (coming up in Dec/Jan), and the interim payline will be exceeding conservative, assuming the worst (& then going back to make additional awards depending on what happens). Hard to say how conservative, though. If this was an A0, you should probably start thinking about an A1 though, especially since you won’t know whether your 28 will get funded for many months.

Reply

Dim said
July 16, 2012 @ 2:11 pm · Edit
Thanks, I will definitely resubmit in December. Hopefully Congress gets its act together, which given the current track record is doubtful.
Paola said
July 17, 2012 @ 4:30 pm · Edit
Thank you writedit. This does clear things up. I was looking at earlier years when the K07 and K01 had similar submission rates and had no idea the mechanisms have changed so much through time.

Reply

Elemental said
July 17, 2012 @ 11:09 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit- I received a score of 25 for my April 2012 NHLBI SBIR submission. Where do you think this score stands for FY 2013? Last 3 NHLBI pay lines for SBIR were 35 (12′), 30 (11′) 35 (10′).

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 8:16 am · Edit
Your score certainly has a good chance of being funded, but we won’t know how good until the election, debt limit, and sequestration unknowns become more clear, especially sequestration. SBIR/STTR funding is a set percentage of the NHBLI budget, and if that drops 8%, so will SBIR/STTR awards. If this was an A0, you could ask your PO whether you should plan to submit an A1 in December (or Aug, if you can have a strong revision ready in time).

Reply

Elemental said
July 17, 2012 @ 11:31 pm · Edit
Dear All, Our Phase I SBIR Impact Score of 24 was funded by NCI last week. Hope this helps anyone who may be wondering about their own score.

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 12:17 am · Edit
Congratulations and best wishes for success with the R&D! Thank you so much for sharing your experience.

Reply

KA said
July 18, 2012 @ 7:57 am · Edit
For our recently awarded Phase 1 SBIR, we had budgeted consultancy efforts from a university professor, but we now think that it might be better that we make the university a subcontractor, as it may allow the prof to perform some experiments that might be difficult for us to perform. The overall SBIR budget does not change, though the subcontract budget would be a little higher than the consultancy budget for the prof. Do we need to take permission from NIH, given the fact that the overall Phase 1 budget does not change? Are we allowed to introduce a subcontractor in the middle of the program, even if it was not budgeted for in the grant application?

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 8:10 am · Edit
You won’t get additional money to accommodate this change, but I think as long as the percentage of the total budget (direct, indirect) going to the university does not exceed 33%, you will be okay. You should talk with the GMS about whether this needs to be approved first – I am less familiar with budgeting policy, especially for SBIR/STTR awards.

Reply

LJNY said
July 18, 2012 @ 9:45 am · Edit
I received a priority score of 25 on an NIDDK K08 A1 submission. The PO has sent an email essentially stating that scores below 25 were going to be funded while scores 25-29 were in a “definitely maybe” category. Is there any utility in contacting the PO?

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 10:02 am · Edit
Well, this is interesting (surprising) that the PO is willing to offer any sort of payline projection. Since this is an A1 and you have no choice but to wait, there is no point contacting the PO about your K at this point – or for many months. What you should be doing, however, is reworking your research plan into a R mechanism submission. You can ask your K PO whom to contact among the research programs at NIDDK for advice on this effort (and whether he/she has any advice on the mechanism or focus of your planned RPG).

Reply

LJNY said
July 18, 2012 @ 10:56 am · Edit
To clarify, the term “very optimistic” was used to describe funding prospects for scores under 25. This comment was based on recent funding history and the projections were targeted more towards those deciding whether to resubmit for next cycle. I apologize if I misrepresented the PO’s comments.

Thank you for your advice.

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 11:10 am · Edit
Not to worry – you didn’t misrepresent the PO’s advice, which was very kind and helpful to the A0 applicants. I was just suprised he/she was confident in suggesting FY13 decisions might follow the FY11 & FY12 trends … which they mostly will if the NIH budget is protected from sequestration or other cuts from FY12 levels. I certainly hope his/her optimism is warranted – the health of the country (physical, mental, economic) depends on maintenance of biomedical & scientific research.

Reply

Grumble said
July 18, 2012 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
A post-doc I know was told by her PO that her application was on the funding list for this round. The requested start date was July 1. She sent the JIT in, but it’s almost three weeks after July 1, and she’s heard nothing. The grants management person at the IC ignores her e-mails.

A quick search of NIH Reporter reveals that no F32s at all have been issued for this round from this particular IC. Is it common for it to take so long?

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 2:56 pm · Edit
The requested start date is hypothetical and not binding. No one applying in February expects to have their NoA by Dec 1, certainly – some don’t get funded until a month or two (or more) later. Your colleague will receive her award before Sept 30. The GMS is aware of the situation and is probably receiving multiple emails. People are on vacation, the storms slowed things down a few weeks ago, and so on. Noncompeting renewals are also delayed, so it is not specific to the mechanism or the award being new.

Reply

Mouseter said
July 18, 2012 @ 2:01 pm · Edit
I just received the “Letter of Intent to Commit Funds” for my NCI K22…WOO HOO!

Timeline: Original submission, Feb 2011; scored 28 in June 2011; Resubmission Nov 2011; Scored 21 in Feb 2012; Letter of award July 2012.

I’m ecstatic to say the least!

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
🙂 Congratulations on persevering, and thank you so much again sharing your story on the blog! Best wishes for success with the project and your career in biomedical research!

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

Reply

Orion said
July 18, 2012 @ 2:01 pm · Edit
Hello all, this is a wonderful site. I’ve received a priority score of 27 on my F31 through NIAAA (SRG on 7/10/12). No percentile given. I know the summary statement will be available in less than a month, but of course my impatience is getting the best of me. Can any direct me to, or comment on what this score may mean? It seems NIAAA has no payline info, but perhaps there are other sources/individuals who have had success through NIAAA. Thanks a ton.

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 3:15 pm · Edit
With a score of 27, you could ask the PO how it would have fared in FY12 and then subtract at least a few points for the most optimistic projection for FY13. But no one knows, not your PO, not anyone, whether a 27 will be fundable in FY13 … especially at NIAAA, which is going into mergers & acquisitions soon on top of everything else. If this was your A0, start working on the A1. If this was your A1, be happy your advisor and/or grad program has grant funding to cover your work (and take advantage of it to publish). All too soon, you’ll need to rely on your own ability to secure funding.

Again, broken record time … the election (Nov), debt ceiling (Dec), and sequestration (Jan) make it impossible to guesstimate about funding likelihood for anything higher than a score of 10 (and even then, in some K99 situations, it is not a sure thing).

Reply

onion said
July 18, 2012 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
Has NCI finalized their funding list for grants in the June 26 council meeting yet? crickets from my PO about my R01. No GMS listed on my eCommon. Looks like my grant has little chance for funding this year.

Reply

writedit said
July 18, 2012 @ 3:48 pm · Edit
Notices are going out to awardees from the gray zone list, so if you don’t have a GMS listed and did not receive a JIT request, you should probably go back to concentrating on your next application … if you did receive a JIT request but have not heard anything since then, it’s not impossible that you’ll still here, but the likelihood diminishes with each passing week (so, again, focus on the next application).

Reply

onion said
July 18, 2012 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
Writedit, thank you for your reply. My grant is in the gray zone, but I have not received a personal JIT request (only an electronic request). I guess it matters not now that I am on my way out of my academic career. I am sad, but I do feel some kind of relief. I will hide in my office and cry a little then start a new chapter of my life. I don’t know what I will do next other than focus on looking for a job and hopefully a normal life. Good luck to everyone!

Reply

writedit said
July 19, 2012 @ 1:22 am · Edit
Black box survival of the fittest sucks, but you will ultimately be under less stress on a different path. You’re not a failure in any sense. Do you want to stay in the lab somehow (working for someone else, whether academic or industry)? Parlay your scientific expertise into science writing (including grant writing – you have the qualifications!) or reviewing patents or teaching at a small college or research administration? Or you could write copy for America’s Finest News Source …
Silverpark said
July 20, 2012 @ 6:48 am · Edit
Writedit,

I found out from my PO that my R01 was approved for funding in FY12. According to the PO the start date for funding is supposed to be August 1. I still have not received anything in writing by email and my commons information status has not changed from Council Review Completed. At this point do you think August 1 is still possible? How would I find out more info?

Thanks, you are a great resource.

Reply

writedit said
July 20, 2012 @ 8:12 am · Edit
Congratulations! Don’t worry about anything – the start date is fine & feasible and the NoA will just show up without your needing to do anything else (unless asked). The status will change to reflect administrative efforts to process the award, but it will all likely happen quickly closer to Aug 1 (notice can arrive on – or just after – the start date, so don’t panic if you haven’t seen anything by the last few days of July).

Reply

2012 fiscal year decisions said
July 20, 2012 @ 2:34 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit,
Your posts have been a really wonderful source of feedback. My K01 was approved by council in May and I received a JIT request from the GMS in June for a proposed start date of July 1. I have since emailed/called my PO and GMS to follow-up regarding the timeline for NoAs, but they have not returned my emails or phone calls. My score was 18, and I have since learned that others with higher scores have received their NoAs (within the past 2 weeks). This was an A1 submission. Should I be worried?

Reply

writedit said
July 20, 2012 @ 4:29 pm · Edit
This is irksome, but you don’t need to be worried. Not until closer to September, anyway. If there were an administrative problem, you would have heard and had a request for information to fix it. You could ask your sponsored programs office (at the university) to confirm the impending NoA with the GMS (or their favorite contact at your IC) so they can set up an account for you, if you need to start spending now (and were counting on them being available July 1). If you have only attempted to contact your PO once since the July 1 milestone passed, you could try again, just to ask for an ETA for the notice of award. A short polite query will be fine.

Reply

nervousk said
July 20, 2012 @ 4:11 pm · Edit
Update on my K22 application – heard that my application is funded! Prefer not to mention institute, as it’s a smaller one and I don’t know how many K22′s they’ll be funding this year. I thought it might help others though to know the timeline…

-Submitted A0 in October 2011
-Peer review & score of 28 in February 2012
-Council review in early May 2012
-Talked with PO in late May/early June and received advice to submit A1 in July due to eligibility window
-Submitted A1 on July 10th
-Heard from PO that my A0 is funded on July 11th
-Got JIT request on July 12th

Thought it might help others to know that the process can vary so much amongst institutes and even among cycles. I was really biting my nails because one colleague was shocked I hadn’t gotten a JIT request before the Council met. Doing the A1 revisions was still quite helpful (other than the administrative parts) – I was able to submit some of that work when the PO requested a response to reviewers and am using it to justify an increase in my percent effort on the grant.

Reply

writedit said
July 20, 2012 @ 4:19 pm · Edit
Congratulations again and best wishes on your training, your project, and your career in academic research! Thank you so much also for sharing your concerns and updates throughout the process and this excellent recap here – very helpful indeed, and a clear demonstration that all of you make this site as valuable as it is.

Reply

Mouseter said
July 20, 2012 @ 4:34 pm · Edit
Congratulations nervousk! It’s a beautiful feeling, isn’t it?

I just wanted to mention that I think you don’t always get a JIT request. I never got a JIT request, and the recently received NoA for my K22 says that my “application was in accordance with the Just-In-Time instructions.” So, not receiving a JIT request is not necessarily a bad sign.

Reply

Richard said
July 20, 2012 @ 11:53 pm · Edit
Really???

This is the first time I hear that somebody who never submitted JIT received NoA.
writedit said
July 21, 2012 @ 12:24 am · Edit
I suspect this has to do with the special circumstances of where the applicant was working at the time of application. This would not at all be typical for other mechanisms and applicants from university settings.
NN said
July 24, 2012 @ 10:37 am · Edit
Writedit,

First kudos on this site, very helpful info.

Just wondering if you can interpret these tea leaves for me: I’m waiting to hear on whether a project is going to get funded via an R01 submitted in response to an OppNet RFA (I’m not the PI, just someone who would be involved). The application scored well (20), and as far as I’m aware no hard payline has been specified. According to the PO chances are “good”, and it has been submitted to the Steering Committee for “final approval of the Pay Plan”. I’m not sure what this means, let alone what it means for the chances of the grant actually getting awarded. Any idea? Not knowing about project funding is complicating some career decisions right now…

Reply

writedit said
July 24, 2012 @ 6:48 pm · Edit
If you were on the pay list (no, there would be no payline for this FOA), then I would think you are likely to receive an award. Perhaps the Steering Committee will ask for a substitution based on the science & programmatic priorities, but my guess is that they will accept the pay list as proposed. Is this an application you could submit to another PA (including the parent PA)? If so, you could ask your PO if you should be getting the application ready for an October submission (response would be telling). And if you haven’t mentioned that the funding situation will affect your job choice, you could mention this to the PO, in case he/she now has a better idea of what the Steering Committee will do with the list of applications submitted (of course, if you just talked with the PO yesterday, maybe wait until early next week). Good luck with this application, the research, and the career decision.

Reply

NN said
July 25, 2012 @ 8:14 am · Edit
Thanks. Yeah I’m not in direct contact with the PO. Part of my confusion has to do with not knowing what the Steering Committee is analogous to in other NIH bodies, e.g. is this the 2nd level of review happening or is this more like the “director” having the final say. In any case, I’ll wait and see, thanks for the input that helps.
writedit said
July 25, 2012 @ 8:23 am · Edit
For FOAs that are specific to OppNet, I believe the Steering Committee essentially acts like Council in approving awards for the applications recommended to them for funding (which are then administered by the appropriate IC or office).
Youngscientist said
July 24, 2012 @ 10:59 pm · Edit
My situation is slightly different from Mouseter. My first submission in Oct 2011 scored 27. No information so far. PO said decisions will be taken as late as september. Do I still have a chance? I appreciate any comments. I heard that historically scores below 30 got funded from NCI for K22s. Thanks for any comments.

Reply

writedit said
July 25, 2012 @ 12:09 am · Edit
For FY12, awards can be made as late as Sept 30. Mouseter had to wait til the score dropped from 28 to 21 and just received the award notice recently. Another applicant posting here had an A0 funded at 28 at a different IC (smaller than NCI) – a day after submitting the A1. Did the PO ever advise you to resubmit? You are no doubt ranked on some sort of list, and it depends how far down they go before the run out of money. Not sure when you last checked in with the PO, but you could ask for an update at the end of July and also ask if you should be preparing your A1 for November (yes, you should probably be, if you haven’t submitted yet) and, if not, ask for advice on which mechanism to try next (based on your science & next steps career-wise).

Reply

Youngscientist said
July 25, 2012 @ 7:41 pm · Edit
Dear Witedit, thank you for your response. I contacted PO 4 weeks ago and during that time the PO didn’t have any information on the status of my application. I plan to contact again next week. For K22s the eligibility criteria has been changed, if somebody has more than 8 years after PhD, they are not eligible to submit or resubmit. Thats why I was unable to resubmit in july and still hopeful that my A0 get funded. Thanks

Reply

jason said
July 26, 2012 @ 12:16 pm · Edit
Just received my NCI F32 scores back… 26% and 29 priority score.. where can we find the past NCI F32 paylines??? Anyone have an idea if I just miss the cut? Any help, words of advice, shoulders to cry on, would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Reply

writedit said
July 26, 2012 @ 8:00 pm · Edit
I believe the discussion here suggests the payline was around 28, but you can search prior comments to be sure. However, the FY13 payline will probably be lower, though this won’t be known for several months (depends on election, debt ceiling, sequestration, etc.). If this was an A0, you should plan to submit an A1 application in December.

Reply

jason said
July 27, 2012 @ 12:19 am · Edit
yes, this is an A0 and I am planning to do an A1.. thank you writedit.
penn said
July 28, 2012 @ 8:07 am · Edit
Hello writeedit,

I submitted a R01 this Feb. Its score is within the FY12 payline of both the primary and secondary institutes selected for funding consideration. The primary institute (NLM) says all the proposals within its payline are likely to be considered for funding, but not necessarily on the order of the scores, while the secondary institute seems to follow the payline strictly. My question is in this case whether the secondary institute will almost for sure fund the proposal if the primary institute does not pick it.

Thank you.

Reply

writedit said
July 28, 2012 @ 8:24 am · Edit
Nothing is for sure, of course, especially since we do not know what will happen with the FY13 budget. You should first talk with your NLM PO to find out if your application is of sufficient programmatic interest to be among those selected for funding. He or she would be able to give you some guidance on this (the concern would be if they already have several proposals funded in your area, which you can check on RePORTER). If the NLM PO is equivocal, you can talk with the PO at the secondary IC to ask whether your application will be of interest if declined by the NLM. Not much will be known for sure for a few months, though.

Reply

Immunologist said
August 1, 2012 @ 2:39 pm · Edit
Submitted F32 application to NIGMS in Dec, 2011. Received a priority score of 24. Just spoke with PO and found out I am on the funding list. PO said I should receive award offer letter in the next month. Super excited! Thought I would post for anyone trying to gauge their status. Best of luck!

Reply

writedit said
August 1, 2012 @ 2:42 pm · Edit
Congratulations!! Best wishes for success with the research and your career! Thank you so much indeed for posting your details – your collective participation is what makes the site so helpful.

Reply

Jim said
August 1, 2012 @ 3:40 pm · Edit
Hi writedit,

It seems that congress will agree on a CR which will fund all agencies for six months at last year’s levels. Do you have any idea how this will affect next year’s paylines, if at all?

Reply

writedit said
August 1, 2012 @ 3:53 pm · Edit
The ICs will still need to be conservative until it becomes clear whether sequestration (or something as bad) will occur in January. With defense contractors preaching that the world will end if sequestration occurs, Congress has more of an incentive to work out an alternative by the end of the year. Whether this can actually be done, and the timing, is still unknown, though, since each side must gamble on whether they will be more likely to have the upper hand before or after November 6.

Reply

Matt said
August 2, 2012 @ 11:25 am · Edit
Thank you to all who have contributed to this blog, it has been very helpful. I have just received a NoA for my K99 from the NCI. My PO told me that I was 20th on the list of all the applications with a priority score of 26. Not sure how far they are going into the list, but hope people find this information useful.

Reply

writedit said
August 2, 2012 @ 11:44 am · Edit
Congratulations and best wishes for success with the research and your career! Thank you too so much for sharing the details of your award and contributing to the body of knowledge important to this community.

Reply

Jessie Brown said
August 3, 2012 @ 3:48 pm · Edit
I got my R01 score (A1) in June and the PO told me that the score was not fundable, although close. Then our SRO got JIT notification and budget info request this week. It is a good news?

Reply

writedit said
August 3, 2012 @ 4:53 pm · Edit
Yes, you should respond as quickly as possible – within days (or contact the GMS immediately to indicate how soon you can provided the necessary information & approvals). Otherwise, you may be passed over for someone else on the list. (I assume you are using the term “SRO” to indicate your institution’s sponsored research officer.)

Reply

Jessie Brown said
August 3, 2012 @ 5:16 pm · Edit
Is it still possible not get funded after this?
writedit said
August 3, 2012 @ 5:21 pm · Edit
Yes, it will depend on the review of your JIT information (all approvals/certicates must be in place etc.), though I assume this will not be an issue. Also, we do not know whether this is for final award processing or to have your application ready in case there are very last-minute funds available. I assume the former but cannot discard the possibility of the latter.
Richard said
August 3, 2012 @ 10:36 pm · Edit
R01 scored in June should be funded in 2013. Why is it necessary to respond as soon as possible? My understanding is that you should send JIT before the council meeting.
writedit said
August 3, 2012 @ 11:58 pm · Edit
I’m sorry – Richard is absolutely correct. With the PO estimating your chances as “close”, I switched off my attention to the score date. You received the JIT as part of the new NIH policy to send notices to all applications scoring 40 or below – no rush at all, and no chaired likely to be funded. Sorry to dash your hopes. This is the first instance I have heard of a PO projecting likelihood of funding in FY13 … he/she must be going on the assumption the 6-month CR at FY12 levels will not be rudely interrupted by sequestration in Jan or any other spending cut in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

Reply

Silverpark said
August 3, 2012 @ 7:16 pm · Edit
Writedit,

I found out from the GMS for my R01 that will start on 9/1 that the budget will be reduced by 17% as per FY12 guidelines. I used a modular budget so I had already low balled it. Is this typical?

Thanks

Reply

writedit said
August 4, 2012 @ 12:15 am · Edit
Yes, you should always assume there will be a budget cut. The amount depends on the IC and your status (NI/ESI get cut less, if at all, at some ICs). I am not sure how you can low-ball a modular budget unless you intentionally left out a $25K module that you thought you might need, which is never a good idea, or you wanted to avoid going over the $250K cap for modular vs detailed budgets.

Reply

Silverpark said
August 4, 2012 @ 7:26 am · Edit
Thanks Writedit. What I meant by lowball is that the $250K cap on the modular budget is already a low figure. Thanks as always.
frank said
August 4, 2012 @ 12:11 am · Edit
Hi writedit

I have one K25 grant in NCI and get a good impact score (<25). On July 3, PO and GMS wrote an email to me to ask me for JIT (Inclusion of women, children and minority, IRB, Training in research etc). I submitted them on July 11. On July 25th, i got an email from PO, which stated that my document of “inclusion of women, children and minority” was determined not to satisfy the requirement. I, with the help of our SRO, resubmitted this document on July 26th (PO asked me to submit them before July 30th). And this time PO said the document was fine. Now more than one week has passed. I did not get any updates. What should i do? Is it possible for NCI to change their mind since i did not respond to the JIT request properly? Thanks a lot.

Reply

writedit said
August 4, 2012 @ 7:22 am · Edit
If your PO said the revised humans subjects protection information was fine, then you don’t need to worry about anything. You will receive the award – they are processing hundreds of awards right now, so everything takes time. Your GMS or PO will let you know if you need to do anything else, but I expect you just need to wait for the Notice of Award. Congratulations and best wishes for success with the project and your career in academic research.

Reply

Jessie Brown said
August 6, 2012 @ 6:36 pm · Edit
Everyone says that you won’t get fundable score with A0 submission these days. Is that true or just a rumor?

Reply

frank said
August 6, 2012 @ 8:53 pm · Edit
rumor. at least not for k awards

Reply

abcd said
August 6, 2012 @ 11:56 pm · Edit
i agree with Frank. I know 2 A0 K awardees and 2 A1 K awardees.
writedit said
August 7, 2012 @ 12:41 am · Edit
Definitely not true in a global sense for any mechanism. I personally know of several funded A0s in FY12 (& before), and the NIH is on a mission to fund more applications on their first submission. If the percentages still favor A1s, I would say that is because the number of A1s submitted is lower (PIs with triaged A0s are as likely to start over with something new than hope for a miracle on the one final submission), and of course the A1s have an inkling what reviewers might like to see. NHLBI was using different paylines for A0 & A1 to enforce the mission to fund more A0s, and the NIH would like this to be the “culture” to avoid clogging the review system with so many futile A1 applications. We’re not there yet, but we’re definitely not where we were a few years ago where PIs just submitted any PoS as an A0 to “get in line” (for funding as an A2).

Reply

NHLBI Man said
August 6, 2012 @ 9:08 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit- below what payline, do you think NHLBI will fund SBIRs starting in 2013? With all this CR crap thats going on, where do you think the “safe” payline will be for NHLBI? This year’s payline was 35.
Thanks

Reply

writedit said
August 7, 2012 @ 12:37 am · Edit
A CR pegged at FY12 levels is the best news we’ll have for FY13, I think. If sequestration is negotiated out of existence and not replaced with anything more punitive (to preserve DoD contractor $), then the payline for SBIR/STTR should not be much below FY12. The percentage of budget allocated to SBIR/STTR will stay the same – the amount appropriated to NHLBI (& other ICs) will determine how much small business grant paylines decline. My assumption is that they will be very conservative at first, not knowing what will happen in January, but if the FY12 levels are maintained, they will go back & pick up additional Cycle I awards if the payline floats back up. How conservative? Hard to say what the bean counters will tell them (& I cannot remember the starting bid for R43/R44 awards was at the outset of FY12), but probably 30 or below. Also depends on what the Cycle I scoring looks like … if all scores drop in anticipation of a tough year, so will the paylines, at least until the ICs sort out how many applications have been scored at each impact score & percentile threshold.

Reply

NHLBI Man said
August 7, 2012 @ 9:15 am · Edit
Thanks writedit. Our April 2011 SBIR was scored at 25, which is well below the FY2012 payline of 35. I know the situation is difficult to assess, but I wonder what your personal opinion is on likelihood of funding at beginning of NIH fiscal?
~thanks!
writedit said
August 7, 2012 @ 9:40 am · Edit
Of course I have no idea what might happen with paylines, but I’ll just say that if an SBIR at 25 isn’t within the NHLBI payline, we’re in for a world of hurt …
NHLBI Man said
August 7, 2012 @ 10:33 am · Edit
thats a great response! thank you

Reply

RO1 Question said
August 7, 2012 @ 11:20 am · Edit
Writedit- Have you ever heard of a small business (for profit) receiving an RO1? Is this incredibly unlikely and a waste of time to even apply?

Reply

writedit said
August 7, 2012 @ 3:55 pm · Edit
For-profit companies are awarded R01s, but they are certainly in the minority. Unfortunately, I do not know of a way to determine exactly how much of a minority, but I expect it is a very slim minority. The RePORT data by organization lumps all for-profit and all RPGs (e.g., SBIR and R01s et al.) together, and RePORTER cannot be searched by organization type. The key issue for non-academic applicants is having access to all the required resources and expertise to conduct R01-type research and the prior publications on the science being proposed. I expect for-profit applicants do best responding to RFAs or PARs that target their strengths (those of the for-profit applicant, that is) in developing agents or devices or processes, though these are often bundled in R21/R33 mechanisms more than R01. With NCATS, there may be new mechanisms/FOAs coming down the pike that make it easier for industry to propose or partner directly with academia on the research end of R&D.

Reply

BG said
August 8, 2012 @ 6:51 pm · Edit
Writedit, what is the maximum amount or percentage of a grant that can be subcontracted to another institute?

Reply

LMNOP said
August 9, 2012 @ 8:16 am · Edit
It depends on the Grant. PI SBIR is 33%, PII SBIR is 50%

Reply

writedit said
August 9, 2012 @ 8:38 am · Edit
Yes, it depends on the mechanism and the science. SBIR/STTR applications have defined limits. Otherwise, for something like a multisite clinical trial, more than half of the budget would likely be distributed among the participating sites. For multiple PI applications, the distribution is defined by the science and contribution to accomplishing the stated aims. For a single-site, single-PI RPG, the distribution of funds to other institutions must be justified based on the science. A project in which the applicant is essentially a general contractor (not directly responsible for achieving the aims at the applicant site – don’t forget, the institution, not the PI is the applicant) could be a stretch.

Reply

srp said
August 9, 2012 @ 11:32 am · Edit
Writedit, I just wish to write something about my interaction with PO and further I wish to ask for advice. It is my first grant (R21) ever and I am independent research associate for barley 2 years. I missed the pay-line by 4 points. I wrote kind and short email about the re-submission after my mentors and you writedit suggested. I received response the same minute – with email stating: call me this and that day! I did and I am speechless – the PO went through the summary statement point by point. Asked so many questions to which he at the end said: I think this work leads to nice R01 and your work between the submission and now addressed already all the weaknesses…. Now, I not only know what is relevant to be addressed and how for resubmission. Extra I sort of know what to do to get to R01 from there… The detail of explanation I was provided was remarkable. At the end I was congratulated the good score (remember I missed the payline) and was mentioned to be put in select pay bag. Although I know there is much of work in front of me I feel the PO attached wings to my body. I feel really lucky! Thanks writedit for explaining me how to address the PO – I think it was really crucial. I wonder if you could explain in some detail the select pay mechanism and when it happens. I was for example told by some faculty member that if I resubmit my original A0 I will not be considered for select pay. Do you think the PO was thinking about the A1 being considered for select pay just in the case the paylines drop and the A1 will be yet again on the border line… It is really altogether confusing.

Reply

writedit said
August 9, 2012 @ 2:16 pm · Edit
POs decide which applications to recommend for select pay, which means being funded even though you are above the official payline (also called pay by exception). NIAID describes selective pay. Congratulations on your PO’s putting your application in the queue for consideration for select pay! This is very good news. He clearly thinks your project should be funded sooner than later based on the progress you have made since the original submission.

In the meantime, yes, you can prepare and submit the A1, using what you have learned from the prior review and your PO to strengthen the application. Even after you submit the A1, the A0 will remain under consideration for select pay, so you do not need to worry that submitting a revised application automatically disqualifies your original A0 application from being funded via select pay. Some people find out their A0 was funded while the A1 is under review (sometimes even after). Submitting the A1 will be your safety net in case there are too many select pay applications nominated to fund them all (including yours). I assume this is an application for FY13 funding, in which case you probably would not know about select pay until early next year. However if it is for FY12 (that is, if you submitted the R21 last year), then you will know about the select pay before the end of September.

Reply

redwings said
August 9, 2012 @ 1:05 pm · Edit
Has anybody recently been an awarded a R21 from any institute. The good news is that I just received one. The bad news is that it was cut by about 15%. Has anybody else encountered a similar situation with the R21 mechanism. I have been at this a long time, but the understatment of year has to be that it is tough to do science with the combination of cuts from NIH, inflation, and pressures from institutes to cover more salary. I don’t have any money leftover to buy animals and supplies!

Reply

writedit said
August 9, 2012 @ 2:20 pm · Edit
Unfortunately, you are not alone. Since the R21 cannot be renewed, you should consider what you can do with the remaining money/how you can restructure your aims/experiments that will get you useful data for a future R01 (i.e., you do not need to try to accomplish all you said you would – though I realize that was in fact the point).

Reply

K said
August 14, 2012 @ 3:45 pm · Edit
I was relocated to a new institute on 1st Nov last year. This is year 2 of my RO1 (from July 1, 20012-June 30, 2012). However, I have not received the budget for year 2 yet. Is it very common to have a delay for the budget even it is a awarded RO1?

Reply

writedit said
August 14, 2012 @ 3:55 pm · Edit
Do you mean you changed institutions (universities), or that the administration of your award was moved from one IC to another at the NIH? In either case, noncompeting renewal awards can be delayed even if nothing has changed, and you’ll get the entire amount. However, since it’s now August, you should probably check with your GMS or PO to get the status of the NC renewal (and check to ensure you do not need to do anything, though I am sure they would have let you know if so).

Reply

K said
August 15, 2012 @ 1:40 pm · Edit
Thanks, I will check with my PO regarding the status,
K said
August 14, 2012 @ 3:47 pm · Edit
from July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013

Reply

Justice said
August 14, 2012 @ 5:12 pm · Edit
Does anyone know that the payline for R01 and R21 at the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD)?

Reply

writedit said
August 14, 2012 @ 6:04 pm · Edit
NICHD (it’s now an Institute, graduated from being a Center) does not have a payline, or at least not one they publicize. They do not participate in the parent announcements for R01 or R21, so you must apply to them via an RFA (which means no percentiles, either). If you have a scored application from an earlier RFA, you should just contact the PO for an idea of where you stand.

Reply

SIMM said
September 7, 2012 @ 11:16 am · Edit
For NICHD, pay lines for fiscal 2012 are listed on their site as 10% (new RO1), 11% (renewal), and 13% (new/early stage investigator).

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/strategies_concepts/2012/strategies.cfm
writedit said
September 7, 2012 @ 11:27 am · Edit
Ouch … and better late than never. Thanks for the heads up – updated above.
neuroimm said
August 14, 2012 @ 5:54 pm · Edit
I received a good score on my K01, submitted just in time, and my PO has confirmed that the grant passed council on June 1. I have waited 10 weeks now for the NOGA. 2 questions:

1) should I be concerned?
2) what is the latest that I will get final word (good news or bad)?

Thanks

Reply

writedit said
August 14, 2012 @ 6:07 pm · Edit
You can certainly check with the PO for an updated timeline (and confirmation that you will receive an award). Every IC is catching up on NoAs right now (even non-competing renewals are late), so you don’t need to be overly concerned. Awards are made up to the end of September, though most are wrapped up in August.

Reply

Silverpark said
August 17, 2012 @ 8:19 am · Edit
How long after a NoA is received does it usually take for a grant to show up in Reporter?

Thanks

Reply

writedit said
August 17, 2012 @ 9:07 am · Edit
RePORTER is updated weekly, so it should not be more than a 1-2 week delay, depending on where in the update cycle your notice falls. In fact, straight from the horse’s mouth:

“Generally, a new grant will be made available on the first Sunday (RePORTER is updated each weekend) after the notice of grant award was issued or the budget start date, whichever occurs later. However, there are sometimes technical issues that can delay the availability of a grant in RePORTER.”

Reply

Orion said
August 20, 2012 @ 1:31 pm · Edit
Hello again!
I’ve finally had the time to read and digest the summary statement for my F31. The comments were useful, and pointed out a mix of issues I knew to be worried about and others I hadn’t hadn’t adressed well enough in the proposal. The grant is set to go to the Advisory Council Sept. 19. However, I haven’t received any JIT request. Is not receiving an JIT notice a death sentence at this point in the review process? I can’t find any info on whether these come before this council or after this council meeting. From past posts on JIT notices, it’s worth mentioning I’m at an R1 University. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
August 20, 2012 @ 2:16 pm · Edit
Not to worry, Orion – you might not receive a JIT until just prior to the Council meeting (or even after). The timing varies by IC. In the meantime, you might want to contact your PO to discuss your summary statement and resubmission strategy (and whether resubmission will be needed).

Reply

Talaci said
August 23, 2012 @ 11:53 am · Edit
Dear writeedit,
I’m an ESI. My R01 A0 (submitted last Sep to NIMH) was barely within the 20-percentile, and unfortunately my resubmission this year got a even worse score. My question is since I still got the JIT request from NIH, do I need to respond to it? My senior Co-I thinks the chance of funding is too slim to have people work on the JIT, so our admin person and I have not really worked on it. I emailed my PO, but there is no response. As a NI, I’m really confused now. Shall I keep bugging the PO? If you could offer some advice, that will be greatly appreciated!

Reply

writedit said
August 23, 2012 @ 12:07 pm · Edit
The new NIH policy is to request JIT from all applications receiving a score of 40 or less (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-101.html). I assume your JIT would including obtaining IRB or IACUC approval (vs just updating your other support), which is why you don’t want to go through the effort for an application that will not be funded. You can check with the GMS (if one is assigned) as well, but I would suggest trying to contact the PO again, perhaps by phone, to get an update on the status of the A0 (is it still under consideration?) as well as confirmation as to whether you need to prepare the JIT.

Reply

Talaci said
August 23, 2012 @ 12:12 pm · Edit
Thank you for the advice! Then I’ll nag the PO again.

Reply

writedit said
August 23, 2012 @ 12:19 pm · Edit
Well … “nag” probably isn’t the right state of mind, but a polite reminder of your inquiry.😉 Good luck.

Reply

Scott Roberts said
August 24, 2012 @ 3:12 am · Edit
I am a Professor at a reputed medical school. Currently, I have 3 R01s (total direct costs $970,000). I recently saw a NOT from NIH saying that any application from a PI having $1,000,000 in direct costs will go through special council review. Since I have less than $1,000,000 I do not think my application will go through special council review! Am I correct? Please advise.

Reply

writedit said
August 24, 2012 @ 7:14 am · Edit
You are correct – you are below the threshold for SCR (I have a post about this new policy as well).

Reply

Karen said
August 24, 2012 @ 12:44 pm · Edit
Ok so I just resubmitted my K99 To NICHD and went from a 40 to a 22 – how hopeful should I be about getting funded? I’ve contacted my PO who is sadly on vacation for the next 2 weeks and I’m driving myself crazy here! I think FY12 payline for K awards was ~25 from what i can see. Do I have a shot or would I have heard something by now if i was on the funding list?

Reply

writedit said
August 24, 2012 @ 1:23 pm · Edit
If you were just scored in June from a Feb submission, then you won’t hear for a while (definitely no funding list yet), and your PO won’t know until later this fall or winter either. The initial FY13 paylines will be very conservative until the NIH knows what will happen with sequestration or other budget-cutting measures that might be coming down the pike. The best you can hope for is that FY12 levels are continued through FY13 (then you have a shot). Any other year, your PO might have been able to give you a rough estimate of your chances, but nothing will be known for months. unfortunately, so please try not to drive yourself crazy for that long …

Reply

abcd said
August 24, 2012 @ 1:25 pm · Edit
Congrats on the much improved score! You certainly have a good chance if they keep the payline from 2012. Did you resubmit in March/April ? AFAIK, you will only know early 2013.

Reply

mph said
August 28, 2012 @ 12:18 am · Edit
My K99 was funded by NICHD with a 22 for FY 2012 – good luck!

Reply

writedit said
August 28, 2012 @ 1:59 am · Edit
Congratulations and thanks so much for sharing your data! Best wishes for success with your research and career.
skipug said
August 28, 2012 @ 7:13 am · Edit
Earlier this month, we received a letter from NCI that our minority supplement to the R01 parent grant was approved for funding. (We submitted this March.) However, they couldn’t to tell me when we will be receiving the NGA. I just asked them yesterday, and received the same reply. What is the likelihood of us actually getting the funding? I’m naturally hopeful with the letter, but in these trying times, a little worried.

Reply

writedit said
August 28, 2012 @ 2:54 pm · Edit
Not to worry. If your PO said you will be funded, you will (decisions are made directly by program). These are usually awarded within 6 months of submission, so you should be funded in FY12, which means you would receive an award before Sept 30. Your PO probably does not know exactly when, but you could ask whether you can set up the account in anticipation of receiving an award within 90 days.

Reply

skipug said
August 28, 2012 @ 10:15 pm · Edit
Thank you for your always helpful comments!
Silverpark said
August 29, 2012 @ 7:39 am · Edit
Writedit,

Is it possible (and if yes, is it difficult) to change an R01 from a multi-PI to a single PI? At conception and submission, the science justified the multi-PI route. However, after completing one of the Aims, the results do not support further study of that aspect of the project and therefore, the role of the other PI is now completed.

Thanks

Reply

writedit said
August 29, 2012 @ 8:10 am · Edit
All changes to key personnel must be justified to and approved by the NIH, and the other PI must be in agreement (this can’t be a hostile takeover). More importantly, though, this is a grant, not a contract. If the initial results point to the need for a change in the direction of the research, that does not mean the other PI should be dropped. If reviewers believed this PI was qualified to contribute substantially to the science, he/she should be qualified to advise on and contribute to the new aims. However, if you both agree that no more work will be done in the other PI’s area of expertise (and this expertise is no longer relevant to any potential new direction), then you can talk with the PO about changing the award.

Reply

Richard said
August 29, 2012 @ 12:15 pm · Edit
Silverpark, if “after completing other Aims, the results do not support further study of that aspect of the projects”, are you going to terminate the grant and return all money to NIH?

Reply

Silverpark said
August 29, 2012 @ 1:22 pm · Edit
Strange question. The hypothesis tested in the completed Aim has been addressed, the question answered, and the results do not support further pursuit of that line of investigation. Such a result is important as it addresses the hypothesis for that Aim. The other two Aims are independent and not contingent on the results of the completed Aim. The other two Aims only involve the work of one of the two PIs. The remainder of the grant period will be required to complete the other two Aims. No way to know at this point what the science will show.

What makes your question strange is it presupposes that unless your results are “positive”, your science is of no value and you should return the funding. Interesting premise, although fortunately, not one ascribed to be the NIH or most other reasonable scientists.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion though.
LR said
August 29, 2012 @ 2:29 pm · Edit
I am just curious. In situations such as these, who has the perogative to make personnel decisions? Is it usually the corresponding PI? I can see these situations get messy pretty quickly.

Reply

writedit said
August 29, 2012 @ 2:42 pm · Edit
For all practical purposes, the PIs must agree on this before a change is formally requested. The university (grantee institution) must make a formal request to change the scope of the award and/or change from multiple to single PI status, and they will not do that on the basis of only one PI (the one staying on the application) making the request. The NIH must approve the requested change(s), which is not always a given.

From the NIH Policy Guide: 8.1.2.5 Change in Scope In general, the PD/PI may make changes in the methodology, approach, or other aspects of the project objectives. However, the grantee must obtain prior approval from the NIH awarding IC for a change in scope. A change in scope is a change in the direction, aims, objectives, purposes, or type of research training, identified in the approved project. The grantee must make the initial determination of the significance of a change and should consult with the GMO as necessary. (see Website for potential indicators of a change in scope). 8.1.2.6 Change in Status, Including Absence of PD/PI and Other Senior/Key Personnel Named in the NoA The grantee is required to submit a prior approval request to the GMO if (see Website for full list): There is a change from a multiple PD/PI model to a single PD/PI model.

NIH must approve any alternate arrangement proposed by the grantee, including any replacement of the PD/PI or senior/key personnel named in the NoA, and the addition of any new PD/PIs.

The request for approval of any additional or substitute PD/PIs or Senior/Key Personnel named in the NoA, or change from a multiple PD/PI model to a single PD/PI model, must be accompanied by a strong scientific justification related to the scientific project, including any proposed changes in scope, the biographical sketch of any new individuals proposed and other sources of support, and any budget changes resulting from the proposed change.

If the arrangements proposed by the grantee, including the qualifications of any proposed replacement, are not acceptable to the NIH awarding IC, the grant may be suspended or terminated. If the grantee wishes to terminate the project because it cannot make suitable alternate arrangements, it must notify the GMO, in writing, of its wish to terminate, and NIH will forward closeout instructions.

Reply

Boo said
August 29, 2012 @ 3:02 pm · Edit
Any idea about NIEHS R03 pay lines? My R03 scored a 27 (24th percentile) in June 2012. I heard the scoring percentile was for all R grants at NIEHS, and this may be borderline. I received the email JIT, but know that’s probably automatic. Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
August 29, 2012 @ 3:11 pm · Edit
Yes, you received the JIT because your impact score was below 40 (new NIH policy). As noted here before, paylines won’t be known for months yet, but a 27/24th percentile will probably be a bit high for FY13, even for an R03 at NIEHS, depending on what happens with the debt ceiling, sequestration, and elections. If this was an A0, you should certainly prepare the A1.

Reply

disgruntledNI said
September 4, 2012 @ 3:15 pm · Edit
I am a NI and ESI who had a grant scored in the 15th percentile at NIAMS. I requested, and it is noted on the application, a dual assignment to NIEHS, which appears to have better paylines. I wrote to the PO for NIEHS after speaking to the PO and NIAMS, but haven’t heard a reply. I was wondering, does my grant automatically get considered at the dual institute? Do I have to sell the program official on the grant for it to be considered? Thanks in advance for your comments/suggestions.

Reply

writedit said
September 4, 2012 @ 4:01 pm · Edit
If the NIAMS PO suggested you contact the NIEHS PO (and you mentioned this in your e-mail), then you might try calling the NIEHS PO. Secondary ICs generally wait until the primary IC has declined to fund an application before considering it (if it is within their payline). If this is an FY13 application, then you should not expect a decision from anyone for some time, though hopefully the NIEHS PO can at least say whether you are likely to be considered for funding. If this was an A0 application, you could also ask the NIEHS PO whether you should start working on the A1 and, if so, if he/she recommends any adjustments to increase its level of programmatic interest/priority at NIEHS.

Reply

PUI Researcher said
September 6, 2012 @ 10:02 am · Edit
Some information for those interested about R15 timelines/scores.

I applied for an R15 to NHLBI in June of 2010 and received an impact score of 29 in October of 2010. I resubmitted in June of 2011 and received an impact of 23 in October of 2011. In February 2012, I was told by my PO that this would not likely be funded by NHLBI and he recommended transferring it to NIDDK (my secondary institute). I was informed in May 2012 that it was recommended for funding by council and just received the notice of award today. It was a long process, but well worth it!

Reply

writedit said
September 6, 2012 @ 10:14 am · Edit
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing all the details of your long but successful slog! Best wishes for success with the research.

Reply

Shang said
September 7, 2012 @ 3:22 pm · Edit
I have a curious question. During scientific review, I understand someone who has a perceived conflict of interest will not join the discussion of a particular proposal, but will that person be given the proposal to read or he/she does not have access to that proposal at all?

Reply

Oriade said
September 7, 2012 @ 3:46 pm · Edit
I believe they can still see your score and be able to see and read the proposal.

Reply

CD0 said
September 8, 2012 @ 7:51 am · Edit
They will have access to the proposal but not to the final score or (of course) the discussion. They will be able to guess from the priority order, though.
They will also sign a confidentiality statment.
writedit said
September 8, 2012 @ 12:38 pm · Edit
Thanks for jumping in, CD0 and Oriade …
Jessie said
September 8, 2012 @ 12:06 pm · Edit
I submitted R01 for June 2012. Previous years, I would get an email from SRO regarding the review date by now (for June application) but this time nothing happened yet. I checked eRA Commons and only the council data was shown but not the review date. As far as I know, the submission was complete w/ no red flags. Any idea what’s going on? Should I contact SRO?

Reply

writedit said
September 8, 2012 @ 12:35 pm · Edit
You can check to see when your assigned SRG meets (http://public.csr.nih.gov/RosterAndMeetings/MeetingDate/Pages/default.aspx), if that is what you are looking for. If you are waiting to hear from the SRO about supplemental material (the little that is allowed), you should hear in the next couple of weeks, depending on when your study section meets.

Reply

Jessie said
September 8, 2012 @ 5:42 pm · Edit
Thank you, I found out the date. It usually is posted in eRA Commons though.
WFE said
September 10, 2012 @ 9:53 am · Edit
Dear Writedit,
How often NIH gives an RO1 for 1 year? I (NI) just got an RO1 from NIMH for I year. I confirmed from PO that it is an RO1 not R56.

Reply

writedit said
September 10, 2012 @ 10:10 am · Edit
Well, not that often, that I am aware of, but I suspect they awarded the funds under the R01 mechanism specifically to give you a chance to renewal the grant competitively, an option not available with R56 funding (the more typical mechanism for short-term awards). So, a sort of bridge funding that can be continued if you demonstrate good progress, which I wish you the best in doing.

Reply

Sam said
October 12, 2012 @ 4:59 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit, Do you know what is the NINDS R01 payline for ESI/NI? Thanks,
Sam said
October 12, 2012 @ 4:58 pm · Edit
Which institute is this? I never heard someone getting 1 year R01.

Reply

WFE said
September 10, 2012 @ 10:27 am · Edit
Thank you so much Writedit.

Reply

Dave said
September 10, 2012 @ 3:40 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit,

I have a new situation for me. I submitted a K-grant and a standing member of the training grant study section at my institute is also a member of my “mentoring committee” on my application. We didn’t think this would be a major issue and assumed that the person would be asked to leave the room during discussions. However, they removed my application from that section and now no date has been set for my review. I am being told that I will now get lumped into an SEP that will review all training grants that have reviewer conflicts. No clue when though. I am concerned with the scientific make-up of this SEP and am concerned that the members may not be regular K-grant reviewers. How does this usually work? Will the members be pulled from the other existing K-grant sections and asked to show up for a special meeting? How many grants are likely to be put into this SEP? Do I have any options except to accept my “fate”?

Reply

writedit said
September 10, 2012 @ 8:29 pm · Edit
You can talk with the SRO of the SRG you thought would be reviewing your application (just email or call to say you have some questions/concerns about the change – he/she won’t be surprised to hear from you) and the SRO of the SEP. You will want reviewers with expertise in your science area rather than K mechanisms specifically (ICs don’t have multiple K-specific study sections from which to pull reviewers), but they will understand (& the SRO will remind them) what to focus on with K versus R applications. The SEP will likely have some members from the standing SRG – anyone who is not conflicted with any of the applications submitted for your cycle – but you will want to be sure someone excited about your science is on the panel, too, and this is what you would want to confirm with the SEP SRO. If no SRO has been assigned, you could also mention to the standing SRG SRO what sort of expertise would be important to review your project. Not knowing the IC or their practices, I could not say how many applications will be dumped in the SEP … maybe just a few, maybe a whole pile. I expect the SRO will answer your questions, but your conflicted mentor has probably observed this practice before and should be able to give you an overview of how the SEP will be put together (no names, just how many are usually regular SRG members and how many are brought in ad hoc and the typical number/diversity of applications reviewed).

Reply

Dave said
September 10, 2012 @ 9:54 pm · Edit
Thanks a lot! This is a K01 FYI.

I’m just a little uncomfortable with the whole process to be honest. I have spoken to the PO and the SRO of the proposed SEP. They both indicated that reviewers will be selected based on expertise and experience with K-grants, but I don’t know. What is also incredibly disappointing is that the SEP SRO told me that she doesn’t anticipate getting my grant reviewed until early DECEMBER!! That means I practically miss an entire cycle. That is probably the worst part. I suppose there is nothing I can do about this? Are you suggesting I contact the original SRO as well?

By the way, the reviewer in question was just a member of my mentoring committee, not my primary mentor. Seems like over-kill to go through all this.
writedit said
September 10, 2012 @ 10:09 pm · Edit
No, unless the SEP SRO told you otherwise, if it is reviewed in December, it can still go to Council in January and, if need be (hopefully not), you could resubmit in March, albeit with less prep time due to the delay in receiving your summary statement. You could ask the original SRO or your PO for clarification on the threshold of COI that triggers removal from the standing SRG, though there is nothing to be done about it now (could be useful to know in planning a future submission).
PB said
September 11, 2012 @ 10:26 am · Edit
We have just received confirmation that our Phase 1 SBIR (NIBIB, priority score=20) will be awarded. Does NIH require monthly progress reports for Phase 1 grants?

Reply

writedit said
September 11, 2012 @ 10:35 am · Edit
No, just the standard annual progress report as part of your non-competing renewal or award close out. You’ll probably want to keep in touch with your PO to help in planning for the Phase II application (as appropriate).

Reply

KA said
September 16, 2012 @ 7:22 am · Edit
Thanks for the reply. Another question. Do we receive the entire Phase 1 money at one shot, or do we ask for the money every month. Also, do we have to stick exactly to the proposed budget? For example, if the total salary is specified as 50k, can our total salary be 40k or 60k?
writedit said
September 16, 2012 @ 8:55 am · Edit
You will receive one lump payment as a grant, not a contract, so, no, you do not need to adhere to the budget exactly. If the change in salary involves a change in effort of 25% or more by any key personnel or more than a 25% change in the category of salary, then you need prior approval from the NIH. So if you had $50K in salary, you would not want to bump that above $62.5K or below $37.5K without talking with the PO. You should not hesitate talking with your PO about what is allowable with and without NIH approval – they understand SBIR/STTR awardees need extra guidance. You can find the complete NIH policy for grants management here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2011/index.htm (and anything about sbir/sttr here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm)
WFE said
September 18, 2012 @ 3:18 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit,
Is it acceptable to use preliminary data from another application which is partially funded (just 1 year out of 5 years of an RO1) in a new application? These preliminary data are to demonstrate only the feasibility of experiments and not the hypothesis. Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
September 18, 2012 @ 3:22 pm · Edit
I assume you mean preliminary data you (your group) obtained … versus work done by a different group. The source of funding does not matter – clearly all preliminary data generated for any new R01 are supported by other sources of funding, whether start up, departmental funds, other awards (any sponsor), etc.

Reply

WFE said
September 18, 2012 @ 4:04 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit,
Sorry for the confusion, I meant that I have presented two figures in my earlier application to show feasibility of some experiments. That application was funded for just 1 year (RO1). I want to submit another application with a different question. However, I would like to use those figures in this new application for demonstrating the feasibility of experiments. I have to mention that the plan approved by the PO for 1 year funding excluded the part that contained these two figures.

Many thanks for your help.

Reply

writedit said
September 18, 2012 @ 4:14 pm · Edit
Sure, you’re still fine recycling the figures. If they have been published in the meantime (which would be best – because then your grant application reviewers have the “comfort” of knowing someone else has peer reviewed all the methods, data, conclusions, etc. in full), you can decide whether to keep them or save the room. But if they are not published or if they provide an excellent demonstration of feasibility, then by all means use them again in this new R01.

But, is this a Type 1 or a Type 2 application (new or competing renewal, respectively)? If the latter, then these figures could still go in the Approach section (no need to explain that these were or were not not funded by the short-term R01), but you would need a brief Progress Report indicating what the one year of funding did accomplish.

Reply

WFE said
September 18, 2012 @ 5:08 pm · Edit
Excellent. I can’t thank you enough for your work. It will be a completely new application. Many thanks.
Paul Thompson said
September 21, 2012 @ 1:07 pm · Edit
On recycling figures from one grant application to another – NIH has started using a computer program that searches your grant proposal for any repeated text that has occurred in your prior grants. As I understand it, people have had their grants triaged by CSR for re-using text. Now of course the goal is to make sure people aren’t double-dipping and asking to be paid for the same work twice, which is fair enough. But I know of colleagues who have been in trouble for re-using figures from prior grant applications (maybe they also re-used a lot of text). Does anyone know more about this program? I am bothered by it as I want to submit a new R01 with the Human Subjects section very similar to an old grant. But I don’t want the automatic program to flag this as a violation.

Reply

writedit said
September 21, 2012 @ 7:19 pm · Edit
You don’t need to worry about your human subjects section (or other sections that are essentially boilerplate, such as Resources, chunks of the Resource Sharing Plan, etc.). The areas of concern are the science itself, and mainly to prevent resubmission of a proposal that was not funded as an A0 or an A1 (not so much about double-dipping, since that would come up when reviewing overlap with currently funded work). The same data/figures can be recycled if they support different scientific questions, the main concern (at least 2/3rds of the aims must be new), though their shelf-life is sufficiently limited that this probably doesn’t become an issue in most cases (i.e., the data/figures eventually become published or replaced by updated data/figures).

Reply

Jitters said
September 21, 2012 @ 9:40 pm · Edit
Hi, I have a NIH grant submission question.
My PI friend called me in a panic saying that she submitted her grant, but it bounced back with a few errors. After rushing to correct the errors, the signing official at her institute submitted the grant, but the time stamp said 5:00:30pm…..30sec past the 5pm deadline.
About 10min after the corrected submission, she did get the standard receipt email, saying that “the NIH received the electronic application, you have a 2 day viewing window before it moves forward to review, etc etc.” My question is, is the “receipt of application” email indicative that the grant was successfully submitted, or would 30sec past the 5pm deadline cause her grant to get thrown out later?

Reply

writedit said
September 22, 2012 @ 8:09 am · Edit
The official language is “a timestamp on or before 5:00 pm”. If they look beyond the minute column, then the application would be late, but I do not know the policy in such a situation. If someone else knows the “seconds” policy, please chime in. Otherwise, I certainly wish her a successful submission – and would be interested to know the outcome.

Reply

KA said
September 22, 2012 @ 9:10 pm · Edit
I have been in a similar situation previously, when my submission was late by 10 minutes after correction. The NIH did accept the submission, and the proposal was evaluated by SRG.

Reply

JournalTechs said
September 22, 2012 @ 3:32 pm · Edit
Hi

This may be a little intramural “inside baseball”, but I wondered if you had any idea if there is a policy regarding the 5/8 year rule and mentored K awards? Specifically, if the two year intramural mentored period (if you stay the whole two years) takes you over the 5/8 year limit, do they extend your time? Or is the two year period shortened to match the limit?

Reply

writedit said
September 22, 2012 @ 6:11 pm · Edit
You got me. Is this a K22? No one there you can ask?

Reply

Stew said
September 25, 2012 @ 1:50 pm · Edit
Hi all,
My K01 application received an initial score of 33 (submitted 6/2011), then the revision improved to 29 (submitted 3/2012). I received an email from the PO last week that the Advisory Council recommended funding me for 3 years (down from 5!). I was elated at first, but the email went on to discuss the current budget woes and that I am still in the ‘gray zone’. Any thoughts about this?

How confident should I be? I’m honestly not, even with the Council recommendation. (I wonder if my grant will fall of the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ in January with everything else!?!)

Thanks!

Reply

abcd said
September 25, 2012 @ 5:44 pm · Edit
Which institute did you submit to? Sequestration appears increasingly likely last time I checked….I wonder if they are also cutting down from allocated grants.

Reply

writedit said
September 25, 2012 @ 11:15 pm · Edit
Yes, the opening round of budget reductions in FY13 for competing and non-competing awards will no doubt be quite steep – and whether any of the cuts are restored will depend on what happens in January (and December, with the debt ceiling).
writedit said
September 25, 2012 @ 11:24 pm · Edit
The Advisory Council approves applications for funding, but all final award decisions are made by the IC Director. If you are not within your IC’s payline for FY12, then an award would be iffy even if the level of cuts with the looming sequestration is renegotiated. There will still be at best no increase and more likely some sort of cut, so paylines will certainly not improve from FY12 and will, for the interim, be considerably lower. You won’t know until next year. I would suggest you start working on an R01 (or R21, if you need preliminary data for an R01) for next February or June. You can use the same research (since you will be submitting to a different mechanism), but you won’t be able to submit until you know for sure the outcome of the K01. If sequestration hits, you can probably say good-bye to the K01 though.

Reply

nidcd said
September 27, 2012 @ 7:30 pm · Edit
I submitted K99-R00, NIDCD last time and got a priority score 30 but the payline was 25. I re-submitted and do you think it is likely to get it this time?

Reply

writedit said
September 27, 2012 @ 7:33 pm · Edit
You won’t know until your application is scored … some resubmissions get better scores, some don’t, some get triaged the second time in.

Reply

Monarc said
October 2, 2012 @ 9:02 pm · Edit
Hi benevolent blog overlord! I am currently thinking about when/if I should put in a K99 app. I’m currently in the middle of my F32 funding and I know it’s good to show early productivity, as opposed to waiting ’til the 4th year. Earlier I saw you write this: “Some ICs only fund 1-3 K99 applications each year, so they wait until all 3 cycles have been reviewed to pick the lucky recipient(s) based on score (not percentile) and programmatic priorities.” This makes me wonder: which is the LAST deadline I can apply to and still be considered as part of that year. Is it just as one might expect: Feb/June/Oct all cluster as competitors? Or is there some staggering there? I really want to avoid waiting to hear back, so I want to know the practical deadlines.

Thanks so much for maintaining this awesome community.

Reply

writedit said
October 3, 2012 @ 12:33 am · Edit
Ack – you’re confusing me with the monkeys running my favorite online toy store, Think Geek.

You will definitely need a strong publication record for the K99 application. You don’t mention your target IC, but you should take a look at the range in the number of applications received and awarded for each IC over the years to get a better idea of where you stand with your target IC: http://report.nih.gov/FileLink.aspx?rid=551 (you can set the Activity Code to only list K99 data and the NIH I/C to list just the IC(s) of interest – & only pay attention to the most recent year or two – this mechanism has had a roller coaster ride over the years) For example, in FY11, NIAMS funded 3 of 30 applications received, while NCI funded 32 of 141 applications received. You need to be at the top of your game.

Also, there is usually a designated K99 PO, whom you could contact for timing advice (whether they make awards after each cycle or all at once at the end). Applications submitted in February fall under the first cycle of the next FY (for the most part – again, check with your target IC for any peculiarities), with those submitted in October considered for the last cycle of the FY (i.e., shortest wait to hear about funding, if the IC makes all decisions after this cycle of applications has been scored).

Reply

Monarc said
October 18, 2012 @ 7:12 pm · Edit
Great reply, thanks! For timing advice I will get in touch with the PO for NIGMS, my most likely IC. The report.nih.gov site is currently failing to load for whatever reason, but I did find a great 2011 summary of all funding success rates for all ICs: http://tinyurl.com/98d79u9 So 13% (14 of 108) success rate for NIGMS K99s in 2011… I will encourage all my most inept postdoc friends to apply, helping to boost my odds😉

I’ve written a nice review and hopefully have a hot story to submit soon, so I think an application is not too unreasonable. I’ve also heard that people have decent success with resubmissions so a might pair a slightly-too-early application with a later, stronger one.
writedit said
October 20, 2012 @ 8:28 am · Edit
Good luck (like the statistical strategy😉 … I do advise folks to submit their strongest possible application the first time in, although the NIH is reconsidering whether to allow a second revision (A2) again. Of course, especially with these time-sensitive K99s (in terms of your career status – you don’t want to hang out longer as a postdoc just to reapply), you also can’t delay too long just to get the perfect application. A good review in a respectable journal and a punchy original report plus more robust preliminary data on a hot story (& strong mentor support) should sell well to reviewers.
Comradde PhysioProffe said
October 20, 2012 @ 8:39 am · Edit
A review article doesn’t mean jacke shitte to the review of a K99.
writedit said
October 20, 2012 @ 8:48 am · Edit
No substitute for an original report, but better than an empty biosketch and documents knowledge of the field. They’re no longer a cake walk to get published, at least in good journals. No reason not to do one, especially if it triggers some new ideas.
Dave said
October 31, 2012 @ 1:56 pm · Edit
Yeh but PP is right, this dude will be royally fooked if he/she submits a K99 with just a review article. Even if the applicant has one first-author “hot story” paper, I doubt it will be enough to escape triage. You need a good solid track-record basically since you started grad school and, even then, unless CNS papers are part of your overall package I think you can forget about a K99 these days. And, no, it is not worth submitting anyway for the “experience” or “helpful reviewer comments”. K99 paylines are so ridiculous that it makes no sense. A K99 app is a lot of time and effort, time which this person should probably be spending in the lab.
Monarc said
November 2, 2012 @ 5:57 pm · Edit
To be clear, I wouldn’t submit a K99 app until the potential NCS paper (curse you guys for even making me type this out) is submitted, or maybe accepted. I’m under the impression that such a paper (along with a review which reflects expertise and productivity) and a killer proposal with strong training component has a chance. All the K99 concerns I posted about above are predicated on this great paper coming through. A member of my lab got the K99 with two first-author papers (one each in 2nd-tier, 3rd-tier) and a strong proposal; I don’t think NCS + review is so different.

I don’t mind writing proposals at all, actually; I think they can be a good excuse to think carefully about what one is doing and why.
K99-er said
October 31, 2012 @ 2:24 pm · Edit
So as not to discourage too many hopeful postdocs – some, including myself, got a K99 w/o even one CNS paper. Also, thinking about what training one may need to launch their career and developing a solid research plan was a huge benefit (IMO) for applying/interviewing for faculty positions. I imagine going through the process would help even if the grant did not get funded. Writing a K99 also forces you to have conversations with your mentor about what you can take with you. I agree it is a very challenging and competitive grant, but the payoff if funded (TT position, start-up, and salary) is pretty significant.

Reply

writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
Great points, very well said. Thanks so much for taking a few moments to share your thoughts & experience.
Dave said
October 31, 2012 @ 3:49 pm · Edit
@K99-er: No doubt some are getting K99s without CNS, but it depends on the IC and WHEN you were awarded your K99. Things are very different now than they were even 2 years ago.
K99-er said
October 31, 2012 @ 4:13 pm · Edit
@ Dave: I am a recent awardee. I do agree it is very competitive, and IC does matter.
K99-er said
October 31, 2012 @ 4:16 pm · Edit
@writedit – I learned a great deal from all the information and advice on this site; thanks so much for all that you do!
writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 4:23 pm · Edit
It is folks such as you sharing your experience that makes the site valuable for everyone, including me, so thanks again, and best wishes for success with your research, your training, and your career.
Recent K99 said
October 31, 2012 @ 7:58 pm · Edit
I was recently awarded the K99, and at the time I applied, I had only one paper in a second tier journal. I think if you don’t have publications at the time you send your application in, then it is very important that you and your advisor (in the support letter) mention that you have a paper coming down the pipeline and a rough estimate of when that will be. One of the reviewers pointed out that my publication list was short, but since we mentioned there will be more publications soon, s/he did not hold it against me.

Secondly, the K99 mechanism really emphasizes the training aspect of the grant (maybe even more so than the research part), so I would make sure to have this part as strong as possible, especially if you think you are weaker in other aspects of the grant.
writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 8:03 pm · Edit
Cool – thanks for sharing your experience – very helpful. On any K application, the letters are critical, so thanks for pointing that out. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research, your training, and your career!
Monarc said
November 2, 2012 @ 6:20 pm · Edit
I want to add that I’ve also heard that the “training” segment of the postdoc phase is taken very seriously, i.e. be sure to demonstrate that you’ll be broadening your expertise instead of just coasting for a few more years.
writedit said
November 2, 2012 @ 6:34 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for sharing your experience and advice – makes for a great exchange & blog.
RC said
October 4, 2012 @ 11:20 pm · Edit
Does anyone know K-award current paylines or previous paylines for NIGMS? One of my mentees received a 28 on K23 revision. I cannot find any published paylines for K awards from NIGMS.

Thanks…

Reply

writedit said
October 4, 2012 @ 11:29 pm · Edit
NIGMS does not use a payline but discusses applications with competitive scores to create paylists (see https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/). FY13 decisions won’t be made until next year, but you and the K23 PI can talk with the PO about how much enthusiasm there will likely be for the application when these discussions do occur. I expect the advice will be to submit an A1 in the meantime, though, since funding decisions are so far off, and your mentee will not want to wait that long before resubmitting (if eligible).

Reply

RC said
October 7, 2012 @ 10:02 pm · Edit
thanks, very helpful
newbie said
October 8, 2012 @ 1:38 pm · Edit
Received priority impact score of 24 for K23 at NIA. Any idea whether this has a chance of being funded? Anybody out there with experience at NIA for career awards?

Reply

backtothedrawingboard said
October 10, 2012 @ 2:56 pm · Edit
congrats on the score, newbie! i too am an NIA K23 applicant in the same cycle but got a 41 (A0). a friend had a similar A0 score as you a few years ago and got it, but it’s tough to know funding odds unless your PO is helpful and exceptionally prescient

writedit: thanks for this fantastic resource. i dont have the same question as newbie, but i just wanted to say that the JIT link is in my commons account. it should only automatically appear for scores 40 and below, right? is this some sort of computer glitch?

also, do you know if K-awards get triaged like R’s (i.e. half go unscored)?

Reply

writedit said
October 10, 2012 @ 3:13 pm · Edit
No, not a glitch … the JIT link on eRA Commons is open for all applications once they have been discussed (not tied to score). Applications scoring 40 or less receive an e-mail from eRA Commons with a standard notice about JIT. If you had received an e-mail, that would have been a glitch.

On the K review, to the best of my knowledge, all applications are discussed since these are reviewed by IC study sections (not CSR), and the application load should be managable. However, it could be that for some mechanisms at some ICs, the number of applications has reached the point that they do triage … if anyone has received an unscored K application, I’d be interested in knowing the mechanism & IC.
backtothedrawingboard said
October 10, 2012 @ 3:19 pm · Edit
thanks for the clarification re the JIT link!

i always thought that all K’s got reviewed and consequently scored, but i recently heard about a K applicant who got triaged/was unscored at NIA. i wish IC’s could make their review process more explicit/transparent
writedit said
October 10, 2012 @ 3:25 pm · Edit
Aha. Thanks for the heads up that this is indeed happening. Each IC will be different, though, but NIA does get slammed in certain mechanisms. I’ll see if I can track down IC policies on whether all their internally reviewed applications (that is, IC study sections vs CSR) get discussed and scored.
backtothedrawingboard said
October 10, 2012 @ 3:48 pm · Edit
thanks for looking into it! i basically considered my 41 a lost cause, but then i heard that a K applicant got triaged at NIA, which made me wonder how hopeful i can be with a score like mine. i’ll ask my PO once i get my summary statement and let you know.
DrugMonkey said
October 10, 2012 @ 6:28 pm · Edit
i wish IC’s could make their review process more explicit/transparent
what on earth would it matter whether an IC triages certain mechanisms or not? Is this going to alter one’s choice of whether to seek funding from that particular IC? heck no.

but then i heard that a K applicant got triaged at NIA, which made me wonder how hopeful i can be with a score like mine.
Since your chances are determined by how many scores are better than yours, the number of scores above is of little value…. in particular, the fact that an IC triages or does not triage tells you little about the number of applications above your score. The full range is not used for those applications below the triage line. that’s not how it works
writedit said
October 11, 2012 @ 12:03 am · Edit
Knowing whether the study section triages applications can provide a bit of perspective (especially toward resubmission) in the absence of percentiles, since you at least know if you were in the top half of the pile (or a friendly reviewer asked for your application to be discussed). That 41 could be the worst score in the pile if they were all discussed. Not a lot of information, but not nothing (which, when the PO isn’t responding, might be enough to keep insanity at bay).
newbie said
October 13, 2012 @ 10:21 am · Edit
I wonder when decisions are made regarding funding. My study section met earlier this month. I think council is supposed to meet in January. When should I expect a decision or likelihood regarding funding for NIA? Will it be shortly after the council meeting??
writedit said
October 13, 2012 @ 7:02 pm · Edit
At NIA, you can contact your PO a week or two *after* Council meets next January (not before). By then, we should know about the budget situation, too, which is why your PO will have no idea until after Council. If this was an A0 and you want to ask about whether to resubmit, that’s a different conversation that you could have when you get your summary statement.
newbie said
October 13, 2012 @ 12:17 pm · Edit
People keep identifying themselves as either an A0 or an A1 application… does NIH prefer one over the other for funding. that is, is it harder to get funded with an A0 application if the impact score is similar to that of an A1 application?
writedit said
October 13, 2012 @ 6:57 pm · Edit
Mainly, it lets us know whether there is opportunity for resubmission (the case with A0s) – people don’t want to put the effort into an A1 if the A0 might get funded, but these days, it takes so long to find out about funding, I generally recommend submitting an A1 in the meantime. For scores posted as A1s, the issue is that the PI might as well start working on something new while waiting to hear the outcome of the A1 application. Some ICs, such as NHLBI, were actually setting higher paylines for A1s because they wanted to fund more A0s, and that is the stated goal for the entire NIH (that is, give preference to A0 applications), but some POs will fight harder in program discussions for a PI whose score improved from the A0 to the A1 and whose score is in the fundable range (especially an established lab about to lose funding – the new/ESI PIs already get their payline break). I think we need another year or so of data to see if A1s have become the new A2s (which many times got a big drop in score to enhance fundability for those PIs who had “waited in line”).
True said
October 8, 2012 @ 1:42 pm · Edit
I received an impact score of 24 for a K01 at NIA in June of 2010. Went to council 10/2010. I was not funded. At that time I think the cutoff score was 18. I hope you have better luck.

Reply

writedit said
October 8, 2012 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
Hmm. Well, the FY11 success rate for K01s was 29.3% vs 34.0% for K23s. If the cut-off really was 18, then the K23 cut-off would not be more than a few points higher, and I doubt these cut-offs went up much for FY12 (and definitely will not go up for FY13).

If this was an A0 application (newbie), then you should be working on the A1 application certainly.

Reply

newbie said
October 8, 2012 @ 8:43 pm · Edit
This is surprising. Do you really need to be in the teens for impact score to get a K23? Wondering if anyone can chime in here… what was the highest impact score that you’ve heard someone get and still get funded for a K23? Thanks for the input everyone…
writedit said
October 8, 2012 @ 9:47 pm · Edit
It is different for other ICs, though my point above was that K23s might get funded into the low 20s – not sure about a 24 (and even if there is a chance that you might get funded, you won’t know for sure until next year, which is why I would advise working on an A1, if your 24 is for the A0). Your PO can tell you what the cut-off was last year, though I would advise waiting until you receive your summary statement to get in touch.
RL said
October 10, 2012 @ 11:11 am · Edit
An RO1 percentile score of 8 from NIA (estabished I, A1). Any thoughts on chances for funding? Any speculation on payline for FY 13?

Reply

writedit said
October 10, 2012 @ 11:55 am · Edit
Well, assuming you did not request more than $500K/y, you are well within the FY12 payline (11th percentile), and I would hope that would be in the ultimate FY13 funding range. I suspect most ICs will start with an interim payline in the 5-8th percentile range (NIAID, the only declared interim, is at 6). The big question is sequestration, but with the need to raise the debt ceiling again in December-Jan no matter what, my assumption is that the NIH budget will be cut for FY13. Your PO should know around the next Council meeting what NIA settled on for an interim payline, though no confident paylines can be considered until next year. Since this is an A1, of course, you can let this simmer while you work on something different for the next round …

Reply

RL said
October 11, 2012 @ 8:47 am · Edit
Thanks..I guess nothing more I can do but wait and watch. Wondering about the chances that it may not get funded…Yes, it is less than 500K.
RL said
October 10, 2012 @ 11:51 am · Edit
My established investigator RO1 got a percentile score of 8 from NIA. Any thoughts/speculation on payline for FY 13?

Reply

abcd said
October 11, 2012 @ 8:16 am · Edit
Thanks writedit for the clarification and this great resource that many of us benefit from. You are doing a great job!

Reply

bb2 said
October 12, 2012 @ 10:29 am · Edit
Has anybody gotten anything funded via ‘High Program Priority’ mechanism – lately? If so, please share details!

Reply

PB said
October 12, 2012 @ 1:16 pm · Edit
Can I charge patent costs (specifically licensing a patent option from a university) to NIH Phase 1 award under indirect costs? The NIH policy says:

“Unallowable as a direct cost unless specifically authorized on the grant award. May be allowable as F&A costs, provided they are authorized under applicable cost principles and are included in the negotiation of F&A cost rates. Such costs include licensing or option fees, attorney’s fees for preparing or submitting patent application, patent maintenance, or recordation of patent-related information.”

We do have budget under the indirect cost category, but it was not negotiated, as it was below 40%.

Reply

writedit said
October 12, 2012 @ 2:17 pm · Edit
Your GMS should be able to answer your question. Most likely, but it does depend on how your company (I assume this is an SBIR) negotiated the F&A rate with the NIH. You did not need to designate this as an F&A (indirect) cost in the grant application budget, but it should have been included as an allowable expense for F&A $, which is provided as a lump sum (no line item designations needed).

Reply

R01_Hopeful said
October 13, 2012 @ 11:51 am · Edit
Dear WriteEdit, my A0 R1 submission got scored at 11th %tile. eRA Commons lists both NIGMS (primary) and NIBIB. Now, I am an ESI, but my Co-PI in this application isn’t. Should we be cautiously optimistic, or start working on an A1 submission? Regards, R01_Hopeful

Reply

writedit said
October 13, 2012 @ 7:00 pm · Edit
Oh no – do you mean you have an established PI as part of a multiple PI submission? If that is the case, then you have no payline break (you both must be new/ESI PIs to get the higher payline). NIGMS does not use a payline, and your application will definitely get discussed at the paylist meeting (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/). When you get the summary statement, you can talk with the PO about whether he/she needs any information to help make a case for your application receiving an award. Your PO will tell you whether to start on the A1, too, based on the summary statement comments.

Reply

stillwaiting said
October 14, 2012 @ 11:23 am · Edit
my competing R01 renewal was reviewed in June and received 24/8%. Went through council the first week in September (NIGMS as primary) but I haven’t heard anything since then. Grant proposed start date would be Jan 1, 2013. Any sense of what the timing of hearing anything further should be? Should I write my PO or just keep an eye on the commons? In any prior year that would be fundable, but I’m not sure how much a potential sequestration is factoring into their timelines/calculations for FY13–presumably they still have to issue award notices as if situation is normal but will just be extremely conservative at the start of fiscal year in case we fall off the cliff when January comes. There is already an award document number in the lower part of the commons (maybe just because it’s a renewal?) but no award notice date above.

Reply

writedit said
October 14, 2012 @ 3:08 pm · Edit
If you have not talked with the PO since receiving the summary statement, you should certainly get in touch. He/she will know if you are on the paylist (and where on the list, in terms of available funding) and when NIGMS will start to consider making awards (i.e., before or after Jan 2, the date sequestration will take effect if not modified prior).

Reply

stillwaiting said
October 14, 2012 @ 6:26 pm · Edit
We corresponded briefly when I sent the JIT information, but I figured I had to wait until after they put together a paylist after the council meeting (a few weeks–should be done by now) before they’d have any specifics. Thanks for the advice–I’ll write her.
stillwaiting said
October 15, 2012 @ 10:35 am · Edit
My PO writes that (as I know) they do not yet have an appropriation for FY13 because they are under CR, and that they haven’t received guidance yet regarding funding policies under the current CR. However, they anticipate that if policies are similar to those in effect under previous CRs they will begin to start making awards for well-scoring apps starting in December and that my app is likely though not guaranteed to be in the group that they’ll be able to consider for funding. So that is what I thought they’d say on that end and we should hope specifics will emerge until after the election when we will find out out what the lame duck congress does about sequestration. I have heard that there is some behind the scenes work going on to figure out how to resolve sequestration, but there don’t appear to be any particulars to be had yet and I’ve found no information whatsoever about NIH or agency contingency planning for such an event, if it does occur.
writedit said
October 15, 2012 @ 10:53 am · Edit
Thanks for sharing this communication, which is about as positive as your PO can be at this point. The ICs are making contingency plans, but they don’t publicize them (nor is there any need for them to do so).
finally done waiting! said
November 28, 2012 @ 7:09 pm · Edit
I was notified today that this application was funded, although with a significant budget cut, so at least some of these uncertainties are resolving. Last year I think the effective, non-official payline may have been around 14%, so the 10% interim (which I saw in a comment below) would be a significant drop, although maybe it will creep back up to something closer to what it’s previously been, once the uncertainties of the sequester and FY13 budget are sorted out.
writedit said
November 28, 2012 @ 7:18 pm · Edit
Congratulations – and thank you for sharing your particulars along the way. Your participation is what makes the site a valuable resource for others. Best wishes for success as you continue the research (fingers crossed for restoration of at least some of the budget cut).
Mike said
October 15, 2012 @ 12:11 am · Edit
Hello Writedit, I submitted a F31 PreDoctoral Fellowship to NIGMS in April and it received a 19 yet it is now October and I have not heard anything. Is 19 a good score for a F31 in NIGMS? Also do you know if this timeline is typical or should I still be patient? Thank you in advance.

Reply

writedit said
October 15, 2012 @ 5:46 am · Edit
Your award would not start until December, but since Council has met, you can definitely contact your program officer to see if he/she knows whether your application is on the paylist (and yes, the 19 is a good score, but NIGMS does not go on score alone: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/) and the timing of awards (since they may be delayed until NIGMS knows what is happening with their appropriation).

Reply

Mike said
October 15, 2012 @ 7:09 am · Edit
Thank you for your quick response. I’ll make sure to post again when I find out, so that others can have an idea of F31′s at NIGMS.
writedit said
October 15, 2012 @ 7:14 am · Edit
Thanks so much – input from you and everyone else is what makes this site helpful for others. Good luck.
Question said
October 16, 2012 @ 6:19 pm · Edit
Writedit- we received a score of 25 for an NHLBI SBIR. Do you have any idea what the payline will be? Thanks so much!

Reply

writedit said
October 16, 2012 @ 6:31 pm · Edit
No idea at this point, though I’d certainly hope you’re close at least. Your PO might have an inkling of the interim strategy after the Oct Council meeting.

Reply

Chris said
October 18, 2012 @ 10:35 am · Edit
Why do F32 (NIAID) proposals say “October Council” in the eRA commons, when NIAID holds council in September? My priority score was “20″ and is in the gray zone of funding for FY2013. MY PO refuses to give me any additional information on the likelihood of funding beyond sending me a link to the website housing the FY2012 paylines. Very frustrating. For some reason the interim payline for these grants is rarely as conservative as it is for all other funding types. I’m cautiously (foolishly?) optimistic I might get funded.

Reply

writedit said
October 19, 2012 @ 8:38 am · Edit
eRA doesn’t keep track of the actual IC council meeting dates and refers to the general Council cycle during which your application will be considered. Your PO is not refusing to give you information – he/she has no additional information to give. None. No one does. If by some miracle sequestration is blocked or postponed and no other cuts are imposed in exchange for raising the debt ceiling in Dec/Jan and the CR (which keeps FY12 funding levels) continues, you could be optimistic about funding. If sequestration goes through, probably not. But no one knows what will happen with the budget at this point and will not until December. Yes, this is very frustrating.

Reply

Chris said
October 23, 2012 @ 8:58 am · Edit
Didn’t think they’d get an interim payline for grants other than R01′s so soon. Looks like I just made the “20″ payline!
writedit said
October 23, 2012 @ 9:35 am · Edit
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and career!
Cath said
October 19, 2012 @ 3:33 pm · Edit
Hi all! I am waiting anxiously to hear about my K01 score, and can’t seem to find anything on here related to the NIDA K’s. Anyone have experience there, or know what their payline is right now? I have figured out (from this discussion board) that funding is based on impact score rather than percentile, correct? But it would be great to understand what my score means when it arrives! Any thoughts would be appreciated, thank you!!

Reply

writedit said
October 19, 2012 @ 3:43 pm · Edit
You will receive an impact score, but NIDA does not publish a payline for Ks (or anything else) … and no one has any idea about paylines for FY13 and will not know until next January at the earliest. When you get your summary statement, you can talk with the program officer about funding likelihood – just a ballpark based on FY12 – though your PO may not even want to go there, since there are so many unknowns for FY13. That is, do not be upset if he/she cannot tell you anything. However, he/she should be able to advise on resubmission, again, once you have the summary statement (not just the score). Good luck … and as a starting point, if your score is not in the 20s or lower, you should plan on a resubmission.

Reply

Cath said
October 19, 2012 @ 3:45 pm · Edit
Thank you so much, this is VERY helpful (as I really had no information at all and realized that my score would mean very little without some idea of what to expect). This is good to know and will help put things into perspective when I find out. I appreciate it!!!
Chad said
October 19, 2012 @ 7:12 pm · Edit
Just got word that my K01 for NIMH got an impact score of 19. Anyone know what the payline is for K’s at NIMH?

Reply

writedit said
October 20, 2012 @ 8:18 am · Edit
That’s a good score, but no one will know if it is a fundable score until next year (due to election, debt ceiling, sequestration). When you receive your summary statement, you could contact the PO to review the addressable concerns and ask whether you should start work on an A1 application or sit tight.

Reply

MMR said
October 21, 2012 @ 11:05 pm · Edit
Hi Everyone,
My R15 for NIGMS received a score of 23 for A1, which is an improvement from A0. NIGMS does not have published pay lines, does anyone know if this score is good enough to have a chance for funding? Also, should I ask the PO this question before getting the summary statement and comments? Thank you.

Reply

writedit said
October 22, 2012 @ 5:25 pm · Edit
You should contact the PO after you receive the summary statement, at which point you can indicate whether there are any easily addressed technical concerns raised in the review (i.e., do not impact underlying aims & science so much as how you proceed). At that point, your PO should be able to give you an idea as to whether you would be likely to make it onto the paylist (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/) … though actual funding decisions will still likely be months away (after sequestration or its substitute is a known quantity).

Reply

JournalTechs said
October 22, 2012 @ 8:39 pm · Edit
NIAID have released a few more paylines (Ks and Fs) – not too much of a drop, fairly consistent with the R01 provisional paylines (a drop of about four percentage/priority points). Hopefully NHLBI will keep their paylines to a similar budget crunch, as my K award goes to the advisory council next week.

Reply

writedit said
October 22, 2012 @ 9:45 pm · Edit
Thanks for the heads up … if the CR levels are continued through FY13, then paylines should stay steady. Hope so. We’ll see.

Reply

Dave said
October 23, 2012 @ 1:33 pm · Edit
NIAID have released a few more paylines (Ks and Fs) – not too much of a drop

Not too much of a drop? What are you smoking? The payline went from 10th to 6th percentile for experienced investigators, and from 14th to 10th for new/ESI. To me that is a large and significant drop in one year, especially when you consider that it took 6 years for a similar reduction in the payline from 2006 to 2012 (from 14 to 10) at NIAID. The K’s are badly affected too and god only knows what the payline for the K99 is. If it is anything like some other ICs, it is probably a case of “impact scores of between 10 and 15 will be considered for funding”.

Hardly a minor payline drop, no matter how you look at it.

Reply

writedit said
October 23, 2012 @ 4:17 pm · Edit
The interim F31 payline actually went up (to 26), while the F32s dropped 2 points (22 to 20) and Ks only dropped from 24 to 20 (impact score vs percentile). And these are interim, so could move closer to FY12 levels, depending on what happens between now and January.
New R1 Asst Prof said
October 24, 2012 @ 7:29 pm · Edit
I could not agree anymore with what Dave said. Not too much of drop? I’m an NI/ESI and I got a 13th percentile on my first ever R01 submission, which would have been funded every year (for which I can find information) in the history of NIAID, even before there was a different payline for NI/ESI, but not this year. My comments were uniformly positive with a total of three very minor weaknesses pointed out. Each critique noted “high enthusiasm” for the project. Yet, my PO has informed me I should submit an A1 for the very next cycle (12/10/12 deadline for ESI), although there were almost no critiques and much of the difference between my A0 and A1 will be sprucing and word-smithing in the (perhaps silly) hope that this will convince just one or two members of the study section to vote 1 instead of 2. But if my score is the same or lower on the A1 then I am screwed and may as well just pack up shop and move to a lib arts college.

Sorry, maybe I just needed to vent.
writedit said
October 25, 2012 @ 12:08 am · Edit
The interim payline may go up after the dust settles in Jan, but your PO is recommending resubmission as insurance, which is smart, though a PITA. I expect the SRG assumed it had handed you a fundable score, and if they are uniform in their support for your science, they will try again to second guess how low they must go to push you into the funding range. Looking at the scores/percentiles on summary statements being sent to me from a range of SRGs (& assigned ICs), I am not sure how the NIH is going to figure out what to fund in the year ahead, even once they know how many $s they have to spend. Hang in there, all.
New R1 Asst Prof said
October 25, 2012 @ 6:49 pm · Edit
Thanks for the reply writedit. My impact score was 20 and my percentile was 13. I have been led to believe by my senior colleagues that a 20 impact score generally results in a higher percentile than 13. Thus, they tell me that it is likely that the study section I am submitting to has a “score inflation” problem as they attempt to get things funded in this increasingly difficult situation. Do you think this is a correct assessment?
writedit said
October 25, 2012 @ 7:05 pm · Edit
Or score deflation, as the case may be. Yes, that percentile is a little high for a 20. I can immediately think of an R01 from last year with an impact score of 20 at the 11th percentile. On my desk, I have 2 summary statements from the current review cycle (i.e., just reviewed in Sept/Oct) from different SRGs, one scored at 26 at the 15th percentile and one scored at 23 at the 17th percentile. As paylines get tighter, reviewers drop scores in parallel for applications they believe should be funded. NIAID has a nice tutorial on how percentiles can become skewed: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/strategy/Pages/7payline.aspx#c
Dave said
October 26, 2012 @ 12:09 pm · Edit
I had a colleague with a 22 (R01) at the NIDDK who was in the 2nd percentile last cycle.
Dave said
October 26, 2012 @ 12:10 pm · Edit
….I should add that you could tell from the summary statement that the reviewers were not all that enthusiastic about the grant, but I guess the others must have been far worse.
writedit said
October 26, 2012 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
The percentile is linked to the study section rather than the IC, and actually, a colleague here received a score of 20 this review cycle that is at the 4th percentile. It seems hard to believe the reviewers were not enthusiastic (the SRO might not have gone overboard writing the resume & summary of discussion since the score/percentile spoke for itself) – certainly they could not have cited any major weaknesses.
Chris said
October 29, 2012 @ 1:41 pm · Edit
You’re comparing a final payline from 2012, to an interim payline (apples to oranges comparison) for 2013. The interim paylines are FAR higher than most people expected.
nidcd said
October 22, 2012 @ 9:11 pm · Edit
I just got my K99 priority score, which is 16. According to my PO, it is likely to be funded. I have a question. Now what should I prepare and is there any material that I can look into such as terms and conditions, etc.?

Thank you.

Reply

writedit said
October 22, 2012 @ 9:37 pm · Edit
Congratulations on the exceptional score! I do not think the budget of a K99 will be adjusted at all (and there are no terms/conditions for you to negotiate), but it is difficult to say when the award will be made, though your start date for an application just reviewed will not be until next spring in any case. After Council meets and you get closer to your start date, you can start organizing the training and research you proposed and talk with your university sponsored programs office and/or department grant manager about setting up an account.

Reply

shen said
October 22, 2012 @ 11:56 pm · Edit
Hello Writeedit,

This is a very informative website. I wonder whether you can highlight the update each time you make the update so the updated information can be easily found.

Reply

writedit said
October 24, 2012 @ 9:48 pm · Edit
Thank you, Shen … I change the last modified date at the top of the page when I update the paylines, and you can subscribe to the blog (see option at in right sidebar) to receive notice of new posts.

Reply

abcd said
October 23, 2012 @ 1:38 pm · Edit
These paylines and scores are based on the CR and reflective of the uncertainity. The final paylines and scores will be decided once the budget situation is clear in Dec/Jan. So, don’t hit the panic button yet

Reply

lily said
October 23, 2012 @ 3:00 pm · Edit
when would payline come out for July submission? Thanks a lot in advance!

Reply

writedit said
October 23, 2012 @ 4:22 pm · Edit
There are not different paylines for different submission dates – they apply all year. The interim paylines are adjusted once the final appropriation is known but then applied to all applications considered for that FY. However, only a few ICs publish paylines, and many only use impact score/percentile as a starting point for discussing (within the IC) which applications to fund. For FY13, though, neither paylines nor paylists will be final until after the election and sequestration/debt ceiling-related budget wrangling. Hopefully we’ll have a clearer picture by January.

Reply

TdK said
October 23, 2012 @ 6:41 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit,

I’m a long time follower, first time poster with a question regarding my F32 to the NIAID. My A1 NRSA application received a score of 17, and the NIAID just released their interim payline at 20. My application status in the Commons is “pending administrative review”. Is this good news? Should I be expecting an email from the NIH soon, or do you think I will have to wait until Congress passes the NIH budget?

Btw, thank you for providing this service, I have found the information on here very helpful.

Reply

writedit said
October 24, 2012 @ 10:27 am · Edit
Very good news. Congratulations on the exceptional score and best wishes for success with the research and your training. Because your score is within the interim payline, your award will be processed after Council meets (you don’t indicate in which Council session your application will be reviewed). You won’t be waiting for Congressional action on the budget, though. You can check with your PO as to the time frame for your award being processed (this is not instantaneous, so be ready to be patient).

Reply

Tdk said
October 24, 2012 @ 11:14 am · Edit
I submitted for the April deadline, and i think the council met in September. Since the payline had not been determined, I have just been waiting. Now that there is one, hopefully my wait will be over soon!
K01NI said
October 23, 2012 @ 11:38 pm · Edit
Hi. Thanks for this website, this is a great resource. I received an impact score of 18 on a K01 (NIA-N). Any insight as to the probability of having it funded?

Reply

writedit said
October 24, 2012 @ 10:39 am · Edit
Well, that should certainly be close, though I cannot recall what the typical K01 scores were for FY12, but your PO could give you some perspective. You should wait for your summary statement before contacting him/her so that you can discuss it in relation to an A1 (if this was an A0 and the PO thinks it might be needed) or next steps if there is a chance your 18 won’t be funded.

Reply

K01NI said
October 23, 2012 @ 11:49 pm · Edit
Hi. Thanks very much for this website. I recently received an impact score of 18 for a K01 (NIA(N)). Any insight into this project;s fundability?

Reply

lily said
October 24, 2012 @ 3:13 pm · Edit
k01 score of 22, any chance of being funded? JIT shows that IRB is requested, is this a good sign?

Reply

lily said
October 24, 2012 @ 3:29 pm · Edit
k01 score of 22 at NHLBI, any chance of being funded?

Reply

writedit said
October 24, 2012 @ 9:40 pm · Edit
If the paylines hold at FY12 levels, then probably … but as I keep telling everyone who asks, most ICs will probably wait until January before funding any but the lowest scoring applications. When you get your summary statement, you can check with your PO, but I suspect he/she will say you will need to wait a few months before anything is sure. If this was an A0, you can also ask for advice on submitting an A1.
doggeroo said
October 24, 2012 @ 4:24 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit and other readers,
I received a score of 21 on my K22 (A0 submission) to NCI. Im happy with this score and the chance to resubmit and improve if necessary. Im wondering what my chances are? Any insight?
Thanks for this great resource!

Reply

writedit said
October 24, 2012 @ 9:45 pm · Edit
In FY12, NCI funded at least one K22 with a score of 21 … but whether this will hold true in FY13 is an unknown until January at least. When you receive your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about your chances and about resubmitting, which I expect you will be advised to do, in which case he/she can give some advice on how to rework the A1.

Reply

goggu said
October 24, 2012 @ 5:30 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit and all,

I am a K99 recipient. I recently found out my mentor is drafting an R01 proposal that can potentially overlap with my K99/R00 proposal. His draft has the same hypothesis, basically, and includes two aims that I proposed to conduct during my R00 phase. His R01 proposal, of course, covers much larger area than my R00. I am also concerned about research overlap issues between my R00 and his R01. My K99 started this summer, so it is possible, if successful, his R01 may get funded before I initiate my R00 phase (mine: up to 2 years of K99 followed by 3 years of R00). In this case, am I gonna have problem receiving my R00 in full amount? What is exactly going to happen? Getting an R01 is extremely difficult these days. I like to help him getting one of those as much as I can, but I am also worried. He is still developing the proposal. How far should I go to defend and secure my R00 research? I have no experience regarding these issues. Any advice or information is appreciated.

Reply

writedit said
October 24, 2012 @ 10:13 pm · Edit
Your R00 has already been reviewed and approved for funding. Nothing will change for you, no matter what your mentor submits. Because he is submitting the same science to a different mechanism, the NIH will not flag the potential overlap based on the application, though presumably you share the same IC and the same scientific PO, who will notice the scientific overlap. Your shared IC will not continue to fund you both for the same science, so you could talk with your PO about the situation. You will need your R00 data to prepare an R01 application, and clearly this will then be very similar to and in direct competition with your mentor. Did your mentor tell you about his R01, or did you find out about it indirectly? That is, is he developing it using your ideas without discussing it with you (versus including you as a full co-investigator on the budget etc.)? I assume you will be looking for a faculty position at an institution other than where you are currently doing your K99 work (having the R00 will make you an attractive candidate certainly). The question will be what data and ideas you can take with you – though, again, you have already proposed the ideas in the K99/R00. You might want to talk with the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) at your current institution (who will maintain your confidentiality) both to confirm how the K99-R00 transition will be handled when you move and for advice on how to handle your mentor’s R01 plans.

Reply

goggu said
October 25, 2012 @ 4:00 am · Edit
Dear Writedit. Thank you so much for your advice. He actually asked me to help his grant proposal. He gave me enough reasons why he had to draft this way – apparently silly reasons. It seems he really likes my proposal. As long as my R00 is safe, I am willing to help him for now whatever way he likes, even if it might end up letting myself directly compete with him later. I guess it is basically his call. Plus, I can not predict how my science would change in next 3-4 years when I actually apply for R01 or other larger grants. Nevertheless, still, I may have to ask him not to add my name in his grant because of the scientific overlap?? Or it doesn’t matter?
writedit said
October 25, 2012 @ 8:20 am · Edit
Not sure what “silly” reasons would require him to duplicate your research in his R01, but this is good news that he is involving you versus hiding it from you (which does occur). There is no concern about scientific overlap, in terms of your involvement. You can be included on the budget at whatever level effort you have available during your R00 (if this is submitted next Feb or later, then the award would likely not start until after your K99 – or at least not until the last six months). More important is negotiating authorship and IP now, while this is still in the planning stages. These are critical issues to resolve ASAP, and you may still want to talk with someone outside the lab/department whom you can trust to give you good advice (someone who knows the institutional policies on these matters) – such as the RIO or a postdoc dean or director or someone in a similar role.
Quick? said
October 25, 2012 @ 3:20 pm · Edit
May I remain Co-PI on SBIR if I move lab to a new university?

Reply

writedit said
October 25, 2012 @ 3:33 pm · Edit
I assume you mean co-investigator (since the PI must work at the small business applicant), but yes, so long as you have the resources and environment to complete the work for which you are being supported, the award (a subcontract from the small business) can move with you. You’ll need to work with grant administrators at your current & new university/institution and the GMS assigned to your SBIR to manage the administrative details.

Reply

Oriade said
October 26, 2012 @ 12:44 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit, Is it possible (and wise) to switch study section between an A0 and A1? I have an R01 that could easily fit two study section that scored in the 30 something in A0, but I feel fresh pairs of eye looking at the A1 with the detailed response and edits to comments on the A0 might be better… I have simply not had good luck with resubmissions in the past.

Reply

Oriade said
October 26, 2012 @ 12:46 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit, Is it possible (and wise) to switch study section between an A0 and A1? I have an R01 that could easily fit two study section that scored in the 30 something in A0, but I feel fresh pairs of eye looking at the A1 with the detailed response and edits to comments on the A0 might be better… I have simply not had good luck with resubmissions in the past.

Reply

writedit said
October 26, 2012 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
It is possible to change study sections, if both SROs concur. Whether it is advisable is more complicated. If you felt the reviewers understood the science, then you are probably better off staying put. Your PO might have attended the SRG meeting, so could tell you better whether he/she felt this was the right group to review your work again (your PO likely knows the eccentricities of the other study section you are considering, too). Depending on the comments received, you might have reviewers on the original panel looking for your application to come back (& consider what happens down the road when another application goes there, if you thumb your nose at them now.) The mindset of reviewers in a new study section being given an A1 may be hard to gauge, including potential negative assumptions/perceptions linked with your optional decision to change SRGs (versus cases in which the study section has been dissolved, merged, or reorganized between submissions), but perhaps others who have run into this situation as a reviewer can comment.

If in the past your score has stayed about the same, this is not unusual. Applications can go from being scored on the bubble to being triaged, and often the score changes minimally because the underlying science is the same (no more or less exciting to reviewers); I tend to see this most in the 30-40 range. Situations in the score improves dramatically tend to occur as a result of new data, a significantly refined approach, or other substantive changes than simply tweaking the text in response to specific comments. Of course, we also seem to be moving back to the situation in which a solid application with an excellent score is sent back mainly to give the SRG a chance to assign an exceptional score, hopefully within the payline (in which case you wouldn’t want to change study sections).

Reply

Oriade said
October 27, 2012 @ 12:08 pm · Edit
Thanks you Writedit. Based on your comments, I think I will stay put in my original study section. Many thanks.
sean said
October 28, 2012 @ 9:17 pm · Edit
I recently received a 20 on my K01 re-submission at NIDDK. Does anyone have a sense of how the sequestration may effect the funding line for grants? I thought a 20 would be a relatively safe score, but maybe not.

Reply

writedit said
October 28, 2012 @ 10:20 pm · Edit
Unfortunately, none of us on this side of the NIH know their contingency plans if sequestration goes through and which mechanisms will take the hardest hit (the general strategy is to protect R01 funding – albeit at lower levels and for shorter project periods – as much as possible). I would hope your 20 is fundable, and you could ask your PO if you should be submitting an A1 (if you are eligible) or working on a different funding mechanism (if this was your A1) … but I expect you would receive that advice no matter what.

Reply

Dave said
October 30, 2012 @ 12:20 pm · Edit
What did the PO say? A 20 would have definitely got you funded last year, but who the hell knows what is going on at NIDDK with the Ks. I have a K01 in too and I think I need a score in the high teens to get funded at the NIDDK this year. Anything in the 20s is borderline. Just my opinion and i have no inside info to base this on.

Reply

sean said
October 31, 2012 @ 4:49 pm · Edit
haven’t spoken to PO, yet. will call him next week. initial submission was received a 40. I haven’t met or spoken to anyone with NIDDK K01 who received a score in the teens. We will see. Fingers crossed a flat 20 is sufficient. Good Luck with your K.
Dave said
October 30, 2012 @ 12:20 pm · Edit
Just saw that this is an A1 – that sucks!!!! What was your first score? Much improvement?

Reply

Dave said
December 14, 2012 @ 7:26 pm · Edit
Hi Sean – Any news on your K01 at NIDDK? My A0 got a 30 and that seems to be solidly in the grey area right now. Not that hopeful for funding but there is an outside chance depending on what happens with the budget. Saw that CSSTEW (above) got his with a 29 this year at NIDDK so you should be safe. They are probably just keeping their cards close to their chest until they know the budget situation.

Reply

sean said
December 20, 2012 @ 9:46 am · Edit
No news; submitted two rounds of JIT. Summary statement was positive. Optimism is the only way, especially during the holiday season. I will post if I receive news either way. Good Luck with your application.
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.
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!
Dave said
March 12, 2013 @ 8:07 pm · Edit
Hey Sean, thanks for letting me know. I missed out this cycle, but hopefully will have a shot in the resubmission.
JournalTechs said
October 29, 2012 @ 4:12 pm · Edit
And here was me thinking that it would be budget cuts or sequestration that would stop the NHLBI Advisory Council from approving grants and setting a decent payline tomorrow. I didn’t expect it would take a hurricane.

Reply

writedit said
October 29, 2012 @ 4:25 pm · Edit
They’ll take any piddlin’ excuse they can …

Reply

zuoshouxin said
October 30, 2012 @ 3:07 am · Edit
I just got my score of 20 in F32 A0 application (NIAID). It is same as the interim payline. Do you think it is possible for me to be funded this time? Hopefully funding situation will not be too tight this year!

Reply

writedit said
October 30, 2012 @ 8:35 am · Edit
Congratulations! Yes, your F32 application is at the interim payline, which means you will receive an award. Best wishes for success with the project and your career in research.

Reply

zuoshouxin said
October 30, 2012 @ 1:55 pm · Edit
Thank you so much, writedit.

Keep my fingers crossed for all of us!
abcd said
October 30, 2012 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
The small number of K99s creates an unnecessary bias among equally talented postdoctoral candidates and it is a huge waste of time if you don’t win. Many postdocs also lose hope and interest in a science career. A few get lucky and win it. Most of them with good projects and good scores miss the threshold. Those who get funded are almost into the job market (R00 phase) anyways with their published papers. So, it really does not help fund a promising project or idea in the end.

Therefore, I think K99s should just merge into the F32 mechanism and increase funding to a lot more postdocs this way.

Reply

nichd said
October 31, 2012 @ 6:52 am · Edit
I had submitted a K99 application to NICHD in October 2011. At that time I got a score of 30. I spoke to the PO and he encouraged me to resubmit because I was close to their cut off of 25. So I resubmitted in July 2012. I was eligible as far as time frame was concerned. I just got the decision for my resubmission application : NOT DISCUSSED!!!! I don’t understand how this can happen! How could I have gone from a 30 to unworthy of a score? Can I hope that this is a glitch in era commons?

Reply

writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 8:39 am · Edit
No, it is not common but not unusual to go from being scored to triaged. I have seen other applications scored even closer than yours to the payline be streamlined as an A1. The change in reviewers and competitive pool mean that no resubmission is a sure bet. You can talk with your PO after you receive your summary statement, but you should not think that you will be appealing. This is almost never a good idea and requires clear, objectively demonstrable errors or bias in the scientific critique (not differences in opinion/interpretation, not new concerns not raised the first time around). Instead, you should discuss with him the next mechanism to target (and study section advice, too). Your score of 30 could still help as you apply for positions. This is a huge disappointment, but the key is to focus on moving forward.

Reply

k said
October 31, 2012 @ 8:48 am · Edit
Thanks writedit. I did not plan to appeal. I am very disappointed. The PO had told me specifically that since my science section was scored well, I should not change it too much. I didn’t change much there, but changed stuff in the non science section. I am just surprised that the study section even met on Oct 29 given the hurricane issues in DC!
k said
October 31, 2012 @ 7:24 am · Edit
Has anyone here had their K99 application scored in the first submission and not discussed in the resubmission? I don’t understand how this is possible😦

Reply

writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 8:40 am · Edit
This can and does happen with every funding mechanism … applications are judged in the context of the current applicant pool, and a different reviewer may identify a major weakness not flagged in the prior review, particularly if the SRG membership has changed since the last submission.

Reply

MMikee said
October 31, 2012 @ 10:45 am · Edit
Due to the Sandy storm, is the review of applications affected. Is the NIH office not operational. Does any one know if the review meetings are taking place ?

Reply

writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 11:09 am · Edit
You could check with the SRO. The Federal Govt in DC was shut down, but some meetings are outside of the DC area now … and I am not sure whether SROs had any discretion in meeting anyway if their panel all got in town before the shutdown.

Reply

abcd said
October 31, 2012 @ 10:52 am · Edit
That sucks Nichd, but I had that happen to my F32. Went from a 30 something score to being completely triaged.

Reply

nichd said
October 31, 2012 @ 11:02 am · Edit
What is really weird about this whole process is that how can an application that was scored at 30 (excellent with minor weaknesses) be not discussed at all in the resubmission. It may have made more sense if it scored worse, which I understand can be possible. But to not even be worthy of a score is crazy! I don’t buy that the majority of applications in that particular study sections were far far better. It would have to mean that all the ones that got scored would have to be 1s and 2s. That seems highly unlikely in a study section. I would have been happier with a score of 50 than nothing at all. Atleast I would get summary statements that are of more help for the future. This whole system seems broken to me.

Reply

abcd said
October 31, 2012 @ 11:18 am · Edit
you will still get a summary statement and that may help clear some of your questions. Maybe there was a new weakness spotted or something interpreted differently by a new reviewer. Maybe the SRO prioritized A0s and reduced the total number for review to save time. The low number of awards is frustrating to all.
Silverpark said
November 1, 2012 @ 8:19 am · Edit
You are assuming that they start with a score of 30 from your A0 and then score your A1 starting at that point. That is not the case. Your A1 is essentially reviewed and scored without any assumption of prior score. The reviewers may be (and likely are) different from the reviewers for your A0. This can work in your favor but sometimes does not. It is not unusual for an A1 to get a worse score or to go unscored especially in the current environment. You are obviously early in your career (K99). Don’t get discouraged. Just keep at it. Take whatever lessons you can from the Summary Statement when it comes out and move on.
KB said
October 31, 2012 @ 11:33 am · Edit
Dear Writedit,

In June 2012, I declined the chance of a 4-year funding of my A0 application (which was scored in the grey zone, reviewed in Feb 2012), because my A1 application received a much better score in June 2012. On Sept. 21, I received a e-mail of JIT request on Sept. 21 for my A1 application and submitted the documents. My proposed project starting date is Dec. 1 2012, but have not heard anything since the JIT request e-mail. I contacted my PO but he seems be confused as he was still wondering about funding about my A0. My questions are: When did the council meeting take place? Has the funding decision been made? At this point, whom should I contact to obtain information, PO or grant manager?

Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 11:53 am · Edit
The meeting date depends on the IC, but I think they have all met by now. You should talk with the PO about the A0 vs A1 funding issue – did he say the A1 score was fundable, or did you assume this (based on FY12 payline)? Your A1 will be subjected to FY13 paylines, which are unknown, so you don’t know if your score is better (in FY13 terms).

You could ask the GMS whether the JIT is for the A0 or the A1 and if there is any update on the award processing, but I would suggest talking with the PO. Of course, even with the A1, you might still be cut to 4 years, unless you are ESI.

Reply

KB said
October 31, 2012 @ 12:03 pm · Edit
Thanks a lot, Writedit. I will talk to the PO. My score falls into the interim payline of 2013 and I am ESI. Hopefully it will work this time.
writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 12:11 pm · Edit
-b3

Sent from Pluto
writedit said
October 31, 2012 @ 12:14 pm · Edit
Ah – then this must be NIAID, in which case you should have your A1 processed (though, again, check with the PO or GMS) in the next month or so. Congratulations and best wishes for success with the research!

Reply

Oriade said
October 31, 2012 @ 12:04 pm · Edit
Also some panels would only reviewer a fixed percent of proposal in each group (established, vs NI etc) regardless of score. If you are an ESI, this can be damaging if there is equally a low number of total ESI submission. This can of course then vary for cycle to cycle.

Reply

Sohee said
October 31, 2012 @ 7:39 pm · Edit
Any feedback appreciated on the R43/R44 SBIR paylines. Is impact score of 30 considered fundable.

Reply

SBIR said
November 1, 2012 @ 10:24 am · Edit
what agency?

Reply

Sohee said
November 1, 2012 @ 10:58 am · Edit
NINDS
writedit said
November 1, 2012 @ 11:27 am · Edit
So that should be close – probably would have been fine for FY12. When you receive your summary statement, you can ask your PO about next-step strategies (and where your score ranks in the pile).
NHLBI COUNCIL MEETING???? said
November 1, 2012 @ 10:23 am · Edit
Is there any precedent to rescheduling council meetings? The NHLBI council meeting was cancelled on Tuesday, and nobody in the office knows when it will be rescheduled. Anyone have any idea?

Reply

Chris said
November 1, 2012 @ 10:44 am · Edit
NIH was closed Monday and Tuesday due to the Hurricane.

Reply

writedit said
November 1, 2012 @ 11:21 am · Edit
Council members come from all over the country, and there will be a lot of meetings to reschedule, but I expect they will work out a substitute date soon … probably not next Tuesday, though. Even when Council reschedules, we’ll get a conservative interim payline (below the 10th percentile), but most decisions can’t be made until closer to January, so you still wait a couple of months unless you had an exceptional score.

Reply

NHLBI COUNCIL MEETING???? said
November 1, 2012 @ 3:19 pm · Edit
Writedit- what do you mean by “below the 10th percentile”? how does that relate to impact score? The R43/R44 (SBIR) payline for FY2012 was 35.
writedit said
November 1, 2012 @ 3:31 pm · Edit
I was speaking generally about what the NHLBAC might do, which might be to set an interim R01 payline, since you only asked when the meeting might be rescheduled. You did not indicate that your concern about Council meeting was specifically in relation to an SBIR score of 35. I doubt they will itemize all the other mechanisms until January; if not, your PO should know where your application ranks in terms of the entire FY13 set of scores (since most of the applications for FY13 will have been reviewed). I would not suggest contacting the PO, though, until after you Council does finally meet.
NHLBI COUNCIL MEETING???? said
November 1, 2012 @ 3:34 pm · Edit
Thank you writedit.
Newbie said
November 4, 2012 @ 2:28 am · Edit
When does the PO have information on all applications that were reviewed to make a judgment on where my application sits in comparison? My application went to NIA, and council meets in January. Application was reviewed in October.
writedit said
November 4, 2012 @ 7:57 am · Edit
Study sections for the last review cycle will wrap up in a week or two (except for RFA/PAR submissions that come in later but will be paid in this FY), so the January Council will know the distribution of scores for essentially the entire FY. They won’t know the NIA’s final budget, though (CR lasts through the end of March), so the payline will still be interim – and conservative (how conservative depends on what happens with sequestration). They stick very closely to their payline, so if you are not within last year’s percentile/score cut-off, you probably won’t be this year. (at best, the NIH budget will be kept flat)
TdK said
November 1, 2012 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
Dear writedit,

When I applied for my NRSA in April of this year, I put down Jan 1, 2013 as my proposed start date. If I get offered an award in the next month or so, would it be possible to push the start date back until April 1st? Would my NRSA be subjected to further reviews if I request this?
Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
November 1, 2012 @ 3:35 pm · Edit
You don’t mention which mechanism this is, but you can arrange to activate the award later, and there would be no additional review. You should contact the PO and GMS with your requested start date and go from there.

Reply

TdK said
November 1, 2012 @ 3:42 pm · Edit
Thanks! And I should mention that this would be for an F32 from the NIAID if they decide to fund my application.
writedit said
November 1, 2012 @ 3:49 pm · Edit
Ah yes, of course – but your score is within their interim payline, so it is a matter of “when” rather than “if”, and you can let them know that it would be better for the “when” to be in April.
Red said
November 2, 2012 @ 7:30 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit: I got 18 on competitive renewal R15 at NCI. Should I be optimistic?

Reply

writedit said
November 3, 2012 @ 9:22 am · Edit
For an R15, I would hope so … but nothing will be certain until January (depends on whether sequestration is implemented or similar severe budget cuts are imposed). When you have your summary statement, you could contact your PO about whether you should prepare a short rebuttal (to help him/her advocate for your award, if needed) or consider resubmitting.

Reply

DHyv said
November 6, 2012 @ 12:55 pm · Edit
Does anyone know, or can anyone point me in the right direction to find out if it is ethical or even legal to have graduate students review NIH grants with or for their mentor?

Reply

writedit said
November 7, 2012 @ 9:42 am · Edit
All reviewers are bound by a pre-review certification of COI & confidentiality (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/Pre-Cert-Form.pdf) not to disclose or discuss the grant application materials or the review meeting itself.

Reply

journaltechs said
November 6, 2012 @ 1:35 pm · Edit
The NHLBI Advisory Council meeting appears to have been rescheduled for Nov 28th. So only another month of waiting. Damn hurricanes…

Reply

writedit said
November 7, 2012 @ 9:24 am · Edit
Well, maybe by then it will be a bit clearer what Congress will do about sequestration etc. Perhaps we will hang on to FY12 levels.

Reply

NHLBI SBIR Guy said
November 7, 2012 @ 12:03 pm · Edit
in all likelihood, nothing will get done until late december. assuming the fiscal cliff still looms by NHLBI council meeting- what does that mean for funding pay lines for SBIRs?
Newbie said
November 7, 2012 @ 6:07 pm · Edit
What is the word at NIH regarding President Obama’s re-election and how it may effect the paylines… Especially for K awards. Wonder if my 24 impact score with NIA will be funded? Hopefully, there won’t be too much budget cuts.
Interim PI said
November 7, 2012 @ 11:37 am · Edit
Writedit, thanks for all your good work. I have a naïve question. I am moving to ‘new’ institute summer 2013, and I have been asked to be co-PI on U01 due in Jan with collaborators from outside my current and new institution. How does one submit grants of this type during this interim period? Do I work through current or ‘new’ institute? New institute will provide a stronger environment for the work.

Reply

writedit said
November 7, 2012 @ 4:10 pm · Edit
Do you mean a PI as part of a multiple PI submission, or just a key personnel/co-investigator with significant effort? If as a PI and if you already have your contract worked out with the new institute, you can talk with them about whether they can be the applicant before you are on the payroll. The application would need to include a letter confirming all this. I assume – if the application scores well – that the award itself would not start until after you arrive (Jan submission usually means a fall start, unless it will be rapidly reviewed for funding in FY13). If the award would start before you change institutions, it could be trickier … same situation if the commitment with the new institution is not so final as to allow them to apply on your behalf. You could apply through your current institution and transfer the award, but this could cause delays. Now, if you are receiving a sub-contract as a co-investigator (versus a multiple PI), your location won’t matter since you won’t be the applicant (or rather, neither your current nor your future institution would be) – if you change locations before the award is received, this will just be negotiated as part of JIT and the award process. You would want to consider costs in the new location when figuring out your portion of the budget – no upward adjustments are made if your submitted budget is based on a cheaper current institution and you move somewhere with higher F&A rates, salary/benefits, animal per diems, or whatever else might affect the actual cost of conducting the research.

Reply

writedit said
November 7, 2012 @ 4:33 pm · Edit
The election outcome, Mitch McConnell’s response notwithstanding, is good news for those of us concerned about NIH funding. Negotiations on legislation to block or postpone sequestration and address the upcoming debt ceiling (need to raise it) can now combine tax changes with targeted cuts, taking the pressure off the need to slash across the board to meet the lower deficit goals. The NIH should be able to hold its own since both houses of Congress and both parties support funding for biomedical research: All constituents want a cure for something, and the RPG funding is strategically distributed to just about every Congressional district. We’ll see what happens over the next two months, but I am more hopeful that the NIH will not fall off the fiscal cliff.

Reply

Newbie said
November 7, 2012 @ 6:12 pm · Edit
I hope what you say holds true. My career depends on it!😉

Thanks a lot for your input. You help relieve much of the anxiety that I am constantly feeling.

Reply

New R1 Asst Prof said
November 19, 2012 @ 11:56 pm · Edit
Yes, thanks for the comment writedit. If we are able to get the same paylines for FY 2013 that we got for FY 2012, I will be thrilled. Fingers crossed. Unfortunately, still have the feeling of constant anxiety.

Reply

Cv22 said
November 7, 2012 @ 8:05 pm · Edit
How long should “pending administrative review” for an F32 typically take? I scored under the NIAID interim payline (16) and my PO hasn’t had a chance to respond to email (undoubtedly VERY busy). My era commons status is weird as my “e-application” and “snap indicator” things keep disappearing/reappearing.

Reply

writedit said
November 7, 2012 @ 10:32 pm · Edit
When was your application reviewed (for which Council meeting)? If you were reviewed in June and have already gone to Council, then it could be later this month or December, but they are just catching up from closing out the last FY (& POs dealing with queries related to the most recent review cycle), so you, as you surmised, should not be surprised not to hear back right away – in part also because your PO might be trying to get an idea of the timing before replying. If you know your GMS, you could check in with him/her as well.

Reply

cvakulskas said
November 7, 2012 @ 10:49 pm · Edit
September council. My institution sent in my JIT a week ago, as my GMS emailed and requested it. I was surprised I didn’t get an auto request for this earlier (since the score was 16) but I was told fellowships are handled differently than other grants. Thanks for all of your insight.
TdK said
November 9, 2012 @ 6:32 pm · Edit
I’m in the same boat here. F32 for NIAID with a score of 17. Submitted my JIT two weeks ago today. Hopefully we will hear something soon.

Reply

cvakulskas said
November 12, 2012 @ 12:08 am · Edit
Just an update, my era status is still “pending”, but instead of “pending administrative review”, it now says “award prepared”. I’m hopeful an NOA will be sent next week.
writedit said
November 12, 2012 @ 7:49 am · Edit
You can contact the GMS to find out when the notice will be issued. Best wishes for success with the research and your career!
newtogrant said
November 8, 2012 @ 3:22 am · Edit
Is there any rule on how often the PI should communicate with the PO after a grant is funded and the PI started the project? Do you update the PO every month or only when you submit the yearly report?

Reply

writedit said
November 8, 2012 @ 7:35 am · Edit
You don’t need to keep in touch for monitoring purposes (other than the annual progress report), but they want to hear if you have a paper accepted (if it’s big, the IC might want to do a press release) or are giving a poster or talk at a meeting (your PO might be attending – & if so, you should see if he/she has time to meet informally). If you get a great result, they’ll be as excited as you about it. In other words, look on your PO as a colleague rather than a bureaucrat.

Reply

Ding said
November 8, 2012 @ 10:54 pm · Edit
Dear WriteEdit,

I saw you updated payline information, e.g., for NIAMS, which will operate under continuous resolution till next March and have the same payline for R01/R21s as for 2012. Does it mean NIAMS will start making awards using this payline till next March while NIH’s budget is not finally enacted?

Thanks.

Reply

writedit said
November 9, 2012 @ 12:22 am · Edit
They will issue awards based on the interim payline before March using funding under the CR. They may or may not be conservative and slow in doing so until they know the fate of sequestration (bigger deal than the CR in terms of how much money they will have for the FY), but they do not need to wait for an FY13 appropriation (FY07 operated under a CR the entire year).

Reply

Newbie said
November 9, 2012 @ 5:58 am · Edit
What does CR stand for?
writedit said
November 9, 2012 @ 8:30 am · Edit
Continuing Resolution. If Congress has not passed an appropriation bill for Labor, HHS & Education by the end of the fiscal year (for the President to sign into law), they pass a resolution to continue funding levels at those of a prior FY, usual the one just ended.
AJ said
November 10, 2012 @ 2:39 pm · Edit
I just received an impact score of 23 (16th percentile) for an F32 grant at NINDS. I can’t find a the payline for F32s, but I think it was the 14th percentile for R01s in FY12. I’ve heard that the payline for NRSAs is better. What are my chances?

Reply

writedit said
November 10, 2012 @ 11:07 pm · Edit
The payline for Fs is higher, but as we keep noting here, what will happen in FY13 is still very much unknown. When you get your summary statement, you can check with the PO whether you should resubmit.

Reply

Hopeful said
November 13, 2012 @ 2:14 pm · Edit
I just received an impact score of 20 (6th percentile) for an F32 grant at NINDS. I am also curious about whether or not this is a fundable score. If nobody knows, I will try to update if and when I get more information.

Reply

writedit said
November 13, 2012 @ 7:34 pm · Edit
Congratulations on the excellent score. That should be fundable, but nothing will likely be definite until it becomes clear whether sequestration or other cuts in its place will go through. When you get your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about funding likelihood (he/she won’t know for sure) and whether you should reapply.

Reply

Disenchanted said
November 14, 2012 @ 5:53 pm · Edit
I am in the K99 phase and plan to eventually transition R00 phase at a different institution. Since making that known, my mentor does not think he/she should be expected to provide the resources stated in the commitment letter and he/she does not think my chair will either. Wondering if anyone experienced this, and how you would handle it? Also, would you recommend discussing this with your PO or director of training?

Reply

frank said
November 14, 2012 @ 10:18 pm · Edit
I am in a similar situation (k25). Recently I got an offer from another institution (a comparable institution as the current one). What should i do if i want to carry this award with me?

Reply

abcd said
November 14, 2012 @ 10:23 pm · Edit
Ask your PO if you can find a new mentor in the new institution and take the K25 with you.
writedit said
November 14, 2012 @ 10:58 pm · Edit
You can take the award with you, though you will need approval from the PO to change mentors, which should not be an issue if the institutions are comparable. You will need to talk with the sponsored programs/research offices in your current and future institutions to coordinate the transfer of the award, which is routine but can take time.
writedit said
November 14, 2012 @ 10:55 pm · Edit
The grant application was a legal document that was executed when your institution accepted the award. The reviewers considered your mentor’s letter from your mentor in deciding upon your score. Without knowing what the letter committed (or the wording), it is hard to say what might be done, but you could talk with the PO about the situation, especially if you have an offer and might want to activate the R00 early. If there is a director of training at your current institution with whom you could discuss this situation, that would be appropriate. An ombudsman or RIO (research integrity officer) could also give you confidential and unbiased advice. I think you could also talk with the Chair, simply focusing on the removal of specific resources to which your mentor made a commitment in the K99/R00 application, not your conversation about future plans that led to their withdrawal, which should have no bearing on the situation; the NIH likes to see applicants activate the R00 with an offer from an outside institution, and your mentor should not be surprised or upset at your plans. I would hope the Chair would not want a “mentor” such as that on his/her faculty, but I realize seniority and politics cover a multitude of sins, so you might start with conversations with individuals you can trust to protect your interests (training director, ombudsman, RIO) if you are unclear about the potential politics involved.

Reply

Recent K99 said
November 18, 2012 @ 4:01 pm · Edit
This conversation triggered a few questions for me. Given that the R00 money won’t be granted unless you have secured a faculty position within the 2-yrs K99 period, I assume that most people go on the job hunt the first “Fall job season” they can, right? And the K99/R00 stipulation is that you need to stay at your current K99 position for at least one full year. So if you are lucky and land a faculty position the first year on the job market, what happens to the left-over money from the K99 phase? Can you take that with you to the new university?

Reply

writedit said
November 18, 2012 @ 6:42 pm · Edit
The ICs can be flexible with this award, but it is at their discretion whether to award you the rest of your K99 $ if you activate the R00 early (which is allowable & I suspect happens frequently). I do know of cases where the R00 was activated early & the K99 funds were rolled over, but I do not know if the ICs are all so generous, especially as budgets get tighter. Your PO would be the best person to ask.

Reply

aj said
November 20, 2012 @ 12:27 am · Edit
i got an impact score of 10 with the nci for my f32. do you think i will be funded?

Reply

friend said
November 20, 2012 @ 12:34 am · Edit
please tell us you are joking. Yes you will be funded.

Reply

frank said
November 20, 2012 @ 12:37 am · Edit
This is so-far the highest score i have ever heard (actually it could not be higher). Are you sure you got 10?

Reply

aj said
November 20, 2012 @ 12:45 am · Edit
commons says 10 with percentile 1.0. i will be declining though because of another one i accepted in the meantime.

Reply

writedit said
November 20, 2012 @ 9:45 am · Edit
Yes, scores of 10 are assigned – I’ve seen them on a handful of applications, and others have posted here about receiving a score of 10.

Reply

KB said
November 20, 2012 @ 10:43 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit,

Could you explain the budget cut and CR?

I am a new PI and ESI, and just received NOA of my R01 today with a 10% cut. It went to Oct council, thus belongs to 2013 FY. It falls under the interim payline and will start on Dec. 1. It was cut 10% because it is funded through CR at FY2012 level. It is mentioned in the award notice that “this award has been made at around 10% below its NIAID approved funding allowance level. If the final appropriation permits, adjustments may be made at or near the FY2013 funding plan level.” Does it mean there is a possibility for full funding with FY2013 budget? When will the budget be out? Who will decide the budget for my award? Does it help to talk to PO about this? How do you predict the FY2013 budget.

Thanks again for this great website, and wish everyone success in grant application and research.

Reply

writedit said
November 20, 2012 @ 11:21 pm · Edit
While the NIH is operating under a CR at the prior FY funding levels, new and noncompeting budgets are always cut as a safety measure until the IC knows its final appropriation (IC does not want to obligate more money than it has – or that it can sustain for the next 4-5 years). For FY13, the NIH appropriation could be less than FY12, certainly if sequestration occurs and possibly if the debt ceiling negotiations include lesser cuts. If sequestration is cancelled (or delayed), the NIH is less likely than other federal agencies to experience budget cuts since all elected officials have constituents with some disease or another, and R01 & other NIH funding is distributed to almost all Congressional districts (so each has a vested interest in protecting that pot of $). Based on the the President’s FY13 request and the Senate appropriation bill (the House never even got a bill to Committee, despite the fact this is one of the main duties they are charged with), the ICs cannot count on any more than what they received in FY12. If the NIH does not experience any budget cuts in the legislative negotiations ahead, the ICs will be able to restore some funding to early FY13 awardees experiencing the 10% cuts. Most ICs try to fully fund ESI awards, but I am not sure they all do. You might still end up with a 2-3% cut (vs your current 10% cut), but your PO won’t know until the final appropriation is sorted out next year. If the NIAID budget is cut and awards are trimmed, there is nothing your PO can do specifically on your behalf – to the best of my knowledge, the ICs administer the cuts uniformly according to their SOP without making multiple exceptions. Now, if the funding is not restored later in the FY and if a 10% cut will affect your ability to achieve the approved specific aims, you could talk with the PO about renegotiating your aims (so you are not judged to have been unproductive/unsuccessful at renewal based on your original aims).

Reply

Jim said
November 26, 2012 @ 11:41 am · Edit
Hi Writedit,

I just got a grant reviewed submitted under an Omnibus SBIR solicitation. The reviews weren’t great but I suspect the main reason was my poor choice of a review group and an IC. I recently found out that there is a special announcement which fits perfectly the objectives of my grant. If I am submitting to this special announcement (which has its own IRG), will my submission count as a re-submission or as a new submission.

Thanks for your help.

Reply

writedit said
November 26, 2012 @ 12:22 pm · Edit
If you are submitting to a different program announcement (PA, PAR, PAS), then you will need to submit as an A1 and respond to the prior review. If the special announcement you found is an RFA, then you would submit as an A0/new application (no Introduction/response to the prior review). Be sure to talk with the program officer associated with the special announcement and ask about the best study section (the IRG will include several) – though if this is an RFA, it will have a special panel assigned to review all applications.

Reply

Eric said
November 26, 2012 @ 2:28 pm · Edit
Hi Folks, I am about to start as an independent assistant professor this year. I have received a couple of offers from universities/institutes with national ranking from 50 to 130. Because of family reasons, I will maybe choose the 130. But it’s kind of a hard decision as I am wondering whether the program ranking will have significant impact on the success rate of NIH funding application. Anyone can give some suggestion? Thanks!

Reply

writedit said
November 26, 2012 @ 4:42 pm · Edit
Congratulations on having multiple offers from which to choose. You will want to consider which institution offers the best environment in terms of collaborators/colleagues, core research facilities/services, and overall resources in your area of research specifically (main consideration during grant review). A current CTSA (clinical & translational science award) can be a solid resource, depending on the institution and how the CTSA is implemented. The overall dollar amount in research awards/expenditures is not as critical, but it generally indicates the likelihood of your institution providing a stable & comprehensive research environment. You can compare institutions, medical schools, and individual departments in terms of NIH funding here: http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/NIH_Awards.htm Now, I suspect the lower ranked university would also have lower expectations in terms of how much of your salary you cover with grant awards and so on, which might be attractive in terms of quality of life, particularly if you do not have an R01 gun to your head with regard to securing tenure. A lower ranked university may also be eligible for R15 and other lower hanging funding fruit.

Reply

Eric said
November 26, 2012 @ 5:32 pm · Edit
Thank you very much for the helpful suggestions. As nothing is perfect, the lower ranked university offered a significantly competitive package that can cover each and every piece of key equipment of my need with spacious lab space, but not many collaborators. I have some collaborators from outside top medical centers. Will that help? Thanks!
writedit said
November 26, 2012 @ 5:47 pm · Edit
Collaborators do not need to be on-site and often are not … and often this can be a strength in proposals. The question is whether these outside individuals are also competitors and/or whether the nature of their contributions would be best if you were at the same institution (shared animals, tissues, reagents, etc.). MTAs can be a real pain. Having colleagues with whom you can chat over coffee to bounce off ideas and get unexpected insight into techniques or ideas is priceless, so you might consider how much you will benefit from such interactions with other department members even if they do not directly contribute to your work.
Dnana said
November 26, 2012 @ 5:20 pm · Edit
I just received my NGA for my non-competing grant award. The level funded was much lower than expected. This was in the NGA:

“NIH is currently funded through a Continuing Resolution (CR) to support
activities for six months (See NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-13-002:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-002.html). Therefore, non-competing
awards are being adjusted. This award reflects the NCI implementation of the NIH CR funding
policies, and includes 6 months of funding at the previously committed level. These funds are
intended to support the project from 12/01/2012 through 05/31/2013. When NIH and NCI receive
a full appropriation, NCI will be able to provide funding for the remainder of this budget period;
however, adjustments may be made to the final award depending on the final appropriation level
and the FY 2013 final funding policies.”

This is enough to scare the crap out of any PI. Happy holidays. Right. ):

Reply

writedit said
November 26, 2012 @ 5:36 pm · Edit
I will wager that this is your first award. It has been more than a decade (probably way more, I should check …) since the federal government has not started the fiscal year on a CR, and the NIH always trims awards (competing and noncompeting) until they know what their final appropriation will be. Most though often not all of this initial cut will be restored once the budget is set. However, this year is particularly uncertain. If the NIH falls off the fiscal cliff or is subjected to lesser cuts as part of negotiations related to the upcoming debt ceiling, you may not have any of your funding restored. If you want to be proactive, contact your Congressional delegation in support of maintaining full funding for the NIH as federal budget negotiations proceed.

Reply

Dnana said
November 26, 2012 @ 7:07 pm · Edit
No, it is the 7th year of my Ro1. I have had a number of awards and would be classified as an established investigator. This is from the NCI.
writedit said
November 26, 2012 @ 7:28 pm · Edit
Then you know how this works … though this year, we’ll see how much is restored. Please do speak up with your House & Senate members … your PO will be grateful, too.
WomanInScience said
November 27, 2012 @ 5:54 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit,

I have a quick question. If a grant is funded by the Aemrican Heart Association Grant-in-Aid, would it be okay if I expand the science (for example, add 1-2 aims) and submit it to the NIH as a new R01 grant application?

Reply

writedit said
November 27, 2012 @ 6:04 pm · Edit
You can certainly submit it, though you will need to describe the AHA project on your Biosketch, which then could be flagged as a possible source of overlap. If your R01 scores well, you will need to discuss the potential overlap in more detail as part of the JIT process. I would suggest discussing with your PO how to frame the research for the R01 to avoid these sorts of issues, on the chance that the R01 is considered for funding while the AHA award is still active. The Grant-in-Aid is not R01-level funding, so you would be expected to expand on this project to develop an R01-level independent research program.

Reply

WomanInScience said
November 27, 2012 @ 6:16 pm · Edit
Thanks so much Writedit. Your suggestions are very helpful. I will discuss with my PO tomorrow.
CVAK said
November 28, 2012 @ 12:22 pm · Edit
My PI just talked to his program officer about or R01 A1 submission for the first cycle in FY 2013. It sounds like NIGMS is setting a very tentative interim payline of the 10th percentile. This is VERY conservative for this funding institution. He told us that they will hold another payline meeting mid January, presumably after the fiscal cliff situation is sorted out. The success rate in the past few years has been around the 24th percentile so this is pretty depressing for anybody submitting R01′s to NIGMS. Not sure if our “17″ will hold water even if funding is kept at FY2012 levels with no inflationary adjustment. NIGMS does not fund strictly on payline (unlike NIAID) but it doesn’t sound like we would bet he exception to the rule.

Reply

writedit said
November 28, 2012 @ 3:01 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for sharing this bit of intel … I expect all the ICs will be very conservative until we know the outcome of budget/debt ceiling negotiations and their final appropriations are known. However, the best they can hope for is to maintain FY12 funding levels, which still is not good news for FY13 success rates (i.e., last year’s thresholds won’t necessarily apply this year).

Reply

2laroc said
November 29, 2012 @ 2:14 am · Edit
Does anyone know how to find the 2012 NRSA pay line for NCI? I’ve seen a few comments on NRSA scores in here where FY2012 pay lines were cited. I realize it will be different, likely lower, for 2013 but I can at least gauge if a grant is already over/under the 2012 cut. One of my PDs has an A1 score 25/21%. I can’t cover a long interim wait so need to make a drastic decision about whether there is even a shot or not.

Reply

writedit said
November 29, 2012 @ 8:19 am · Edit
Looking back, it seems the cut off was around 28, but it seems as though the PO would be willing to say what the funding level was for FY12 (for benchmarking purposes) and how long it might be before funding decisions are considered (not until after Jan obviously). I suspect the F paylines will be much lower in the interim at least (and lower than 25); if timing is an issue, the PO might be able to give some insight into your drastic decision.

Reply

Smoking Gun said
November 29, 2012 @ 11:01 am · Edit
Does anyone know if NHLBI council met yesterday (or when they are due to meet)- and what the payline for R43/R44 SBIR applications and STTR applications will be for 2013?

Reply

writedit said
November 29, 2012 @ 11:44 am · Edit
At this point, they would only set conservative interim paylines (NHLBI, not the Council). You should just wait a few days and check in with your PO.

Reply

Smoking Gun said
November 29, 2012 @ 12:24 pm · Edit
Thanks Writedit. I could not even find any info online about whether they met or not

Reply

Mira said
November 29, 2012 @ 9:10 pm · Edit
Does anyone know if the NLM payline meeting (which was to be held in early Nov) has taken place. My R01 was reviewed in June and went to NLM advisory council in Sept and then was due to go to the NLM payline meeting to be held in Nov. Thanks

Reply

writedit said
November 30, 2012 @ 1:11 am · Edit
You should feel free to contact your PO for an update on your application status – perfectly appropriate, and he/she should be able to give you an idea of what NLM will start off funding, though probably not until January.

Reply

J said
November 30, 2012 @ 1:31 am · Edit
Hello writedit: At this time when so many of us waiting for our funding to be determined are in a holding pattern due to the federal budget, how often is it reasonable to contact a PO for an update? I am eagerly awaiting some news, but at the same time I don’t want to be annoying by E-mailing the PO too often.

Reply

writedit said
November 30, 2012 @ 7:21 am · Edit
When did you submit and how competitive was your score? If you definitely have a fundable score (per your PO) and have checked in since Council met this past fall (assuming you had a Cycle 1 submission), you could simply ask your PO when awards are likely to start being issued. Then you will know the next time frame in which to make an inquiry if you don’t hear from the PO or GMS in the meantime. If you have a score in the gray zone or submitted in June, your PO won’t have any news for you until after the outcome of budget/debt ceiling negotiations is known and after the Jan Council meeting. Otherwise, you could communicate about other matters, such as advice on a potential resubmission or other research ideas for a new proposal.

Reply

Silverpark said
December 1, 2012 @ 10:53 am · Edit
An important recent statement by Harold Varmus at the most recent NCAB meeting has been lost in all the alarmist panic over the fear of sequestration. Dr. Varmus indicated that for FY 13 the NCI has shifted it’s “zone of likelihood” of funding from a percentile score of 7% to 9%. This is an increase in the number of grants that will have an extremely high (nearly 100%) likelihood of being funded. Some good news that has been drowned out by the static of fear and uncertainty.

Reply

writedit said
December 1, 2012 @ 11:05 am · Edit
Thanks for sharing this … good news indeed. Looking at their FY11 funding pattern, they made awards to most R01 applications out to the 9th percentile (actually the 8th, 9th is where it first dropped off a bit), so perhaps Harold realized he might as well bump the threshold up.

Reply

John Smith said
December 1, 2012 @ 11:24 am · Edit
I am an established investigator. I am a multiple PI on a R21 (not contact PI), and we just received a score of 28 (no percentile was assigned). The grant is assigned to NIDA. Does any one if there is any chance of funding? I know 2013 paylines are uncertain, but any idea of 2012 paylines for RO1 and R21 for NIDA?

,

Reply

writedit said
December 1, 2012 @ 12:13 pm · Edit
That’s a tough call, but I suspect you are in the running. We’ll see if someone with a NIDA-funded R21 chimes in, but when you have your summary statement, you can certainly just ask the PO.

Reply

Newbie said
December 2, 2012 @ 8:04 am · Edit
Do K23′s have percentiles attached to their impact score? Mine didn’t. Hopefully all this uncertainty ends in a good outcome.🙂

Reply

writedit said
December 2, 2012 @ 9:11 am · Edit
No, the Ks are reviewed by IC rather than CSR study sections, and percentiles are not calculated – only the overall impact score is assigned.

Sent from Pluto
Laolu said
December 4, 2012 @ 5:06 pm · Edit
Feb. 2011 R21submitted to NIAAA, In June got Impact Score 24, FY11 payline 26, but have to wait for FY12, Jan. 2012 learned FY12 payline 19.
Feb 2012 resubmit, in Jun got 18, but current payline 15. Now prepare to expand to R01. No choice, have to move forward.

Reply

writedit said
December 4, 2012 @ 5:09 pm · Edit
Ouch … glad to hear you have data to expand to an R01 – at least the score is moving in the right direction, so your study section should be receptive to the R01 application. Good luck with all this – and good on you for the positive attitude.

Reply

LM said
December 4, 2012 @ 7:25 pm · Edit
I like your positive attitude as well! You will do very well with this persistence..

Reply

LM said
December 4, 2012 @ 7:27 pm · Edit
Any news on NIA payline on RO1s?

Reply

journaltechs said
December 5, 2012 @ 12:05 pm · Edit
The NHLBI has just updated its interim paylines for R01/R21s. Drop from 10 to 6 percentile, but they are planning to return to FY2012 levels later in the year. Other award paylines still to be set.

Reply

writedit said
December 5, 2012 @ 12:13 pm · Edit
Thanks for the heads-up – I’ll update the info above. I suspect paylines will only return to FY12 levels if a cliff compromise is reached, but we’ll see. Everyone, please don’t forget to simply tell your Congressional delegation that you support maintaining funding for the NIH & biomedical/scientific research broadly (NSF et al.).

Reply

Smoking Gun said
December 5, 2012 @ 12:36 pm · Edit
Writedit- do you know what this updated NHLBI info means for SBIR awards?
writedit said
December 5, 2012 @ 12:47 pm · Edit
No, but this update means your PO may now have some idea how conservative the interim funding decisions will be (my guess is very conservative, until it becomes clear whether their budget will be cut by 8% in Jan).
journaltechs said
December 5, 2012 @ 12:40 pm · Edit
There are some other interesting things in there, though I don’t know enough about it all to see if it is new. Seems that from next year, all R01s (except ESIs) will be for 4 years rather than 5. ESIs will also get a payline break on renewals, not just initial grants.
writedit said
December 5, 2012 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
Well, these have both been pretty standard operating procedures at the NIH, just not uniformly implemented. I think all the ICs will be more strict on cutting R01s down to 4 years except for ESI & other special exceptions since they can no longer count on what their budget will look like in 3-4 years – could be cut significantly, leaving them unable to meet their multi-year award obligations (& unable to make many/any new awards).
Z.PI. said
December 7, 2012 @ 12:42 pm · Edit
Does anyone have any experience with “leasing back property” and paying for said lease with SBIR indirect funds? We just received a PII SBIR award, and would like to use some of the indirect money to pay rent to a laboratory that we own. Does anyone know if this is acceptable? The only work to be done in this lab would be SBIR projects.

According to NIH:
Rental or Lease of Facilities and Equipment
Allowable subject to the limitations below. Rental costs are allowable to the extent that the rates are reasonable at the time of the decision to lease in light of such factors as rental costs of comparable property, if any; market conditions in the area; the type, life expectancy, condition, and value of the property leased; and available alternatives. Because of the complexity involved in determining the allowable amount under certain types of leases, grantees are encouraged to consult the GMO before entering into leases that will result in direct charges to the grant project.

In general, the rental costs for facilities and equipment applicable to each budget period should be charged to that period. However, see Administrative Requirements—Management Systems and Procedures—Procurement System Standards and Requirements for an exception to this general rule.

Rental costs under leases that create a material equity in the leased property, as defined in the applicable cost principles, are allowable only up to the amount that would be allowed had the grantee purchased the property on the date the lease agreement was executed. This would include depreciation or use allowances, maintenance, taxes, and insurance, but would exclude unallowable costs.

When a grantee transfers property to a third party through sale, lease, or otherwise, and then leases the property back from that third party, the lease costs that may be charged to NIH projects generally may not exceed the amount that would be allowed if the grantee continued to own the property.

Rental costs under “less-than-arms-length” leases are allowable only up to the amount that would be allowed under the applicable cost principles had title to the property been vested in the grantee. A less-than-arms-length lease is one in which one party to the lease agreement is able to control or substantially influence the actions of the other. Such leases include, but are not limited to, those between divisions of an organization; between organizations under common control through common officers, directors, or members; and between an organization and its directors, trustees, officers, or key employees (or the families of these individuals), directly or through corporations, trusts, or similar arrangements in which they hold a controlling interest.

Reply

writedit said
December 7, 2012 @ 2:48 pm · Edit
The person you need to discuss this with is your Grants Management Specialist, and you should not hesitate to do so. He/she will give advice on how to structure the lease so it is allowable under NIH policy, if that is possible.

Reply

Pharmer said
December 7, 2012 @ 1:58 pm · Edit
I was wondering if anyone can gauge my chances of being funded. I recently submitted a R15 and received a score of 28. It is being considered by NIAID (primary), NIDDK (secondary), and NIGMS (secondary). It was reveiwed in the most recent cycle. I am awaiting my comments and will talk to my program officer after that time. The whole experience is new to me— so I appreciate any insight. I am also not quite sure what having 3 potential institutes even means for me. I did request NIGMS as a secondary. Many thanks in advance.

Reply

writedit said
December 7, 2012 @ 2:43 pm · Edit
Well, the interim R15 payline at NIAID is 20, and we won’t know if that might go up at all until after the final NIH appropriation has been settled (and any cuts due to the fiscal cliff absorbed). For FY12, though, the R15 payline was 24, and it definitely will not be higher than that for FY13 … so while you can talk with your PO about the summary statement, you should assume that he/she will advise you to resubmit. In the current budget climate, it is unlikely that either NIGMS or NIDDK will pick up a secondary assignment R15, but you can also inquire about that possibility when you talk with your NIAID PO. You are close, though, so your PO should be able to give good advice in getting the A1 score down in the funding range.

Reply

subin624 said
December 7, 2012 @ 2:01 pm · Edit
Hi, Writedit, NIAID just release the interim payline of R15 (20). I got an impact score of 20 on July. Does this mean I will get the grant? I check with the PO, and He said it is still not guaranteed. What does he mean?
thanks

Reply

writedit said
December 7, 2012 @ 2:37 pm · Edit
Hmm. ICs fund up to and including their stated payline, so an application with a score of 20 would be paid. I do not think NIAID would release an interim payline it did not intend to honor – that is, they would not post a payline that must be lowered later in the FY, so I do not think his concern is about the payline itself. However, he is absolutely correct that a score at the payline is not a guarantee of an award. Council and program staff still make selections based on programmatic priority & overlap (i.e., if they are already funding similar work elsewhere), and there is the issue of the fiscal cliff in a few weeks. You should be hopeful in the meantime until the funding situation is more clear.

Reply

subin624 said
December 7, 2012 @ 2:44 pm · Edit
Got it, thanks for the fast reply. This is my first NIH grant. So far, NIAID did not fund similar studies as I checked their funded grants. Hopefully they will support me on the project.
writedit said
December 7, 2012 @ 2:49 pm · Edit
Great. I think the point is, your PO is worried about all the uncertainty ahead and cannot promise anything, even if he thinks you are likely to be funded – no award is guaranteed until the Notice arrives at your institution. Good luck!
Pharmer said
December 7, 2012 @ 5:48 pm · Edit
many thanks- this is very helpful. I appreciate the fast response and great information.

Reply

hanxiaoau said
December 11, 2012 @ 12:07 pm · Edit
Hi writeedit: I am an ESI. My R01 A1 to NHBLI was reviewed in June and received 11%. Am I optimistic? I have not received JIT. What would you suggest me to do?

Reply

writedit said
December 11, 2012 @ 12:46 pm · Edit
I assume you mean that you have not received a personal request for JIT from NHLBI (the eRA Commons request kicks in automatically at a priority score of 40 or less). Unfortunately, what no one knows right now is what NHLBI’s budget situation will be on Jan 2, 2013, which is why they set their interim payline at the 6th percentile. If the debt/deficit negotiations going on now prevent the sequestration cut to the NIH budget in January and do not impose a cut of similar proportion, you can be optimistic. If sequestration goes through, you may still be picked for select pay, since you are ESI, but there is absolutely no guarantee the ICs will have any funds for select pay after meeting their current obligations (with cuts to all the ongoing awards) and paying the most competitive applications of high programmatic priority. What I would suggest, if you have not already, is that you talk with your PO about developing a new R01 distinct from the A1 and/or modifying the A1 aims for a different mechanism, such as an R21, so you get another application in the pipeline if the A1 is not funded.

Reply

hanxiaoau said
December 11, 2012 @ 3:22 pm · Edit
Thank you very much for the reply. One correction of my message: my A1 submission was scored in October, not June. The council meeting will be in January 2013. So I have not yet received a personal request of JIT, which should be reasonable, right? I talked with my PO a few weeks ago, and she said it’s an outstanding score, and gave me an unofficial congratulations. The current policy for ESI is still 5% above the regular payline (say 6% for now)?
writedit said
December 11, 2012 @ 3:27 pm · Edit
Outstanding indeed. Even if the payline stays at the 6th percentile for established PIs, you should be okay at the 11th percentile. Your GMS won’t request JIT until Council meets (possibly after), so don’t worry about that. And of course, by the Jan Council, they will know what happened with sequestration, though their final appropriation will still be unknown (CR lasts until March – who knows when the whole mess will be sorted out).
Z.PI. said
December 13, 2012 @ 12:01 am · Edit
Writedit,
We just received a PII SBIR award and I was hoping you could answer 2 questions for us:
1. With no risk to losing the award- can we delay the start of the award/project by a few months, as the scientists we plan to hire will not be available until may?

2. Are no-cost extensions available for each year of the grant? Since the PII SBIR is a 2 year grant, can we request a no-cost extension at the end of Y1, and then again at the end of Y2 (as to give us more time to spend the money)?

Thanks in advance writedit!!!

Reply

writedit said
December 13, 2012 @ 12:23 am · Edit
You should be able to ask for the NoA to be delayed until May (you just cannot delay it past the end of the FY). You can carry over funds from the first year to the second (though you must explain why you need to carry over more than 25% or more of the Y1 budget, if that is the case), and when the award is about to end, you would then request a no-cost extension.The first time you request one, it is not big deal. A second year of no-cost extension is not uncommon but does require ‘splaining.

Reply

Z.PI. said
December 13, 2012 @ 12:42 pm · Edit
thanks!!
Talaci said
December 13, 2012 @ 11:48 am · Edit
Dear WriteEdit,
I have a question about scoring of K grant. Some study sections are known to give higher impact scores than others. Since K grant does not receive a percentile score, is it a disadvantage for a K application to end up being reviewed by such a study section? Does NIH have some way to take into account of this study section scoring habit impact?
Thank you very much!

Reply

writedit said
December 13, 2012 @ 12:52 pm · Edit
K applications are reviewed by IC study sections, not in CSR, so you cannot choose your study section. The career development review group for your IC will evaluation your application. You can see the IC panels here: http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm (or look for links from your IC’s Website).

Reply

Z.PI. said
December 15, 2012 @ 1:00 pm · Edit
I own a small business, and we are currently funded by two SBIR awards from NIH. We would like to hire a post-doc or scientist, and I am wondering if anyone knows of NIH funding opportunities that would be available to support this hire?

Reply

writedit said
December 15, 2012 @ 1:23 pm · Edit
Probably not, if the hire is not related to the SBIR work or if you should have budgeted for the hire when submitting the application (but if major findings or other change in scope in the meantime have generated the need for additional help, you might have a case). You can explain the situation and ask your PO whether an administrative supplement might be possible.

Reply

Z.PI. said
December 17, 2012 @ 7:33 pm · Edit
Writedit- do you know if there are any sample R01 applications online that conform to the newer, shorter page limits?

Reply

writedit said
December 17, 2012 @ 7:40 pm · Edit
Yes, NIAID has examples of R01, R21, and R21/R33 applications and summary statements (these are actual funded applications, not made up samples) here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/Pages/appsamples.aspx

They provide links to sample data sharing plans, multiple PI plans, NIH annotated SF 424 forms and much more here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/samples.aspx

Reply

Ricky said
December 17, 2012 @ 11:06 pm · Edit
Writedit – thanks for this nice website. Do you have any informaiton about R15 payline at NIDDK for FY12?? I have a pending score of 24 and am not sure how likely this will be funded in FY13.

Reply

writedit said
December 17, 2012 @ 11:15 pm · Edit
I am afraid I do not know, and likely your PO will not have a good idea until after the Council meeting in February. If this was your first submission (A0), you should probably be working on a revised application for March to be safe – and you could ask the PO for insight in how best to revise the research strategy if so.

Reply

aamin said
December 20, 2012 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
I have an active R03. Another one got 20 in the second cycle at NCI. Currently, I am planning to move a small Pharmacy school with limited research opportunity. Is it possible to transfer the grant to such a small school?

Reply

writedit said
December 20, 2012 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
You apply electronically to transfer your awards via this Type 7 parent announcement: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-12-270.html Whether the NIH will approve depends on your having the facilities & resources required to accomplish the specific aims at the new institution. R03s are not major awards, so I cannot imagine that even a small pharmacy school would not have the lab/computer facilities to support your work, but if you need access to specialized equipment or services, you can ask your PO about subcontracting this out or revising the award’s scope of work so you can complete the research at the new school. No matter what, you will want to talk with your PO before completing the Type 7 applications (one for each award).

Reply

aamin said
December 20, 2012 @ 5:16 pm · Edit
Thanks for your excellent suggestion. If the school lacks some basic intruments (flow cytometer or PCR machine) and commits that it will allow the F&A money to buy these instruments. Will it help. In fact, the school does not have flow cytometer and PCR machine needed for my proposals. Also, they do not need any money from my grant. Your suggestion might be helpful taking decision.
writedit said
December 20, 2012 @ 5:58 pm · Edit
I think your PO would want to know if your new school planned to buy a flow cytometer and PCR machine before agreeing to the transfer of award (or that you could send your cells elsewhere etc. as part of a subcontract). I am not sure I understand what you mean by “they do not need any money from my grant” … to buy the equipment? to pay you? to pay for other research costs (reagents, tech, etc.)? Or do you mean that the school does not expect you to bring grant funding? In that case, it is up to you whether to keep the awards and continue the research there. Again, I’d say this is a conversation for you and your PO to help make the decision.
aamin said
December 21, 2012 @ 10:53 am · Edit
Thanks again for your meaningful comments. Yes! the institute does not expect me to bring the money. But they will give me 100% freedom to spend the money, direct or indirect if I could transfer the money.
What is your feeling about a score 20 to be funded in FY13?

Reply

writedit said
December 21, 2012 @ 11:21 am · Edit
It depends on the IC and how they plan to manage the sequestration cut – whether all other mechanisms will be severely scaled back to preserve R01s, though R03s are small budget and short term so may be attractive to fund with all the budget uncertainty. Your PO won’t know until after the Jan/Feb Council meeting (timing depends on your IC).
Red said
December 20, 2012 @ 4:00 pm · Edit
Can R15 holders apply for R21s?

Reply

writedit said
December 20, 2012 @ 4:04 pm · Edit
Yes, of course. Please be sure the IC from which you seek funding participates in the parent announcement or, if not, has appropriate R21 PAs available for you to apply to. You can talk with your PO about strategies for planning your project and targeting the right study section as you develop the application.

Reply

Red said
December 20, 2012 @ 4:29 pm · Edit
In the AREA PA-12-006 under Eligble individuals it states:

The PD(s)/PI(s) may not be the PD(s)/PI(s) of –>>any active NIH research grant <<–, including another AREA grant, at the time of an AREA award (although he or she may be one of the project personnel for an active NIH grant held by another PD(s)/PI(s)).

So would this mean that if one has an AREA grant, s/he can’t be a PI of any R-award?
writedit said
December 20, 2012 @ 4:41 pm · Edit
You cannot apply for another AREA award while you hold another RPG award (R15 or any other mechanism), but you can apply for the R21 while you hold the R15; depending on the timing, the R15 might end at about the time the R21 begins in any case (you would want to talk with the PO to be sure there is no overlap in the aims if the project periods might overlap). If you are awarded the R21, you would not be eligible to renew your R15. Renewing your R15 might be the better strategy – again, something to discuss with your PO.
blue52 said
December 21, 2012 @ 12:44 pm · Edit
sorry for the dumb tag-on question… can one hold a R15 and a K award simultaneously?

Reply

writedit said
December 21, 2012 @ 1:00 pm · Edit
Actually, it’s a good question, since the NIH does not make this clear. Glancing through a few K announcements, I do not see being PI on an R15 listed as either eligible or ineligible, so ICs may have their own policies. If you have the R15, you should be able to apply for the K award, but you would want to check with the career development PO at your target IC. Similarly, while K awards are considered other research mechanisms, they are not other research project grants, so you would want to check with the AREA PO for your target IC to confirm how they classify Ks in their groupings of allowable awards for R15 applicants.

%d bloggers like this: