Archived Comments: NIH Paylines & Resources (Jan-June 2011)

Rem said
January 3, 2011 @ 2:11 pm ·
Has anyone with percentile 11 or 12 recieved NGA from NCI???

strad said
January 4, 2011 @ 6:41 pm ·
I’m in limbo too as a NI/ESI at the NCI with an A0 R01 at 17 %ile. I just looked at Reporter searching for new R01′s that got an Award Notice on or after 12/1/2010. There are 39 that have been funded, hopefully they will work their way down soon.

Jackson said
January 4, 2011 @ 7:04 pm ·
Hello strad:
I recently recieved a similar score and I am also a NI/ESI. Did you ever hear much from your PO. Mine told me to reapply but in a very uncertain way. I am still holding on to some hope.

strad said
January 4, 2011 @ 7:09 pm ·
Hey Jackson,
I was essentially told to hold on and see. I haven’t pestered my PO since October when I submitted my JIT info. Someone who’s actually a member of NCAB (Council) said I should be OK, but I don’t know if Council members have the nuts-and-bolts insight that the NIH PO’s &c have. So I wait….

HS said
January 5, 2011 @ 10:45 am ·
Strad and Jackson
Thought of joining your group…I’m an ESI with 17%tile on my A1 at NCI. I haven’t received any JIT request yet. Council is this month. Did you guys receive a JIT request from PO?
This is my last chance to be in science…if I don’t get funded I’m out!

strad said
January 5, 2011 @ 11:03 am ·
I think I just got an automated JIT. My submission was last February with a June Study Section review, and Council met in September. Hard to believe it’s been a year since writing the proposal. With 40 R01s funded since 1 December, I wonder how far down the priority list they’ve gone…

Jackson said
January 5, 2011 @ 11:40 am ·
HS,
Like strad, I applied long long ago. I got a JIT request a few weeks after I got my score in June 2010. Dec 3 was original start date, but obviously that is completely out. I suspect that you will get JIT request soon, but as I have learnerd, that means almost nothing. I think you are “emotionally” better off than us though because you might not have to deal with the long wait associated with September council. I dont think that I will ever apply in Feb again.

drugmonkey said
January 4, 2011 @ 9:10 pm ·
of the 40 NCI R01s funded since 12/1/10, 34 of them have funded on or after 1/1/11. So the NCI is only just getting down to serious business now.

Greg said
January 4, 2011 @ 6:50 pm ·
My score of R01 application (NCI) is 14 percentile as new investigator.
My application is waiting for council meeting on January.
But, I did not get request of JIT uploading.
I am really wondering whether my score is within award range.
Please let me know if anyone has updated information about NCI!

DK said
January 5, 2011 @ 8:52 am · Edit
At that percentile you SHOULD definitely get a human JIT request, whether they eventually fund your application or not.

Ask your PO or GMS if a request is likely or was sent and not received.

When is council?

Greg said
January 5, 2011 @ 9:54 am · Edit
Council meeting is schedule on someday of January.
I will contact my PO.
Thank you! DK

MH said
January 5, 2011 @ 6:43 pm · Edit
I submitted my RO1 to NCI last June. A1 R01 (ESI, 16%tile).
My PO asked me to resubmit.

What will happen if there is still no budget information in March, Apr?

Thanks!

GMD said
January 5, 2011 @ 7:14 pm · Edit
I submitted two grants last Feb, one R01, and one R21, to NCI. The RO1 scored 6% and the R21 scored 9%. While the RO1 got funded, my PO told me to reapply for the R21. That suggests that right now, the payline (not official) is between 6 and 9%. If I resubmit the R21, the first application is withdrawn as soon as the resubmission is reviewed. I don’t think I can bet on a better score than 9%, so I am not sure whether I should wait…does anyone have a clue about the odds of the NCI payline to go up?

zz said
January 5, 2011 @ 8:08 pm · Edit
Are you an established PI? It is hard to believe that the 6-9%tile payline is for NI/ESIs. Even for established PIs, the payline is very conservative, down from 15%tile last year. It is odd that several ICs’ (i.e. NIA and NIAID)interim paylines are essentially the same as last year. Does anyone have insights?

writedit said
January 5, 2011 @ 8:15 pm · Edit
The NI/ESI payline break only applies to R01s, no other mechanisms.

It could be in light of potential budget cuts, NCI is keeping a very low payline for other mechanisms to protect their R01 payline.

curie said
January 6, 2011 @ 11:13 am · Edit
IMO, payline calls for fy11 based on grants funded now is not appropriate, as these are the extreme outliers. it is obvious most institutes are funding the outstanding extreme outliers under cr to be safe.

writedit said
January 5, 2011 @ 8:25 pm · Edit
Did you PO tell you the A0 would be withdrawn when the A1 is scored? This is not NIH policy. I think your PO is telling you to reapply to cover all your bases. Of course, Cycle 1 (Feb-March) is a lousy time to submit …

From NIAID (http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part11b.aspx#d1):

– A resubmission that scores slightly worse probably won’t affect the funding chances of an earlier application. – If you’ve submitted two applications, NIAID can still fund the earlier one. – eRA Commons will keep both versions of your application active. – Related applications have the “MAA” (Multiple Active Application) flag in the eRA Commons; use the Status module. – When one application is funded, NIH automatically withdraws the other.

I know of at least two applications in which the A1 was funded after the A2 was scored (in one case, the A2 had the better score, but the PO liked the A1 study design better … go figure).

GMD said
January 6, 2011 @ 10:53 am · Edit
Thanks Writedit. Yes, my PO told me that the A0 would be withdrawn as soon as the A1 is reviewed, but I am glad to see that this is not the NIH policy. I guess I will have to resubmit. If the NCI payline does not even go up to 9%, the next few years will be hell for all cancer researchers (well, at least, 91% of us)…
ZZ, yes I am a NI, but it is irrelevant for R21s. It seems that NCI may have overcommited money in the last few years (with a “high” payline, as well as many program projects that suck up a tons of dollars) and new applications are now paying the price.

Fred said
January 6, 2011 @ 11:48 pm · Edit
“Of course, Cycle 1 (Feb-March) is a lousy time to submit …”

>> so, does this mean you would recommend an ESI to not submit now and wait until June?

writedit said
January 7, 2011 @ 1:59 am · Edit
No, no one of any status should wait if their application is solid and competitive … but this is one deadline it’s not worth rushing to meet, especially if you could publish something before June/July. If you have a competitive, fundable application, you’ll receive an award sooner by submitting in Feb/March … just probably not when you expect to start. We’ve already covered this here, with the NIAID table on the pros and cons of each Cycle deadline: https://writedit.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/best-timing-for-nih-applications/

curie said
January 7, 2011 @ 12:54 am · Edit
I wouldn’t wait. Those with grants can afford to wait. ESI/NIs, IMO, shouldn’t waste time and send out asap (of course, when the science part is ready).

drugmonkey said
January 7, 2011 @ 1:14 pm · Edit
No waiting unless you have current grant funding! If it is ready to go, send it in. Then start working on your next one…or get another paper out.

Do NOT wait to get the paper out, in press, or anything else before submitting. Bad writedit! It very rarely is going to make the difference*. If you really, really need to alert the reviewers to something that is likely to be accepted by the time they see your app, my suggestion is to cite it, presumably when you are discussing your preliminary data, and list it in your reference list as “under review” or “submitted” (no “in preparations though”!) This will alert the reviewer, three months later, to go looking for it.

*one possible exception is when you are revising and there is a pointed criticism over your productivity and you have a good chance of addressing it in three months.

whimple said
January 7, 2011 @ 1:52 pm · Edit
“…when you are revising and there is a pointed criticism over your productivity and you have a good chance of addressing it in three months.”

Pointed criticisms over your productivity is just the final nail in the coffin and is not a real critique of the substance of your proposal. Nothing you do in three months productivity-wise is going to make much difference so I wouldn’t wait for that reason either. Mostly I think if you’re getting productivity critiques you realistically need to find a different study section.

curie said
January 7, 2011 @ 4:32 pm · Edit
I beg to differ on the productivity part and am with writedit on that one.

Once the application is out of your hands, irrespective of the study section, and once it is scored, the only thing that is left under your control is productivity. There is no formal score or anything, but this will give something for your PO to fight with when funding is based on the topic of priority (by smaller institutes) and when the percentile is in the grayzone.

And on the way, the PI is motivated to send papers out sooner (of course, that should be case with or without grants; but we are human and need some motivation). IMO, it is a win-win situation.

DK said
January 9, 2011 @ 10:43 pm · Edit
may be they asked for more money in A2 than A1?

Suresh said
January 8, 2011 @ 2:35 pm · Edit
Has any body received a JIT request from NIEHS for a grant that was reviewed and scored in Oct 2010? I am an established investigator, and got a priority score of 26 (16 percentile) for a competing renewal of an RO1 (A2). My PO told me in Nov 201 I stood a good chance as NIEHS paied up to 21 percentile in the Sept 2010 council. I still have not received any JIT. When I called the GMO, she said I will receive a JIT only after council. Is this true? She also said I could still submit JIT. But I am hesitating as I feel if I receive one, I will feel better and it will suggest I have a good chance.

Please advice.

Suresh

InTrial said
January 10, 2011 @ 1:42 pm · Edit
Is this a payline? http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ep/Payplan.html

For (1) Early Stage investigators and New investigators seeking their first R01 research grant, or (2) applicants for Career Transition (K99) awards, applications with scores of 40 or better will be considered for funding.

what does “considered for funding” mean? will a score of 40 get paid?

writedit said
January 10, 2011 @ 1:50 pm · Edit
It means applications with a score of 40 or better will be considered for funding.

NLM does not use a hard payline, like NCI or NIAID, but is more in the NIMH mold (which chooses from among applications between the 10th & 20th percentile for funding).

So, if your score were above 40, it would not even be considered. If your score is below 40, it at least has a chance, but no guarantees. The further below 40 the score, the higher the likelihood of funding, depending on program priorities, especially for a small operation like NLM.

InTrial said
January 12, 2011 @ 10:58 am · Edit
I wonder if any one has personal experience on that. say, a score close to 40 got funded. or not got funded?

curie said
January 12, 2011 @ 1:22 pm · Edit
i’ve seen 40 funded under NLM, no big deal. it is one of the less competitive institutes.

Jackson said
January 10, 2011 @ 6:55 pm · Edit
I have heard multiple version of what was said by Harold Varmus at today’s town hall meeting. Can someone clarify what he said about FY2011 funding…in particular for new/early stage investigators.

md said
January 10, 2011 @ 7:03 pm · Edit
Can you be more specific and at least share with us what you have heard?

curie said
January 10, 2011 @ 7:16 pm · Edit
the town hall meeting will become available at videocast.nih.gov in a couple of days.

lula said
January 10, 2011 @ 11:37 pm · Edit
Although not is as many words, Varmus said that there will not be a payline for the NCI in FY2011. He indicated that funding selection will be made in a case by case basis with input from program leaders, and taking into consideration programmatic priorities, etc. The only number that he put out there was 7%, by means of suggesting that grants within this or lower percentiles would be funded; honestly he sounded unconvincing (and unconvinced) about the whole process and a bit at loss on how to explain it. He also reiterated the NCI’s commitment to NI/ESI but without any specifics.

m2010 said
January 11, 2011 @ 2:02 am · Edit
Did he mean no payline even after the final budget is out in March or later?

D said
January 11, 2011 @ 8:27 am · Edit
Harold never had to deal with this when he was NIH Director.

jackson said
January 11, 2011 @ 10:33 am · Edit
basically, lula summed up what i heard quite well.

As I am new to this process, can someone with more time working with NIH/NCI please tell me if this normal? Basically, it seems to me that they are ditching the peer review process and putting the fate of most researchers (who already submitted their proposals according to traditional standards) in the hands of a small selected group of people. I may be miss interpreting, but it does not seem right. Anyways, I will just have to wait to see the video and wait to see what eventually happens.

Robert Woodsson said
January 11, 2011 @ 6:11 pm · Edit
I don’t know guys. I saw Varmus yesterday and left me uneasy at his leadership expressions as Director of NCI. His enthusiasm appears, at times, unfocused and other times with appearance of “omnipotence and grandiosity”. No specifics about issues of great importance (i.e. new investigators/early investigators), bubbling about peer reviewing and his search or desire for “very mature reviewers” to identify the best research (as if there were not already a Center at the NIH with that mission), big words about Global Health and the role of NCI in global health. I was very happy when he was nominated. As time goes by and see/listen his talking, I am left with the impression that he is unconsciously living his past NIH Director role together with his present one in a kind of infantile/juvenile way…..
Mature scientists, mature leaders…. maturity….. something is missing Harold !.

curie said
January 11, 2011 @ 6:50 pm · Edit
here is the townhall meeting video. now we can really discuss:

http://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?File=16391

DrugMonkey said
January 11, 2011 @ 8:02 pm · Edit
You are getting all overwrought about nothing. Varmus’ comments regarding paylines was bog standard stuff for many ICs. He noted a 7%ile payline above which everything is going to be paid. Then he noted that after the payline, Program will use its discretion (read, Programmatic interests) to lay out the rest of their cash in a way that will not respect the order of review strictly.

again, this is standard operating procedure stuff. The 7%ile is the lowest I’ve heard but then again it is no so far away from the 8%ile being bandied about by multiple ICs in the past year or two.

calm down people. Yes, we’re in tight budgetary times but Varmus didn’t reveal anything particularly new here.

HS said
January 11, 2011 @ 9:16 pm · Edit
Lula is right….

Varmus wants to fund grants upto 7%tile. After that, it will be on case by case basis, depending on PI’s previous funding, NI/ESI status, high priority program areas etc. Why does he want to make changes now when the budget is already under a constrain? More uncertainity now…not sure if this is for good or bad.
In last 2 yrs, NIH restricts R01 to two submissions, then cuts the pages to 12 , now NCI wants to award grants on their own whims and fancies! Way to go…

PKC said
January 12, 2011 @ 5:30 am · Edit
That’s right. NIH restricts to two submissions, then cuts the pages to 12….except that all that has been done out of a call from the scientific community dissatisfied with a review process ever growing in everything but sound science. All those changes have been introduced upon a process of extensive consultation and involvement of all parties involved…. And one of the cries of the general public is how much money has been spent on cancer research….

I thought that Varmus was placed at NCI to return science to the right place…..not to ally himself with the money grabbers, wrapping the same old cake with new paper of different colors…. Grandiose statements while contributing to frivolously sweeping the roots of transparency and democracy at NIH is not what people expects and needs.

MKim said
January 12, 2011 @ 2:42 pm · Edit
Hello there,

Has any ones award been released by NINDS lately. The PO has told that they are waiting for budgetary information for FY2011.
I am anxiously waiting for my NoA, don’t know how long it will take more.

Gerineuro said
January 12, 2011 @ 3:03 pm · Edit
I am curious about the process. Any input would be greatly appreciated! I am an ESI who scored at the 12th percentile at NIA. NIA released a statement on Dec 22nd that provided an interim budget funding line. It stated that ESI applications will be considered for funding to the 14th percentile. My PO told me I could be very optimistic. Now what? What happens between this funding line decision and when NoGAs are released, etc.? Are there more hurdles to overcome? Are there final meetings that occur to make the final funding decisions?

I am also unsure as to whether I should be moving ahead on my resubmission (which would obviously be for the March deadline). If I work on the resub, it halts all progress toward getting papers out, finishing up other studies. etc. Right now, I don’t have the lab manpower to do multiple projects. Ugggg… the agony of limbo!

writedit said
January 12, 2011 @ 4:02 pm · Edit
There is a slight difference in language, in that R01s below $500K will be “paid” up to the 9th percentile, while ESI-eligible applications will be “considered” up to the 14th percentile. This gives program discretion to pick and choose among the ESI applications in the 10-14th percentile range versus obligating the NIA to fund them all (similar to NIMH considering applications between the 10-20th percentile for funding or Varmus considering applications about the 7th percentile). Having your application score within the 14th percentile puts you in the running but does not guarantee an award … though it is great your PO is very optimistic, as he or she would not want to give you false hope. Did you ask the PO specifically about resubmission?

Gerineuro said
January 12, 2011 @ 4:20 pm · Edit
Thanks for the input writedit! I had asked my PO in September (after council meeting) about resubmission, and she stated that I should “prepare as if I might need to resubmit.” I di this, collecting pilot data for all of my experiments. There have been a few pieces of positive news (like the NIA release) since that time. We last spoke when the statement was released by NIA on Dec 22, and she stated that this was good news, and I could be (very) cautiously optimistic. She hinted that there would be possibly one more hurdle in mid-January, but I did not ask again about resubmission. At this point, I would hate to bother her again… I just hope to hear something (one way or the other) before the resubmission is due March 5th. Also curious as to what this “hurdle” might be.

Ken said
January 12, 2011 @ 5:26 pm · Edit
Hi,

I submitted an R21 to NIBIB last October and got the score and percentile a few days ago. I received a 20 and 9%. NIBIB’s FY11 payline for R21 is 11%. Should I feel secured about getting funded or it’s considered a ‘boarder line score’ and possibly will not be picked up? This is my first submission as an independent PI so I am still a little confused. Thanks.

writedit said
January 12, 2011 @ 5:35 pm · Edit
You can ask your PO for reassuring confirmation, but with a 9th percentile score, you should be funded … unless the payline plummets after the FY11 appropriation is passed by Congress. This is unlikely, since ICs prefer to start conservatively and adjust upward, but not impossible if there is a significant drop in the appropriation and less money than in FY10 (which is essentially the basis for their interim paylines).

Congrats on the great score – remarkable for the first time in! – and good luck with this application and your research career!

curie said
January 12, 2011 @ 6:07 pm · Edit
nibib typically sticks with the published payline. so, imo, you are in good shape.

Ken said
January 12, 2011 @ 6:22 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit and curie,
I was very surprised when I saw the score. The PO hasn’t responded to me yet. I will ask her again when the summary statement is available. I have a tip to share. Before I submit this proposal, I actually sent the PO my specific aim page for comments on the appropriateness for the study section (BMBI). She gave me some valuable points to shape my specific aim page. She was very helpful. I did not change my experimental plans because of her words but did spend quite some time on editing the SA page. That one page was the single most difficult page to write.
So for anyone who’s seeking suggestions on your ideas, PO is probably the most helpful person because he/she knows exactly what the folks in the study section like/dislike. I was pretty lucky to have a very good PO in my application.

curie said
January 12, 2011 @ 6:51 pm · Edit
z.e. is a great po, i actually have met her in person once.

Lula said
January 12, 2011 @ 6:52 pm · Edit
The least commented but perhaps most surprising development in regards to the NCI is the spread between FY10 and (the virtual) FY11 paylines – 15/20th percentiles down to 7th. Although all ICs are under pressure, the cuts appear to be significantly more pronounced at NCI. Were they fiscally blase in previous years, or are they being ultra-conservative now?

This could also suggest that the moneys needed to answer the “provocative questions” highlighted by the Director will actually come from severely restricting the payline. Thus, the really provocative question is: was this a conscious decision that is now disguised as budgetary woes?

HS said
January 12, 2011 @ 9:12 pm · Edit
Just heard that a friend of mine, who is an ESI with 13%tile at NCI, is receiving his grant. So, they will go beyond 7%tile but it will be a lottery….pick what they feel right.

zz said
January 13, 2011 @ 1:40 pm · Edit
Is it possible for NCI to raise the payline after the budget is approved by the Congress?

writedit said
January 13, 2011 @ 2:05 pm · Edit
If the appropriation is for the same or more money than in FY10, probably … but chances are likely they will have less rather than the same or more. On the other hand, it sounds like Harold will probably stick with the 7th percentile hard payline and fund the rest based on program discretion.

strad said
January 13, 2011 @ 2:23 pm · Edit
I guess it seems logical in a time of extreme budgetary constraint a practice like the NCI’s adhering strictly to the payline had to go over the transom. All of us know, whether it’s Varmus, Klausner, or Yogi Bear, that not being able to fund around 20% of R01 proposals is inevitably going to lead to good research going unfunded.

I don’t think we can really fault Varmus & the NCI for non-transparency because, no matter what, there’s a level of arbitrariness in Study Section scoring as it is that is only mitigated by a good budgetary milieu where we don’t really have to distinguish between a 3-percentile and a 21-percentile proposal.

curie said
January 13, 2011 @ 4:28 pm · Edit
Many institutes even in good times don’t follow strict paylines. Funding by priority / topic of interest is some additional work for the PO, but good for grants with science related to the institute’s priority (even if it weren’t received well by a study section)

MKim said
January 12, 2011 @ 7:01 pm · Edit
Has any one received a notice of award from NINDS recently.

Venu said
January 13, 2011 @ 12:41 am · Edit
Where can I find sample grant applications that have been funded (of the new format, 12 pg RO1 or 6 pg R21)?

writedit said
January 13, 2011 @ 7:09 am · Edit
NIAID has 4 R01s in the new format (with summary statements): http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/appsamples.aspx

Grantmachine said
January 13, 2011 @ 12:17 pm · Edit
Have an NIA R21 at 9th percentile with a score of 20 which was submitted in February 2010. The current status shows it as “Pending”. Does anyone know what the NIA payline for R21 is for the FY2011? Have already resubmitted the R21 and is due for review in February 2011.

kmc said
January 14, 2011 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
I’m an ESI and have a general question…at what level is the percentile assigned? The institute? The study section? I’m waiting on (obsessing over) a decision from NCI and am looking for ways to remain optimistic about my 9th percentile R21.

writedit said
January 14, 2011 @ 2:34 pm · Edit
Percentiles are linked to the study section (but are not assigned, per se). Percentiles are calculated to reflect the relative position of your application compared with all applications reviewed at your particular study section over the last 3 cycles. NIAID gives a nice overview of how and why they are calculated: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part10.aspx#d

I think you can remain optimistic, especially if your PO is enthusiastic about your project. If Harold is allowing more program discretion in selecting applications to fund, having your PO advocate for your proposal will be essential.

kmc said
January 18, 2011 @ 11:36 am · Edit
Thanks for the kind words and for maintaining this blog. I can only speak for myselfm but it’s been exceedingly helpful for me as an ESI.

curie said
January 18, 2011 @ 12:17 pm · Edit
I second that. It is amazing how she pays high attention to posts day-in day-out, year after year. Extremely helpful to everyone involved in federal grant writing. If only there is an award to recognize her service.

writedit said
January 18, 2011 @ 12:43 pm · Edit
Shucks, guys … I learn as much from all of you and am so glad you all stop by to share your experiences, inside info, tips, and so forth. Your input is what makes this such a valuable resource to so many folks. I love helping researchers succeed and am happy to help out here however I can.

w20 said
January 14, 2011 @ 4:37 pm · Edit
I have a few questions: For an NCI R01 grant
1.who will make the final funding decision?
The POs will recommend, and then upper level committee pick the proposal they like?? Is that how it will work?

2. How many proposals a PO usually handles in a study section?

Thank you in advance!

writedit said
January 15, 2011 @ 12:17 am · Edit
1. Harold [recommendations do begin at the PO level and are passed on up the hierarchy for discussion & winnowing]

2. 0 [SROs manage study sections … the portfolio size of POs depends on their budget – and of course they have many more proposals on their plate for consideration (whether in prep or submitted & scored)]

I’d be interested in hearing from a PO type how many applications they deal with these days (wannabes, portfolio residents) – I know many (probably most/all) study sections are getting hammered with proposals, especially as ARRA funding dries up.

Dennis said
January 17, 2011 @ 6:04 pm · Edit
Hi,

I submitted an SBIR Phase I grant proposal to the NCI for the Aug 5, 2010 deadline. I received an impact/priority score of 26 on my summary statement and have no idea what percentile this falls into. Is this likely to be funded or should I be thinking about a resubmission? Thanks very much for any input.

writedit said
January 17, 2011 @ 6:43 pm · Edit
SBIRs won’t have percentiles … the payline is based on the impact score … at least when there is a payline provided. You would be competitive for funding at NIAID, which is ranked just below NCI in terms of appropriation, so you are probably not far off, possibly even in the funding range, at NCI. You’ll need to check with your PO for guidance on where your application ranks in terms of both score and program interest in your work (since it seems Harold is going with program discretion rather than hard paylines this FY).

Najib said
January 19, 2011 @ 12:40 am · Edit
Guys,
Could somebody tell me what the appropriate grants to apply for as future new investigator in the field of cancer research. What percentile means? and how long it takes to get a response?
I will have to take a seminar soon on grant agencies and grant writing to start getting familiar with the terminology and the process. Thanks a lot.

writedit said
January 19, 2011 @ 11:13 am · Edit
The best online NIH grants tutorial information, including a fantastic glossary that explains all the terms, is at NIAID: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/aag.aspx You should be able to learn just about anything you want to know about the NIH grant process here. You can download some of my grantsmanship presentations at https://writedit.wordpress.com/grantsmanship-downloads/ … I have some new slide sets I should really clean up & post soon as well. Watch for my NIH primer presentation soon.

Deciding what mechanism to start with depends on your career stage (postdoc? new tenure track faculty?), the type of research you do, and whether you want salary support/additional training (career development or K awards) or research support (R01), among other things. You can get a quick overview of all NIH funding mechanisms at http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm

MikeS said
January 19, 2011 @ 2:24 pm · Edit
Does anyone know the SBIR NIDDK FY11 budget or payline or where this information is accessible?

writedit said
January 19, 2011 @ 2:29 pm · Edit
NIDDK does not usually publish a payline for SBIR/STTR awards, so you are best off asking your PO for an indication of where your application ranks thus far. They won’t have an FY11 budget until Congress passes an appropriation bill, perhaps by March 3, perhaps after that.

Dennis said
January 19, 2011 @ 8:41 pm · Edit
I had asked a similar question here a few days ago regarding a Phase I SBIR to the NCI. I contacted my PO whom I know very well at the NCI and she told me how many grants were evaluated when the study scetion met, but she couldn’t give me any indication of where my proposal ranked relative to others. She simply told me that I had received a great score. So I don’t know whether this depends on the particular agency or the particular PO, but at least my PO did NOT give me an indication of relative ranking.

writedit said
January 19, 2011 @ 3:27 pm · Edit
Jeremy Berg has added a post to the NIGMS Feedback Loop on the Advisory Council’s Critical Roles. Those of you who would like know what goes on behind the curtain might appreciate his guided tour of an Advisory Council meeting.

Moahad Dar said
January 19, 2011 @ 6:34 pm · Edit
My K23 received an impact score of 39. I spoke with program officer and he said that he wouldn’t rule of funding but that given the current budget situation he wan’t optimistic. Under what scenario, could this grant be picked up.

jason said
January 20, 2011 @ 11:18 am · Edit
Just before Christmas I received an email stating that my F31 Predoctoral Fellowship is expected to be funded. Then I received a request for a restructured vertebrate animals statement because I have a code 44 bar to funding on my application. I did not think much about it because it just seems like a simple problem to fix; however some of the faculty at my institution told my mentor that a code 44 is the kiss of death to applications. Is this true or have there been numerous examples of the NIH lifting the code44 bar?

writedit said
January 20, 2011 @ 11:44 am · Edit
An administrative bar is always fatal if it is never addressed. If no response is submitted and the bar goes unaddressed, program moves on to the next application in line, and someone who thought they were not going to be funded will unexpectedly be very very happy because someone else never provided the requested material to remove an administrative bar.

Fix and submit your vertebrate animals section immediately! If you have questions about what is needed exactly, ask the PO (and let him/her know this is coming). If the science does not support a restructured experimental design that addresses the vertebrate animals concern, then there could be a problem with the award … but I am assuming you have sought IACUC approval by now so would know if there was a fatal flaw in the experimental design with regard to animal use.

jason said
January 20, 2011 @ 11:55 am · Edit
Thank you for the quick response. This is the reason for the bar: “The use of rats is proposed. There should be five (5) points addressed and not 4. The use of conventional headings is strongly encouraged to help reviewers reviewing this section.
This section needs some rewriting. Euthanasia for example is not easy to find, and if conventional headings were used, this would have been the last of the five points. The applicant addresses, in some way shape or form, the five points required by NIH. According to one reviewer, mention of euthanasia is for animals undergoing surgery for measurement of pulmonary artery pressure.”
I have already submitted the new vertebrate animals form addressing all of these points three weeks ago. This plan already has IACUC approval. Have you heard of any cases were the code44 has been lifted?

DrugMonkey said
January 20, 2011 @ 7:06 pm · Edit
jason calm down. unless I am missing something here this is an entirely common situation. you wrote a crappy Vert Animals section that did not comply with the 5 pt format and got spanked for it. at the IC level, this is almost entirely proforma. Why? because in the vast majority of cases this is not an objection to the way you are handling your vertebrate animals but rather how you described it. if you describe it properly, nobody has any problemo.

you supply your corrected vertebrate animals page and badabing, you are good. Actually, I do advise that you keep in close contact with the PO and, especially, the GMO. Why? because the revised VertAnimal page has to go elsewhere in the NIH for review (I forget where, OLAW probably?). the GMO is likely to forget about you until this comes back. So if it gets buried on that other persons’s desk……

SG said
January 20, 2011 @ 8:46 pm · Edit
I agree with DM and WE. This isn’t a major issue, you wrote a lame AS section, and NIH wants you to fix it. Next time be more careful. The instructions clearly asked you to respond to the 5 points and you only responded to 4 and you didn’t follow the suggested format. Doh!

Code 44s get lifted all of the time.

Also, The faculty you spoke to at your school do not sound like they know much about NIH grants.

marrycurie said
January 20, 2011 @ 11:47 pm · Edit
SG: I have seen faculty who have had long success with NIH grants, but don’t know some of the intricate details we come across in this board.

SG said
January 21, 2011 @ 8:50 am · Edit
So, they are the faculty equivalent of Cliff Clavin.

jason said
January 21, 2011 @ 12:22 pm · Edit
Thanks a lot! You all are awesome… and its the faculty that are supposed to help students and junior faculty maintain cooler heads in stressful situations. Definitely, going to recommend this site to all of my colleagues. Yeah, my AS section was a bit of a joke in terms of its organization and missing the euthanasia part, which is kind of important. That has all been dealt with in my new AS section, but I will still cross my fingers till its all official.

jason said
February 8, 2011 @ 11:22 am · Edit
Got the award! Thank you for keeping me semi-sane through this screwed up, masochistic process.

writedit said
February 8, 2011 @ 12:01 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Best wishes for success with this research and your career!

drugmonkey said
February 8, 2011 @ 4:41 pm · Edit
Congratulations. Now go tell those idiots what a Code 44 actually means before they hurt someone.

penelope said
January 20, 2011 @ 4:58 pm · Edit
Great site. Thanks for maintaining.
Any insight into what the chances are for an SBIR Phase II with an impact score of 38? Are the paylines for phase II awards higher than for phase I awards? Thanks.

blues said
April 1, 2011 @ 5:23 pm · Edit
Have you got any clues now?
I have the same questions, does Phase II payline have a higher priority score than Phase I applications? I know in terms of percentile, Phase II is higher.

Reply
Idle thought of the day « DrugMonkey said
January 20, 2011 @ 7:40 pm · Edit
[…] warped by their own experiences from long ago. But they were never full of flat out wrong shit like this. ..some of the faculty at my institution told my mentor that a code 44 is the kiss of death to […]

zz said
January 20, 2011 @ 8:02 pm · Edit
Does anyone know current NINDS payline? Based on their last September council meeting, in FY11 NINDS will continue to fund at 14%tile (up to 20%tile for ESI). Is that true?

thanks,

m2010 said
January 20, 2011 @ 11:47 pm · Edit
One technical question regarding ESI status. If you have two R01 pending both submitted as an ESI and if the first R01 gets funded, I know it will not change the ESI status of the second R01 during the review process. But, would you be considered as an established PI during the funding process for the second R01 (disqualified for the extended payline)? Any insights?

thanks,

DP said
January 20, 2011 @ 11:53 pm · Edit
My PO said that, in the same case, as soon as one gets funded you get no ESI break for funding decisions or paylines.

MKIM said
January 21, 2011 @ 10:19 am · Edit
Has some one received award from NINDS recently. I was told that my SBIR application is being funded for FY2011, however, they are waiting for budgetary information. Will any award not be released until the congress the passes continuing resolution.

writedit said
January 21, 2011 @ 10:46 am · Edit
They will make awards under the CR, so if you are definitely being funded, you could get an award before the appropriations are settled. It could just take some time, assuming they are not waiting for the FY11 appropriation to commit to an NoA.

MKim said
January 21, 2011 @ 12:35 pm · Edit
Thank you for your response, I have been told that my proposals is being funded, however they are waiting for budgetary information FY2011. I suppose this uncertainty wont be clear until March 3rd?

Comrade PhysioProf said
January 21, 2011 @ 10:55 am · Edit
NINDS has already started issuing NGAs for competing grants.

MKim said
January 21, 2011 @ 12:36 pm · Edit
Thanks, good to know.

drugmonkey said
January 21, 2011 @ 3:37 pm · Edit
If you ever need to know who is issuing awards, just go to RePORTER, use the wildcard 1R01% (or 1R% or 1F% or whatever mech fits) in the project number field, select your funding IC of interest and use the project start date field to limit your search to, say, Dec 1, 2011.

writedit said
January 21, 2011 @ 3:44 pm · Edit
Or check the lastest Excel file of all awards issued in the last 90 days:

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

Sort Column B, Application Type, to be descending and then check the Type 1 awards for the mechanism of interest … IC indicated by the two-letter code following the mechanism number.

john said
January 24, 2011 @ 6:31 pm · Edit
I apologize if I sound like a broken record to anyone who reads this page frequently, but I wanted to see if anyone could provide me with updated information/thoughts/comments regarding an F32 that I submitted in April of 2010. It was assigned to NCI. I received my score, which was a 21, in July and the reviewer comments were mostly favorable. I didn’t hear anything so I called my PO about the possibility of resubmission. The PO said that they couldn’t provide any information regarding the probability of funding or a time line about when decisions would be made, but said that it was a good score and admonished against resubmitting and the possibility of getting a lower score. So I did not resubmit in December, but would seemingly have to resubmit in April (a year later) if I do not hear anything before then. So, I was wondering if anyone can provide any information, even an educated guess, about when NCI will start making these types of awards. I have checked RePORTER and it does not appear as if NCI has awarded any new F32s for FY11 yet. Are they waiting for a budget to be passed, and, if so, when is the earliest (and latest) that this might happen? Does anyone have any thoughts as to what sort of cuts they are thinking of making on training grants? Any input would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Ed said
January 24, 2011 @ 6:49 pm · Edit
I also submitted an F32 application in April for a start date of 12/1/10 through NIAMS. Got my score in July, but then didn’t hear anything officially until December, and then it was only a status change to pending. Got a couple e-mails from the grants management specialist right before xmas. Finally got my official notice of award on 1/10/11. I think that I might have made the first wave of funding b/c nothing was on RePORTER before that. Because of that I’d say you’re probably fine, but might just have to wait a while longer as they go down the list.

john said
January 26, 2011 @ 1:27 pm · Edit
I guess there is a February council meeting in early February – might this be the point where they make more funding decisions?

curie said
January 24, 2011 @ 10:25 pm · Edit
I think no cuts for training grants.

Suresh said
January 25, 2011 @ 11:27 am · Edit
I am an established investigator. My competitive renewal (A2) RO1 was accorded a PS of 26 (16 percentile) and is assigned to NIEHS. The grant was reviewed in Octiber 2010 IRG and will go to Feb 2011 council. In eRA commons my program official’s name appeared just 3 days ago. Until now, it was just SRO and GMO’ name. Does anybody know if itr is a good sign if POs’ name just appeared? Also, I spoke to my PO, and she said my funding chance is promising. But I still did not get JIT request, Should I just submit it anyway through the commons link?
Please advice.

Suresh

curie said
January 25, 2011 @ 12:17 pm · Edit
PO appearing may or may not have any significance (inclining to non-significance).

well, jit info won’t be used until the gms and po needs it. you / your institutional official can upload jit anytime when the link is available, but you could as well wait for the e-mail from your gms/po requesting to submit jit.

some institutes collect jit info before council, some after they decide the funding decision. best is to check with your po when you could expect to receive your jit request.

zonapellucida said
January 25, 2011 @ 11:32 pm · Edit
My R15 just changed status to Pending. Any estimate of how long between Pending and NOA?

Also, what did you think of the 5-year budget freeze proposal in the SOTU?

SaG said
January 26, 2011 @ 8:48 am · Edit
It depends on where you are in the payment line and when the Federal gov’t gets a budget. Since the USG is on a continuing resolution NIH can only pay out a certain number of dollars a week.

As for the flat budget….No automatic 3-4% increase in grant budgets, fewer RFAs, more admin cuts to budgets, fewer “big” grant programs etc….all to keep the payline up.

Also, fewer Program officers to answer questions, fewer SROs to run meetings and write summary statements, fewer GM staff to write and send out NoAs….

askaquestion said
January 26, 2011 @ 12:58 pm · Edit
Has every IC started to issue award in FY11? Does anyone know?

writedit said
January 26, 2011 @ 1:12 pm · Edit
I assume so (and certainly so for noncompeting renewals). You can see all awards issued in the last 90 days here … http://silk.nih.gov/public/cbz2zoz.@www.recent.awards.csv (sort by Type to see all the new awards, which are Type 1).

Otola said
January 26, 2011 @ 3:57 pm · Edit
hmm…anyone any idea what funded NCI RO3 scores are going to be….was 30 for FY2010, but probably (?) lower in 2011…?

Rem said
January 26, 2011 @ 10:15 pm · Edit
still wating to hear from nci for my r01, 12 percentile, priority score 27…………shld i call my po

writedit said
January 27, 2011 @ 7:02 pm · Edit
Sure, though your PO might not know anything as yet either … but good to keep on the radar screen, so long as you are considerate in your communications with him/her.

Nalini Ramachandran said
January 27, 2011 @ 10:18 am · Edit
I am an ESI still struggling to get a grant. No success even after 5 years of submitting 8 RO1s, 12 R21s, and 15 RO3s, and numerous foundation grants. I guess I am a loser. I should never have entered into this fucking career! Should I quit science? Or am I already too late!

Nalini

DP said
January 27, 2011 @ 10:42 am · Edit
No, you should not! I was in your shoes before I got my first NIH grant. Are you getting good feedback from colleagues? Are you revising your proposals and improving your scores? Have you talked to you PO?

When you get reviewed, is it your ideas that fall under attack (low enthusiasm, low health relevance, not innovative) or is it clarity in your proposals? Some times just enough “blood tribute” (i.e. preliminary results) is enough.

If you are up for tenure right now you may have more pressing issues, but I highly recommend looking at what ideas scored and what were not discussed, and then see if you improved upon resubmission. In my case, it was a matter of (a) covering my bases in the proposal, so that nothing was left to chance, (b) having enough results to convince them the idea would work, and (c) getting the right people as consultants on my grant (the right people are those with expertise to address deficiencies in your proposal).

Good luck and don’t give up!

Gerineuro said
January 27, 2011 @ 11:40 am · Edit
So you are submitting 7+ NIH grants per year? Wow! That might be a problem in itself. Planning, getting preliminary data, piloting new experiments, and writing for an R01 can take up to 2 years at times for 1 proposal. Perhaps one thought would be to shoot for 2 submissions (1 R01 and one smaller pilot grant) a year with REALLY well developed proposals (preliminary/submitted data for each aim and pilot data for each experiment). Please don’t quit, we need all the help in science we can get! Just refocus…

Nalini Ramachandran said
January 27, 2011 @ 12:15 pm · Edit
Dear DP and Gerineuro:

Thanks so much for your advice. Actually, I misspoke when I said 8 RO1s, that included grants which I applied with my mentor as co-investigator, and same with R21s and R)3s. So, If I tell you the grants I submitted as PI, it was 5 RO1s (including revisions), 3 R21s, and 3 R)3s, which in 5 years is not a lot.

I have been getting decent scores overall. I had one 1RO1 as PI, which I got 180 (33 percentile, first submission), then in A1 got 27 percentile, and then in A2 (in spite of addressing all concerns and new papers, got 26 (no money). Then a new RO1 with a new project, got 35 score (new system) (28 percentile0, then re-submission 33 (26 percentile).

So, it is not that I am doing bad science, I guess bad luck. Forget about tenure, I have been given 3 months by my univ to pack up and leave!

That is why I am so frustrated!

Thanks ,

Nalini

curie said
January 27, 2011 @ 5:32 pm · Edit
Nalini,

I can understand what are going through. It is like giving birth, nothing I can say can make it easier as you are the one who is actually going through this.

I wish a door will soon open for you.

whimple said
January 28, 2011 @ 12:08 pm · Edit
Should I quit science? Or am I already too late!
Quit academic science maybe. Figure out what color your parachute is, and go follow your bliss. Are you enjoying the grief you’re going through now? Do you want to sign up for more of that?

I have been given 3 months by my univ to pack up and leave!
That makes your decision easier anyway.

Venu said
January 27, 2011 @ 9:39 pm · Edit
Nalini,
From your recent posting, it appears the reviewers were not impressed by your revisions, perhaps thought they were superficial, and the scores remained same more or less. Could be it went to different reviewers. This has happened to me and many of us. Hope you will find another (research or teaching) job. School of Pharmacies still seem to have some openings despite buget cuts in most states. You need to redo those grants which faired better and resubmit.

Wesley said
January 27, 2011 @ 5:10 pm · Edit
Greetings all: I serve as Assoc Dean for Research at an allied health public university in the midwest. I have been under the understanding that we would be wise to go for R-15, both for the paylines (slightly higher) and the fact that they can be renewed… I got this message below today from a nursing researcher who has a proposal in development

“I spoke this morning with the NINR grant reveiwer and researcher that I admire. She was very encouraging and seemed to think I had a good chance to be funded with the topic and pilot data. She agreed to review it before I send it in. I will work on that. She suggested the R-03 or R-21 as best options. We had talked about R-15 but she thought the other 2 would be better.”

Do any of you have insight as to why this program officer might be steering us away from R 15??

Thanks

SaG said
January 27, 2011 @ 5:51 pm · Edit
Assuming that you are not on this list (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/area_ineligible.xls) I would think that an R15 would be an excellent choice.

An R21 gives you a little less money over a shorter period of time. But, as you pointed out, you can renew an R15. Perhaps the PO is not familiar with the mechanism?

drugmonkey said
January 28, 2011 @ 1:25 pm · Edit
Is the advice coming from a PO within the NINR? or is it coming from an active peer colleague who happens to review grants that get directed to NINR for funding? Big difference, but it is not clear from the comment which you mean.. If the latter, it is also important to ask this person if they review in a section that sees AREA/R15 proposals or not?

Keep in mind that everyone has advice colored by their experiences with the system. In my case, we saw a few R15s every round of the study section I was on. Reviewers ate those up, loved ‘em. So my stock advice is that if you are in an R15 eligible institution and you have an R15 argument (there are the three intended purposes beyond the standard research quality criteria), then use that mechanism. you’d be insane not to. Because you can *also* submit R03 or R21s some other time.

My advice would be first to get the R15 submitted and then think about what makes sense as another research proposal for R03 or R21. (because if you are not working with multiple irons in the fire, you are not going to be successful in my not so humble opinion on the matter)

MKIM said
January 28, 2011 @ 7:33 pm · Edit
Was wondering if when a award is released does the era common status should show awarded. Is the NoA generated through era commons account or its a personalized email from the GMS.
My era account status shows pending. I am waiting for a NoA from NINDS, not sure how long it will take especially when they have started releasing the awards now.

Carol2 said
January 29, 2011 @ 12:58 pm · Edit
MKIM – FYI from my personal experience I recently received my R01 and the NoA was posted in commons at or around the same day they actually sent the money – so I was pending even during negotiations.

MKIM said
January 29, 2011 @ 5:43 pm · Edit
Thanks Corol2, Was your grant awarded from NINDS or some other institute. My GMS said they have so many awards to prepare, hence the delay.

Is there is usually deadline by when all the awards have to be released assuming the federal agencies are operating under continuing resolution FY2011 till March 3rd.

William Hunter said
January 31, 2011 @ 12:19 am · Edit
I have heard rumors that the house, which has a Republican majority, wants to the US govt to go back to 2006 levels for non-defense expenditure, Does this mean that the FY 2011 budget as far as NIH is concerned will be at 2006 levels? How would this translate to paylines? Then what about 2012? President Obama in his State of the Union address promised more investment for biomedical research. All this makes me very confused and frustrated as I have a pending Ro1 with a fundable score based on FY 2010. Also, when they say 2006, can it be that they can cut grant budjets or will they also fund only up to 5 percentile? Can any body advise?

William Hunter

writedit said
January 31, 2011 @ 12:34 am · Edit
Eric Cantor has talked about setting appropriations back to FY08 levels, possibly even lower, which of course would mean a drastic cut at the NIH. This could not be made up just by trimming grant budgets … paylines would drop significantly, and entire mechanisms (but not RPGs) could be shelved to absorb the blow. Obama will request more money for the NIH in his FY12 budget (but his current FY12 budget is based on his prior FY11 budget, so already optimistic in all likelihood), but Congress appropriates the funds, often not in line with Presidential requests. With everything else going on at the NIH, the FY12 budget request is even more in flux.

curie said
January 31, 2011 @ 2:32 am · Edit
Is it even possible to go down below FY10 level for FY11? With CR at FY10 through half of FY11 (through March), is it even possible to kick the rest of the FY11 to FY06 level? How would it actually work? Would you ask the entire FY11 budget to FY06 (just an assumption) or only for the rest FY11 going forward?

writedit said
January 31, 2011 @ 8:07 am · Edit
The lower appropriation would go forward from the day the legislation is signed into law, at which point the interim paylines would be lowered (rather than raised, as in the past). The fact such a possibility looms over the NIH is why ICs are being so conservative. If the appropriation drops drastically, they will first need to see how much they need to maintain currently committed awards going forward (assuming continuation of the lower funding level in subsequent FYs) before taking on new awardees.

SG said
January 31, 2011 @ 9:11 am · Edit
Assuming that NIH’s budget gets cut, it will be interesting to see how the different Institutes deal with it. For instance, for NIAID to get back to 2008 budget levels they would have to cut ~$180,000,000. One way to do this would be to cut all the budgets of all currently funded grants by 10% (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/whoWeAre/budget/Documents/fy2010cj.pdf). Or cut R and D contracts by 15%. Or slice about 3% from everything. My guess is that most Institutes will cut the payline last.

writedit said
January 31, 2011 @ 10:05 am · Edit
I should clarify that I’m thinking the total number of R01s that can be funded (so more success rate than payline, since most ICs don’t use a published “hard” payline). As Jeremy Berg just posted (https://writedit.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/how-noas-are-born-at-nigms-anyway/), for NIGMS, it would be the number of program-ranked applications that can be accommodated with the available funding versus a specific payline. Cutting all budgets to project RPG funding will no doubt be a key strategy for stretching the limited dollars, but I’m not sure how far that will go, especially at the smaller ICs. We’ll see.

curie said
January 31, 2011 @ 7:14 pm · Edit
Can we assume we will at least stay at 2010 level for FY11?

writedit said
January 31, 2011 @ 7:27 pm · Edit
To the best of my knowledge, the ICs protect R01 awards first and foremost, so that funding level should stay fairly steady, though probably with budget cuts, as was suggested earlier. Other mechanisms will not fare as well, in all likelihood, but it depends on each IC’s strategy for making do with less and on how much less. I’m not sure when the Advisory Council minutes will start getting posted, but there may be some clues there though I doubt any contingency plans will be explicitly shared.

curie said
January 31, 2011 @ 7:47 pm · Edit
i meant the nih appropriations staying to stay at 2010 level (not paylines). would the congress really resort to level below 2010?

writedit said
January 31, 2011 @ 7:55 pm · Edit
Ah. Congress most certainly has the power and the prerogative to lower appropriations below FY10 levels … and I believe this should be expected, the question being how low will they go, and how long will it take for these lower appropriations to be passed by both houses and signed into law by Obama. No appropriations, no federal government. We played this little game of chicken back in 1995. We’ll see how things play out over the next several weeks.

askaquetion said
January 31, 2011 @ 1:42 pm · Edit
I have a grant pending at NLM. Searaching on NIH’s RePorter, it seems NLM has not awarded any new R01s since 10/1/2010. It is puzzling to me as I am not sure if the way I use RePorter to search grants is correct, as it seems all other ICs have more or less awarded new R01s for FY11. Anyone has any insights or similar experience?

writedit said
January 31, 2011 @ 1:55 pm · Edit
You are correct … looking at the file of Notice of Grant Awards Issued within the Last 90 Days (http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx), it seems NLM has only funded a few noncompeting renewals and change of venue awards. No NLM type 1 or type 2 R01s have been awarded in the past 90 days anyway.

InTrial said
January 31, 2011 @ 3:45 pm · Edit
which cycle were you in? Have you received JIT at some point?

askaquetion said
January 31, 2011 @ 3:59 pm · Edit
It’s 2010′s Feb cycle. We haven’t received a JIT. But we have other propsal at NLM at june’s cycle, so I am curious on how (soon) NLM issues award for FY11.

InTrial said
January 31, 2011 @ 5:30 pm · Edit
You haven’t received a JIT for Feb??? So mine was in June, that means I should at least wait another 4 months? Any one has experience on that?

Dim said
January 31, 2011 @ 4:21 pm · Edit
Does anyone know when we will hear about Council review decision? Im stil on “Council Review Pending”. thank you

Gerineuro said
February 1, 2011 @ 3:29 pm · Edit
Dim,

I submitted my R01 in Feb of last year, and it went to council in Sept. It switched to “Council Review Completed” about 3 days after council and stayed at Council Review Completed until 1/12/11 when in switched to “Pending.” I received my NoGA this morning 2/1/11.

Hope that helps!
BA

writedit said
February 1, 2011 @ 3:31 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Best wishes for success with your research!

freckle said
January 31, 2011 @ 4:29 pm · Edit
Advice sought on interactions with PO. Where’s the line between ‘staying in touch’ and driving them ‘nuts’?

Everyone says to stay in touch with your PO, but can one cross the line and annoy one’s PO? For example, now that Council has met, should one pretty much leave their PO alone? Email once every month to stay in touch? More often? Less often?
Also is it OK to talk to your PO about things like the fact that you are going up for tenure and getting this R01 could make a huge difference? Is that too pushy?

curie said
January 31, 2011 @ 6:42 pm · Edit
it is a hard line to draw. but if you keep in mind they are busy people, it will reflect in your attempts to converse with them. i think sending a mail after 2 weeks is OK, but good to wait another 10 days before following up on the first reminder.

it makes a difference for your PO to know important things about you. in your updates you could say you are up for tenure, but don’t push on indicating this r01 could help it because the latter is a pressure and the former an information he could use who knows where and when.

writedit said
January 31, 2011 @ 8:02 pm · Edit
I agree with Curie. Clearly you have figured out you shouldn’t be a pest, which means you won’t be, which means I can feel comfortable telling you not to hesitate to contact your PO for updates as milestones occur (Council & internal program meetings on their end, publications – presentations – exciting new data on your end … probably not the tenure clock card though unless there is a very specific review date by which you’d like to have word one way or another – even if the word is, we still don’t know).

freckle said
January 31, 2011 @ 8:37 pm · Edit
Thanks curie and writedit.
The waiting, which is a necessary and hardly unexpected part of this “game”, is nonetheless a bit like torture.

carlos said
January 31, 2011 @ 10:55 pm · Edit
Big cuts are coming, and a lot of you are going to loose your jobs. Maybe instead of blogging here, some of you would better off looking for an “alternative career.”

SG said
February 1, 2011 @ 9:01 am · Edit
Carlos, You are clearly not a scientist otherwise you would know that social interactions either by Blog, E-mail, meetings, seminars, etc. are an essential part of science. Now, if this was a TMZ blog I would agree with you. But, this is a science related blog.

Dragon Lady said
February 1, 2011 @ 12:55 pm · Edit
I also agree that such comments are unnecessary. Perhaps Carlos should seek an alternative career as an editor given his grasp of the english language (e.g., “lose” as opposed to “loose”.) I have been reading this blog for years and find it very helpful as a junior person – both from a technical as well as inspirational standpoint. Good science will prevail – keep the faith.

DLR said
February 1, 2011 @ 1:22 pm · Edit
I am tired of us being civil to people like Carlos.

Carlos,

If you want us to find alternative careers, then do yourself a favor and find alternatives to everything that is in your medicine cabinet right now. Your life expectancy and the life expectancy of everyone else on this planet grows longer by the day because of science. Give us the respect we deserve or otherwise give up all in your life right now that you have because of science. That would basically involve you moving out of your home and into a paper mache tent somewhere off the coast of Yemen (I believe it’s called Socotra)

Dim said
February 1, 2011 @ 9:42 am · Edit
well said SG. You were actually very nice to Carlos despite his offensive comments. considering some people are stressed about their funding etc

writedit said
February 1, 2011 @ 9:47 am · Edit
Here, here. Thanks, SG … thanks Dim, for acknowledging SG’s thoughtful response … thanks to you all for being so civil and helpful and supportive of each other.

Dim said
February 1, 2011 @ 11:40 am · Edit
percentile 11 for NEI and NIBIB. I should be ok.Right?
any idea if and when results will come out?

curie said
February 1, 2011 @ 12:07 pm · Edit
new r01, renewal? esi, ni or established? i guess 11 perc. is almost sure in these institutes. nei doesn’t go by strict paylines, but nibib payline is exactly at 11:
http://www.nibib.nih.gov/Funding/Strategies/FY11

Dim said
February 1, 2011 @ 12:12 pm · Edit
new r01,established. that s what i was reading about NIBIB. my ecommone is stil on “pending council review” though.

curie said
February 1, 2011 @ 12:55 pm · Edit
i’ve seen other nei grants that retain the ‘pending council’ until or after they get the jit. so, if nei is the primary, don’t worry about the pending council. some changes like ‘eSNAP’ going Y are some indicators when it is moving.

it may be a good idea to be in touch with both POs. if there is any indication from the institute you are in the gray zone in *both institutes*, then you could tactfully bring both parties together to consider the possibility of split funding (more applicable to grants with bigger budget).

Dim said
February 1, 2011 @ 1:12 pm · Edit
i see. thank you curie. at the moment the PO said they dont have a “signed list ” yet.

Dim said
February 1, 2011 @ 3:55 pm · Edit
Thank you Gerineuro and well done. Keep up the good work and good luck with the new project. I hope mine will get funded soon.

Gerineuro said
February 1, 2011 @ 5:25 pm · Edit
Thanks Dim! Gotta keep plugging along. 11th percentile is outstanding, and right at the funding line for NIBIB. They should be making some moves soon with the March Congress meeting looming. “Lists” should be coming soon as I think NIH wants to get some things moving prior to March 1.

john said
February 1, 2011 @ 5:41 pm · Edit
Can someone clarify a few things for me. First, when is the earliest that Congress might pass a budget? The latest? I noticed that NCI has a Council Meeting in February – is this where they would generally make funding decisions/establish paylines? If so, would Congress have to had passed a budget before this point for this to happen? If a budget is not passed, how long would it be until NCI would/could make awards? I guess the real root of my question is: how much longer might I have to wait regarding a funding decision? I submitted last April and my Commons status has said “SRG Review Completed” since July. I suppose one has to get used to waiting in this business, but it would be nice to have a general idea about how much longer this process could take. Thanks.

curie said
February 1, 2011 @ 7:37 pm · Edit
i think nci is awarding applications under cr. check reporter for 1r01% from nci with noa date > Dec 1, 2010. i saw about 50 r01 awarded.

john said
February 1, 2011 @ 9:44 pm · Edit
Thanks! This is helpful. My proposal was an F32 so I did a similar search and indeed NCI has awarded a number of these >Dec 1. However, these were all from PAs that were issued before the one I submitted under and were all awarded under FY10. So, perhaps if these folks were just recently informed (e.g., December) yet submitted to the previous PA, then perhaps I just have some more time to wait? Perhaps Feb or March. Thanks.

writedit said
February 2, 2011 @ 11:37 am · Edit
The earliest that appropriation bills might be taken up is probably March. I don’t see any actions scheduled right now though (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html). The latest is … potentially not until next FY, as we have previously operated an entire fiscal year under the prior FY funding levels … which would be the best outcome for FY11 but unlikely. NCI (and other ICs) is making awards under the CR, albeit conservatively. They will be able to better plan once they know whether the appropriation will go down as anticipated or whether a CR (with FY10 funding levels) will be extended through the end of FY11. Hopefully we’ll have an inkling in the next month. However, if your score is not clearly payable, and if your PO can give you no hints as to where you rank, then you can only hurry up and wait.

john said
February 2, 2011 @ 12:50 pm · Edit
Thanks, writeedit! And thanks for running this message board – it’s sure been a big help. My score was a 21, which I guess you wouldn’t call obviously payable for an F32 – in the teens would probably be close to obvious. The PO could not give me an idea of where I ranked but said that the score would have been funded in previous years and discouraged me from resubmitting due to the possibility of getting a lower score prior to a funding decision. So I held off in December, but can’t afford to do so again in April. I have noticed that a couple of other institutes (NIAID and NIAMS) have posted interim F32 paylines around 24-26, and while I understand NCI might be different, this gives me optimism. But, as you said, hurry up and wait. Thanks!

writedit said
February 2, 2011 @ 1:00 pm · Edit
Hmm. I’m not sure of the downside of resubmitting other than the time invovled. Both applications would be eligible for funding … you should certainly know whether the 21 would be funded before the A1 is scored … and if not, the A0 probably wasn’t going to be funded, so you would still need to wait for the A1 award (assuming a lower score). So, certainly plan for resubmission in April with the underlying hope that it might not be needed. Good luck!

john said
February 2, 2011 @ 1:09 pm · Edit
I was under that impression as well but the PO made it very clear to me that if I resubmitted and it scored worse at study section (which would be in March and potentially before I, or anyone, would know about the funding of F32s submitted last April) that they would have to go with the most recent score. The PO said that my score was excellent and that it would be a risk to resubmit and get a lower score since they weren’t sure if the funding decisions would be made by March. But, yes, I will certainly resubmit in April and I guess be prepared to wait another year. Thanks for your help!

curie said
February 2, 2011 @ 1:16 pm · Edit
i would add to that and say if your po is willing to spend time to actually suggest what is ideal (whether to resubmit or not), then i would say continue to actively engage your po in whether to resubmit or not. couple of months before your next due date, you could ask your po if you should resubmit or just wait.

mara said
February 1, 2011 @ 7:08 pm · Edit
Anybody who has an idea of NEI K99/R00 payline? My proposal was reviewed in Dec 6, 2010 and got an impact/priority score of 15. I emailed my PO last December and asked my chances for funding but he told me that he can’t answer me as there is no budget appropriation yet. The council met last january 27-28, 2011 but up to now my ecommons status hasn’t changed (still at pending council review). Is it reasonable to ask my PO again? Or should I just wait? I don’t want to be a nuisance but the waiting is killing me.

curie said
February 1, 2011 @ 8:48 pm · Edit
i think 15 is an excellent score and probably your po would have told you so already. i checked nei’s success rate and seems to be around 13% with 4 awards per year. not sure what is their typical payline for k99 grants.

given that there is only 4 awards per year, may be they would collect scores from 1 or more cycles before deciding on the awards as in niaid (or perhaps, if 15 is clearly on the top, you will know sooner).

1 month is nothing. niaid guys wait a whole year.

i think it is ok to write an e-mail asking if there is an update since the council met a week ago. probably, you may have a news or be told not to hold your breath as this may take much longer.

15 is an excellent score, congrats.

madness007 said
February 1, 2011 @ 10:35 pm · Edit
congrats on such a great score! But I don’t know how much I would bug your PO, a month is really really short in NIH-time. I’ve been waiting almost a year since I submitted my K99 to NCI. It’s been scored since May, and council met in September, and I don’t expect to hear anything until after congress passes their budget. It’s likely to be 15 months from submittal to start date (6 months late). I really wish someone had told me how foolish it was to submit for the Feb. deadline!

silbrandeb said
February 2, 2011 @ 1:29 pm · Edit
Anybody know anything about NCI paylines for R21s? I got a 10 percentile and a 23 impact/priority score, but can find no information on the paylines for the upcoming council meeting. This is my first grant application and I would appreciate any feedback!

writedit said
February 2, 2011 @ 1:45 pm · Edit
Congratulations on such a fantastic score for your first grant application! Based on what Harold Varmus said earlier this year, NCI has transitioned from a hard payline (except applications below the 7th percentile) to allow more program discretion in selecting awards for payment. However, your score should definitely be under consideration (you would have been funded in FY10), so you’ll want to be in touch with your program officer about where you stand and … as the months wear on … with any updates, such as new publications, presentations, data, etc.

silbrandeb said
February 2, 2011 @ 2:41 pm · Edit
Thank you so much for your reply! I will keep in touch with my program officer and hope for the best.

Dim said
February 2, 2011 @ 5:49 pm · Edit
Thank you Gerineuro. I hope you are right and results come out this month. Then i can relax a bit.

Dennis said
February 3, 2011 @ 4:09 pm · Edit
I don’t see much posted here about SBIR grants. I submitted an R43/SBIR Phase I proposal to the NCI for the August 5, 2010 deadline. The proposal was reviewed on November 15, 2010 and I received an Impact/Priority score of 26. My summary statement included the statement “COMMITTEE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS: The budget was recommended as requested.” The Advisory Council meets next week.

NCI does not issue a percentile score for SBIR grant proposals. Does anyone here have a feeling as to whether this is likely to be funded or should I be preparing a resubmission? Would this score have resulted in funding if submitted a year ago? Thanks for any opinions or hard facts you may be able to provide.

Grace said
February 3, 2011 @ 4:32 pm · Edit
Just learned my RO1 was in 26%, quite disappointed. Does anyone know what the payline for NIDDK this year? Thanks a lot!

Mile7 said
February 3, 2011 @ 9:49 pm · Edit
I submitted a K01 application last June under a specific PAR issued by the IC, rather than the parent K01 announcement. My app scored in what is probably the “gray” zone, and Council met last week. Does anyone know whether responding to a specific PAR makes a difference, especially in the case of a “gray zone” score? Or, do all the K01s for the IC go into the same pool regardless of the announcement you respond to? Thanks in advance for any insights you can offer.

writedit said
February 4, 2011 @ 9:50 am · Edit
PAR = Program Announcement Reviewed in an Institute, which means there were special review/referral considerations (and perhaps a special receipt date). This is not like a PAS (program with set-aside funds). If most of the IC K01 submissions would be through the PAR, you probably don’t have an edge in terms of being more responsive to special IC interests … if you are responding to a diversity K01 (vs parent announcement), though, you may have an edge if your research is also of particular interest/high priority. Nothing definite, though, so … as usual … see what you can learn from your PO.

Mile7 said
February 5, 2011 @ 3:40 am · Edit
Thank you writedit and Dim for your replies. What you said makes sense. I spoke with my PO after the summary statement was posted and he encouraged me to plan for a revision, but I haven’t heard anything since Council met. I have the status of “Council review completed” with no other new information. I’m assuming this status doesn’t mean mean much one way or the other. I’m moving forward with my revision in the meantime.

Dim said
February 4, 2011 @ 7:43 am · Edit
Dennis,

the comment about the budget doesnt really mean anything. this is what the reviewers thought of your budget planning. The council and eventually your institute will decide the amount. As for your score, last year i believe it was 30. So if they keep the same…..you should be ok.
Best of luck

zilbera said
March 16, 2011 @ 5:50 pm · Edit
Dennis –

Have you heard anything more about your SBIR funding?
We have submitted R43/SBIR application for a specific PA and just had the review meeting, no impact score posted yet, probably will be a couple of days before we have it. However, I have heard that the current NCI payline is 19 with grants over that score most likely not funded… This is so different from the 2010 payline of 30.. Can you shed any light on this?

Dennis said
March 21, 2011 @ 4:15 pm · Edit
Hi zilbera,

With respect to my R43 SBIR which received an impact/priority score of 26, I was told to resubmit by my PO at NCI. Had this score been obtained in any of the past 6 fiscal years, it would have been funded. At first, NCI told me the payline would be set at 24, but I’ve heard through the grapevine that it could be even lower. I am just finishing up a resubmission which I will do before the April 5th deadline. Remember…no more 2-day correction window, so if you plan on a resubmission, I would aim for no later than April 2nd.

Dim said
February 4, 2011 @ 9:35 am · Edit
Hi Mile7,

I believe that everything goes into the same pool. You might get priority just because is a specific PAR but you would still need to compete with anyone under the same PAR. Have you contacted your PO yet?

Dim said
February 4, 2011 @ 10:15 am · Edit
FYI- This is from today s AAAS webiste:

House Republicans Propose CR for Remainder of Fiscal Year
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has announced that House Republicans plan to bring to the floor the week of February 14 a continuing resolution (CR) that would cover government funding through the end of FY 2011 (that is, through September 30, 2011). No specific budget figures have been released, but it is expected that the proposed CR would reduce spending to FY 2008 levels as passed in last week’s House resolution (H.Res.38). Additionally, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) said during debate on that resolution that the CR would “make the largest series of spending cuts in history.” These actions would coincide with the anticipated release of President Obama’s FY 2012 budget proposal.

curie said
February 4, 2011 @ 10:29 am · Edit
i thought cr means continue using 2010 level. what does “proposed cr would reduce the spending to 2008 level” means?

writedit said
February 4, 2011 @ 11:00 am · Edit
This would still be a continuing resolution rather than actual appropriations bills, providing budget authority at FY08 rather than FY10 levels.

DrZZ said
February 4, 2011 @ 11:05 am · Edit
A continuing resolution is legislation just like any other; it can contain anything that gets the votes needed to pass. Because it is usually quite limited in time period covered, it is usually not controversial that it maintain the status quo; ie set spending at last years level. Because of the political climate and because this would essentially cover the entire year, it is not surprising that some are pushing to use the CR to make cuts in spending. We will see who has the votes.

curie said
February 4, 2011 @ 11:43 am · Edit
ah hah. i assumed continuing resolution is a type of appropriation where the funding is approved at the current or prior year’s budget level. didn’t know they could approve a budget less than current levels in a continuing resolution.

John said
February 4, 2011 @ 11:36 am · Edit
Did anyone attend the NINDS Advisory Council Meeting yesterday? Were any announcements made concerning this year’s payline for R01′s?

freckle said
February 4, 2011 @ 1:20 pm · Edit
Does a CR have to be approved by both the House and the Senate? Or just the House?

Would a continuing resolution that reduced the budget for the remainder of FY2011 back to 2008 levels really have a chance of passing in the Senate (assuming the Senate gets to vote on it)?

freckle said
February 4, 2011 @ 1:21 pm · Edit
Oops, and does the President have to sign a CR?

writedit said
February 4, 2011 @ 1:31 pm · Edit
Yes on all accounts … as DrZZ noted, who knows whether the votes are there for this, but if a CR is not passed, it can become a game of chicken, with the shut-down of non-essential government services on the line. Newt Gingrich did this when Bill Clinton was President, which worked to the Democrats benefit in the next election. Still, I would not be surprised to see Republicans try this maneuver again (government shut-down if their FY08 CR is not passed/signed into law).

curie said
February 4, 2011 @ 2:12 pm · Edit
isn’t arra the biggest component wise difference between fy08 and fy10? if so, why would letting arra portion go would make a such a big deal (after adjusting for inflation) ?

writedit said
February 4, 2011 @ 2:21 pm · Edit
ARRA was separate from the base appropriation for the NIH so wouldn’t come into play for these calculations. Also, FY08 spanned Oct 1 2007-Sept 30 2008 (so before Obama and ARRA).

Dim said
February 4, 2011 @ 1:53 pm · Edit
what would a shut down mean for NIH and funding?

writedit said
February 4, 2011 @ 2:24 pm · Edit
If the government shuts down, no awards, obviously … and I’m not sure how the NIH would handle grant submissions during a government shut-down now that (almost) everything is electronic. I suppose applications could stack up in grants.gov until CSR employees were back to take care of the referral/review tasks, but I have no idea if it would be left up & running on its own (or if its operation is considered essential, though I can’t imagine why since the spending is all discretionary).

Dim said
February 4, 2011 @ 2:35 pm · Edit
i hope we are not going to go there. Thank you for the answer writedit.

DrGI said
February 4, 2011 @ 4:01 pm · Edit
Colleagues, on February 3 (yesterday) the Committee on Appropriations published guidelines to cut spending levels for each of the twelve appropriations subcommittees. If I understood correctly, these cuts would be reflected in an upcoming CR for the remaining of FY 2011
http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/2311SubcommitteeAllocationsforFY11ContinuingResolution302bs.doc

For the Labor/Health & Human Services/Education subcommittee, the cut is 6,565 billions, which is a 4% reduction relative to FY 2010. Assuming all agencies covered by this committee (NIH is one of them) will be cut by 4%, how would that affect funding for the remaining of 2011? In other words, is this going to be dramatic enough to require a drastic reduction of the current interim pay lines or could it be easily absorbed given that we are alrady half way through the fiscal year? I do not have sufficient knowledge to tell whether this is “bad” or “not so bad” news for all of us. Any insights would be much appreciated.

TM said
February 9, 2011 @ 5:16 pm · Edit
I do not think they will cut across the HHS @ 4%. From what I had heard NIH might see either a flat budget or 1% cut.

However, any cut in the budget will have a large effect on “new funding”, since the previous budgetary commitments have to be fulfilled (active grants etc.) before any new ones are awarded.

freckle said
February 4, 2011 @ 3:06 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit. My guess is no government shutdown this time as the Republicans paid dearly last time they did that.

My hope is a CR for FY11 that keeps everything at FY10 levels. I bet the House and Senate continue to fight over the CR details for the next few weeks-months, but end up putting FY11 funding behind them with a compromise CR keeping everything at FY10 levels….or slightly below.

But I do not see how FY12 will not be bad.

curie said
February 4, 2011 @ 3:39 pm · Edit
my logical guess is also that rep. would really want fy11 budget / cr below fy10 level to set a tone for what can be expected for fy12.

setting fy11 at fy10 level would entail fy12 to be at least at fy10 level, which i guess rep. don’t want to happen.

Buds said
February 4, 2011 @ 6:04 pm · Edit
Just received scores of an RO1 A1 that was scored at 14th percentile (down from 28th percentile at first go). This was the last submission as we all know. Any ideas if this stands a chance for funding?

Thanks

Buds said
February 4, 2011 @ 6:05 pm · Edit
14th percentile at NCI

freckle said
February 4, 2011 @ 7:55 pm · Edit
Are you a new investigator or ESI?

If so, yes, you have a reasonable chance, but considering how bad things are, it’s by no means a sure thing.

If you are not a new investigator or new ESI, while you still have a chance, the odds are a lot steeper.

Everything I’m hearing is that NCI is going to have an unusually bad year.

Bottom line, talk to your PO.

Buds said
February 4, 2011 @ 8:01 pm · Edit
thanks freckle…….no I am not a NI or ESI……not quite sure what to ask the PO at this time since I expect to get a standard reply, “Wait till the budget is approved”. But I guess no harm in getting in touch with the PO.

Z said
February 5, 2011 @ 4:36 pm · Edit
Has anyone heard from their PO or another official at NICHD about whether they intend to raise the payline above 11? They had a council review on January 20th and I have not heard about any plans for the remainder of FY 2011.

SKate said
February 7, 2011 @ 10:30 am · Edit
Z- Just talked with my PO last week- I was waiting on the council review decision from Jan 20 as well (submitted an R03 with impact score of 24 and 12th percentile). She said it was still at 11 and she thinks it may be quite some time before that changes. She encouraged me to do a revision for March instead of waiting to see if they bump it up a point.

freckle said
February 7, 2011 @ 1:10 pm · Edit
I have a grant at NICHD near the payline and my PO said the same thing. We all have to be patient and hope for the best.
They also have not given a specific payline for ESI or NI yet either which is frustrating.

G Rao said
February 6, 2011 @ 5:38 pm · Edit
I just got my priority score on my K08 and it is 30 (it was submitted to NINDS but was routed to NCI). I was initially somewhat optimistic, but now am much less so after talking to the PO. Anybody know what the payline was last year?

Elizabeth said
February 7, 2011 @ 5:48 pm · Edit
G Rao-I don’t know about K08, but I submitted a K22 at NCI in March that scored a 30. My PO told me it would have been funded in FY2010 but was uncertain about FY2011 so I resubmitted in November-haven’t heard anything yet. Good luck!

SB said
February 7, 2011 @ 11:42 am · Edit
I just received a score of 24 on my R21. The summary statement say: Outstanding. The primary IC is NIAID; Is it likely to be funded? Please advise.

NotTonyFauci said
February 7, 2011 @ 11:56 am · Edit
Well..the current payline for R21s at NIAID is (http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/paybud/pages/paylines.aspx) 24. Assuming Congress doesn’t cut NIAID’s 2011 budget I think that you have a great shot at getting funded. NIAID is usually pretty good about following their paylines.

HW said
February 7, 2011 @ 9:20 pm · Edit
NCI posted its FY11 funding strategies:

Click to access FinalFundLtr.pdf

Can someone elaborate how they will fund grants in the gray zone, especially those from new investigators? It seems that the zone of uncertainty for NIs will be upto 25 percentile, which is a lot higher than the FY10 payline, 20 percentile.

writedit said
February 7, 2011 @ 10:33 pm · Edit
I assume NCI could use a process similar to what Jeremy Berg describes at NIGMS (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/), with the discussion focusing on gaps in the research portfolio and priorities not being met as well as other support available to the PI and so forth.

drugmonkey said
February 7, 2011 @ 11:03 pm · Edit
Peeps, this is not rocketbrain surgery here. This is entirely standard operating procedure stuff for NIH. There has *always* been a nearly inviolable hardline and then a grey zone in which Program priorities influence the post-review order. Within the grey zone, the farther away from the hardline you get, the decreasingly likely is a pickup. Berg posts the outcome of NIGMS behavior regularly and it confirms this description. I feel confident the broad strokes translate to most of the other ICs, even if they do not post their outcome data.

Having a zone that extends to 25%ile instead of 20%ile is likely to be meaningless. They can still pick up grants past that line if they feel compelled to do so. And the 24%ile is less likely than the 14%ile to get picked up. Nothing has really changed here.

Animesh said
February 8, 2011 @ 8:14 pm · Edit
I am a new investigator eligible in my A1 (last chance) RO1 grant at NCI and I got 14 percentile in the last cycle. My commons posting showed council meeting pending. Anybody can through some light about this score that will be funding range or not at NCI 2011. Please let me know if anybody has any info because my PO is not responding through e-mail.

writedit said
February 9, 2011 @ 1:21 am · Edit
If you search through the comments for NCI or Varmus, you’ll find various discussions of NCI’s funding approach for FY11, which is published here: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/FinalFundLtr.pdf

Only applications scoring below the 7th percentile for established investigators and below the 10th percentile for new/ESI applicants is almost assured funding. You are in good shape with a 14th percentile score, but you need to ensure your PO serves as your advocate as applications in the 8-25th percentile (range eligible for new investigators) are discussed for potential funding. If you have any new publications or other news relevant to the proposed research, you might want to share this with the PO.

Today, a colleague here (new investigator but not ESI) had his 25th percentile R01 (submitted last March as an A1) funded as an exception (as described by the PO, so perhaps this was in the works before Harold’s presentation).

jm77 said
February 9, 2011 @ 10:22 am · Edit
Does anyone have suggestions for new investigators on how to ensure that the PO serves as your advocate?

drugmonkey said
February 9, 2011 @ 11:43 am · Edit
You cannot “ensure” anything, but you can nudge the odds in your favor. First and foremost, you want to establish a long term plan of convincing the PO that *your* science is the total awesome and making sure that s/he understands it. This requires a plan of schmoozing, i.e. staying in touch, chatting at meetings, etc. I advise people to start talking to Program as postdocs for sure.

Second you want to get them seeing you as “their” investigator so that there will be that personal connection to you as a scientist. See above.

When interacting on specific grants, stick to the facts. Give them rebuttal points on the critique, but avoid whining about how the reviewers were stupid, biased or whatnot.

DP said
February 9, 2011 @ 11:53 am · Edit
Writedit hit it on the head. My suggestion is to also avoid wasting precious Introduction space pointing out the positive comments from prior review. First off, we reviewers read the old summary statements so we get those comments anyway. Second, it looks like the PI is trying to ram previous positive comments down our throats. I’d rather read an introduction that efficiently responded to prior critiques. Good luck!

curie said
February 9, 2011 @ 11:55 am · Edit
amen dm. i really like the second point of making them see the pi as their investigator, win-win situation if the science proposed is worth funding.

its a very hard line for the po to cross to see a pi as “his/her” investigator out of hundreds of potential pi’s that contact them. it takes time to build this relationship, but one of the right ways to go about this.

Animesh said
February 9, 2011 @ 9:08 am · Edit
My grant also under National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) apart from NCI as primary. Does any body know the payline of NCCAM in 2011?

Newbie NeedingAdvice said
February 9, 2011 @ 2:15 am · Edit
Could someone please point me to the data showing recent success rates of Competitive Supplement (CS)? My PI seems to think the CS has a much better chance of getting money, but the new question we want to address is not that closely linked with the parent grant aims. Is it really worth the risk to write up something (I am asked to do the writing, cheap labor) that is s stretch from the original parent aims? My understanding is that CS is treated like renewal RO1, that means it is 12 page limit? Why would we want to waste time on a 12 page grant to get the money just for the remaining of 1.5 years of the parent grant? Thank you for your advice.

writedit said
February 9, 2011 @ 1:20 pm · Edit
I assume you mean either a diversity supplement (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-08-190.html) or a career re-entry supplement (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-08-191.html), both of which do have high funding rates, especially in some ICs (see http://report.nih.gov/award/success/Success_ByIC.cfm and click on the IC of interest). Why? You will want to work with the PO on the parent award in preparing them, and they are reviewed administratively. The PO will tell you whether your new aim is sufficiently related to the parent award to qualify. The applications are short and easy and they are submitted directly to the IC, not electronically or on paper to CSR. Be sure to check the contacts list for either supplement PA to see what other restrictions may apply.

Question regarding ro1 said
February 9, 2011 @ 7:49 am · Edit
hi, I just got my RO1 scored, right at the payline for NHLBI, does that mean it will get funded? the status is “pending council review”?
thanks

DP said
February 9, 2011 @ 11:54 am · Edit
Are you a NI or ESI? It makes a difference. My NHLBI PO said things are uncertain right now, but they have a strong commitment to ESIs and NIs (ESIs more than NIs, though).

Question regarding ro1 said
February 9, 2011 @ 3:57 pm · Edit
I am a ESI, the payline is 26.0 and my application’s percentile is right at 26.0. That is why I am so nervous.

writedit said
February 9, 2011 @ 4:06 pm · Edit
You should be fine, then, assuming any budget announcements in the coming weeks do not alter the published payline, which I doubt – especially for ESI R01s. (NHLBI no longer gives a payline break to new investigators who are not ESI.) Your PO should be able to provide some reassurance.

nw58 said
February 9, 2011 @ 11:47 am · Edit
Hi, I have a K99/R00 that was submitted to NIAMS in cycle III last year. It is set to be reviewed at the end of Feb. I am noticing that NIAMS has the payline set at an impact score of 11 which seems near impossible to attain. Is it possible to get it reviewed and/or funded through a different institute? I had thought about NIBIB initially but they had suggested NIAMS (prior to submitting). Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 9:58 am · Edit
It is too late to change where the application will be reviewed, but once the application is scored, if it is an exceptional score, you could contact the PO at NIBIB. However, they are only funding 5 applications, so you probably need something close to an 11 with them, too.

CD75 said
March 4, 2011 @ 12:49 am · Edit
NIAMS score are out!
Hope you got scored well.

bchmst said
February 9, 2011 @ 1:10 pm · Edit
I applied for an F32 Fellowship (NIGMS) in August and received a score in November and know that the Advisory Council met at the end of January. Does anyone know when I should hear about funding or which scores normally get funded?

writedit said
February 9, 2011 @ 1:33 pm · Edit
Jeremy Berg has explained on the NIGMS Feedback Loop how their funding decisions are made (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/) and how their Advisory Council operates (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/19/the-advisory-councils-critical-roles/). As you will note, there are no specific scores that “normally get funded”. I know you don’t have a percentile score, but you see the funding trend at NIGMS (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/07/fiscal-year-2010-r01-funding-outcomes-and-estimates-for-fiscal-year-2011/) and perhaps ask your PO for a guestimate of where you rank in the F32 cohort. Timing will likely be delayed right now due to impending budget decisions in Congress.

Comrade PhysioProf said
February 9, 2011 @ 1:47 pm · Edit
According to what I have been told by program staff, NIGMS F32s with impact scores in the twenties or better are highly likely to be funded.

gsk said
February 10, 2011 @ 3:36 pm · Edit
Same thing my PO said. I got a 20 and he said below 20 was highly likely and 20-25 was moderate chance. above 25, no shot.

gsk said
March 16, 2011 @ 12:27 am · Edit
Has anyone heard anything yet?

bchmst said
March 18, 2011 @ 1:35 pm · Edit
gsk –
I received an e-mail saying my fellowship would be funded. I hope you hear soon!

writedit said
March 18, 2011 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Best wishes for success with the research and the training!

gsk said
March 18, 2011 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
Congratulations!!!!!

I just heard from my PO and he said hopefully, he’ll have word next week.

gsk said
February 10, 2011 @ 7:36 pm · Edit
Also, forgot to mention that he said funding decisions would begin in early March.

john said
February 15, 2011 @ 6:46 pm · Edit
Wondering if anyone with an F32 at NCI has heard anything new about paylines or when a funding decision will be made?

ms said
February 17, 2011 @ 2:40 pm · Edit
Last week, my NIGMS PO told me we’d hear about F32 funding decisions in mid-February (which is clearly different from what gsk heard).

gsk said
February 19, 2011 @ 1:02 pm · Edit
I’d take anything at this point. The wait is killing me!

ms said
February 24, 2011 @ 11:21 am · Edit
Yes, this is painful. Let us know if you hear anything. At least Obama’s budget proposes a postdoc pay increase (of a whole 2%!) for those not paid at the NRSA level.

gsk said
February 25, 2011 @ 7:33 pm · Edit
As I sat down to the computer to do some virtual cloning, I checked the email. Found a message from my PO wanting to know if I was still interested, my current support, when I got my degree, etc.

I should come to no conclusions concerning my funding, but after he gets the info, he will send it to the fellowship review committee.

ACK! ACK! ACK! (that’s me screaming and my boss thinking I’d finally lost it).

writedit said
February 25, 2011 @ 7:57 pm · Edit
Good luck!

ms said
February 28, 2011 @ 6:15 pm · Edit
I received an offer! While a relief, this fellowship is freaking ridiculous–it’s a significant cut in pay and benefits (easily >20%) and not at all easy to supplement. What gaping holes our government gilds in the pipeline.

I know I shouldn’t complain, but it’s kind of depressing how much we struggle for so “little.”

writedit said
February 28, 2011 @ 6:19 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Well, the certainty must be a relief at least. Unfortunately, I suspect many (most) reading this forum share your pain and final assessment …

gsk said
February 28, 2011 @ 6:42 pm · Edit
Congratulations!! Do you mind if I ask what your score was? I don’t see it mentioned anywhere. Did your PO email you about needing information from you like mine did above?

Can you tell I’m obsessively checking commons?

ms said
February 28, 2011 @ 6:49 pm · Edit
It’s okay. I was flipping out all weekend from not having heard from my PO. Btw, my era commons status still hasn’t been updated in any way since the “SRG review completed.”

My score was a little worse than yours. This means you’ll get a call soon, or the NIGMS is being lame and capricious.

ms said
February 28, 2011 @ 6:52 pm · Edit
p.s. Several weeks ago I mentioned to my PO that I would be happy to provide extra info and updates, but my PO didn’t to that point, so I never did.

ms said
February 28, 2011 @ 6:53 pm · Edit
“…didn’t *reply* to that point…”

ms said
February 28, 2011 @ 6:57 pm · Edit
Gah, sorry, I’m being stupid. You asked whether my PO requested in advance the same kind of info in advance from me. Nope.

john said
February 28, 2011 @ 7:12 pm · Edit
Congrats! It seems like NIGMS is starting to get some F32 awards made. You mentioned cuts and difficulty supplementing this – why is it so difficult to supplement? I have an F32 at NCI with a score of 21. E talked with the PO who said it might be until summer, which is incredibly frustrating. I have been very tempted to contact my PO to see if there are any updates, to see if they recommend resubmission or not, and to see if there is anything else they need from me to help make their decision. But in my experience with the PO it seems as if they prefer not to be bothered, especially since it appears as if they just aren’t prepared to give people info about their standing or possibility of funding. I really need to figure out whether or not I should re-submit for April – last I spoke with the PO about this it sounds like there was a risk of resubmitting and getting a worse score and having to stick with the most recent score. Any one have any advice?

bchmst said
February 28, 2011 @ 7:19 pm · Edit
gsk – I received a similar e-mail with questions; I replied, but haven’t heard anything since then. Good luck!

gsk said
February 28, 2011 @ 7:21 pm · Edit
so now I’m just being nosy and wondering how you’re taking a pay cut. Unless you are at an institution that is on a very expensive coast and that institution says you should more money above the pay scale?

ms said
March 1, 2011 @ 11:39 pm · Edit
I’m in a high cost-of-living area, so my stipend is currently above the NRSA levels, and my benefits will cost more with the fellowship. Supplementation is tricky because it can only come from non-federal funds.

gsk said
March 3, 2011 @ 6:37 pm · Edit
Gotcha. I’m worried about the insurance costs–apparently, it’s out of control for the family insurance and doesn’t include dental or vision for anything (which I have now and at much lower rates). There would be a pay increase with the FICA going away (and getting bumped up on pay scale) but the insurance has me slightly worried. Either way, still waiting…

gsk said
March 23, 2011 @ 9:31 am · Edit
Got an email from my grant specialist needing some information on a class I requested tuition for. Once he gets that info, he’ll get me my money!!! Thanks everyone for the chats/info!

writedit said
March 23, 2011 @ 9:35 am · Edit
Congratulations – best wishes for success with your research and your career!

Dim said
February 9, 2011 @ 2:37 pm · Edit
hi,

got my JIT yesterday.Oh man its getting close now.
i would like to thank you all for your support and advice.Especially writedit.

good luck to those who are waiting for their scores and NoA

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 8:37 am · Edit
Woohoo! Thanks for taking the time to join the conversation and share your experience. Best wishes for success with your research and career!

E said
February 9, 2011 @ 6:43 pm · Edit
hey everyone,

I applied to an F32 last April which got shuttled to NCI (though it really belongs at NIGMS). I’m frustrated because my score is a 29 – something that most likely would already be funded or at least be notified about at NIGMS, yet I still have to play the waiting game with NCI until maybe this summer says my PO.

My question is when is it too late to switch ICs and who would you contact to request such a transfer?

Thanks in advance for any help

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:03 am · Edit
Did you request assignment to NIGMS and it got sent to NCI anyway? With dual or sole assignment? You can’t ask for a transfer, but if NCI eventually decides not to fund, you can contact the NIGMS PO about possibly picking it up. If this was an A0, you should consider submitting an A1 in the meantime.

E said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:36 am · Edit
Thanks for the reply writedit. I requested NIGMS, but my assignment lists 3 ICs with NCI as the primary (NICHD is the 3rd). It was an A0 and I do plan on resubmitting. Do you think it is too early to start contacting the NIGMS PO?

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 12:00 pm · Edit
Well, I don’t think he/she can do anything about it while NCI is deciding, but it might be good to touch base and make him/her aware of your application (so they can keep it in mind if it is a priority for them in terms of porfolio etc.).

john said
February 15, 2011 @ 6:56 pm · Edit
E,

I’m in a similar situation. My F32 is with NCI with NIBIB as secondary. Priority score is a 21 and applied in April ’10. Have you heard anything from the PO recently about paylines or when they will be making decisions? Last I chatted with the PO (Dec) they didn’t have much information. I too have thought about contacting the secondary, but am not sure how this works or if it is appropriate. I noticed that other institutes have put up interim paylines for F32s in the 24-26 range and I wish NCI would consider doing the same thing or at least let us know where things stand. Most other institutes have already made at least some awards from the April F32 PA, but NCI is waiting it out. Is there really a chance this drags on until summer?

writedit said
February 16, 2011 @ 1:03 am · Edit
Given the NCI financial policy for FY11, you should not expect them to post paylines for FY11, even once the next (hopefully final) CR is passed. However, now that all 3 cycles of submissions have been (or will soon be) reviewed, your PO should have a firm idea of where you rank in the pile of applications received. From now on, NCI is going with more discretionary than payline-based award decisions, so you want to be in touch with your PO about papers in prep/press, posters presented, exciting new data, etc. so they can make your case when discussing which applications to fund.

john said
February 23, 2011 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
E, it sounds like we are in a similar situation. I was wondering what your Commons status says. Mine still says SRG review completed and has since July. I would have expected some sort of update by now; perhaps, council review complete? I was also wondering if you’ve had any recent contact with the PO at NCI. I spoke with the PO in December and wasn’t given much information and wonder if that is still going to be the case. I hate to bug the PO, but I really could use more information. Thanks.

E said
February 26, 2011 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
Hi John,

So my PO finally got back to me after several attempts and tells me funding decisions will likely come in the summer so I guess we’ll continue to play the waiting game. No other info as far as ranking or payline was shared. Congrats on your score though – considering how worried you are, I am now more worried with a score of 29.

john said
February 28, 2011 @ 4:17 am · Edit
E,

Summer?? Wow! That is really frustrating – I applied to the first cycle I could upon joining my postdoctoral lab and it might be 1.5 years into my post-doc before I even hear about the outcome. I am planning to re-submit despite the good score – I don’t see much of an option. When I spoke with the PO, who is likely the same for both of us, I was discouraged from re-submitting in December due to the risk of getting a worse score, which the PO claimed they would have to go with. Since the April submissions are likely to be reviewed prior to a funding decision, it looks like I find myself in this situation again. Did the PO mention anything about this to you? Others on this message board have said that this is not the case and that the better score is still eligible for funding – but if the PO is saying this then I would seemingly have to believe the PO, right? Is it possible that NCI makes it a policy of taking only the most recent score? I have considered talking to the PO again, but this hasn’t been particularity helpful up to this point. Is there anyone else I can contact regarding this policy?

Good luck with everything and keep me posted; I’ll do the same.

occams_beard said
February 9, 2011 @ 9:01 pm · Edit
hi all, i have greatly benefited from lurking around here the past few months as i have been in limbo regarding nimh k01 proposal (score=17 in nov 2010). so, i thought i would pay it back with a potentially helpful little tidbit of information i received yesterday.

my PO contacted me and informed me that my k would be funded (yay!) as part of package of proposals that nimh director thomas lehner just approved. this indicates a) that the congressional budget situation has not paralyzed funding decisions, and b) that a batch of decisions have just been made for nimh funding. so if you have pending proposals at nimh, now might be a good time to give your PO a nudge.

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 8:34 am · Edit
Congratulations – and thanks for sharing your tidbits … every little bit helps. Best wishes for success with your research and career!

GeneralSuccessRateQuestion said
February 9, 2011 @ 11:24 pm · Edit
If I understand correctly the final R01 success rate (by IC or overall for NIH) will be determined based on the number of Awarded applications (numerator) which won’t be finalized until Congress passes a budget and the end of the fiscal year is reached (Sept 30, 2011). However, if the deadline for R01 applications (Cycle I, II, III) for FY2011 funding has passed, the total number of competing R01 applications (denominator) is fixed. (?) This information will affect success rates and would be illuminating to know, is it available?

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 9:59 am · Edit
Hmm. Your PO would have an idea (if not the actual number) for his/her IC, but I do not believe this is released anywhere before the FY ends.

TM said
February 10, 2011 @ 4:12 am · Edit
There are a couple of useful nuggets of information about the FY11 budget. First, according to the chair of appropriation committee, the upcoming continuing resolution bill will cut the NIH budget by $1B (http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259&Month=2&Year=2011).
However, this is a reduction from the president’s requested budget. According to the White House budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/health.pdf) the requested NIH appropriation for FY2011 is $32.089B, interestingly, the FY2010 budget was $31.089B. So if the continuing resolution bill passes as is, the NIH will be back exactly at FY10 levels!

I was wondering if anyone has insight on how this will extrapolate to changes in funding levels for extramural grants by individual ICs.

Animesh said
February 10, 2011 @ 9:43 am · Edit
Does any body know the payline of NCCAM in 2011? Please let me know.

CG said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:01 am · Edit
My RO1-A1 scored 18%. The institute if NIGMS, what are the chances of the grant receiving funding?

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:56 am · Edit
This is certainly within their funding range, but it will depend on whether your PO advocates for your application. Jeremy Berg describes how NIGMS makes funding decisions on the NIGMS Feedback Loop (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/).

CG said
February 10, 2011 @ 12:20 pm · Edit
I am a new and ESI. Does that help?

LGB said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:40 am · Edit
Hello, this is my first post! I am a new investigator and my first R21 application just received 27 priority score at NIBIB. The payline is at 13%. When will my percentile be available in ecommons?

Question RegardingRo1 said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:09 am · Edit
I would like to estimate that 27 will give you a percentile between 15-25%.. good luck

Ken said
February 10, 2011 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
Not to rain on your parade but the FY11 payline in NIBIB is actually at 11% .

snobored said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:36 am · Edit
Last night my F30 application’s status changed to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.”. According to the eRA document with the IMPACII codes the NIH has left google searchable this code corresponds to “Award prepared, not funded”. My impact score was 14, just under the continuing resolution payline of 15. How worry should I be that the grant isn’t going to be funded, or that this process is going to drag on for another 6 months or more?

snobored18 said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:37 am · Edit
Last night my F30 application’s status changed to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.”. According to the eRA document with the IMPACII codes the NIH has left google searchable this code corresponds to “Award prepared, not funded”. My impact score was 14, just under the continuing resolution payline of 15. How worry should I be that the grant isn’t going to be funded, or that this process is going to drag on for another 6 months or more?

SaG said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:49 am · Edit
I am pretty sure that means that the paperwork is done they just haven’t sent the money yet. So, you should be good to go. E-mail your GM person at NIH to confirm.

It shouldn’t take much longer.

curie said
February 10, 2011 @ 12:09 pm · Edit
hey snobored, the status means that administrative review is completed and your budget approved; you are days away from getting your notice of grant award. great news, congrats.

i agree with you. i remember searching for this status code in eRA document, which indicated an exact opposite of what was happening.

snobored18 said
February 10, 2011 @ 12:28 pm · Edit
Awesome, thanks all for the quick responses. My initial reaction was awesome this process is almost coming to a close. Then I stupidly searched for that status code and my stomach sank. Fingers crossed you guys are right. If I get an answer from my GM I’ll post the response in case anyone else is in the same boat.

John Chondroulis said
March 9, 2011 @ 10:13 pm · Edit
so did you get the award letter? I got the same status now and was just wondering if it is indeed good news or not. How long did it take from that day to get the award letter?

Greg said
February 10, 2011 @ 12:35 pm · Edit
I am waiting for final decision of my R01 (NCI: 14% and New Intestigator, applied on June 2010).
eRA status has just been changed to “Council review completed”.
According to recent update, NCI decided to fund 10% (or below) for NI and disscuss potential funding for 11-25%.
What does “Council review completed” mean?
Does that mean that I need to wait until their final decision?

If someone got funded with similar percentage on December 2010 or January 2011, please share information.

Thank you!

HS said
February 10, 2011 @ 5:44 pm · Edit
Greg,
I know somebody at 13%tile, ESI, (NCI) getting funded. He got the news yesterday. Just hang in there…maybe you can get in touch with your PO .

Greg said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:09 pm · Edit
HS
Thank you!
I will get in touch with my PO.

HW said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:24 pm · Edit
HS,
About the person who is getting funded, did he/she submit last June/July or Feb/Mar? I am waiting for a decision on my June 2010 submission. My PO (at NCI) told me that the decision will not be made until late April.

HS said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:54 pm · Edit
HW,
He submitted in Feb 2010 cycle. Since the council for June 2010 cycle just got over ( I think this week), you can wait for few days and then start bugging your PO.

Hung said
February 10, 2011 @ 1:10 pm · Edit
My R21 to NCI scored 11th percentile, it was in response to a PA….

Do you think it will be funded///

kmc said
February 10, 2011 @ 3:20 pm · Edit
Tough to say…my R21 scored at the 9th percentile at NCI in June. Council review complete in October. Still no decision, but I remain hopeful…

SB said
February 12, 2011 @ 12:41 am · Edit
I talked to my PO from NCI today and she said that paylines are extremely low right now as they are being very cautious. She transferred my R21 to NICHD because it had a better chance there (I can’t believe NICHD would have a better payline than NCI but I guess it was more to do with institute priorities). I received a 2nd percentile on my resubmission and NICHD assures me this will be funded (on time for a July 1 start date). She suggested that NICHD was funding R21s up to around the 5th or 6th percentile right now.

writedit said
February 12, 2011 @ 12:59 am · Edit
Wow … that is something that NCI would move a 2nd percentile R21 to improve the chances of funding. Thanks for sharing the details of your situation. Congratulations on that exceptional score and best wishes for success with your research.

Mike said
February 10, 2011 @ 2:38 pm · Edit
Got 13% percentile of my first RO1 at NIDDK today. I am a NI and ESI. Does anyone know if it is good enough to reach the payline? Thanks.

TM said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:40 pm · Edit
From what I have heard if the continuing resolution goes through you should be fine. I know a couple of people who got funded at 12%. Being NI /ESI, you should be fine. Congrats!

Mike said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:52 pm · Edit
Thanks, TM.

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:56 pm · Edit
Damn, I hope so, especially since a colleague here at BICO in the same category is at the 16th percentile. Last year you both would have been funded … looking at today’s budget news, I assume you will be looking at an award … hopefully my colleague as well.

SS said
February 10, 2011 @ 4:32 pm · Edit
Has any one got JIT request from NHLBI R01s or any other applications going to the council meeting on February 15?

Jane said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:59 pm · Edit
I got a 13th percentile (for an R01 that will be evaluated at Feb NHLBI council) and I did not yet get a JIT. I submitted the JIT, and emailed my PO a couple of times (back in October and last week), but she’s not committing to any payline info. Back in October, she said we may need to wait a couple of weeks after the Feb 15 council, and may not have more info until March. Good luck waiting. I’m dying, trying not to check every day!

Hopeful said
February 10, 2011 @ 4:34 pm · Edit
Has anyone had a status update on their grant from the January Advisory Council for NIGMS? My proposal is still at “Pending Council Review”.
Last time (when my grant was not funded), the status was updated to “Council Review Completed” within days of the council meeting. Do all grants go through a “Council Review Completed” stage or could it be different if my grant was getting funded this time?

A-Game said
February 10, 2011 @ 5:52 pm · Edit
This is a great resource…thanks writedit!

I just got a score of 30 for my NIMH K23 application. I’m assuming I’ll have to resubmit. I contacted the PO for some clarity but she is mum until the summary statement is posted.

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 7:51 pm · Edit
She can’t offer much advice, especially if she didn’t attend the meeting, until you get the summary statement, so that’s not surprising. A 30 is a nice score (congratulations), so get ready to prepare a great A1 for July. Any publications/presentations in the meantime will be helpful … and when your PO sees the summary statement, she can ask for clarification from the SRO about the discussion, if there’s an odd comment about concerns raised in the Resume/Summary of Discussion.

A-Game said
February 10, 2011 @ 8:02 pm · Edit
My main problem is that I’m a postdoc now and my funding runs out in June. I haven’t been able to secure a source of funding to keep me at my current institution through a resubmission. I’m on the job market and am hoping to get an academic position where I would be able to resubmit. Otherwise I’m unsure what I would do…fingers crossed.

Tilting said
February 10, 2011 @ 6:50 pm · Edit
I just got a 9th percentile (25 impact) on a new investigator/ESI R01-A1 through a PA from NIDDK. Of course, they have not set their 2011 paylines, and I have been unable to get in touch with the PO so far (summary statements just came out today, and phone is busy). What do you think my chances are of actually getting this grant? I’m trying to be optimistic, but times are tough.

TM said
February 10, 2011 @ 10:44 pm · Edit
You are in great shape. I know people who just got funded at 12%.

I have no idea how they score these, I just got a 29 impact on a NI R01, but am at 21 percentile!!

Mike said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:55 pm · Edit
Confused too. Mine are 23 impact and 13 percentile.

writedit said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:58 pm · Edit
Don’t forget that percentiles are tied to the study section (over the last 3 cycles). The same impact score can and will receive a different percentile from different SRGs. You are being compared to applications reviewed by that group … not all applications submitted to the NIH.

Tilting said
February 10, 2011 @ 11:59 pm · Edit
I guess it depends on the study section and how the score grants, Based on the comments from all the senior faculty in my department from the reviews of the original submission, the study section was unusually brutal. I guess if they score everything a little lower, they have fewer grants in the 20-25 bracket, and higher percentiles. Such a crazy system.

writedit said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:07 am · Edit
NIAID (who else??) has a nice series of short tutorials on how percentiles arise and why/when they can become skewed: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part10.aspx#d

Tilting said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:11 am · Edit
Also, it could be possible that I got a bit of a bonus for applying for a specific PA of interest, rather than the general ‘investigator initiated’ number. I don’t have any idea how to know if this is the case, or if they all get scored the same.

writedit said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:01 am · Edit
Congratulations … I can’t imagine you not being funded as ESI at the 9th percentile at NIDDK, especially given the news that the NIH would only lose $1B on the Republican proposal. You’ll still be waiting a while for an award, but I would certainly hope you can rest easy at night with that score/percentile.

Tilting said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:07 am · Edit
Thanks. I hope you are right, or things are looking very bleak for my lab’s future. We have a little money left over from a K grant and some private foundation money, but the startup is almost gone, and without an RO1 it would all fall apart.

drugmonkey said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:25 pm · Edit
I would certainly hope you can rest easy at night with that score/percentile.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA! writedit you crack me up. PIs “rest easy” after the NGA has been issued. Or more like it, when their institution has issued them a charge number *after* the NGA has been awarded….

Tilting said
February 11, 2011 @ 2:25 pm · Edit
I just got an email response from the PO. He said under normal circumstances, as a new investigator my grant would easily be funded, but with the non-existent federal budget, it is hard to be sure. He though with a 9th percentile I should still be safe, even under a worst case budget scenario. I’m going to talk to him on the phone next week for some more information, but so far it is sounding like I am going to get approved.

SS said
February 11, 2011 @ 11:25 am · Edit
Has any one got a JIT request from NHLBI for the October reviewed applications going to the council on February 15th?

I am an ESI and has received 15 percentile. eRA account shows that my application goes to the council next Tuesday. PO says there is no concern, I called GMS last Monday and she says they have not send JIT request to any one yet. There is only one more day left now before the council meets. I am worried why there is no JIT request yet.

Does any one know if this is a problem and my application is not being considered for funding, especially when the FY 2011 ESI payline for NHLBI is 26 percentile?

writedit said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
You don’t always get the JIT request before Council meets … some ICs send them after Council. If you PO says not to worry and the GMS says no one has received a JIT yet, then you don’t have anything to worry about. Your JIT and NoA will arrive, hopefully sooner than later.

SS said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:15 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit. My understanding was that all the applications that are being considered for funding needs to be cleared of all the compliance before the council meeting, since NHLBAC approve the specific amount of money to fund these applications right during the meeting.

So, I was worried if my application is not listed in the probable awardees due to some reason.

Thanks for your comment, it is indeed a big relief.

drugmonkey said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:19 pm · Edit
First, Council is not the final sign-off on award, they are “Advisory” councils, notice? That means that they advise the Director of the IC on funding priorities. Advise.

Second, the first part of the traditional JIT info is the “Other Support” page. They want to know about your funding at the last possible instant before signing off on your Notice, so this has to be submitted close to the point of funding. Which is always at least a month or two after Council meets, sometimes several months (say, under a continuing resolution).

zonapellucida said
February 11, 2011 @ 12:19 pm · Edit
Everyone who just got scores and is waiting for JITs and NoAs, I would not hold your breath. Us poor souls who submitted in Feb, got scored in June and passed Council review in Sept-October are STILL waiting for administrative review and awards. My PO told me I got the top-scoring grant in my mechanism, but here I am 6 weeks and counting past the “start date”, Commons status stuck on “pending.” NIH is backed up bad, so expect to wait, then wait some more.

HW said
February 11, 2011 @ 2:19 pm · Edit
I know we were all relieved 2 days ago when we learned that the NIH budget would likely stay at the FY10 level. However, house GOPs are now trying to make deeper cuts on the FY11 budget because of their “pledge” of 100 billion cut. So, NIH budget may or may not remain at the FY10 level. This makes me worried again…
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/02/house-panel-to-take-second-bite.html

Hopeful said
February 11, 2011 @ 10:16 pm · Edit
Just received my score. Let me know what you think. I’m not very hopeful.
R01 in response to PA (Not PAR, etc) with NCI as institute.
First submission
19%
New Investigator/ESI
I read that last year the NCI ESI payline was 20% – any hope that if the budget stays at FY2010 levels that I have any shred of hope?
Of course, I am anticipating preparing a resubmission after I see the summary statement and talk to the PO.
Thanks

writedit said
February 12, 2011 @ 12:17 am · Edit
This year, NCI “virtually guarantees” funding of ESI applications up through the 10th percentile and will discuss and fund applications of merit up through the 25th percentile. You are certainly in that range, and you’ll want to be sure your PO is advocating for your application during discussions within his/her division. If you have any updates about publications, presentations, new data, filling a gap in the NCI research portfolio, etc. that might help your PO make the case for your application, be sure to get in touch. You can look at Jeremy Berg’s description of how their “paylist meetings” work (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/) – I suspect a similar process will occur at NCI but do not have any specific details. I can say that a new investigator applicant here just received an award for his R01 A1 (submitted in March) at the 25th percentile (was told his was paid by exception).

SS said
February 12, 2011 @ 8:40 am · Edit
Jane- Sorry, I did not see your post dated february 10. For NHLBI, 13 is an excellent percentile, provided you are an ESI or your submission is A0, if you are an established investigator. For A1 submission, payline is 12. If so, you are in the gray zone.

I talked to the GMS last Monday and she said, she is unable to send the JIT request since she doesn’t know what the current payline cut off will be (Since it is CR until March 4), and they need to see what is left from already given to NHLBI. NHLBAC will probably provide a amended payline (or will keep the current one) on its February 15 meeting. All these are happening becuse there is no final NIH budget yet.

I am an ESI and has 15 percentile (20 priority score) on my R01-A1 submission from VCMB study section. Since I did not get a JIT request, the only worry I had was whether my case was not considered since my ESI status expired on December 31, 2010. But, my application re-submission, review, scoring and summary statements were all made in June-October 2010, when I was an ESI. My eRA commons for this application still shows my case as ESI, although on my degree link, it shows I am not eligible as an ESI. That was all the confusion I had.

But, the posts from Drugmonkey, Writedit and Zonapellucida proved me wrong and my application is still in the right track. I am sure this is same with your application too. Thanks to all of you for your messages and good luck to Jane for your success with this R01.

Jane said
February 12, 2011 @ 10:13 am · Edit
Thanks SS! I am not an ESI, but this is an A0, so I am really hopeful. Even though I am not an ESI it will be my first R01. Reading this thread has been really useful for me, thanks writedit!

SS said
February 12, 2011 @ 9:04 am · Edit
Here is the updated list on what republicans want to cut from the 2011 CR extending to September:

Click to access ProgramCutsFY2011ContinuingResolution.pdf

For NIH cuts, take a look at Page 13. Total NIH cuts amounts to aproximately 1.5 billion, little higher than that was proposed a day before. But, none of the categories that cuts have been requested include competing grants, which is good for all of us.

This is the link for detailed reoprt:

Click to access AppropCRFinal_xml.pdf

This report probably indicates that there will be a cut on NIAID funding (probably on AIDS research). See pages 289-292. Although it is not clear what specifically has been requested for by the republicans, on page 305, they do ask NIH director to ensure giving our at least 9000 new competing awards in 2011. Also, the total funding per application is capped at 400K.

Good luck all you guys up there waiting for your NoA.

HW said
February 12, 2011 @ 11:54 am · Edit
Dear SS,
I am confused on the base of the reductions. Are they compared to the FY11 or FY10 level? Based on Nature News, it is FY10 which is very bad for us. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/02/us_science_on_the_chopping_blo.html
I think we all should email our congressmen and congresswomen to oppose any spending cuts to NIH. I have sent out 4 emails in the last hour to urge them to vote no and to revise this senseless bill.

writedit said
February 12, 2011 @ 7:10 pm · Edit
Thank, you, HW, for making your voice heard with your Congressional delegation. Everyone, please be sure to contact your Senators and Congressional representative!

SS said
February 12, 2011 @ 12:57 pm · Edit
Total cut of ~1.5 Billion USD will be from President Obama’s FY011 request. This means there will be ~0.5 billion cut from the FY2010 amount if this bill is enacted. Negotiations will follow once the bill is introduced to the House. Then there is Senate and President. Hence, we can hope that we will at least have NIH funding unchanged from FY2010 levels, if Senate democrats and non-conservative republicans can fight for us.

In the table, similar changes are shown compared to FY 2010 enacted and FY2011 request. My understanding is, this is because, the categories they cut were also funded with same amount in FY2010. Even though 1.5 billion will be cut from FY 2010 levels, other 1 billion that was added by Obama will stay in the FY11 budget, making a net difference of 500million from FY2010 levels.

I hope this helps.

HW said
February 12, 2011 @ 8:32 pm · Edit
Dear Colleagues,
Next week, House Representatives will discuss and vote on an appropriation bill that cuts NIH budget for >600 millions from the FY10 level. This is devastating to all of us whose research and career largely depend on NIH grants. Although the House will most likely pass a spending reduction bill because of the GOP majority, the bill can be amended to contain a smaller cut or to remain at the FY10 level before it goes to the Senate. Our voices need to be heard!!

If you have not already done so, I urge you to contact your representatives and senators to let them know our stand. In particular, those who of you residing in Kentucky should email Hal Rogers, the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, and let him know your thoughts. Please click on the links below to find your congress delegations.
House representatives: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Carlos said
February 12, 2011 @ 11:58 pm · Edit
R21 NCI FY11 fundable percentile/payline still unclear , any update is appreciated

MythBuster said
February 13, 2011 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
Dear all, if I go to another eligible institute, what will happen to the grant (hasn’t started yet)? Could it be transferred with me or be terminated? What are the conditions? I read some online resources but wasn’t sure. Thanks guys for the information!

SG said
February 13, 2011 @ 2:33 pm · Edit
Keep in mind 3 things.

1). Most/all R-type grants “belong” to the INSTITUTION not the PI.
Applicant=Institution is true
Applicant=PI is NOT true.
2). It is up to the Applicant whether the grant can be moved to another Institution.

3) The Applicant could decide to keep the grant and assign a new PI. NIH just has to agree that the new PI is qualified to do the research.

Most schools do let departing faculty take their grants with them. But, they do not have to.

So, if it is OK with your current school and you can get the work done at the new school then yes the grant can be transferred. Either before or after ward.

To quote the NIH Policy Manual (http://oma.od.nih.gov/manualchapters/grants/55201/)

When a principal investigator leaves an institution and a pending application has been recommended for further consideration but has not been awarded, the original applicant institution may request that the project be supported at that institution on behalf of another principal investigator. Alternatively, the original applicant may relinquish the application and a request may be made to support the project at a new institution under the direction of the originally proposed principal investigator. If neither option is pursued, the application is administratively inactivated.

SG said
February 13, 2011 @ 2:34 pm · Edit
Also, let’s not forget the paperwork involved.

http://www.niams.nih.gov/Funding/Policies_and_Guidelines/transfer_guide.asp

MythBuster said
February 13, 2011 @ 9:05 pm · Edit
Thanks, SG! This is very helpful!

AvikS said
February 14, 2011 @ 2:51 am · Edit
Hi, I have got a SBIR funding, though I have not received the NoA, yet. I was wondering if I change my job, will the grant/funding be transferred to my other new institute/company i.e new location. Does the funding goes with the PI if he changes the place or job

SG said
February 14, 2011 @ 8:05 am · Edit
See my answer just above. I think the key difference in your case though is that you have an SBIR. I would be a bit surprised if your current company let you bring this grant (presumably based on your current company’s IP) to a new ( potentially competitor) company.

freckle said
February 14, 2011 @ 11:17 pm · Edit
Study section question–
I submitted a new R01 proposal for the Feb deadline and it has now been assigned to study section.
For the 2nd time in a row, the study section I requested in my cover letter was not the one assigned. In fact, they didn’t even choose the alternate suggestion I included.
I realize that a request for a study section is just a request, but don’t they usually give the study section that one requests? In all my previous applications they gave me my requested study section 100% of the time until these last two. The two study sections I asked for for my last two proposals were the best fits for my proposals in terms of science.
Can I request that this latest proposal be re-assigned to the study section I requested in my cover letter? Or is that a bad idea?

writedit said
February 14, 2011 @ 11:32 pm · Edit
I would suggest contacting the SRO where you want it to go (in fact, I often suggest PIs check with the SRO prior to submission, to be sure it will be accepted). Just a short note, perhaps with the Specific Aims, noting that you had requested his/her SRG and still feel it is the best fit for your application (vs SRG xyz, where it was in fact assigned) and would like to have your application reassigned. If you had communicated with your PO about what would be the best study section and were referred to the SRG you requested in your letter, be sure to point this out to the SRO as well. If your preferred SRO still says no can do, check with the alternative SRO next in the same manner. Sometimes there is horse trading because an SRG is swamped with applications, but you want to be sure you get the best review certainly.

drugmonkey said
February 15, 2011 @ 3:18 am · Edit
I concur with writedit. if you keep it polite you should at least get a decent reason. Could be that the missions of a couple of study sections have evolved from where they used to be or since you last submitted to them.

freckle said
February 15, 2011 @ 12:12 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit and drugmonkey

freckle said
February 15, 2011 @ 12:51 pm · Edit
I have a 12% scored R01 A1 application that went through Jan. 20 council. I am a new investigator. The primary institute is NICHD. They currently have an 11% interim payline, no specific NI or ESI paylines yet.
I just received a letter today from the PO saying that “second-level” review has now been completed and that “the priority score your proposal received is in an uncertain range for funding”.
Of course I gotta talk to the PO again and I’m awaiting a reply, but any thoughts on what this means?
The Silk database shows that NICHD made 1 new R01 award on Feb. 1 and 1 new R01 award on Feb. 2, but none since then.
I take the letter as definitely not good news, but is it boiler plate they are sending out to everyone above 11% while they wait for Congress? Or worse?
How depressing.

SKate said
February 15, 2011 @ 1:05 pm · Edit
freckle- I’m on the exact same boat as you- a 12% on an R03 and I too received the same letter you did. My PO suggested that I do a revision for March- but the letter did say that the original proposal will be considered if the finally get a budget and the % bumps up.

freckle said
February 15, 2011 @ 1:25 pm · Edit
Just talked to the PO.
Nothing has changed.
The letter is a form letter that they sent out to everyone above 11% reflecting that the proposal has successfully gone through council.
They are still waiting on Congress.

SKate said
February 15, 2011 @ 4:44 pm · Edit
Freckle did your PO give you any indication as to when they think they may hear anything? My PO indicated that it could be 6 months or more. Are you planning to do a revision or wait it out?

Venu said
February 15, 2011 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
SKate,
Could you tell me the priority/impact score on your RO3 and institute assigned to? Thanks.

freckle said
February 15, 2011 @ 5:33 pm · Edit
My application was an A1, so I cannot do a revision and I can’t imagine submitting a totally new R01 in this research area at this point.

The PO did not give a time frame, but indicated it was dependent upon Congress passing a budget or a new CR. The old CR expires in less than 3 weeks so something’s gotta give. I really don’t believe the Republicans want to shut down the government as their first real act controlling the House.

SKate said
February 15, 2011 @ 6:24 pm · Edit
Venu- the impact score was a 24, 11th percentile and it was with NICHD.

SKate said
February 15, 2011 @ 6:30 pm · Edit
Oops typo (or wishful thinking)- I’m at the 12th percentile- just out of range.

M.A.J. said
February 15, 2011 @ 6:31 pm · Edit
Does anyone have any insight into why the NHLBI payline for R15′s when from 30 to 20!! First submission I got a 33, when the payline was 30, so I resubmitted and only improved to a 30 and then they drop the payline to 20?? WTF? I’m devastated, there is no way this will get funded now.

Brian said
February 15, 2011 @ 10:19 pm · Edit
I feel your pain. I submitted an R15 to the NHLBI in June and scored a 27. I was pretty happy when I saw the payline was at 30 for 2010….and then quite disappointed to see it move to 20. I spoke with the PO, but he didn’t seem to have anything useful to say besides resubmitting. I am still hopeful that it will move a little bit once the budget is signed….but not all the way to 30 too bad for us.

M.A.J. said
February 15, 2011 @ 10:55 pm · Edit
I just wonder why they dropped it so low for the R15′s and not really that much for the other mechanisms? I got the same story from the PO the first time as well – I didn’t even bother calling him this time. At least you can resubmit yours, that was my second try.

kathy said
February 16, 2011 @ 11:24 pm · Edit
anyone knows niehs payline?

adam said
February 17, 2011 @ 10:00 am · Edit
Advice needed
Renewal of my RO1 that I submitted last Feb to NCi got a 14% score in june review, with very poisitve comments. Following advice of my PO I revised and resubmitted and just got the score for the A1 from the Feb SRG. It went down to 9%. Any other time I would of course be thrilled with this score. Naturally I will talk to the PO and make sure they are going to “advocate” for my grant. But is this just going through the motions- how meaningful is the grants 8-15% will be discussed for possible funding statement? Assuming everything went well what sort of time frame are we talking about. Since this is an A1 i would have to write a new grant , but not sure what the best strategy is.

flymagic said
February 17, 2011 @ 10:41 am · Edit
Adam: I am in a similar situation. My RO1 competitive renewal submitted last March to NCI scored at 8% at a June study section for requested Dec 1 start date. I called my PO in January when I learned of the new NCI policy for FY2011 funding. She said that an NCI scientific committee was currently evaluating grants in the 8-14% range from my review cycle, and that we would likely have a decision before the end of Feb. My PO had prepared a summary of applications in her portfolio that are in the 8-14% range for review by the NCI scientific committee. For my application, she listed strengths as the 8% score, productivity during the current funding period, that this grant is the major funding for my lab, and unique experimental system. I have still not heard back about a funding decision, but can let you know when I do if this would help.

waiting4ever said
February 18, 2011 @ 12:12 pm · Edit
Does everyone have a GMS listed on their eRA-common? I have three grants submitted to NIH and not once I see a GMS on my eRA-common or the summary statement. I am in the gray zone for funding this time and my PO is really not helpful. I wonder if the GMS may know more and at least I can split the “bugging”.

SS said
February 18, 2011 @ 2:33 pm · Edit
It all depends on the IC where your application is sought for funding. Not all applications have the name of GMS listed. Many institutes such as NCI does not list them in eRA commons. NHLBI does list the name and contact information of the GMS, which I think is very helpful.

waiting4ever said
February 19, 2011 @ 12:50 am · Edit
Thanks SS.
Yes, my IC is NCI.

Z said
February 18, 2011 @ 2:40 pm · Edit
Have people heard anything more about this news that apparently one of the amendments to the house budget is a restriction to NIH awards that no award can be made above $400,000? I heard about this here:

http://www.examiner.com/environmental-news-in-boston/house-budget-hurts-environment-and-equates-to-almost-one-million-jobs-lost

“Also, funding for the National Institute of Health (NIH) would see $1.6 billion in reductions; this would bring the NIH budget back to FY 2008 levels. It also places a limit of $400,000 on all research grant awards made by NIH.”

writedit said
February 18, 2011 @ 2:47 pm · Edit
The average of all awards (all mechanisms) must work out to $400K for FY11. There is no limit on individual awards. A typical 10-module R01 ($250K) at 50% F&A costs works out to $375K, so with the small awards evening out the larger mechanisms .. and the need for the NIH to cut all award budgets anyway … no need to lose sleep over this. Certainly it has no impact on applications being submitted now, which will be funded by FY12.

Z said
February 18, 2011 @ 2:52 pm · Edit
Thanks for clarifying writedit!

SS said
February 19, 2011 @ 2:48 pm · Edit
GREAT NEWS- NIH is spared from the 1.6 Billion cuts that was propsed earlier. There is a BIG hope now that NIH budget for the FY 2011 will be at least maintained at the FY2010 levels. Read the link below:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/02/nih_spared_epa_skewered_as_hou.html

Good luck you all!!!

Animesh said
February 19, 2011 @ 7:21 pm · Edit
Great news if it will be true!

AnotherESI said
February 19, 2011 @ 7:37 pm · Edit
This budget is dead on arrival at the senate anyway – looks like there will be a CR for the rest of the year. Overall though I agree that it is hopeful that even the house has spared the NIH budget, so there may be room for an actual increase for the 2012 proposal from Obama. Research expenditure inflation has meant that actual FY2010 dollars is equivalent only to FY2000 levels.

HW said
February 20, 2011 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
A correction has been posted at the bottom of the blog.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/02/nih_spared_epa_skewered_as_hou.html
The cuts to NIH are still in the House bill, unfortunately. We all should contact our senators to voice our deep concerns before they discuss the bill before March 4! .

biogirl22 said
February 20, 2011 @ 12:53 pm · Edit
I’m hoping that NIH will be spared of the big budget cuts. I just received word on Friday that my R15 AREA grant received an impact score of 21. Spoke to the program officer at NCI and she said that everything under a 29 was funded last round but that she has no clue what the payline will be now because of the budget war. Hopefully it won’t move to 20.

LGB said
February 20, 2011 @ 1:14 pm · Edit
I also received my R15 AREA with impact score of 21 from NIGMS. No idea if it is within the funding range. I need to talk to my PO.

EY said
February 23, 2011 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
I got a 14% (20 priority score) of my R01 A1 submission last Oct. It is with NICHD and I have both ESI and NI status. Recently I got a message from my PO saying it is in an ‘uncertain’ range. And eCommon status says “Council review completed’. I have not received JIT yet. Any suggestion what I can do during this waiting period? And how do more experienced people feel about the chance of getting funded? Thanks!

writedit said
February 23, 2011 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
If your PO says it is uncertain, then I’m not sure there is a lot you can do but wait … perhaps let the PO know if you have a new manuscript accepted for publication and whatnot.

EY said
February 23, 2011 @ 10:25 pm · Edit
http://capwiz.com/faseb/issues/alert/?alertid=30382506

Sounds like a bad news. We should all act to oppose this!

Arunabh Bhattacharya said
February 24, 2011 @ 8:31 am · Edit
Anybody has an idea what was the funding line for KO1 at NIA last year? I got a 20 priority score but was not funded in the last cycle so I am resubmitting this March

DragonLady said
February 25, 2011 @ 7:50 pm · Edit
I heard it was 19. Good luck with the resubmission!

Arunabh said
February 25, 2011 @ 7:54 pm · Edit
Thanks. Hope it goes through this time!

Hopeful ESI said
February 24, 2011 @ 11:11 am · Edit
I just spoke to my PO at NCI about the possibility of my first round submission R01 being funded. I’m an ESI/New Investigator. While my score would have been fundable under last year’s reported paylines (i.e. under 20th percentile), she said that for ESIs, she would consider under 10% to be fundable, and everything else up to 25% will be discussed. She said that the chances of my 18th percentile of being funded were “not good.”

So, all of you with access to crystal balls: I realize that NIH is always closely guarded with predicting funding, which I understand, and I realize my score is probably too high of a % to get funded, but the 10% number seems really pessimistic to me.

Do any of you think it will really be *that* bad (i.e. 10% for ESI) or is this just a magnified version of “the sky is falling” with regard to budget?

SG said
February 24, 2011 @ 12:10 pm · Edit
Until NIH gets a final budget from Congress (not just a Continuing Resolution) I think that 10% for an ESI is properly pessimistic. Remember, the House is proposing to cut the NIH budget. half way through the fiscal year.

Imagine getting paid once a year (and not having a savings account of any kind) and being told half way through the year (after already committing to spending all of the money) that your salary is being cut 5%.

Hopeful ESI said
February 24, 2011 @ 1:06 pm · Edit
Does anyone have a working link to the NCI FY2010 Funding Strategy document?

I’ve been looking around the web and this site and can’t find it.

I’m looking for FY2010, not the current FY2011 document.

Thanks!

writedit said
February 24, 2011 @ 1:25 pm · Edit
I looked for this a while ago without success (and don’t have past archives of individual pages – I update the payline info on this page continuously). The Dec 2009 NCAB minutes indicate the FY09 payline was 16th/22nd percentile (established/new), with an estimated FY10 payline of the 16th percentile (http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncab/152_1209/01dec09mins.pdf).

whimple said
February 24, 2011 @ 3:19 pm · Edit
They went with 15/20 in FY 2010 is my understanding.

HW said
February 24, 2011 @ 4:53 pm · Edit
Writedit,

I also noticed that the link to the NCI FY11 funding strategy document has been removed from their website. That document states the hard paylines of 7 (10) percentiles for FY11 and the gray zones of 8-15 (11-25). According to what other applicants have experienced, NCI seems to follow the new guidelines, i.e. proposals falling in the gray zones are subjected to discussions and select pay. And one of your colleagues got funded at 25th percentile.
Do you have an explanation behind this retraction?

writedit said
February 24, 2011 @ 5:18 pm · Edit
True … the document seems to be gone from the Website (link gone, cannot be found via search), though my direct link still pulls it up. Or maybe just a cached version now. I am not sure why Harold might have wanted the letter removed. I assume the policy is still in place even if the file is not, though. There is no reason to assume otherwise, particularly with the various posts here about proposals being discussed in the 8-15/10-25 ranges. The February NCAB meeting minutes are not posted, so we can’t check there to see if there was a discussion about this policy. If anyone better tuned in to NCI has any news, please do share.

HW said
February 24, 2011 @ 8:35 pm · Edit
Thanks for confirming my observation.
I speculate that NCI POs might have gotten so many emails and calls from PIs asking about the fate of their grants after this link was posted. As you mentioned, NCI appears to be doing what’s in that document based on other posts. My PO told me that my proposal has been forwarded to the “leadership” for funding decision and the decision will likely be made late April. This seems to be in line with the new policy. I asked my PO why late April? Is it because of the CR-budget uncertainty? She said it has nothing to do with budget but did not tell me a reason. She made me feel that there are a lot going on in NCI….

TJ said
February 24, 2011 @ 8:51 pm · Edit
Hi, I submitted a R21 grant to NIAID and got a priority score of 30. Can someone tell me my chance of getting funded
I am not that optimistic though and think about resubmitting this grant on March 16. Can someone tell me if I am allowed to do that while waiting for the result of first submission? The review comments are overall pretty positive and it is very easy to respond.

This is my first grant application and please advice. thank you so much

writedit said
February 24, 2011 @ 8:56 pm · Edit
Given that the interim payline of 24 is not likely to jump up to 30, you are wise to resubmit, and you do not put your currently scored application at risk, in case it does later fall within the payline. Even when the A1 is scored, both will be eligible for consideration, though the A1 you submit in a couple of weeks (assuming the government has not shut down) will be considered under the FY12 payline.

TJ said
February 25, 2011 @ 3:57 pm · Edit
Thank you so much.

Hung said
February 25, 2011 @ 12:00 pm · Edit
Why is NCI not using same rules as R01 to R21s…Historically both have been following same paylines ….
Moreover R21s can only be submitted in response to PAs…Seems like now they are not caring about R21s… Anyone have any idea if they will be discussing R21s from 8-15 th percentile juts like R01s…..

Why to have a PA if R21s won’t be considered for funding…………

AnotherESI said
February 25, 2011 @ 12:51 pm · Edit
R21s can be submitted as investigator initiated grants to some institutes ( like NHLBI), but others like NCI and NIGMS are only respondent to PAs/ RFAs. The R21 mechanism has been under criticism for becoming mini-R01s and not quite responsive to their original intent – to spur innovation not requiring tons of prelim data. I think it is quite likely that R21s, like PPGs will take a bigger hit than R01s in this climate.

HS said
February 25, 2011 @ 2:31 pm · Edit
Writedit
I have heard that NCI overspent its ARRA money and is in doldrums. Hence, they have single digit paylines this year. Is it true?

fm said
February 25, 2011 @ 2:36 pm · Edit
That’s funny, they overspent on ARRA?

Mafalda said
February 25, 2011 @ 8:07 pm · Edit
what are considered fundable scores for a diversity based K08?

writedit said
February 25, 2011 @ 8:19 pm · Edit
I assume you mean for NCI … probably below 30, though there is also probably more discretion and less competition with this PAR.

writedit said
February 26, 2011 @ 8:59 am · Edit
Per the NYT, two-week continuation of the CR (until March 18) seems likely … that gets us past the March submission dates but could further delay funding decisions for applications with scores on the bubble.

Everest said
February 27, 2011 @ 1:55 am · Edit
My K08 at NCI got a impact score of 39. Anyone knows what my chances are? What was the paylines at for NCI K08 for last year? There was also a JIT link in my eRA. What does that mean? Should I resubmit in March or July. Thanks

writedit said
February 27, 2011 @ 12:44 pm · Edit
Unfortunately, an impact score of 39 probably won’t cut it. You can ignore the eRA Commons JIT link … genuine requests for JIT are sent out individually via e-mail (but can be submitted then via eRA). Whether you should submit in 2 or 20 weeks depends on whether you have a strong revision ready, preferably with some additions that will bolster your chances (new publication, new data, etc.). I would guess with a score of 39 that you have a fair bit to change to address reviewer comments. In that case, especially if you haven’t started yet, you should wait until July.

madness007 said
February 27, 2011 @ 11:07 pm · Edit
So with the looming shut-down vs. 2 week CR vs. 4 week CR, what will this mean for all of us waiting on grant decisions (mine is a NCI K99 submitted last Feb). Last we heard from our PO was that last year’s grantees started theirs in May (5 months past their Dec. start date). So where does that leave us? June? July? I really really wish someone had told me how futile it would be to submit an NIH grant at the Feb. deadline!

curie said
February 28, 2011 @ 1:55 am · Edit
avoiding feb deadline might be a good strategy, however, it is good to submit as soon as one is ready with a strong application. sooner better than later.

SKate said
February 28, 2011 @ 11:06 am · Edit
Does anyone know if the pending/possible government shut-down is likely to impact the March 16 resubmission deadline?

writedit said
February 28, 2011 @ 11:11 am · Edit
If the CR is not extended to March 18th and the government shuts down, grant submission will almost certainly halt as there will be no one to manage grants.gov/eRA Commons. I suspect the CR through March 18 will pass though, which gets us past the March deadlines.

fm said
February 28, 2011 @ 12:12 pm · Edit
What will then happen to the funded grants in case of gov shutdown?

SG said
February 28, 2011 @ 3:28 pm · Edit
fm,
You keep the money you have. Anyone waiting for money (including next years money for non-competitive renewals) will have to wait for an appropriation.

DM said
February 28, 2011 @ 3:30 pm · Edit
Fm, nothing, unless noncompeting is set to fund. Then, it depends on local policy vis a vis NIH policy permitting 90 day advance spending

DM said
February 28, 2011 @ 3:38 pm · Edit
The interesting question will be whether there will be a grant receipt deadline extension if a shutdown blocks March submissions. Juuust what the SROs would need, a couple of weeks off and a short timeline to deal with a regular number of submissions…

freckle said
February 28, 2011 @ 5:51 pm · Edit
Tough question–
resubmit an A1 version of an R01 proposal that got triaged on the first try
OR
start over with a fresh start after repackaging it as a new grant?
I’m not sure what to do.
The R01, although not discussed, got extensive comments from the 3 reviewers in the critique and 1 reviewer was almost uniformly enthusiastic. So in theory at least there is a lot to respond to there in an introduction to a potential A1 and I can definitely use the reviewers’ comments to improve the proposal. I can also publish a few more papers before resubmitting and get more preliminary data to focus the grant better.
Thoughts?

writedit said
March 3, 2011 @ 4:39 pm · Edit
One question is, if you repackage, can you rework the aims sufficiently for it to be accepted as a new application. You’ll want to check with your PO as to whether the new aims are sufficiently new to make it past the screening process.

A triaged grant is tough. If the scores and comments were poor with regard to significance and the overall impact of the work (in the summary comments – obviously no actual impact score), then you may have trouble selling your idea no matter how much you improve the approach to suit them. If they liked the general concept and thought the work was important … and if you can provide convincing preliminary data and get some through the journal peer review process, you might have a shot. Long, but not completely unreasonable. Again, one would hope your PO could give you a little guidance as to whether the proposal is so fixable as to be possibly fundable … though it’s harder without any discussion that would have provided insight into SRG group-think.

And if you can pull off both revising this and developing a sufficiently new set of aims to pursue in a new application … well, that might ultimately be in the cards anyway.

freckle said
March 3, 2011 @ 6:01 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit. What gives me hope to submit the A1 is that generally the reviewers were not that negative. They liked the questions and thought they were important. They did not like the approach though. So I guess I’m leaning toward resubmitting as an A1 with a more focused and modified approach but will talk to the PO first to get their take on this.

DM said
March 4, 2011 @ 1:37 am · Edit
Freckle, you had better take a hard look at the screening procedures. Your scenario is a bullet point no-no.

http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2011/03/extensive_guidance_from_nih_on.php

SS said
March 4, 2011 @ 10:28 am · Edit
Freckle- I support your views and from my experience, I would recommend re-submitting your R01, rather than writing a completely new proposal right away. My first R01 application from NHLBI was triaged. I got comments were like your’s; reviewers liked my hypothesis and were in agreement that study is highly relevant. Most of the questions were in ‘approach’. I re-wrote the whole approach; I even had to switch from the 25 page format to 12 page format. My re-submission got 15 percentile (20 priority score). I still do not know if this will be funded, I am an ESI and my eRA commons still shows ‘council review completed’. But, my PO wrote me that my application is in the funding range. But, 15 percentile on re-submission of a triaged application by any means is a great achievement. Just wanted to mention that, if you can answer their comments well and re-write your approach incorporating their comments, anything is possible. Good luck!

writedit said
March 4, 2011 @ 12:06 pm · Edit
That’s a fantastic achievement, SS. I’ve seen other triaged applications funded on resubmission, the key being that the reviewers clearly liked the science and thought it was important – just not the experiments as designed. It does sound like this is the case for Freckle, too. I am seeing more and more comments specifically encouraging resubmission, which is helpful, too. Congrats again and good luck with this application and your research!

curie said
March 4, 2011 @ 12:23 pm · Edit
writedit, anything to do with the restructured review system? wondering if the new system is better in conveying what is lagging to enable the pi to directly address the key weaknesses.

writedit said
March 4, 2011 @ 12:32 pm · Edit
Very much so. Sally Rockey just noted the request to reviewers to include information on what specifically influenced their scoring decisions (http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2011/02/25/understanding-impact-scores/), and I have seen very pointed comments, such as:

Additional Comments to Applicant: Resubmission is strongly encouraged providing concerns regarding the approach are addressed. Resubmission is strongly encouraged providing concerns regarding the approach are addressed.

Can’t be any more clear than that … more like this, SRG members!

freckle said
March 4, 2011 @ 1:28 pm · Edit
Thanks everyone. Congrats SS!

dubious said
March 1, 2011 @ 11:48 pm · Edit
Well, I just got my priority/impact score on eRA Commons except it’s not a score at all. Instead, it reads: “No Recommendation.” So I’m thinking this means it was not discussed and will not be considered for funding. Can you confirm? Thank you!

laghs said
March 2, 2011 @ 11:27 am · Edit
Found this from http://era.nih.gov/files/new_status_codes.pdf

No IRG recommendation -> Not funded

DrugMonkey said
March 2, 2011 @ 1:12 am · Edit
Seriously? You got a “Not Recommended for Further Consideration”?

dubious said
March 2, 2011 @ 1:22 am · Edit
No, it literally says “No recommendation.” Do you think that means NRFC? If so, I wish they would just spell it out like that. The “no recommendation” statement is so vague…

checking said
March 2, 2011 @ 5:53 am · Edit
It appears that “No recommendation” is different from “Not Recommended for further consideration” in eRA… I don’t quite know what “RG Recommendation as 4″ means though.

Click to access Commons_RN_EXT_v2.7.4.4_08-28-06.pdf

Priority Scoring and Percentiles

The priority score and percentile fields have been changed to no longer display 0 and 0.0 if the application scores have not been released.
• The Percentile field will display a value only if the percentile is present. If the percentile is not present no data is displayed in the field.
• If the application is scored the numeric score will display in the percentile field.
• Not Recommended for further consideration will display in the score field if the application has an IRG Recommendation as 2.
• No recommendation will display in the score field if the application has an IRG Recommendation as 4.
• Deferred will display in the score field if the application has an IRG Recommendation as 3.
• Unscored will display in the score field if the application has an IRG Recommendation as 5 or 6.

Oma said
March 2, 2011 @ 2:48 pm · Edit
what about if the Application Status Description syas ‘council review completed’. Does that mean non funded?

the walrus is Paul said
March 2, 2011 @ 3:16 pm · Edit
Not yet…. if the Council met rather recently, it could still be in process somewhere in grants management . Or, if on the borderline, could be “on hold” until something definite comes through on the NIH budget for this year.

DM said
March 2, 2011 @ 2:50 pm · Edit
This seems a very unusual outcome. I wonder if this comes about b/c study section refused to review it. One complete speculation has to do with the A1 limit. If the app has glaring structural problems, a section might have an excuse to say it should never have made it through receipt/referral. It might be a kind way to preserve the extra revision round for the applicant. Speculation, as I said….

NCI or Bust said
March 2, 2011 @ 4:18 pm · Edit
Is it true that NCI has only awarded 8 new RO1s since council met in February 7-9? This is what I got when I did the search in E-Report with 1RO1%. I was told by people in my department that in past years PIs almost always got an award notification within 2 weeks of council meeting. I am a new / ESI investigator with a 13 % on my A1. From what I gather this isn’t out of consideration but it certainly is borderline for an exception.

writedit said
March 2, 2011 @ 7:01 pm · Edit
You can see grants that have been issued in the last 90 days here: http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx (click on link to Excel file at the top of the list).

NCI is paying R01s below the 7th percentile for established PIs and below the 10th percentile for ESI/new investigators. Program staff then discuss all the applications that scored within the 8-15th percentile for established and with the 11-25th percentile for new/ESI investigators. So, your PO needs to talk up your grant in his/her division so it is advanced further up the chain for funding consideration. A colleague here (new but not ESI) had his 25th percentile A1 (submitted last March) funded by exception … the NoA was for March 1 (2011).

So, it’s not so much whether your percentile is in the gray zone – which is huge – it’s a matter of someone advocating for your application to be selected for funding out of a very large pile. That is why your PO asked for the one-page rebuttal. It could be they are still discussing the Cycle 2 submissions, so you could contact the PO to reinforce your loss of funding, your excellent review, any new data or publications you might be able to talk up, etc. Good luck with this …

john said
March 2, 2011 @ 7:13 pm · Edit
Does this policy at NCI exist for other funding mechanisms (e.g., F32) or only for R01s? It’d be frustrating if it existed for mechanisms where no percentiles are provided as it becomes very difficult to know where you stand and how to best proceed. Thanks.

Newbie Needing Advice said
March 2, 2011 @ 7:51 pm · Edit
The review for my K award should have been completed today. Do you think emailing my PO to ask about the revewers’ discussion tonight will be a bit too soon? I definitely won’t deny that I am eager to find out!

Thank you!

lilmd said
March 2, 2011 @ 8:11 pm · Edit
Impact score gets posted within 2-3 days so you could wait until then. Responses from PO can be variable – the PO for my K application always deferred me to the summary statement which is available usually 4-6 weeks after review.

the walrus is Paul said
March 2, 2011 @ 10:01 pm · Edit
Well, at least you are better than the applicants who mail me mid-meeting. But please wait, at least until you get your score — preferably until you get your summary statement !

Newbie Needing Advice said
March 3, 2011 @ 2:35 am · Edit
Thank you, Lilmd and Paul, for your replies.

Paul, the story of an eager applicant emailing you mid-review day is indeed funny, but I can certainly appreciate and understand his/her anxiety!
Cheers!

the walrus is paul said
March 3, 2011 @ 5:41 pm · Edit
Yes…especially since I was the SRO (not the PO, so they shouldn’t have been asking me anyway)….but I was hardly going to interrupt my meeting to respond ! Would have been funnier if we were actually on that application at the time — then maybe I WOULD have interrupted it, to read the applicanct’s question to the group

curie said
March 3, 2011 @ 6:24 pm · Edit
technically, though, sro is in the loop until the review is completed, so mailing during mid-scientific review meeting kind of falls in the grey zone if you think about it, it is kind of clever and funny

Dim said
March 3, 2011 @ 9:29 am · Edit
hello all,

can anyone tell me how long before the NogA?I submitted my JIT 10 days ago.
thank you

Resubmit scored grant or wait for council? said
March 3, 2011 @ 11:07 am · Edit
I have early stage and new investigator status. MY RO1 through NCCAM got scored on the first submission with a 20 percentile and an impact score of 28. The summary statement said there were some minor issues that were raised. The PO said funding could not be promised given the funding situation. Should I wait for council to make its decision in May or go with a resubmission allowed for new investigators for the end of March?

the walrus is paul said
March 3, 2011 @ 1:09 pm · Edit
if you really think you can fix it adequately in this short a turnaround time (remember you only have one resubmit chance) then go ahead. If the original gets funded, you can always withdraw the resubmission at that point.

AAZ said
March 3, 2011 @ 12:08 pm · Edit
Does anyone know what is the payline for NINDS? I have huge dilemma what to do. My R21 has score 13 and 8 percentile. I got summery statement so I still have time to resubmit my grant for March deadline. My PO does not respond on my email. Any suggestion!!!!

AV said
March 3, 2011 @ 4:25 pm · Edit
I have submitted an F32 with NIDDK as primary. First submitted for cycle II in Aug 2010, got an impact score of 30. Meanwhile, resubmitted for Cycle III in Dec 2010, got an impact score of 17. Council met on Feb 16 for Cycle II- no information from them yet… is it too early to contact the PO and ask? Or should I just wait?

writedit said
March 3, 2011 @ 4:28 pm · Edit
Congrats on the nice improvement in score. No, it’s not unreasonable to check in with a short polite e-mail asking if your PO can offer any insight as to your ranking and likelihood of funding.

AV said
March 3, 2011 @ 6:33 pm · Edit
Thanks so much, Writedit! And thanks for maintaining this resource- it is of great help, and I anticipate using it throughout my scientific career!!

Gatordoc said
March 4, 2011 @ 10:47 am · Edit
Did you ever find out what was the payline for the NIDDK for the F32 during your first cycle? I received a 26 on my first application and am unsure whether or not that is in the range, the PO said wait until April/May in a mass e-mail she sent out. thanks in advance.

AV said
March 4, 2011 @ 2:01 pm · Edit
Gatordoc, No, I didn’t find that out. The PO said to wait when I emailed her about that, too. Since my score was on the cusp, I decided to address the reviewers’ comments and resubmit as soon as possible. Keep me posted if you hear anything, and I will do the same.

Gatordoc said
March 4, 2011 @ 2:07 pm · Edit
you got it, although i would be quite confident that your 17 will be funded.

AV said
March 14, 2011 @ 10:47 am · Edit
Gatordoc, I got a JIT request from NIH last week. Don’t know if that is going to translate to an NoA, but just thought I would keep you posted. Good luck!

CD75 said
March 4, 2011 @ 12:56 am · Edit
Does anyone know the FY2011 payline for K99 at NIA?

Newbie AR89 said
March 6, 2011 @ 5:30 pm · Edit
Just received my score back from first time NIDDK K01 submission – 80. Ouch. Have to admit I’m somewhat surprised – shouldn’t this have been unscored/not discussed? Would appreciate any advice/thoughts on others who may have had similar experiences? Still waiting to hear back from PO, but concerned about IC assignment (my appeal for IC assignment was denied by CSR after submission).

DragonLady said
March 6, 2011 @ 5:49 pm · Edit
Being a newbie myself, this is just a hypothesis and I would love to hear from more experienced people. My thought is that you likely had either one or two reviewers that liked your application (and wanted it discussed) and one that may not have. During the discussion, that one reviewer may have made points that brought the score ultimately to the 80. I had a similar situation a couple years back in the old system and got a score of 315. When I got the summary sheets, it was fairly obvious that one reviewer didn’t like the proposal and likely convinced others to score it outside the fundable range.

writedit said
March 6, 2011 @ 6:14 pm · Edit
I believe NIDDK (and perhaps most) ICs reviews K awards internally rather than through CSR SRGs (IC study sections can be found here: http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm). Depending on the number of applications, they might have discussed/scored them all, but more likely, someone on the panel specifically asked that yours be discussed (in spite of preliminary impact scores from the assigned reviewers). What was your scientific focus … or where had you hoped the application would be assigned? It could be the IC you requested refused to accept it.

Another ESI said
March 6, 2011 @ 6:45 pm · Edit
You are right, most Ks in most institutes like NCI, NHLBI and NIDDK are reviewed by internal SRG and not CSR ones ( some ICs dont have those and use CSR study sections). While NCI routinely triages its K applications, NIDDK ( at least until recently) reviewed all applications and scored them all. I think yours was discussed just like others and scored as a policy and did not just move to the bottom of the pile after review.

lily said
March 7, 2011 @ 11:42 am · Edit
Has NIA posted K award scores? I’m getting really nervous.

Jerry said
March 7, 2011 @ 12:35 pm · Edit
My NINDS R21 got a score of 45 without percentile and it shows pending council review. Is it a good sign?

the walrus is Paul said
March 7, 2011 @ 2:19 pm · Edit
All scored applications are “Pending Council Review” once the review meeting is over. A 45 is probably not going much farther, sorry.

SS said
March 7, 2011 @ 2:19 pm · Edit
This report published in ‘Sciencemag’ today details the NIH budget in the house approved 2011 CR and the senate proposal for voting tomorrow:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/more-details-on-pending-senate-s.html?ref=hp

Against the wide speculation that house has cut 1.6 billion from 2010 levels, this article shows that house has in fact cut 600million from 2010 levels (and 1.6 billion from 2011 levels). More detailed analysis is given here:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/budget_2012/

This table however has a mistake in the house plan for 2011 CR; it shows no change from 2010 enacted levels.

TS said
March 7, 2011 @ 3:40 pm · Edit
I am ESI with 26 percentile at NHLBI. My council meeting was on Feb15 and I am wondering about the funding status.
Per the funding guidelines for FY2011 at NHLBI web information I am in the payline. But I didnot hear from PO for my expedited review sofar.
Any comments are appreciated.

writedit said
March 7, 2011 @ 3:44 pm · Edit
If you have not checked in with your PO about the status of your R01, that would be the first place to start.

TS said
March 7, 2011 @ 3:53 pm · Edit
I did contact my PO.
The answer was they are not sure what will happen, under normal budgets in previous years thay had budgets by January. This year they do not have a solid budget except CR for 3-4 times. FY 2011 starts in October and ends Sept, but this year even in March there is no clarity how to proceed for the remaining 6 months of the FY.
That makes thaings uncertain I guess!

AnotherESI said
March 7, 2011 @ 4:37 pm · Edit
Did you get your JIT request ? I am at 18th with NHLBI and got the request a week after council and I know a couple of others also with the same. The council minutes from the 15th say that they are trying hard to keep the R01 percentiles at what they say in the website ( ESI till 26) by cutting other expenses. Did you contact the PO after the council or immediately after review ?

TS said
March 7, 2011 @ 4:58 pm · Edit
I did not get the JIT email request.

I have the information from the NHLBAC web page, based on which I feel that my R01 stands a chance.

I contacted my PO and the info until last week was that I will receive an email describing the next steps. Which I didnot get by March 4. After contacting again the answer from PO was they donot have the complete information policy signed yet.
Also they were hopeful but not certain if the payline would remain same (at 26 for ESI).

AnotherESI said
March 7, 2011 @ 5:21 pm · Edit
It may be that they are being conservative and hence waiting for more info about the budget in your case. It does seem like they are committed to maintaining the paylines and special ones to the ESI per the last council. Can you resubmit or is it an A1 ? It very well could be that they might just wait out till the budget is finalized. As you know, they can award it later than the scheduled start date. Good luck and keep us posted.

TS said
March 7, 2011 @ 6:01 pm · Edit
My idea was once the paylines are published by NHLBI and announced after the council meeting they prettymuch stick to the policy.
I was wondering how they would decide paylines before they really have the budgets before them. Moreover if they have CR in effect now and its time for them to decide on grants on hand thay have to make the call based on the payline policy already in place.

Any comments are appreciated.

SS said
March 7, 2011 @ 11:28 pm · Edit
I think, there is nothing much to worry regarding the JIT request. Many of us are in the same situation. My R01 application with 15 percentile (ESI) has still not received a JIT request. It all depends on the GMS handling the case, but the JIT timings has nothing do with the application. I talked to my GMS today. She said, for applications discussed on Feb 15 council, payplan is still not available. Until this is not available, she will not send out JIT request even to those who are with 1 percentile score. Once the pay plan is approved, everything will be real fast.

Major reason for the delay is the budget situation. ICs are struggling to meet the published payline. NHLBI is excellent in keeping their payline intact for the whole fiscal year. Since your score is 26, your case will be affected only if there is a cut in the NIH funding for the rest of the year. Usually they try to protect the R01 payline in order to fund more ESIs and by cutting paylines from other mechanisms. So you can hope that your application will be funded. I am assuming that your application status in commons shows “Council review completed” like me and many others.

Nervousnelly said
March 7, 2011 @ 4:38 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit and fellow applicants,

I would really appreciate your thoughts on the following. I submitted a K23 application in Feb 2010, which got an impact score of 40 (no percentile). My PO was quite helpful, spoke to me over the phone a couple of times, encouraged a resubmission, even reviewed my one-page Introduction to the revision, etc. My resubmission in November got an impact score of 20 (no percentile), with very favorable comments on the summary statement. However, my PO, who was formerly friendly, has become quite non-committal; his email essentially said it’s a good score and he’ll let me know if he needs anything prior to council.

Here’s the situation- I found out from my mentor that my PO had his portfolio adjusted so that he no longer deals with one specific disease (which my application is, of course, about). My mentor thinks this is no big deal. I am panicking, because doesn’t this mean he will no longer personally advocate my application to council if I am on the wrong side of the payline? Shouldn’t he personally have told me this, and encouraged me to contact the person who has taken over that particular disorder?

Any thoughts would be highly appreciated…

writedit said
March 7, 2011 @ 5:10 pm · Edit
Congratulations on the great improvement in score – and the nice score and review. Whether it it fundable depends on the IC, but it is likely within or at the upper edge of the range. You can check your IC’s research programs Website to see who is now assigned to your disease area … or you could just ask your PO directly. It isn’t a big deal, but it would have been nice if he had told you about the change in his portfolio and who was now assigned to this area. It sounds like he would be the sort to advocate for your application during the hand-off to the newly assigned PO (assuming this has indeed occurred, of course).

SS said
March 8, 2011 @ 1:27 pm · Edit
See below today’s ‘Nature’ article on the effects of budget delays on NIH research:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110308/full/471144a.html

The following table summarizes the proposed cuts to the scientific agencies:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110308/full/471144a/table/1.html

The info on NIH proposed cuts are slightly different from what was proposed by ‘Science’ yesterday.

LSK said
March 8, 2011 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
I am very confused! I submitted a K07 to NCI in June 2010. I received an impact score of 27. My PO said it would have been funded last year but she had no idea about this year. In our last contact, she said I was not currently on a funding list, but I would be notified if anything changed. From what I can tell from that silk database, it doesn’t appear that NCI has funded any K07 or K23 apps in FY11. That is very unusual by this point, right? At what point do I know that this application is not getting funded?
Thanks for the clarification!

writedit said
March 8, 2011 @ 2:16 pm · Edit
Your PO is being quite helpful, so it seems as though she will let you know. It could be another month or so before things get any clearer, but you should know in time to submit a revised application in July, if this was an A0 (PO can give guidance here, too).

LSK said
March 8, 2011 @ 2:29 pm · Edit
Thanks so much. Many people have been saying that I would already know by now if there was any possibility of funding. But with no NCI Ks funded yet, I felt that couldn’t be entirely true. Good to hear that I should know something before my July resubmission (which I’m planning on anyway). Thanks!

writedit said
March 8, 2011 @ 2:38 pm · Edit
Well, not necessarily (i.e., you would know if you had a possibility of funding, especially for a June submission), and even if you don’t know by July (oof), you should still plan to resubmit … the A0 can still be considered for funding while the A1 works its way through the review process.

Elizabeth said
March 9, 2011 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
Dear LSK:
I submittted a K22 to NCI in February and it scored a 30 which my PO said would have been funded in FY2010. I then resubmitted in November and it scored a 18. My PO said NCI will start to make decisions regarding funding K awards from Cycles I and II first (the February and June submissions). However they won’t make those decisions until they have the budget. Then probably some time in May they will decide on funding for Ks submitted in cycle III. So no one knows about K awards yet. Hang in there!

LSK said
March 9, 2011 @ 11:14 pm · Edit
Elizabeth,
Thanks so much for this info. It’s really helpful to hear this timeline. That’s a great score on your resubmission. I hope you hear good news soon, and post an update when you do!

Hung said
March 8, 2011 @ 2:09 pm · Edit
Any updates on NCIs strategy to fund R21′s

Lisa said
March 8, 2011 @ 3:59 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit & fellow applicants,
I’d appreciate your kind input. I got an impact score of 29 for k award. The cutpoint was 23 last year. Is there any chance I could be funded with this score? I don’t know how the scoring system works. Could it be possible all applications are scored low for a particular year or it’s consistent across years for a fixed number of applications with scores under 20. It’s a resubmission so it’s my last shot. I worked very hard on this grant and am absolutely devasted by the score. Is there anything I can do at this point except waiting for the statement?

writedit said
March 8, 2011 @ 9:54 pm · Edit
Well, you certainly need to wait for the summary statement … definitely nothing you can do now. However, it’s also unlikely anything can be done to help your funding chances since the payline will not go up, and I suspect few (if any) K awards are funded by exception, though you can ask your PO. That discussion should wait until you have your summary statement, at which point you will know if there are any concerns that can be easily addressed. You should also be considering other funding mechanisms for this work and perhaps talk with the PO, if he/she cannot offer anything definite about the K funding status, about converting your K research plan into a R01 (or R21, if it was genuinely exploratory research).

Lizard said
March 8, 2011 @ 4:50 pm · Edit
Does anybody knows what is happening with the AREA program? I submitted an AREA in January 2010 (NIGMS). Got a 22 score in June 2010. I was told in the fall to be “cautiously optimistic”. I emailed my program director today who told me that “AREA funds are very limited this year” and that I should consider reapplying in June. After talking to her, she did not say that we won’t get funded but it seems that there is a lot of uncertainty about the allocation for AREA. Does anybody has more information to share?

KGrant said
March 9, 2011 @ 12:35 am · Edit
FYI – I submitted a K grant in summer 2010 which was assigned to NIA, and have been waiting with everyone else. I was told all K grants get put into one pot for the NIA (i.e. K99, K01, K08, etc). I got an impact score of 15, and was told they were “cautiously optimistic” for months, and that despite all the budget concerns that the K payline would likely be similar to previous years give or take some. Recently ERA commons updated from “council review completed” to “pending” and now just got a JIT request. So it looks promising, but just wanted to let people know that NIA seems to be moving forward with K grants.

Arunabh said
March 9, 2011 @ 1:15 am · Edit
First of all congratulations on a great score.I hope your grant goes through. I submitted my K01 to NIA Feb 2010 and got an impact score of 20. At the time my PO told me to be prepared with the resubmission. I am resubmitting this March 12th.

writedit said
March 9, 2011 @ 7:48 am · Edit
Thanks so much for sharing all this information. Congratulations on the exceptional impact score and JIT request … which I certainly hope translates into a NoA soon for you.

SS said
March 9, 2011 @ 8:11 am · Edit
Jane, Another ESI, TS and others waiting to hear from NHLBI Feb 15 council– My NHLBI R01 application has a status change to ‘pending administrative review, refer any question to GMS or PO ‘ as of today morning. which I think is a good news. Please take a look at your respective eRA commons accounts to see if you see the same. I hope we all get funded soon. Good luck you all… and me…

writedit said
March 9, 2011 @ 8:13 am · Edit
Congratulations, SS! Best wishes for success with your research.

AnotherESI said
March 9, 2011 @ 10:43 am · Edit
Mine changed to “pending”. A friend’s changed to “pending administrative review”. Either way I am hoping it is a good sign. Does any one know what is the difference between these two ? Thanks !

Jane said
March 9, 2011 @ 11:31 am · Edit
SS, Thanks for alerting us! Mine says pending now too. Hopefully the admin review will not take too long. I hope you all hear good news!

In other news, I got an email from NIBIB that my R03 would be funded (yay!) – that’s about 6 weeks after the council meeting. What’s funny is that this project was given a much higher level of administrative scrutiny to make sure there was no overlap with other grants and that I did not have too much effort on other proposals. Previously my “Other Support” statements of 0% effort on others’ grants (where I am an Other Significant Contributor) have been accepted at face value, but this time I was asked to double check with those PIs that I really was at 0%. And the inquiry about the overlap was funny because the main reason I applied for the R03 mechanism was because the project is so new and different from what I have done before (and I have very little preliminary data).

Is anyone else seeing more administrative scrutiny? Maybe the ICs are trying to get more funding for those above the payline by ferreting out the proposals that have too much overlap with other funded projects.

SS said
March 9, 2011 @ 11:54 am · Edit
Congratulations Jane on your R03 success. Me too is waiting to hear from NCI on my R03 and R15 applications. Once I get my R01, I will be ineligible for R15, even if this is awarded. But, R01 is big enough for my new lab.

SS said
March 9, 2011 @ 10:54 am · Edit
For everyone, “pending” should be the status on the face page, where all applications are listed. Once you click and go into the application details, on the top of your page, status should indicate “Pending adminsitrative review, refer any questions to PO or GMS”. Even if this shows “pending” my feeling is, the change is a good sign. It must be dependent on different persons who make the status updates.

AnotherESI said
March 9, 2011 @ 11:36 am · Edit
Yes, it is pend admin review when I open it on a separate page.

freckle said
March 9, 2011 @ 4:11 pm · Edit
Congrats to all you guys! That’s great news.
Unfortunately for me I’m still in a holding pattern with my 12% scored R01 at NICHD. My proposal went to Council on Jan. 20 and about a week after that the status changed to “council review completed” at which it still remains today. The interim payline at NICHD is 11% for all PIs right now (no special payline for NI or ESI).
It’s very frustrating, especially as a NI, when I have colleagues who over the last few years got their first R01s with % scores in the 20s and got NGAs soon after council.
Do you all think if the budget wranglings take months to resolve I’ll be waiting months more?

writedit said
March 9, 2011 @ 5:11 pm · Edit
Well, this afternoon, the Senate rejected both the Republican-backed House-passed plan to cut $61 billion and the Democratic-backed plan to cut $5 billion. The Senate needs to agree on something, and then the Senate and House need to agree on something, and then the President needs to agree with whatever is sent for his signature. The current CR ends March 18th … and the need for a vote to increase the debt ceiling will come up in April or May … so my guess is that the budget will remain in limbo for some time yet.

So sorry about your frustrating situation, Freckle. Countless others are out there one percentile above a payline that normally would have been guaranteed funding (versus “the bubble”) in years gone by.

freckle said
March 9, 2011 @ 5:58 pm · Edit
It doesn’t look like Congress is going to get together an agreement on the budget any time soon. Then there’s the debt ceiling issue as you said.
There’s not much those of us in this boat can do but be as patient as possible. It sure makes it hard to plan ahead for one’s lab. No one ever said life is fair!

AHRQHopeful said
March 9, 2011 @ 6:23 pm · Edit
Dear colleagues, while I realize that this is an NIH focused forum, I figured I would still go ahead an ask about AHRQ grants: my Oct-2010 cycle R21 (A0 submission) to AHRQ got reviewed last week, and I got an impact/priority score of 36, and a percentile of 27.0. I am an ESI, but as I understand, AHRQ does not recognize such a status. Can anyone in this forum at least give me an idea where I stand with respect to getting funded? Thanks!

writedit said
March 9, 2011 @ 8:05 pm · Edit
In all the AHRQ applications and funded projects I have worked on, I have always found the folks at AHRQ to be very helpful and forthcoming … they have such a tiny budget compared with the NIH, it is easier for them to provide this sort of guidance to applicants, I think. I would suggest you ask the appropriate contact for your program about where your score might place you in the pile.

bottomtile said
March 9, 2011 @ 8:46 pm · Edit
One of my R01s has a 54 percentile. I assumed it would not go to council meeting in Feb. But… I see a “council review completed” for that grant. So my conclusion is that the status “CRC” has little to no meaning. Just want to throw it out there for those who often wonder what “CRC” means. Whether it is the eq. of the “pending award” in IMPACII really depends whether you are within the payline or not.

EY said
March 9, 2011 @ 9:17 pm · Edit
Hey, Freckle,
My situation is similar, and a little worse than yours: 14% at CHD with NI and ESI status, and the last time my eCommon got updated for this R01 was 1/28, and I also received this letter saying the grant is ‘in an uncertain range for funding’. Very frustrating that nothing can be done but waiting, and not sure how long it will be. Is it also an A1 for you?

freckle said
March 10, 2011 @ 1:15 pm · Edit
Hey EY,
Yep, mine is also an A1.
So there’s really nothing we can do but wait. It’s not like we can resubmit.
I got the same letter you did. If you check the NIH database, CHD hasn’t made more than a handful of new R01 awards since that Jan 20 council meeting. Everything’s pretty much on hold. The same is true for other institutes.
What does your PO say?

SS said
March 10, 2011 @ 10:19 am · Edit
For all those who have applications with NHLBI- As of today, funding payline for most of the mechanisms including R01/U01, R21/R03 etc. have been maintained for the rest of the fiscal year:

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

AnotherESI said
March 10, 2011 @ 1:21 pm · Edit
Only the SBIR/STTR percentiles have changed ( moved up by a couple of points each) from the last one dated Dec 10.

EY said
March 10, 2011 @ 1:31 pm · Edit
Hey, Freckle,
The PO is very cautious, by saying that 14% would be funded in 2010 and they are trying their best to maintain their payline. However, without a budget, they cannot guarantee anything. And if I am really worrying, I can resubmit as a new grant, but 2 out of the 3 aims will need to change. Well, as NIs, we all put our best work into this R01, it is very difficult to come up with 2 totally different aims with enough prelim data. How about you? Is there any criticism in your statement? Mine said that I should have more open-ended experiments, which I did not put in just because I was afraid that they will say it is too ambitious, as what I got for my previous grants. Anyway, with this situation, I bet it is also a difficult job for reviewers. On the one hand, I feel optimistic that CHD can fund 11% now without considering ESI status, but indeed who knows! The entire R01 application takes almost 2 years up to now, which makes it very difficult for NI to plan and start their labs.

freckle said
March 10, 2011 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
EY,
Everything you wrote is true.

The reality is that 14% or 12% are really indistinguishable from 11% in the current system, but the payline has to go somewhere.
My critique was very positive and had little in the way of concerns so I wouldn’t have a clue what I could change and there would be a good chance if I resubmitted a new incarnation of this A1 proposal that it would score worse as a new A0.

I guess we just have to be extra patient, but it’s good to let off some steam now and then….

EY said
March 10, 2011 @ 2:20 pm · Edit
Hey, Freckle,
Sure, keep in touch and good luck for both of us!

AnotherESI said
March 10, 2011 @ 9:13 pm · Edit
I think the requirement to fund certain number of NI/ESIs is across all ICs and per the NIDDK PO I spoke to a couple of months ago, to meet the numbers most ICs have to go beyond their stated special paylines for ESI/NIs. Since both of you are so close to the regular payline, I would be hopeful that you would both make it. Good luck

EY said
March 10, 2011 @ 10:19 pm · Edit
Hey, AnotherESI,
Thank you for the encouragement! Also good luck to you and all other people in this forum, it is good to have someone with similar concern to share all these experiences!

According to NICHD website, in FY-2010, the difference between established PI and NI/ESI is only 2%: 13% vs. 15%. And they do not have a clear commitment about how much credit they can give to NI/ESI, their policy says ‘NICHD is committed to the goal of supporting new investigators on R01 and R01-equivalent awards at success rates equivalent to those of established investigators. Applications submitted by new, early stage investigators are usually given special funding consideration, and the funding range for R01s submitted by new investigators extends beyond that for other investigators.’ But this statement is also very uncertain.

freckle said
March 11, 2011 @ 12:46 pm · Edit
So my question is why NICHD has not given an interim payline for NI/ESI? Why 11% across the board?
Why not go ahead and fund NI/ESI proposals that are say at 12 or 13%? That seems like it would be a still fairly conservative thing to do budget-wise, but would help new PIs who are otherwise in a really bad place at the moment in limbo.
It seems like the other institutes have already been funding new PIs at a higher payline. Any thoughts?

EY said
March 11, 2011 @ 6:36 pm · Edit
Hi, freckle,
I was told that NICHD just changed their director and it is possible that they are still at a transition stage. But historically, CHD does have a lower payline compared to other institutes like GMS. I think it will be a concern for me to submit future grants to CHD because of this.

MH said
March 12, 2011 @ 1:35 am · Edit
I got the NOA for my R21(A1) today. My proposal is 11% at NICHD, went to Council on Jan. 20, asked JIT on March 3. Hope you all get funded too. Good luck.

writedit said
March 12, 2011 @ 7:24 am · Edit
Congratulations! Best wishes for success on your research!

freckle said
March 12, 2011 @ 6:19 pm · Edit
Congrats MH!

Matt said
March 14, 2011 @ 1:27 am · Edit
In regards toa F32 from NIDDK, submitted in December 2010. Impact score 21, rec’d the JIT a few days ago, and was told by the PO to “hold tight for a few weeks, but that we may be able to pay this”. I asked the PO about if I should plan on resubmission in April, but never got a response to that query.. So, in your opinion, resubmit, or don’t worry about it, given the semi-encouraging news from the PO.

Gatordoc said
March 14, 2011 @ 11:46 am · Edit
Did you get the summary statements yet? and if so any easy fixes for a quick re-sub?

freckle said
March 14, 2011 @ 12:04 pm · Edit
Just to give all some perspective on what it is like INSIDE the NIH right now. I was talking to a PO today about something and he said at one point “….if we do not get shutdown next week!” and he was dead serious.
They are under enormous stress from the budget situation and with these continuing resolutions, every time a CR expiration date comes closer not only NIH but all parts of the federal government are having to prepare to potentially shutdown entirely.
We need to understand they are doing their best under very bad circumstances.

writedit said
March 14, 2011 @ 12:22 pm · Edit
This is a great comment, Freckle, and you are absolutely correct. And imagine not knowing whether you might come in next week and find 5% of your account balance gone … with the same obligations on bills to be paid.

NIH FED said
March 14, 2011 @ 1:42 pm · Edit
Actually, some Feds already have plans for a special Happy Hour when/if the Gov’t shuts down. If you see an unusually busy bar the first day or 2 of a shut down you will know why.

Of course if it drags on for a few weeks you might see the same people at Happy Hour but a lot more depressed looking.

drugmonkey said
March 14, 2011 @ 2:07 pm · Edit
Sure, writedit, but how many of them are looking at losing their jobs? Or looking at not being able to get onto the career track they’ve been training for at all?

Just saying, the junior professors who are trying to land their first grant may have a different viewpoint on the woes of the IC staff during a “shutdown” that may last a couple of weeks at most and will end with them returning to their jobs as usual…

writedit said
March 14, 2011 @ 2:44 pm · Edit
You think I haven’t had PIs close my office door and unload their fears and sometimes tears about what will happen to their lab people, their careers, their families? This is why I work nights and weekends to help give these folks the best possible chance at securing funding. Nuthin I get paid extra to do. You think POs don’t hear the same desperate pleas on an even more regular basis? And they, with their hands tied by Congress, cannot do anything — or very much — to help.

Sure, they have jobs, but so do you and I … and neither of ours involves explaining, week after week, to scores of bright young scientists that their research and their careers will not be funded.

drugmonkey said
March 14, 2011 @ 2:54 pm · Edit
Sometimes that seems like it would be a lot easier than trying to help the people that you know (and believe personally would be successful scientists) attempt to get funded writedit

NIH FED said
March 14, 2011 @ 4:44 pm · Edit
Interesting logic DM. The problem is that there is always someone who is worse off. I am sure there are numerous senior Japanese Profs who wish they only had to worry about landing their first grant right now. Everyone, no matter where they are on the ladder of life deserves a little empathy when times are rough/stressful. Otherwise we can all just feel bad about the starving child in Haiti and say “screw everyone else they’ve got it good compared to……”

It appears that academic life is making you a little cranky and emotionally crusty. The perfect qualities of a future Dept. Chair or Dean. Go for it.

curie said
March 14, 2011 @ 6:21 pm · Edit
dm got a point that the elephant in the room is poor pi’s waiting forever and relative to that the nih folk’s problem is smaller and temporary. writedit and others also got a point that the nih folk’s are dealing with pi’s future and already working on overdrive, so, even a small spike is significant.

both parties seem to be right from their own angle of view.

(and i got a third angle looking at your two angles, ha ha..)

freckle said
March 14, 2011 @ 3:27 pm · Edit
As a junior faculty member with his proposal sitting 1% above the payline, I can tell you it’s super stressful.
But our Congressional “leaders” funding the federal government including NIH by repeated CR is sort of like driving an 18 wheeler truck with an empty gastank and stopping every few minutes to add 1 buck worth of gas. Crazy.

TMI said
March 15, 2011 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
At what point is one giving a PO too much information/TMI?
I don’t want to annoy the PO, but pressure is mounting on my side regarding funding and my A1 R01 proposal is sitting right above the interim payline.
I have a great student who wants to join my lab, but I can only afford it if I get my R01 proposal funded. The student has to pick a lab by next week. If I tell him “no”, then my next opportunity to have a student join would literally be an entire year from now.
Also in the next 2 weeks my department and I will hold salary negotiations for the entire next year. Without clarity on the R01, which went to council 2 months ago, I will face a large pay cut.
I’m also up for tenure and it would be incredibly helpful if I could give an update to the committees reviewing my packet that I had gotten this R01. They will make a final decision in the next several weeks.
Is it OK to talk to a PO about these very real, time sensitive, and important issues, or too pushy?

the walrus is paul said
March 15, 2011 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
if you want to talk just to vent, and you have a good relationship with your PO already, then go ahead. But if you have other motives (i.e., getting a decision faster), believe me, we (NIH staff) are NOT just sitting here holding out until we get a good enough sob story. We just can’t do anything until we know the money situation. We are more than willing to offer sympathy/empathy (at least most of us are)…but we really don’t have anything more to offer than that right now.

TMI said
March 15, 2011 @ 4:12 pm · Edit
Thanks!
I’m in a similar boat to Freckle and like her I am frustrated by the lack of an interim payline for NI at NICHD.
Why is NICHD doing this?
Walrus or anyone else–any thoughts?
I suppose it would be stupid to directly (and very politely) contact the new NICHD Director and explain the need for an interim NI payline? Is this lack a NI payline likely his decision?

the walrus is Paul said
March 15, 2011 @ 9:44 pm · Edit
Looks like there may be another 3-week wait, thanks to the likelihood of yet another CR. (I think Freckle’s analogy of the 18-wheeler and the $1 for gas was spot on).

My 2-cents on the “why” ? (though I’m not at NICHD, so I don’t claim to speak for them): If the NIH budget ultimately comes through lower than past year (these “major cut” threats come and go, and there’s no way of knowing what the final compromise will really be), it may or may not be divided ‘equally’ across all Institutes. Likely not, as Congress always has some “Must Be Funded” topic areas within various Institutes. So…my guess is that the ICs who know they are at the top of the heap constituent-wise (e.g., NCI) or sponsor-wise (e.g., NIAID) may be willing to bet at this stage that they won’t get the short end of the stick. Others can’t afford to make that guess and fund stuff that isn’t far-and-away indisputably fundable even if their budget should wind up taking a major hit.

madness007 said
March 15, 2011 @ 10:12 pm · Edit
Well, I don’t think NCI is on top of the heap… or at least they are not acting that way. They are not funding any K-grants until they have a budget, regardless of ranking/score. For all those who have *only* been waiting for a month or two since council, try waiting 6 months… NCI hasn’t funded ANY K-grant from the entire last 2010 set of cycles – in other words, I submitted in Feb. 2010 (13 months ago!), got scored in May, summary statement in June, council completed in September, and then nothing.

At least NCI has trickled out a couple of RO1s… not much help to us lowly post-docs though

So these incremental CRs are killing me, along with everyone else stuck waiting…

writedit said
March 15, 2011 @ 11:59 pm · Edit
Walrus is referring to NCI (followed by NIAID) as having the largest appropriation among the ICs … and cancer research was singled out in the Obama budget and prior appropriation bills. All members of Congress know *someone* with cancer, which is an unpredictable and scary diagnosis still. But, you’re right – this special status hasn’t trickled down to those just trying to launch their careers with Ks and other non-R01 funding, and I wish you the very best, madness. I hate to imagine NCI trying to pick up the slack of the CDMRP plug is pulled, as was suggested recently in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pentagon-cancer-research-budget-comes-under-scrutiny/2011/03/10/ABq7S5R_story.html).

There is no “us” or “them” … we’re all in a very difficult situation, trying to help each other as best we can.

DrugMonkey said
March 16, 2011 @ 11:20 am · Edit
we’re all in a very difficult situation, trying to help each other as best we can.

uh-huh. sure. information-wise, yes.

but as you know I like to follow the broader discussion of “we must FIX the NIH!”

I notice a distinct trend whereby people’s identification of the “real problem” always points as far away from their current (and future imagined) situation as possible. And their “solutions” oh so conveniently tend to benefit investigators similar to themselves.

As I like to say, tot up your personal list of the top five problems and top five solutions. If you do not qualify for any of the former, and the latter all fail to be detrimental to your prospects…something is wrong.

curie said
March 16, 2011 @ 11:38 am · Edit
what the hell are you talking about dm in the last para?

the walrus is Paul said
March 16, 2011 @ 1:03 pm · Edit
yes, and NIAID has some major voices from both DHS and DoD for it’s biodefense spending. So if your work is in that area, you are likely to hear sooner rather than later, because that part of the budget will stay intact.

john said
March 16, 2011 @ 12:58 am · Edit
It appears to be the same with F32s as well; no awards made by NCI from the April ’10 PA yet. I guess we just have to keep waiting and hope the money shows up.

john said
March 16, 2011 @ 1:15 am · Edit
I just received an e-mail from my PO regarding my F32; no new word on funding, but stated that they continue to be optimistic. To expedite any potential forthcoming funding, they asked me to take care of what turns out to be an inadequate Resource Sharing section in my proposal. I didn’t complete this originally because I didn’t believe I met any of the criteria – I wasn’t asking for more than 500k and wasn’t creating any new mice, vectors, etc. But some colleagues have suggested that I at least provide a statement regarding plans to share any materials or methods developed after work has been published. Can anyone advise as to what this plan should entail? Thanks!

writedit said
March 16, 2011 @ 12:48 pm · Edit
Yes, you need to indicate you will share and disseminate all the new knowledge you generate, whether as data, model systems, GWAS, etc. Only the Data Sharing plan is linked to the $500K requirement. Here is some very generic boilerplate that I use (or send to PIs) to customize as needed for their proposals. For sections that are not relevant to the proposed research, the boilerplate is replaced with “Not Applicable”. I suppose I could upload this as a downloadable file too (https://writedit.wordpress.com/grantsmanship-downloads/) …

BICO maintains a high community standard for the free release of data and materials. BICO understands and agrees to comply with the NIH policy on Sharing Research Data and on Sharing Model Organisms (as outlined in the NIH Guide, February 26, 2003 and May 7, 2004). Data Sharing Plan The principal investigator and co-investigators acknowledge their willingness to share data and materials with other eligible investigators through academically established means. Data will be shared with collaborators as soon as available; with local colleagues at seminars and talks; and with the scientific community at large by posters and presentations at local, regional, national, and international scientific meetings. Finally, data will be presented via publication to the widest audience possible. Press interviews on important publications are arranged through the BICO Office of Public Affairs. Resource Sharing Plan Scientific resources produced in the course of this work are valuable for the scientific community. They will be shared with collaborators as soon as they are available; will be provided to other scientists before publication if the work to be done is different from our purposes; and will be provided to the scientific community upon request when findings have been published. Transfer of resources is subject to the acceptance of a Materials Transfer Agreements as required by policy at BICO. Model Organisms No new model organisms will be developed, but methods and data for our animal studies will be made available to the scientific community as noted above. Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) All data will be deposited in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) in a timely fashion, where access to these datasets will benefit the entire research community. We have developed a data dictionary of phenotypic features (Appendix) that will be associated with sample data deposited in dbGAP. The principal investigator and co-investigators have long track records of sharing genomic data sets, biorepositories, and de-identified clinical data with qualified researchers and research networks. Tissue samples have been shared with multiple academic health centers, cancer centers, commercial research programs, and other institutions, including the Food and Drug Administration. BICO has an office dedicated to technology transfer and the commercialization of new ideas and inventions developed at BICO. Whether patented or not, resources are transferred and distributed by several means according to the needs of the end-user. For other academic and non-profit researchers, the resources are typically transferred under standard Material Transfer Agreements. For requests by for-profit organizations, the resources are made available under standard non-exclusive license.

john said
March 16, 2011 @ 6:21 pm · Edit
Thanks so much! This is very helpful.

Dim said
March 16, 2011 @ 11:32 am · Edit
Hello, i know this will be a little different from the latest discussions here….but i was just wondering if the NoA arrives by email or first class post?
Or even on the Commons website. Im still waiting….for it.

Thank you . Hope you all find strength to wait for what seems to be a difficult financial year.

writedit said
March 16, 2011 @ 12:09 pm · Edit
Congratulations! E-mail, to your office of sponsored research or similar administrative unit and copied to you. eRA Commons will reflect the award as well, of course – this is how you will submit noncompeting renewals etc. If you need a quick tutorial on managing your award, you might start with the NIAID Website: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part11a.aspx

SS said
March 16, 2011 @ 12:57 pm · Edit
Any updates on payline for AHRQ grants, esp. RO1 and R18? Thanks.

NP said
March 16, 2011 @ 1:36 pm · Edit
Has anyone received an R03 or U01 from NCI this year? If yes, what is your score. Thanks.

HW said
March 16, 2011 @ 3:57 pm · Edit
Dear the walrus is Paul,

I really appreciate your comments and thoughts. They are priceless. And PIs do need ito hear insider voices on NIH funding policy especially when the funding process seems to be less transparent these days. Within this context, there are a lot of recent comments on how “slow” NCI is making its FY11 awards and the fact that they replaced their hard paylines by large zones of uncertainty (8-15% and 11-25% for NIs). Would you care to share you thoughts as an insider? What should PIs expect from NCI about their R01 and other applications?

the walrus is paul said
March 17, 2011 @ 10:47 am · Edit
I’m not at NCI, so I’m not sure what their dilemma is…it does surprise me also that they are one of the Institutes that is stalling.

Pug said
March 17, 2011 @ 9:26 am · Edit
I submitted my A1 R01 to NCI last July, got scored at 10th percentile in October (NI but not ESI), council review in early February. My PO had asked me for a response to the reviewers’ critique in the summary statement, so she could better vouch for my project. I went back and forth several times with my GMS to complete the necessary information for JIT.

Yesterday, I received the NOA. We did get a cut, but not as bad as we thought, at just under 17%. Throughout the process, my NCI contacts were very helpful. They were upfront about not being able to guarantee anything but prompt with providing new information. That, and the information I had received from this website (major thanks to writedit), were what kept my spirits up during these trying times.

writedit said
March 17, 2011 @ 10:38 am · Edit
Congratulations! Thanks so much for sharing your story and timeline, which will help a lot of folks dealing with the ongoing wait and uncertainty as to process. Best wishes for success with your research!

Dim said
March 17, 2011 @ 9:37 am · Edit
thank you writedit.
I guess i ll just wait for that email.
No idea how long it will take. some of my people here said that they had their NoA as fast as 7 days after the JIT.

MKim said
March 17, 2011 @ 7:42 pm · Edit
I am waiting for NoA, have submitted all the documents to the grant management specialist, now since the Federal Government is currently operating at the FY2010 appropriation level under a Continuing Resolution, which extends through March 18, 2011.
So what happens after March 18th, if i don’t receive the NoA by tomorrow, would it imply that there may be more delay?

writedit said
March 17, 2011 @ 9:47 pm · Edit
The Senate just passed another CR (with $6B in cuts) that Obama will likely sign to keep the government going another 3 weeks, so your (another) NoA should be processed in time.

EY said
March 17, 2011 @ 9:56 pm · Edit
Hey, Writedit,
Will this $6B apply for the entire year, or just the next 3 weeks? What if the government will be under CR for the entire 2011? Do you think it is possible? As a junior PI who first applied for R01, I am also wondering whether now is the worst time ever to get a grant. Thanks a lot for your prompt information and kindness to help us out. I do feel more connected after joining this forum.

writedit said
March 17, 2011 @ 10:32 pm · Edit
This applies for the entire year, but I doubt it imposes any cuts on the NIH. The Washington Post refers to projects “nobody wants” as being eliminated, but clearly $10B in cuts in 5 weeks is going to hurt someone. Today the House also voted to defund NPR, but that is not included in the current CR. I think the distractions in Japan and Libya allowed for this 3-week CR. We’ll see where we stand in a few weeks, particularly as the US begins to bump up against the debt ceiling.

In 2007, the federal government operated under a CR the entire year … but they passed the final CR sooner than this, and the threat wasn’t $60-70B in spending cuts, so FY11 is a bit different … but essentially, the new normal (not having a federal budget passed as of Oct 1, that is). Cycle I (Feb-March etc.) will always be the worst cycle to submit a grant application in any given FY.

EY said
March 17, 2011 @ 10:47 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit,
I actually first submitted my grant in Oct. 09, then got my A0 score in Feb. 10, revised it and resubmitted in July, 10 and got score on A1 in Oct. 10, which sits a few percentile above NICHD interim payline (14% vs.11%). I am wondering what you are saying is that in 5 weeks, the NIH will have FY11 budget, but it is going to be very much cut, right? Then do you think NIH institutes can define their ultimate payline for FY11? In fact, if NIH tells me that they cannot fund me, I will send this proposal else where, or rewrite it as a new submission in June (and go through this hopeless cycle again). However, sitting at this uncertain range and having long-waiting time is quite frustrating.

writedit said
March 18, 2011 @ 7:43 am · Edit
Well, I am not entirely sure the federal government will have a final budget in the next 5 weeks. I do not anticipate the House will succeed with their FY11 appropriations bill (including the $1.6B cut to the NIH). Normally, the NIH appropriation would do okay during negotiations in the Senate for the next CR (more likely) or final appropriations bill – that is, the NIH budget would be protected as much as possible since Congress likes funding medical research. The wild card is the debt ceiling … if the appropriations bill is held hostage to a vote to raise the debt ceiling, cuts closer to what the House wants might need to be accepted.

What I can say is that the NIH budget won’t get better, so you shouldn’t count on the interim payline going up. I’d suggest that you lobby your PO for funding by exception, prepare the application for submission elsewhere (I assume you mean foundations?), and work on a new NIH application for June. Lots of fun, I know. I hope you can get excited about the science and draw on this to fuel a new proposal.

DuD said
March 17, 2011 @ 10:45 pm · Edit
Some grim news just in and looking for tips/advice. Submitted K99/R00 in Oct 2010, recently received score of 29…certainly not terrible. I am a former NRSA F32 fellow with the same IC and have also received an LRP from this this IC, so they know me and I have a track record of awards with them. I’m a postdoc at Prestigious X. University, work in Dr. BigShot’s lab, and have a recent first author paper in one of the “big 3″ journals . My PO informed me today that, even though Council doesn’t meet until May and I haven’t even received my reviews, I would absolutely NOT be getting funded and I’d be better off going for K01. Problem is, I’m already mid-4th year with little intention of staying an extra 3-4 just so I can get a K01. Given my field of expertise, there are only two ICs I could feasibly get funding from….neither is keen on K99/R00. Given my history and credentials, my question is: WHAT ON EARTH DOES IT TAKE to get one of these awards? And why even have them if certain ICs balk at them? Not only I am frustrated for my own circumstances, but I’m also disheartened by the prospects of some of my postdoc friends who aren’t in high profile labs and likely won’t publish super high profile papers. I’m thinking I’ll resubmit this K99 and shoot for a 15-20 and hope that suffices. Ugh…Thoughts?

curie said
March 18, 2011 @ 12:48 am · Edit
which institute?

yeah, don’t look at the peers in other labs or in other tracks, you will get heart burns. i also wondered about what appears to be a great prospects of peers whose approach to research is how to make fast papers and translate that in to money. not a bad goal if these aren’t superficial papers poorer than a grad student’s paper. but even some tenured people do that and they are also lucky with the money part–i remember one of the people i respect told me these folks are just like car salesmen and don’t give a damn about what they are selling, but just want to sell something.

but you got to go by the quality of your work and think if your sacrifice is worth the trade off. would you trade your life with theirs?

i think you could definitely try to get to 10-15 range in your a1. don’t give up yet.

writedit said
March 18, 2011 @ 7:30 am · Edit
You probably won’t get a K99 funded at 29 … only NCI would go that high with their own K99, but not now. Why is it that you don’t want to apply for the K01? You should be competitive for jobs now, even without a K99 in hand, and you would be competitive for other K awards. Depending on what happens with the FY12 budget, I suspect the number of K99s funded will continue to drop – it has been difficult to implement as intended (too many applicants are done with their postdoc, the K99 portion, & have a faculty appointment by the time they get an award, so go right to the R00), and probably applicants who are competitive for these awards would do fine getting other Ks or even going straight to an R01. Sounds like you could be in that category.

Z said
March 18, 2011 @ 7:57 am · Edit
Hi writedit,

This page is so immensely helpful to all us ESI’s. Thank you for taking the time to reply to our queries and comments.

I had two questions about lobbying your PO:

1. Do you mean be more direct than sending your PO updates about your productivity? How would you suggest going about increasing directness without upsetting people?

2. Does this lobbying approach only apply to R01′s, or other mechanisms in which their is mandated leeway for ESI paylines?

To give you some context, I am an ESI with an R21 at NICHD. I am at the 12th percentile and of course, the currently line is 11. I know that others on the board are in the same boat with the same IC (we should probably form a support group!). However, my guess was that with R21′s NICHD would keep a hard line with the payline and only make exceptions with R01′s, but I was wondering what you thought?

Thank you!

writedit said
March 18, 2011 @ 1:43 pm · Edit
Only R01s have a payline break for ESIs, but I think you can ask about any mechanism being funded by exception. I’m not sure how often that happens for anything but R01s though. You can inform your PO about new data, manuscripts, presentations, etc., and you can ask about being considered for pay by exception … but you shouldn’t pester. Asking once is enough, and if an award looks possible, your PO will get in touch with you. In the meantime, any queries should be about resubmitting or preparing a new application.

DuD said
March 18, 2011 @ 8:40 am · Edit
Thanks for the response. I’m hesitant about the K01 because it presumes 3-5 more years of protected/mentored time, at least that’s my understanding. As you mention, it’s possible that I would be competitive for jobs much sooner, so to go the K01 route would end up in an ~8 year stint in the same lab. Granted, I wouldn’t be a post-doc because the K01 requires institutional commitment, but I also wouldn’t be tenure-track. This is why the K99 was so attractive…2 years of support to finish up and then 3 years support as tenure-track ESI. Unfortunate that it’s been so difficult to implement, I wasn’t aware of that.

writedit said
March 18, 2011 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
As you’ve already learned, you don’t need to stay in one place with your K01 … you could even apply with a co-mentor somewhere else if the science supports this (i.e., no one at your current Prestige University has this expertise), but if you’re not ready to be looking for jobs now and need more postdoc time, you should resubmit the K99.

curie said
March 18, 2011 @ 11:18 am · Edit
imo, it is premature and in fact dangerous to encourage the thought that the k99 mechanism is not working. k99 is a great mechanism and is definitely helping. of course, there is room to make significant improvement. but this is a great unique mechanism as it is.

frog said
March 18, 2011 @ 9:30 am · Edit
It doesn’t have much to do with your bigshot lab or your papers. You’re score was pretty bad–that is the reason you’re not getting funded, whether it is the research component or the career development part.

Dud said
March 18, 2011 @ 1:14 pm · Edit
So now 29 for a first submission is bad? Then why does NIH call 10-30 “high impact” in this scoring system? And why even have a system that goes to 90 if 29 is “pretty bad”? Sounds like you would deem 29 and 70 as qualitatively indistinguishable.

CambridgeChemist said
March 18, 2011 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
DuD

I understand Frog’s sentiment; although he/she was a bit harsh. 29 is obviously a much better score and IS qualitatively distinguishable from a 70; but the cold realty is that both scores are just as unfundable for a K99. It seems like you need something exceptional, not just great, which to me is what a 29 means…

My advice would be to carefully review the comments and resubmit, and get on the job market anyway. If you get a great faculty job, then the blow of not getting a K99 would be cushioned. If you dont get a faculty job, then you can hold out for another shot at a K99. Good luck buddy.

HW said
March 18, 2011 @ 11:43 am · Edit
Dud,

You are only required to stay at the mentored stage for one year under K01. Once you obtain a faculty position, you can easily enter the unmentored status. However, K01 does require 75% effort for 3 yrs and may be reduced to 50% given that you get funded with an R01 as PI. You can transfer your K01 to a new institute as long as the science remains the same and your PO is fine with your new mentoring committee at the new instutite. These are my personal experiences. Both K99 and K01 make you very marketable…

ss said
March 18, 2011 @ 1:08 pm · Edit
I got my NoA this week but with 10% cut of the amount of the orignal request. The NoA stated that there is the cut because the institute is running under the CR, I can understand the situation. However, what makes me feel panic is, the 10% seems to be extended through the whole budget period, which is five years, as I can see in the NoA as recommended future year support. If this will be used as the base, the possible worst case will be, I got another 10% cut next FY due to budget issue, then the actual money I got will be just 81% (90%*90%) of what I originally requested. Then how about the FY 2013,14 and 15? Is this they way it will work, or I misunderstand anything? Please advise.

AnotherESI said
March 18, 2011 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
Congrats SS, although I am also concerned that they cut you by 10% – did you have more than a max modular ( 250K in directs ?) earlier they stated that they will fund ESIs for upto 250K in full and for full 5 years, so this must be a change in policy ?

ss said
March 18, 2011 @ 2:25 pm · Edit
Oops! I guess there is somebody else also named ss? This is my first time n the board. No, I don’t have a nonmodular budget, and it seems like a institute-wide action, as I can see from the NoA statement.

drugmonkey said
March 18, 2011 @ 4:47 pm · Edit
This can happen, yes. cuts upon cuts. It is good to be aware of the possibility so you can plan accordingly

ss said
March 19, 2011 @ 12:58 am · Edit
Thank you, drugmonkey. So it is normal to have the cut extended to the whole budget period when the grant is initially funded? If it can be adjusted upward, in the future (although very unlikely this FY), will the adjust be applied to the whole budget period as well?

DrugMonkey said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:09 pm · Edit
Yes, normal to have the cut extended through the entire proposed interval. Also normal to have it just applied to the first year (or current year, for Type 5s that get reduced).

I have very little knowledge of why/when a given IC decides to do one versus the other….or even when they decide to spare a grant from being cut when all evidence shows they are cutting other people’s grants.

as you note there is frequently some boiler plate about how you can ask to have cuts restored in the next year. I’ve never managed to do this.

AnotherESI said
March 18, 2011 @ 2:34 pm · Edit
Yes, there is a “SS” – I see you are “ss”. SS was waiting a NOA from NHLBI. Which IC are you with, and are you a ESI ?

ss said
March 18, 2011 @ 2:49 pm · Edit
I am not in NHLBI, but I am a ESI, didn’t get the protection though.

SS said
March 18, 2011 @ 3:12 pm · Edit
Since I joined the group as “SS”, there are two more additions with the same name. I am the original “SS” who is waiting for the NOA from NHLBI (still waiting). May be, I should change the name.

Not SS said
March 18, 2011 @ 9:44 pm · Edit
Dud,
I don’t know which IC you applied to but I do know that NIAID only funds 7-10 K99s total each year and then each of these is only for three years. So you need a nearly perfect score to get one. They do this because they do not like the K99/R00 mechanism. It was forced on the ICs by the previous NIH director.

Why don’t they like it? Because they are expensive (five years) and they already had a bunch of K award mechanisms that do similar things. For example the K22.

http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm

In addition, I personally think it reaaaaalllllyyy sucks that Big Research Universities (especially the medical schools) are essentially using the NIH peer review system to determine not only who gets tenured (a la R01s) but now who gets hired. They no longer trust their own hiring committees to recognize talent pre-R01/K99 talent.

It is not about the research. It is clearly about the money. That bites.

end of my little rant.

EY said
March 18, 2011 @ 10:29 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit,
I do wonder what are involved in ‘lobbying your PO for funding by exception’. I did have a continuous conversation with my PO starting from the moment I prepared for my R01. Recently I also sent a response letter to him about comments the reviewers made for my A1 (not much to talk though since most of the comments are good ones). I do not want to overdo it, please advice what is the good strategy. Thanks a lot!

writedit said
March 18, 2011 @ 10:41 pm · Edit
It sounds like you are doing all the right things, maintaining an appropriate line of communication with your PO without overdoing it. If you haven’t directly asked yet, you can inquire whether your application might be paid by exception (or be considered for selective pay … i.e., awarded above the payline). Your PO should be able to tell you whether this is possible and/or likely … and whether he is helping/will help in this process. Once you’ve asked, though, there’s no use in asking repeatedly for updates since there is no schedule for these things. It might not happen until as late as September, when the ICs are hurrying to spend their remaining appropriation.

EY said
March 18, 2011 @ 11:36 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit,
Thanks a lot!

Freckle said
March 21, 2011 @ 12:00 pm · Edit
FYI.
I talked to two POs late last week at two different institutes.
They said that the issuing of awards at their institutes is, with rare exceptions, completely on hold until Congress passes a real budget. The sense I got was that this applied to NIH more generally as well.
Very little is going to happen until there is a FY11 budget, not just CR.

EY said
March 21, 2011 @ 3:16 pm · Edit
Hey, Freckle,
Thanks for the information. But what if they are under CR for the entire year, which is not totally impossible given all the complications now?

Freckle said
March 22, 2011 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
My best guess is there will be no more temporary CR and that a budget will be passed in the next 2 weeks that contains more cuts than the Dems want, but less than the Republicans want. Given the Dems propensity for caving, there could be more cuts than we all might have hoped. Also, NIH has to prepare for the worst which is surely why they are not issuing many NOA these days.

Walid said
March 21, 2011 @ 12:09 pm · Edit
I have applied for a K99 to NCI on february 2010 and have revised my application I resubmitted on July 2010. My impact score is 26 and the PO suggested that I am ranked relatively good but there are a lot of applications with 26.
What is happening with NCI K99. Why there was none funded last year. This led to the fact that there is double the number of application 180 vs 90. Are they going to fund double the number. Where did the FY10 K99 budget go ?

Does this happen before. I mean, do they usually skip funding periods and hwo do they deal with the increased number of applications ?

curie said
March 21, 2011 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
28 new k99s to be precise, in fy10. he must be searching under fy11, for which he is correct that there is none funded by nci yet, which is kind of surprising. smaller institutes are funding under cr.

Comrade PhysioProf said
March 21, 2011 @ 12:15 pm · Edit
What is happening with NCI K99. Why there was none funded last year.

I don’t where you are getting this information, but according to NIH Reporter, NCI awarded over two dozen new K99s in fiscal year 2010.

madness007 said
March 21, 2011 @ 12:49 pm · Edit
The last time we had a message from the PO about 2011 NCI K99s was in November or December I believe, and that time she said that NO NCI K99s would be funded until congress passed a budget, regardless of score. Apparently even last year it wasn’t until May that those slated with a start date in December actually started, so this year I’m guessing it will be pushed back even further. I applied in Feb. 2010, got my score (20), and have just been waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting… It would be nice if they could at least fund the “sure things” since they normally fund 22-25 K99s a year…

Walid said
March 21, 2011 @ 1:52 pm · Edit
I was under the impression that there’s was none given (had red it somewhere). But I was wonderigng why do they have 180 applications that what my PO told me ? it is suprisingly high compared to previous years ?

writedit said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:05 pm · Edit
Last year, NCI received 127 applications and funded 28. In 2009, it was 89 and 21, respectively. In 2008, 103 and 34. In 2007, 162 and 20.

Folks can check applications received, funded, and success rates by FY and IC for most every mechanism here: http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/index.aspx

curie said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:04 pm · Edit
fy10 received 127 applications and funded 28. this 180 that your po told must be the # of applications with council meeting in fy11 (i.e., submissions until feb 2011). if this is true, there seems to be a significant jump in nci applications (or may be 118?)

writedit said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:15 pm · Edit
I am not surprised to hear NCI received 180 K99/R00 applications in FY11. I suspect the number is up at all ICs since this mechanism may increasingly be serving as a means to screen tenure track faculty applicants (asst prof) … I know of at least one search in which the only candidates invited for interviews were those holding K99 awards.

Walid said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:07 pm · Edit
She specifically told me that they got 120 applications and added the february session which included another 60. So the total is 180.

writedit said
March 21, 2011 @ 3:01 pm · Edit
I assume the PO meant the Feb Council (i.e., Cycle III, Oct-Nov, submissions).

As has been clarified, the 3 submission cycles in a calendar year are funded in the subsequent fiscal year.

curie said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:43 pm · Edit
writedit, faculty search based on k99 alone can’t be a popular faculty search criteria because only a tiny portion gets this award. r1 institutions like pico or other competitive positions can definitely afford to invite k99 recipients only. you are right about the increase in applicants, applications to nlm, which usually is an easy institute for k99, quadrupled in 2011.

InTrial said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:49 pm · Edit
NLM quadrupled in 2011? Is that a trustable source?

madness007 said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:28 pm · Edit
Walid – do you mean they added in this past February’s (2011) applicants??? Really? Argh… why wouldn’t they just keep Feb 2011 in for FY 2012?

curie said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:37 pm · Edit
because feb 2011 submissions will have june/july council which falls under fy11.

waiting4ever said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:46 pm · Edit
So my Feb 2010 R01 application is a FY10? Is it no longer under the consideration although I am in the gray of 15-25% as ESI? I give up.

curie said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:51 pm · Edit
feb 2010 submission has june/july scientific review, council in october/nov 2011, which falls under fy11.

madness007 said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:42 pm · Edit
but all of us who submitted Feb 2010 are considered in FY 2011 – that math doesn’t make sense… help me out! How can people that submitted this Feb also be FY 2011?

curie said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:46 pm · Edit
don’t know of your specific situation. but sometimes people in the grey funding zone gets carried to the next fiscal year.

curie said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:55 pm · Edit
my bad, sorry, in my head walid’s conversation with the po regarding feb applications sounded in my mind as applications that went through scientific review in feb. my sincere apologies.

HW said
March 21, 2011 @ 5:16 pm · Edit
applications submiited in this Feb-Mar will fall into FY12

Comrade PhysioProf said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:49 pm · Edit
Applications *submitted* in February get reviewed in June and considered by council in October for funding the following fiscal year. Applications *reviewed* in February are considered by council in June for funding that fiscal year.

madness007 said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:55 pm · Edit
My *particular* situation is the same as everyone else at NCI for K99s submitted during 2010 (Feb/June/Oct). They have not awarded a single one. That’s why I am confused about how they are going to lump in this February’s applicants into our pool. I got my score in May, summary statement in June, and then they waited until Sept. to go to council. And all along, from May onwards, our PO has told us that we will not find out ANYTHING (sigh) until spring 2011 based on Congress.

john said
March 21, 2011 @ 3:07 pm · Edit
I believe the same thing is occurring with F32 awards at NCI as well. None have been awarded from the April ’10 submission or any thereafter. However, the PO has not explicitly stated that they are waiting until a budget is passed, though it seems as if this may well be the case.

madness007 said
March 21, 2011 @ 2:57 pm · Edit
ok, so we’re straight on this… so then why are they lumping in an extra cycle’s applicants into our pool since that’s what started this thread in the first place…

writedit said
March 21, 2011 @ 3:03 pm · Edit
I assume the PO meant the Feb Council (i.e., consideration of Cycle 3, Oct-Nov, submissions).

As has been clarified, the 3 submission cycles in a calendar year (Cycle 1, Feb-Mar-Apr; Cycle 2, June-July-Aug; and Cycle 3, Oct-Nov-Dec) are funded in the subsequent fiscal year … the one exception being Jan AIDS submissions for Cycle 3.

curie said
March 21, 2011 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
“She specifically told me that they got 120 applications and added the february session which included another 60. So the total is 180″

from walid’s note, my impression was that the “feb session” meant “feb scientific review” and not feb submission. i don’t think any institute would move applications from the next funding year to the prior. most often we see the opposite of getting pushed to the next fiscal year.

writedit said
March 21, 2011 @ 3:13 pm · Edit
Yes, curie has corrected my bad … I meant Cycle 3 grants (Oct-Nov submissions) reviewed in Feb, not considered at Council. Cycle 3 applications don’t go to Council until later in the spring. The point of clarification is, as curie also notes, that applications submitted in February etc. 2011 will *not* be considered for FY11 funding … they’re the first batch for FY12.

madness007 said
March 21, 2011 @ 3:17 pm · Edit
It seems strange that NCI will go ahead and fund R01s that beat the payline enough to not be a concern regardless of the final payline, but will not do the same for K99s and F32s.

the walrus is Paul said
March 21, 2011 @ 3:50 pm · Edit
Different budgets. R01s are in the RPG budget (Research grants). F32s are covered by NRSA allocations only — the two sources of dollars can’t be mixed. K99s, I’m not sure about (though I will look it up as soon as I get a chance)…not sure if they are considered as RPGs (since they become R01s) or if they are considered in the K (training/career development) category.

DrugMonkey said
March 22, 2011 @ 12:14 pm · Edit
usually when you say “can’t be mixed”, we’re talking that the Congressional appropriation specifies this division, right? kind of like they write in the amount that must go to HIV/AIDS and other topics that have come under the Congressional eye.

This is important to make clear to people-NIH funded scientists and taxpayers alike.

curie said
March 22, 2011 @ 1:32 pm · Edit
my guess is budget allocation for rpg vs training grants is institution imposed. k99/r00 seems to fall in the cracks or a bridge, if you will, between training grants and rpgs.

the walrus is paul said
March 22, 2011 @ 1:56 pm · Edit
That is correct, for NRSAs (Fs & Ts) versus RPGs (all others). NIH has separate appropriations to support research training under the NRSA authorization at Section 487 of the Public Health Service Act.

I believe the K’s come from the same appropriation as the Rs, but nonetheless exist as separate line items within NIH budget…so legally, I think those dollars could theoretically be used to fund either type if push came to shove…but I won’t swear to that.

curie said
March 22, 2011 @ 2:11 pm · Edit
if the r00 phase of the k99/r00 grants are under rpg’s, why then some institutes have so few k99/r00 grants? obviously k99 phase money is very small and that shouldn’t be a big issue to be covered by the nrsa budget. rpg budgets are quite large in each, then covering r00 shouldn’t be a problem either. why then the low k99/r00 grant number?

SG said
March 22, 2011 @ 1:55 pm · Edit
Training Grants(including K99s at least the K part) and R01s (RPGs) are separate line items in the IC budgets. For that matter so are Contracts vs. Grants. And Center Grants versus everything else. This is part of the budget request that DHHS sends to Congress every year.

Small amounts of money can be moved around but larger amounts need Congressional approval. This doesn’t necessitate a new law. Instead the IC has to ask special permission from the relevant House Committee. But, this takes time and you don’t want to do it a lot.

So, Congress doesn’t really care about these line items but if NIH wants to change a requested budget line item NIH has to get Congress’ OK. Kind of like when a PI wants to rebudget more than 25% of his/her grant in any year. You have to get the PO’s permission. But, the original budget was prepared by the PI. At least that is how I understand it.

writedit said
March 22, 2011 @ 1:59 pm · Edit
Very helpful – thanks!

VTU said
March 22, 2011 @ 4:36 pm · Edit
Submitted my K99/R00 to NCCAM in Oct 10. SRG meeting this week. What is the payline for K99 in NCCAM in FY10? Only one or two K99s per year but the success rate is good 66% as the application is less . Thanks for your reply!

Bhaskar said
March 23, 2011 @ 7:37 am · Edit
I just got my priority score R21 NIAAA 26 last week. This week in my eRA commons JIT showing up. This is my first NIH grant. Is there any hope to get funded.

writedit said
March 23, 2011 @ 10:25 pm · Edit
Hard to say, since this is NIAAA, but as usual, the mantra is to talk with your PO about where you rank – probably best to wait until you receive your summary statement, in which case you can also discuss this with him/her. I suspect the advice will be to start working on resubmission, though.

the walrus is paul said
March 24, 2011 @ 4:18 pm · Edit
not likely to be funded by NIAAA at this point unless you get pulled for “Select Pay”…which will depend on the need/desire for research on your specific topic. (As I’m sure you know) there is no ESI/NI ‘benefit’ on the R21s.

ds said
March 23, 2011 @ 11:00 am · Edit
My MBRS-Support of Competitive Research (SCORE) Program SC1 score is 37. The institute is NIGMS/NCI.
any one has insight on funding chances??
thanks

KomenGrant? said
March 23, 2011 @ 9:46 pm · Edit
Maybe my question does not belong to this site that appears to be related to NIH grants only….
Have anyone heard from the Susan G. Komen Foundation about the investigator-initiated awards? They are supposed to send out notifications in Feb, but my colleagues and I have not heard anything yet. Any response is greatly appreciated!

writedit said
March 23, 2011 @ 10:31 pm · Edit
Hmm. I’ve helped with Komen applications, but not this past year. It could be they were a bit overwhelmed with applications (or their usual reviewers were, with NIH and other granting agencies) so got behind schedule. I’d suggest you just contact the Foundation to see when they plan to issue news about awards.

KomenGrant? said
March 24, 2011 @ 1:13 pm · Edit
Thanks. writedit. I will give them a call.

tarheels said
March 24, 2011 @ 1:03 am · Edit
R21 revision just came back at a 31, only two points better than the original. I am an experienced investigator, and it is clear to me from the summary statements that I got two (out of a total of 3) new reviewers. They had all kinds of new suggestions that were not even mentioned in the first review. The third reviewer – who was the less knowledgeable of the 3 – was most pessimistic with his scores. This guy even criticized me for not mentioning a clinical trials – ON TOP OF A BASIC SCIENCE PROPOSAL FOR A R21 MECHANISM! I am not one who has ever complained a whole lot about the scoring, as I have had grants funded and unscored, but it just seems that this was a bit unfair to me. Factors such as this (two new reviewers) really become apparent with the extraordinarily tight paylines.

Other than the tyical “start thiking about a new proposal” solution, any advice on how to approach this, because it would probably take a miracle to have it funded in this climate?

HW said
March 24, 2011 @ 9:39 am · Edit
This has heppened to me a couple of times. All three new reviewers were happy with my response to critiques but alo raised lots of new comments. And of course, the scores did not improve much to the fundable range. I believe this is the issue of SRO of the study session because the chance of having all 3 reviewers rotating off is not high. Complaints to NIH will not change much unless the critiques are really off scientifically. Sorry about what happened to you…

HW said
March 24, 2011 @ 9:40 am · Edit
This has happened to me a couple of times. All three new reviewers were happy with my response to critiques but alo raised lots of new comments. And of course, the scores did not improve much to the fundable range. I believe this is the issue of SRO of the study session because the chance of having all 3 reviewers rotating off is not high. Complaints to NIH will not change much unless the critiques are really off scientifically. Sorry about what happened to you…

Dim said
March 24, 2011 @ 8:58 am · Edit
the grant was proposed to begin 1st of arpil.i have completed my jit 3 weeks now and stil waiting for my NoA.any chance it will arrive on time?
Does NIH/NEI try to start the projects on time….or they are ok delaying them?
thank you guys for your help

writedit said
March 24, 2011 @ 10:41 am · Edit
You can check with the grants management specialist assigned to your application. The start date on your application does not need to be the start date on the NoA, so it could be delayed … or it could start on time. If you have been told the award is being processed and need to spend money, you can 90 days prior to the award notice, but you need to work those details out with your institution.

Dim said
March 24, 2011 @ 9:00 am · Edit
tarheels….i ve seen this happen before. One of my collaborators lost his funding because they gave the resubmission to some new guys.Obviously they didnt even look at the previous comments cause they came up with completely new issues and things. This is NIH!! My collaborator ended up complaining to NIH.They acknowledged their act…but what can you do.The funding opportunity had gone

the walrus is paul said
March 24, 2011 @ 11:01 am · Edit
Speaking as an SRO…

Some SROs make a point of NOT assigning it to the same reviewers the second time around (as long as the new people also have expertise in the area); others make it a point to get all the original people to look at version A1; and some deliberately try to do a mix (1 prior reviewer, 2 new ones, etc.). I generally go with the 3rd option myself.

As for the likelihood of all 3 “cycling off,” it’s not as rare as you would think. Only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the reviewers on a given panel are standing members (i.e., one who actually do cycle off after several years). The rest are ad hocs, invited to a particular meeting because of their expertise relevant to the applications being reviewed at that specific meeting. Yours may be one of 6 or 7 applications they were initially assigned; if it is the only one relevant to their expertise when it comes back, they may not be invited to that meeting. So there goes 1 of your original reviewers. Another ad hoc may be invited, but unable to attend due to schedule conflicts (unlike standing members, they don’t know from time to time whether the will be asked to return, so they don’t always keep that day saved in their calendars). Or maybe he/she has an application of their own coming to the committee in this round, and so is not allowed to review “the competition”, obviously. So, you lose another reviewer to conflicts of one kind or another. The 3rd reviewer may have really cycled off; or the SRO may have thought they did a relatively poor job at earlier meetings, and so not invited them back; or s/he may have expertise that is far more relevant to other grants this round (often true of a “Reviewer #3″), and so because of workload, yours drops out of their assigned pile.

In any case, reviewers are always told to “evaluate the application on its current merits”, not solely on whether all prior items were addressed. Obviously, if they WEREN’T addressed, the application will still have faults. But even if they were addressed, it is not unusual for other issues to crop up based on new eyes looking at it (someone who is more aware of a particular aspect), or based on downstream fall-out of changes made, or subsequent of the science.

tarheels said
March 24, 2011 @ 11:44 pm · Edit
Thanks to everyone for their time and comments. To “the Walrus is Paul said”: your insight is invaluable. Mixing the reviewers is a great idea for an A1, but, in my opinion, only if that strategy is applied across the board. If it is not applied consistently, then the review process favors the A1s that receive the same reviewers. This becomes a problem with the current paylines. Clearly, a grant with a 30 or so impact score should be funded (a “shadow” percentile at this institute revealed about 12th percentile for my grant). In fact, my PO even said that “there were not really many criticisms to address” following the original submission. So, I addressed two points raised by both reviewers and did not change much else. What in the world else can you do, and why on earth would I have changed anything that wasn’t criticized? I am left believing (and I say this when my grant is funded or triaged or on the line) that it is a crapshoot.

Buds said
March 24, 2011 @ 11:14 am · Edit
Thank you “the Walrus is Paul” for the insight from an SRO point of view regarding grant reviews. Would it not be fair for A1 applications to go back to the same reviewers in order to assess whether all the critiques have been answered as required. It is a 100% guarantee that new reviewers will always find additional critiques in the grant because that is the only way they have to show that the job is well done. However there is no further chance to address these new critiques.

If the grant process has been changed at the NIH, shouldnt the review process also change so that same reviewers are assigned to the proposal throughout (which is only 2 shots)? Will be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks.

it is not unusual for other issues to crop up based on new eyes looking at it

DP said
March 24, 2011 @ 11:50 am · Edit
As a regular NIH reviewer, I can say that I always look at the summary statement and introduction of an A1. In fact, I do that first. It sets the “tone” of my review in a way. If the reviewer comments were valid, and the applicant responded well to them (particularly with new results) then I am already admittedly biased in favor of the applicant. I do find new flaws, problems, but I also view those in the scope that the applicant has worked hard to improve his or her science. Rarely does a new “fatal” flaw crop up, although it does happen. Look at the NIH website for stats, more proposals (I think about 80% or so) improve on the second submission. Some stay the same, and a smaller fraction get worse.

I don’t look at the old impact score, though, but I will always give an applicant who thoughtfully responded to prior reviews the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I have strongly supported an applicant who has made a change that subsequently ruffled the feathers of another reviewer of the A1 application. I just can’t fault an applicant who has responded to a legitimate criticism with a scientifically valid approach.

Now, when half the introduction is spent calling attention to positive comments from the last review instead of seriously addressing the major issues, then I am also biased, but this time negatively.

writedit said
March 25, 2011 @ 1:57 pm · Edit
Well, but walrus was also making the point that reviewers, whether or not they have seen the application before, should review the science in front of them on its own, not in relation to the prior application. CSR’s goal is to minimize emphasis on response to the prior review in terms of deciding the A1 score, though of course, as has also been commented here, reviewers are pleased to see that applicants do not ignore suggestions made (and the work put into making these suggestions) in the prior summary statement. I never let PIs get away with simply responding to the prior review and thinking their work on revisions is done … reviewers are not obligated to point out every potential weakness (and often stop once they’ve flagged a few fatal flaws, even they see other weaknesses), and of course the applicant’s project and work in the larger field has moved on since the A0 application, which must be taken into account.

Jerry said
March 24, 2011 @ 11:54 am · Edit
My questions regarding the grant review:
Who has the power to decide the assignment of the application? It should be the SRO, right? What is the role of the chairperson of the review panel in this process? Can I suggest to exclude the chairperson to review my application because of the conflict of interest?
Thanks

the walrus is Paul said
March 24, 2011 @ 1:58 pm · Edit
The Chair may be asked to suggest ad hoc reviewers, but it is the SRO who makes assignments. I have never heard of the Chair doing it (not to say it doesn’t happen…if there is a lazy SRO who wants to make someone else do the work). Even in terms of commenting on a particular reviewer’s expertise, generally the SRO knows more than the Chair, by virtue of all the databases available to us.

If there is a legitimate conflict of interest, you can ask that ANY person not be assigned as a reviewer. You need to do this in your cover letter. But be prepared to provide a legitimate reason (i.e., because your score was bad in a previous session of that review panel is not a legitimate reason to exclude the Chair…nor any of the previous reviewers, if you somehow have found out who they were)

HW said
March 24, 2011 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
Dear Paul,
Thanks for the many valuable insights. Can we ask the SRO to exclude a reviewer that shows up on the roster just a month before the study session? And the COI is legit. Is it too late?

the walrus is paul said
March 24, 2011 @ 4:13 pm · Edit
Generally the Roster is only realeased 30 days before the meeting (you can always find out who the standing members are, but ad hocs only show up at the time of Roster release). By then, assignments have been made and it is tough to change them (almost no reviewers have actually started their work that early, but moving an assignment usually has a cascading effect, as the person who gets it wants to give up one of theirs in exchange, etc…). The way to combat this in advance is to list in your cover letter ALL the people who should not review your proposal (presumably that is a very short list, unless you have spent your career alienating people !), even if they are not on the Committee at present, so the SRO doesn’t waste time trying to recruit them as an ad hoc. By the same token, a reviewer is supposed to indicate if s/he has a conflict that makes them biased (for or against), once an assignment is made, so the SRO will then change it immediately. I have found reviewers to be VERY diligent about this, so if there really is a legitimate conflict, the reviewer will already have recused him/herself from your application (even though they remain on the panel, reviewing other applications, and therefore are on the roster). But yes, you can bring it up with your SRO at the 30 day point if necessary; don’t wait until, say, 14 days though — the result that late may well be having your application “administratively pulled” and moved to a later review cycle, because it’s too late for the SRO to find someone else to review it at the last minute.

Andy Baggio said
March 24, 2011 @ 12:25 pm · Edit
Got 14 percentile of my NCI R01 application on February review (A1, neither NI nor EI, impact score 28). JIT showed immediately with the summary statement. Talked to PO this week and was told that there is only minimum chance to get the funding through NCI. However, it is a dual assignment with NIDDK as 2nd institute. With the R01 payline of 15% in NIDDK, shall I go ahead transfer it to NIDDK or just wait for NCI councile meeting on May? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

writedit said
March 24, 2011 @ 2:39 pm · Edit
Well, you don’t “transfer” it, but you can contact the NIDDK PO to see if they might be interested in picking it up. I don’t think a 14th percentile will do you any good at NIDDK, though, especially with NCI as the primary. I have this feeling that all the other ICs say, go ask big brother for some of his big bucks whenever NCI is involved. At NCI, you are just inside the range of percentiles considered for pay by exception (8-15th for established PIs), and it sounds like your PO does not foresee that your science will beat out that proposed by others in the same pile.

Andy Baggio said
March 24, 2011 @ 9:15 pm · Edit
Thanks Writedit. That is very helpful. Can you give some suggestions what I should do under this situation? I am frustrated right now.

AnotherESI said
March 24, 2011 @ 3:09 pm · Edit
In agreement with what writedit wrote, I think transfers happen only in exceptional situations and is especially tough when NCI is the primary since none of the ICs want to spend money on cancer-focused grants. I had a colleague who had a cancer-related grant assigned initially by CSR to NIDDK as primary but after SRG, DK refused to fund it since they felt that cancer was the main theme and it did not fit programmatically with DK’s goals.. But there is little harm to trying I guess.

Andy Baggio said
March 24, 2011 @ 9:08 pm · Edit
Thank you so much for your kind suggestions! I talk to my previous PO in NIDDK and he is willing to help. But I do not know if I should wait after the council meeting to take the minimum chance in NCI or before council meeting to bet NIDDK chance. Struggling!

writedit said
March 25, 2011 @ 1:48 pm · Edit
I still don’t think you need to “do” anything, since NIDDK will wait until NCI makes a decision before taking any action on your application. The key is to have the NIDDK PO start advocating for your application there.

wes said
March 24, 2011 @ 2:14 pm · Edit
Are there are good PO and bad POs? For example, if you are in the grey (i.e. 1 or 2% above the payline) and your PO likes your science and recommends it to the higher up (thus good PO), you have a bigger chance of getting funded. The bad PO only follows the payline and make no suggestions on those 1 or 2% above the payline. What can a PI do to avoid a bad PO?

writedit said
March 24, 2011 @ 2:34 pm · Edit
Depending on how specialized your science is, you may need to put up with the PO you were dealt. If he/she is very unresponsive, you can go up a rung in the org chart to the branch/division chief, but only if you can demonstrate a clear pattern of being unresponsive and unhelpful. If your science could fit in with the areas covered by a different PO (in the same IC or another), by all means, introduce yourself.

wes said
March 24, 2011 @ 3:03 pm · Edit
Thanks Writedit for your response.

Can I specifically request a PO in a cover letter?

writedit said
March 24, 2011 @ 3:06 pm · Edit
Not quite. You find your PO well before you apply (and ask for his/her input on your aims & applicaton strategy), and then you mention in the cover letter that you have been working with this particular PO (so the SRO knows whom to call).

wes said
March 24, 2011 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
Thanks Writedit.

I am just frustrated with my current PO. I think anyone can be better than her. I will look up my IC’s website to identify a PO.

Altajax said
March 24, 2011 @ 5:56 pm · Edit
I could use some advice on when to resubmit (for an F32). Is there any benefit to resubmitting for cycle I? I received a 30 and I feel like I can sufficiently address the majority of the reviewers comments for the cycle I deadline, April 8th, except one comment; one reviewer wrote “modest productivity” under weaknesses. I have three manuscripts and two book chapters in preparation all of which I expect to be at the very least submitted if not accepted for publication by the cycle II deadline. I don’t really want to wait since it will now already be near to two years after the original submission by the time anything might get funded, but I guess three months isn’t too much more considering. Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

the walrus is Paul said
March 24, 2011 @ 7:35 pm · Edit
“Submitted” is only marginally more productive than “in prep”, not enough to address the concern or help your score….it only shows that a text actually exists (“in prep” can mean anything from “a vague idea in my head” to “just waiting for author # 6 to sign off on the final version”). Proof of productivity is going to hinge at a minimum on actual acceptance by a journal; even better is on-line pre-publication, so the reviewers can look it up, assess it, etc.

Nervousnelly said
March 25, 2011 @ 10:23 am · Edit
Hi Altajax,

I am just an early investigator like you and not an SRO like “The walrus is Paul,” but I wanted to share my experience- I had 12 pubs, and only 2 pertinent to my research focus, and had the same “modest productivity” criticism applied to my 1st K23 submission, with a score of 40. For the second go, I had one more high impact pub in my research focus, and two platform presentations of my on-going research at scientific meetings, and I explained this was submitted, pending decisions. I still got one critique of modest productivity, but the other revisions I had made helped improve my score to a 20. Still don’t know if I’ll be funded- council meets in may- but I thought I’ll share my experience.

gsk said
March 25, 2011 @ 1:11 pm · Edit
Can your reviewers count? I had modest productivity in graduate school-4 first authors, 1 second and 2 third authors. Because one was joint authorship, the reviewer (both times actually) dinged me on it and then didn’t consider the rest. I did have one submitted going in but in the update was able to say accepted, but since there are no more updates, you won’t be able to do it.

Mine was linked to time in graduate school, of which I had to completely change projects. However, we were able to address that in the resubmission. I went from 40+ to funded on the second submission. If you have given talks/posters, they seem to consider that in productivity, also, so be sure to list those. I hadn’t listed the departmental seminars I had given and they loved those on the second submission, too.

Altajax said
March 25, 2011 @ 1:23 pm · Edit
Thanks for your helpful thoughts. I am leaning towards just submitting to cycle I and not waiting for the actual pubs, then if they are accepted by review time I can submit a supplement. Would accepted publications added in the supplement still carry the same weight? Good luck Nelly, I hope your K gets funded.

Altajax said
March 25, 2011 @ 1:38 pm · Edit
Thanks gsk, sorry my screen did not display your comment before submitting my previous one. You can’t submit updates anymore? I thought you still could if a manuscript was accepted. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-115.html
“News of an article accepted for publication (a copy of the article should not be sent)”
Am I incorrect? Did it get changed? Thanks

writedit said
March 25, 2011 @ 1:45 pm · Edit
Yes, you can let the SRO know about accepted publications (not submitted though), and yes, they carry the same weight at that point as if they had been part of the original application … perhaps more, as evidence of ongoing productivity on the project (versus waiting to see if it is funded).

koala said
March 25, 2011 @ 12:41 pm · Edit
Has anyone submitted an F32 to the NCI in the last year and been funded, and if so what was your score? I received a 27 for Aug 10 submission and have not been given a decision about funding? Has the NCI awarded anything or are they waiting for Congress to pass a budget?

john said
March 25, 2011 @ 12:44 pm · Edit
I submitted in April ’10 and have not received notification of funding from NCI yet. My score was a 21. The PO remains optimistic, but it appears as if they are going to wait until a budget is passed before making any decisions.

Comrade PhysioProf said
March 25, 2011 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
NCI has not awarded any new F32s from fiscal 2011 funds.

TCGirl said
April 1, 2011 @ 10:10 am · Edit
NCI also has R21′s in a holding pattern. One colleague got an 8th percentile on her R21 on the first submission and it is has been in limbo since the review last July. I recently got 4th percentile on a R21 A1 app and was told “We don’t have any guidance yet on funding decisions for R21s.”

I find it extremely troublesome that some mechanism which remain active for submission are just sitting..

writedit said
April 1, 2011 @ 10:27 am · Edit
Wow. How much guidance does a 4th percentile need?

wcde said
March 25, 2011 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
Will the NCI council meets in May or June? Every one told me it is in May. However, it said June 29-29 in this website http://ofacp.od.nih.gov/committee/meet_by_institutenew.html. My R21 got 8th percentile. I have nothing to do but waiting for the council meeting.

the walrus is Paul said
March 25, 2011 @ 4:54 pm · Edit
You may be confusing terminology with actual date. The late spring/early summer Council meeting for all Institutes is referred to as the “May Council”, and shows up in Council Round notation (sometimes found in Commons) as 2011/05 or 201105, for this particular fiscal year. However, Institutes actually hold their meetings any time from early May through late June. The information on the ofacp page regarding specific dates for each IC is correct.

markeditup said
March 25, 2011 @ 5:34 pm · Edit
Dear fellow masochists:

My era commons status seems to be stuck on “Pending IRG review” with a study section meeting this Mon (3/21/11). Anyone in the same boat as me? Thank you and good luck to all!

MKim said
March 26, 2011 @ 8:53 pm · Edit
Hi, I was expecting a NoA from NINDS early this month everything was on track, then recently i came to know that a new, grant management specialist, GMS has been assigned to the grant application. They just told me the new GMS is evaluating the JIT information. Does any one know what possibly cause them to change the GMS. Right now i am not sure when my award will be released, the new GMS is not helpful.

writedit said
March 26, 2011 @ 10:03 pm · Edit
This is inconvenient and frustrating but nothing to be worried about. People move around within the NIH, people come and go. I’m sure a GMS taking on a new portfolio in this climate has his/her hands full. Your PO might be able to give you some idea of when to expect the NoA based on what the backlog looks like.

MKim said
March 26, 2011 @ 11:37 pm · Edit
Thanks Writedit, appreciate it. That’s the plan will talk to the PO and see if I can get some information on award release date.

Saurabh said
March 27, 2011 @ 9:24 am · Edit
Hi Writedit,

After my era commons status changed from “Council completed” to pending i asked the PO about my A0 funding status. She replied in her email that she was pleased to inform that funding plan has been drawn and they plan to pay my grant. When do you think i shall get the NOA. My start date for the K99-R00 is April 1st 2011. FYI ..My score was 28 in A0.

writedit said
March 27, 2011 @ 9:51 am · Edit
Congratulations!! If you have not received a JIT request from the GMS yet, that will need to be taken care of first. Once they’ve processed the JIT, the NoA could arrive soon after … or not, as in the case of MKim, who thought the NoA was in the mail earlier this month. It really depends on the administrative burden at the IC, though I expect folks will be working hard this week before the next budget showdown (and potential government shutdown, in which case all work on processing/issuing awards will stop).

MKim said
March 27, 2011 @ 10:04 pm · Edit
Does it imply that if the awards are not released this week, then because of budget uncertainly (operations under continuing resolution) the award process will come to a stop. Until the agencies have budgetary details they wont be any processing of awards?

writedit said
March 27, 2011 @ 10:11 pm · Edit
Fortunately, for you at least I hope, the next deadline is April 8th. Awards will still be processed etc. so long as either another CR or an actual appropriations bill is passed. Applications with scores in the gray zone will remain in limbo if they can only pull off another CR. However, the Washington Post at least is reporting chances are going up for a government shutdown, which is what will happen if the House, Senate, and White House don’t all agree on one measure or another to keep the federal government funded as of midnight, April 8th.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/odds-of-government-shutdown-rise-as-parties-snipe-over-faltering-budget-talks/2011/03/26/AFdVK9cB_story.html

MKim said
March 28, 2011 @ 12:16 am · Edit
Thanks writedit, this site is awesome !
Certainly, not a good time of the year for all those grant applicants who are waiting for clearance on their application.

clottingclover said
March 28, 2011 @ 6:08 pm · Edit
Hi Y’all.
Just received my impact score of 17. CR cutoff is 15 for my mechanism (F30). Does anyone think this is the “gray” area and has a chance of being funded? Should I call the PO? What can she do at the council meeting? Can she help push it over the edge at the council meeting? Does a new publication after the study section meeting matter? Just a little bummed about the payline cutoff. I realize these are difficult times!!
Thanks in advance!

writedit said
March 28, 2011 @ 11:15 pm · Edit
Wow. I’m surprised at such a low cut-off for F30s, which I would expect to have less competition and a better break. I’d be a little more than bummed at having such an exceptional score sit above the payline – so sorry to hear about this. Your PO can’t do anything at the Council meeting, but in advance of council, she could advocate for your application to the division/branch head and IC director, if your IC funds any F30s by exception (select pay). I’m not sure if this is the case at any IC, though, so I don’t want to raise any false hopes. But yes, definitely tell her about any manuscripts accepted for publication since the review … if there is any chance for select pay, such an update would help your chances – and would certainly help an A1 submission in April, if you can turn around the resubmission in time. Good luck with this …

the walrus is paul said
March 29, 2011 @ 11:24 am · Edit
Juat as an FYI, for most ICs (I can’t say for sure that it is “all”), Fs do not go to Council anyway…they are done totally at the IC’s discretion, without the formal “second round of review”.

writedit said
March 29, 2011 @ 11:41 am · Edit
Aha. Interesting, and makes sense. Thanks for sharing this tidbit.

clottingclover said
March 29, 2011 @ 12:27 pm · Edit
Thank you! Does this mean that the PO’s opinion has more potential to affect the funding decision? Will new publications or abstracts make any impact? my ERA status indicates a “Council meeting” for 5/2011. Is this a special council for Fs? Also this was my A1 submission. Thank you so much for your help and setting up and contribution to this forum!

the walrus is paul said
March 29, 2011 @ 1:41 pm · Edit
All applications are assigned to a “Council Round”…in your case, the May Council…even if the actual application itself isn’t reviewed by the council; a designation that has implications for submit dates, pay plan meeting dates, funding start, etc., as well.

New pubs/abstracts will only have an impact if the major negative in your summary statement was related to productivity issues.

As to whether your PO can push you over the line, I would guess that probably not at this point, but maybe later. What happens at my IC (which will remain nameless ), is that we pay the best ones in the actual Council round. any that are in a gray area are held until the end of the FY. If there is NRSA money left then (remember, this is a separate budget allocation from all other grants), we go back and pull the next best ones from any of the 3 Council rounds.

curie said
March 29, 2011 @ 2:08 pm · Edit
walrus, i assume what you said of f grants also apply to k grants as they are also under the nrsa budget.

the walrus is paul said
March 29, 2011 @ 2:22 pm · Edit
no, Ks are “training and career development” but not actually NRSA (which is a specific appropriation ‘law’, only applying to Fs and Ts). See: http://grants.nih.gov/training/nrsa.htm

curie said
March 29, 2011 @ 3:03 pm · Edit
so k’s go under rpg budget?

the walrus is paul said
March 29, 2011 @ 3:17 pm · Edit
Ks are a separate line item from Rs within an Institute’s budget, but come from the overall grant appropriation dollars, not a separate appropriation legalistically

curie said
March 29, 2011 @ 5:00 pm · Edit
awesome walrus, this gives an improved understanding of the whole process.

MKim said
March 29, 2011 @ 10:52 pm · Edit
Hi, I wanted to check if one, on a SBIR grant, can purchase an equipment from a non-US based vendor. Does the vendor necessarily needs to be a US based company.

writedit said
March 29, 2011 @ 11:29 pm · Edit
You should be able to ask your GMS or find answers at the SBIR/STTR Website (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm). I don’t know, but I would assume a simple equipment purchase could be justified if you could demonstrate that only the foreign vendor meets your specifications … and it is not a significant percentage of your budget.

MKim said
March 30, 2011 @ 12:28 am · Edit
Thanks writedit, yeah, in the “NIH grants policy statement” under “place of performance” it calls out for a same thing . I think a justification for purchase should work.

NP said
March 30, 2011 @ 6:13 am · Edit
Our U01 received a score of 25. Two reviewers were very positive about our proposal and only one reviewer did not like it. The PO is willing to help us. We just sent the Responses to Critiques to our PO. Does anyone know what is the likelihood our proposal will be funded? Thanks.

Syndrome said
March 30, 2011 @ 8:00 am · Edit
It is very hard to say since you must of applied to an RFA. The fact that your PO asked for responses to the reviewers comments is a strong positive. But, it all depends on how many they can fund, where you rank in the funding plan and how your application matches up with Program’s priorities for this RFA.

dim said
March 30, 2011 @ 11:19 am · Edit
hello all, i just got a word from my GMS and PO that i will start a month later from the requested date. i guess thats ok considering the funding troubles this year. i do not have the NoA yet….but i was wondering if their email is good enough? What if the governments go to shut down on the 8th?
I had 10th percentile on RO1 application.
Thank you

writedit said
March 30, 2011 @ 2:34 pm · Edit
I am not sure I understand what is it that you are asking. You will be funded … and a shut-down might delay your start further, but probably not by a lot – not by months. The GMS/PO e-mail should be sufficient for your institution to set up an account for you (I assume they copied your sponsored programs/grants management office), if you nned to start spending against the grant now.

dim said
March 30, 2011 @ 2:44 pm · Edit
Sorry i realised my note was not clear. But you managed to answer it!
I was just wondering if a shut down would delay or cancel my funding.
Thank you writedit…..as always!!!!

NCI Applicant said
March 30, 2011 @ 8:05 pm · Edit
My RO1 was reviewed last Oct and received a percentile that falls in the gray zone (11-25 for NI/ESI; 8-15 for established investigators). Council has met in Feb. According to my PO, they are discussing “gray-zone” applications and will continue through April. Has anyone under the same situation heard from the NCI about funding decision? Any input will be greatly appreciated.

NCI or Bust said
April 1, 2011 @ 12:13 pm · Edit
This may be already known, but my understanding from talking to my program officer at NCI and others was that grants that were approved for consideration for exception funding by council on Feb 7-9 and then championed by the POs were then being subjected to at least two more levels of discussion. I don’t know how many grants PO’s were championing but my sense was that it was a small fraction. This was based on the idea that not alot of grants approved for exception consideration would be funded and there was going to require significant effort by the PO to have a grant approved versus those by other POs . This involved first the program officers meeting amongst themselves to winnow applications (apparently most apps were not dropped at this point). The PO then had to make their case for approval by higher ups . . . I heard even Varmus is involved. New/ESI grants were discussed the week after regular grants (My grant was discussed on March 16). I spoke with my PO by phone and Email repeatedly in early March. This led me to think that 1) even grants selected by a PO to be moved forward were still only 50 % likely to be funded. 2) the PO was definitely arguing for the science as we mainly discussed the nuances of why my work was scientifically impactful. My PO also told me decisions will start coming down around the second week in April to the end of April; meaning that if you haven’t heard by the end of April then your grant will probably not be funded unless new monies become available. Apparently this process is anticipated to be repeated for each cycle. This is adding significant work for the POs and making things pretty stressful at NIH.

NCI Applicant said
April 2, 2011 @ 3:05 pm · Edit
Thank you so much for shaoring much needed information. In late Jan, my PO told that my app has been moved up the leadership levels and the decision will be made in late April. After that, I have not heard anything from the PO, no good or bad news And I hope this measn my app is still in the system and there is no decision untill late April. I have sent the PO emails every 3-4 week to update my publications and other status, so I asume the PO would have told me that my app is no longer being considered so that I would stop emailing.

I think you are NI or ESI. Has your PO share any particular information on ESI and NI? The gray zone for NI/ESI is huge and I wonder how they pick and choose. Did you get a human JIT? Thanks in advance for sharing more information.

NCI or Bust said
April 3, 2011 @ 2:23 pm · Edit
I guess I don’t know the difference between a human and non-human JIT. I was requested for a JIT in Oct/Nov, but this was before they realized that the 2010 funding model was not relevant. I sent in my approvals etc. in January. I am surprised that your grant was “moved up to leadership levels” before council meeting but I certainly don’t claim to know exactly what is going on. I heard from a PO who retired 2 years ago that there were two rounds of exception funding. Mine was apparently in the second, which I took as a bad sign, but who knows. I assumed the first round was in late February, but maybe yours was in this category. I am betting that basically everything is fixed by now and there is little that can be done. Hopefully we will hear next week or or the following, because my experience with NIH is no news is bad news. Further, they have the next round to deal with in May, so I would think anyone not hearing by then has to be low probability barring some unforeseen increase in expected funding to NIH. I am rewriting my A1 for new Submission in June, I hope this becomes unnecessary but it’s the only power over the situation I feel that I have at this point.

NCI Applicant said
April 3, 2011 @ 4:50 pm · Edit
Thanks for the new insights. The human JIT comes from PO or GMS which is different than the automatic JIT link at ERA Commons. I did not get a human JIT, which appears to be a bad sign according to many comments posted at this site. My app was an A0. I heard NIH favors A1 because there is no more A2. Good luck to you!

curie said
April 3, 2011 @ 5:22 pm · Edit
nci applicant’s reply clarified the original post where i was confused about what is a human and non-human jit (for personalized e-mail jit request vs. automated jit link).. he he..

nanoparticle said
March 30, 2011 @ 11:33 pm · Edit
My NCI R01 proposal is also in the gray zone. It was reviewed in Feb. and the council meeting will be held in June. Hope to hear good news from you.

nyt said
March 31, 2011 @ 1:38 am · Edit
It seems that the budget deal for rest of the fiscal year is near. Although big cuts are expected, education and scientific research could be spared.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/usa-congress-spending-idUSN3064060920110331

the walrus is paul said
March 31, 2011 @ 10:45 am · Edit
Not sure how relevant the item below is this morning, since now it does sound like they are inching toward budget resolution, but, FYI….

CQ HEALTHBEAT NEWS

March 30, 2011 – 2:02 p.m.

Sebelius ‘Dubious’ That Health Research Funding Would Continue in Shutdown

By Jane Norman, CQ HealthBeat Associate Editor

Health research grant funds could be suspended if a stalemate among congressional lawmakers over the fiscal 2011 spending plan ends in a government shutdown, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius warned Wednesday.

Head Start programs for low-income children could also be closed immediately in the event of a shutdown “because they literally don’t have enough in their budgets to take these possible cuts,” Sebelius added. And she said that Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has been in touch with research grant recipients warning that their funding streams may be interrupted in the event of a shutdown.

Democrats and Republicans remain at odds over what to do about the fiscal 2011 budget. A stopgap spending bill runs out April 8.

House GOP leaders said Wednesday that the House will vote April 1 on a bill that’s essentially the same as a fiscal 2011 spending measure (HR 1) the chamber passed in February. The bill will say that the original measure would become law if the Senate doesn’t approve legislation to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year.

The secretary’s comments came at a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing, where Democrat Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland asked if grant recipients would continue to receive their federal funding during a shutdown.

“Dubious,” Sebelius said. “I don’t know what the funding cycle would be.”

“I think this is a really big deal,” said Mikulski, who called for a hearing on the overall impact of a shutdown on vital health and human services programs. Mikulski said she is worried clinical trials could be disrupted. The NIH and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are headquartered in Maryland, as well as major research institutions such as Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland, Mikulski noted.

Sebelius said a shutdown certainly would have an impact on HHS and beyond the Washington area. “We know that critical trials are under way, research goes on day in and day out, thousands of people are affected, not only on the campuses you refer to but certainly in grant programs throughout this country, which is jobs and economic opportunity,” she said.

Sebelius said that NIH’s Collins sent out a directive to research grantees in recent days because of the uncertainty of funding in the fiscal year 2011 budget.

“He has given information to grantees all over the country that he cannot assure them ongoing funding is available and has given a very cautionary note about what they should do in the future,” Sebelius said. “We are operating in very uncertain territory right now.”

But Sebelius said she was reluctant to give many specifics or statistics on numbers of grants or trials that might be affected. She said officials are reviewing the 1995 shutdown and what services or operations were slowed down or stopped. “It has a pretty widespread effect on health care delivery and human service availability throughout the country because we do touch lives each and every day,” she said.

Mikulski said it could be a “catastrophic” situation for agencies within HHS and the people they serve across the nation. “There is this belief the shutdown will only hurt in Washington,” Mikulski said.

Sebelius said all agency directors and everyone throughout the department has been told that HHS is operating on 2010 estimates but to prepare “for the possibility of significant differences.”

After the hearing, she said officials are hoping the House and Senate come together on a resolution. “I think it’s very difficult to operate a government a week, a month at a time, whether it’s in the health care area or, for heaven’s sake, defense or anything else” Sebelius said.

But she added that “I think the more members are informed about the likely consequences, it’s also helpful.”

Jane Norman can be reached at jnorman@cq.com.

Source: CQ Online News
Same-day coverage of the people and events shaping health care policy from Washington.

ABCD said
March 31, 2011 @ 3:39 pm · Edit
Guess who wants to protect NIH budget this year??!!! Newt Gingrich…Read on

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/153099-gingrich-save-nih-funding

Arlenna said
March 31, 2011 @ 5:03 pm · Edit
In case it helps anyone out there, I heard from my PO that the NCI’s “confirm the recommended paylist” meeting is supposed to be April 7th. It was going to be March 22nd, but it got postponed.

HW said
March 31, 2011 @ 6:17 pm · Edit
That’s very helpful information. Do NCI POs tell applicants wether they are on the recommended paylist? My application is in the gray zone and I am an ESI, but have not been told that I am on the recommended paylist. Is this a bad sign?

NCI or Bust said
April 1, 2011 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
Is there anymore clarification on what the “recommended paylist” is referring to?
I know people that scored below 7 % that have already received NOAs from NCI. Specifically, is anyone who was being considered for exception funding heard anything?

writedit said
April 1, 2011 @ 1:34 pm · Edit
Here at BICO, a friend had a 25th percentile A1 submitted last Feb (2010) selected for funding by exception, with the request for JIT sent on Jan 31 (2011) and the actual NoA arriving a week or two after the March 1 start date. So, NCI has issued awards for applications by exception .. even extreme exception, like this one (new investigator but not ESI).

HW said
April 1, 2011 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
Hi Writedit,
What is the general area of the funded 25th percentile R01? I am trying to get a sense on what qualifies for the exceptional funding. Thanks.
HW

writedit said
April 1, 2011 @ 11:59 pm · Edit
The PI had no idea the PO was advocating for the application – had long ago assumed it was dead in the water – so it was a total shock when the JIT request came. The PO did not explain why the exception was granted, but clearly the work (in vitro DNA repair) must have been of keen interest to someone in program.

Arlenna said
April 5, 2011 @ 2:12 pm · Edit
For me, I have a fundable (i.e. within payline) score on a set-aside program RFA, and it is included on the list of things recommended by Coincil and the POs to fund. It’s just waiting for the final stamp-of-approval from the meeting with the Director. So my PO is able to say “cautiously optimistic,” but hasn’t wanted to confirm anything to me until the check is actually in the mail (understandably). The start date was supposed to be April 1st, but as we can see, it didn’t make that. We’ll see when it ends up starting after all, but luckily we are floating okay for the moment so it’s not too dire yet.

Freckle said
March 31, 2011 @ 6:31 pm · Edit
Anyone hear anything from NICHD POs lately?

EY said
April 1, 2011 @ 7:33 am · Edit
I did. Nothing really change, they have not issued many awards at all (actually very few), and is hoping to have the budget after Apr.8. Then they will be able to establish their payline, and at least we should all hear something instead of staying at this limbo situation.

SO2 said
April 1, 2011 @ 11:41 am · Edit
Thanks for sharing. I got a 12th percentile on my NICHD R01 grant application which was reveiwed in Oct. It has been on the uncertain range. I am ESL.

I contacted my PO several times and was asked to be patient.

Freckle said
April 1, 2011 @ 1:44 pm · Edit
Sounds consistent with what I heard. Patience is the key word

freckle said
April 3, 2011 @ 6:40 pm · Edit
I checked the NIH grant database:

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

and NICHD has issued 6 new R01 grant awards in just ~the past week after not doing much for weeks.

Mean anything?

Reply
Continuing Resolutions all the way to the next round. | DrugMonkey said
April 4, 2011 @ 9:56 am · Edit
[…] from the new round and the limbo-zone holdovers from December are still waiting. I’m sure the comments over at writedit’s place will clue us in on […]

Freckle said
April 4, 2011 @ 3:40 pm · Edit
Thanks DM for your interesting post on the other blog.

I hope they pass a budget soon….

CG said
April 5, 2011 @ 8:55 am · Edit
I received 18% on my RO1-A1 (NIGMS; November 2010 submission). I got JIT request from program director. Does this mean I have good chance on being funded.

writedit said
April 5, 2011 @ 9:33 am · Edit
It certainly means you’re in the running. Some ICs request JIT for all applications within a certain percentile, with no guarantee of funding. Given how early it is (i.e., Council doesn’t meet until May), this might be the case … but you can ask your PO whether this represents a routine request or an indication that your application specifically is being recommended for funding.

NCI or Bust said
April 5, 2011 @ 11:05 am · Edit
Random thought . . . Since NCI paylines were reduced to 7/10 % established/ESI but Varmus claims that # of new RO1s will be the same, this seems to set up a situation where a much larger percent of grants will be funded by exception. My thoughts are (1) Could this result in certain POs having a much higher funding percentage than others? (2) Is Varmus doing this intentionally to identify POs with shrinking portfolios that could then be merged? (3) Might this also result in certain study sections having fewer people funded than others depending on whether the program officers with people in that section were effectively promoted?

writedit said
April 5, 2011 @ 8:19 pm · Edit
I’m not quite sure I understand your line of reasoning. SROs, not POs, oversee study sections. POs (not SROs) do have portfolios … but these applications are reviewed in various study sections, not just one. And study sections don’t fund applications … they review the scientific merit and assign scores accordingly. The scores help program pick from among the best science when balancing portfolios to ensure all IC objectives are being met via extramural research. Varmus would not use this approach (very low hard payline with the rest of applications funded by exception within a certain percentile range) to downsize a particular PO’s portfolio so it could be merged with someone else’s … a reorganization of a branch or division due to shifting science and IC priorities, maybe. And, re: #3 again, percentiles are based on scores, not funding status, so it doesn’t matter if none of the 9th percentile applications from a particular SRG are not funded … does not affect the future percentile or anything else in the first-level review process.

curie said
April 5, 2011 @ 11:30 pm · Edit
i think nci-or-bust is saying that since payline is stringent and lots of grants to be funded based on discussion, this increases the role of po on pushing an application among the competing applications in that zone.

NCI or Bust said
April 6, 2011 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
I probably am just thinking too much on this, but this idea stems from my sense that the POs at NCI are working much harder this year and are consequently pretty stressed (I’m sure the possibility of a government shutdown isn’t helping either). My point was that if a large % of grants in a POs portfolio get funded not by payline but on whether the PO is an effective advocate, some POs are likely to be better than others and will end up with larger portfolios of funded grants while the poor advocates will end up with fewer funded grants. While I don’t know if this was considered before the change was made, it may be an unintended consequence.

curie said
April 6, 2011 @ 5:03 pm · Edit
i think that is a valid point nci-or-bust

SG said
April 6, 2011 @ 8:01 pm · Edit
This may be true

“….[POs] will end up with larger portfolios of funded grants while the poor advocates will end up with fewer funded grants.”

But since more grants mean more work and POs are not paid more for having more grants in their portfolio I don’t think it would be a problem.

AnotherESI said
April 5, 2011 @ 12:38 pm · Edit
SS, Jane and others awaiting NoA from NHLBI – any movement on your grants ? I see that my study section has awarded one FY2011 new grant, but seems like that one was held over from the past council. I had some issues correcting effort on my other grants for my JIT which was then resolved – the GMS kept checking with me about the status, but nothing since I resolved the questions. Intended start date was April 1.

SS said
April 5, 2011 @ 4:31 pm · Edit
AnotherESI- I am (probably others that you listed too are) still waiting for the NoA from NHLBI. 2 weks ago, I received an email from my PO that NHLBI is expected to pay my grant application and NoA will be sent to my University. My GMS has also confirmed over the phone that my application will be paid. I just talked to her one more time yesterday and she was working on all pending applications now. Looks like the delay is at the GMS’s end. Most probably we will get NoA this week or the next with a start date of April 15 or so.

AnotherESI said
April 5, 2011 @ 7:40 pm · Edit
Thanks SS, with the shutdown looking likely, may be even later. We shall wait patiently.

Jane said
April 6, 2011 @ 11:58 am · Edit
SS, I was contacted right at the end of April for an updated F&A document. Once my SR officer emailed that to them they awarded it right away (YAY!) with a 4/1/11 start date, which completely shocked me. It even shows up on Reporter. The NOA showed up in Commons a couple of days after I was emailed. So I’m funded with this R01 (my first). For those who are interested in the background of this award, this was a 13% percentile for NHLBI and I am not an ESI. Also, it was funded for 4 years not 5 – apparently this is an across the board cut of years, but the budget (modular) was not cut.

Good luck everyone!

SS said
April 6, 2011 @ 1:58 pm · Edit
Congratulations Jane.. and thanks for the update. Mine is delayed just because of the GMS. She was working on a dfferent project last couple of weeks. I hope to get my NoA soon, probably with a April 15 or May 1 start. I hope it doesn’t get delayed due to govt shut down.

writedit said
April 6, 2011 @ 2:11 pm · Edit
Well, if you don’t have an NoA by Friday and no appropriations deal is reached, it will be delayed, though hopefully not by much, since the country really cannot afford a prolonged government shutdown (nor can the unpaid workers, who likely will not receive back-pay this time).

SS said
April 6, 2011 @ 2:09 pm · Edit
SS–Yes! I see your’s… and.. hey..very interesting, we both are trained from the same institute, at different times of course (hope you are not surprised).

HW said
April 5, 2011 @ 1:03 pm · Edit
It seems that there may be another CR as the Congress could not agree on 2011 budget and the current CR expires this Friday. This one-week CR will spare NIH again but will slash 12 billions. It is not bad news….

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=280&Month=4&Year=2011

SS said
April 5, 2011 @ 4:22 pm · Edit
It looks like white house will not pass this short-term bill:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/05/house-senate-leaders-head-white-house-ditch-dealing-budget/

aj said
April 7, 2011 @ 10:11 am · Edit
Does anyone have any insight as to why NCI hasn’t started awarding F32s for FY2011 yet? I’ve talked/emailed with the PO several times since December, but can’t get any information relating to when the awards might start happening, what they’re waiting for to start making awards, or how my priority score (17) ranks compared to others. It seems like no matter what my question is the response is that they don’t have any information to give me, so I thought I’d see if anyone here might be willing to take a guess.

dim said
April 7, 2011 @ 11:12 am · Edit
my guess would be that even if your score is good for the insitution…..you will wait a little bit longer due to the government problems. when is your requested starting date?

aj said
April 7, 2011 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
The requested start date was April 1, but, as madness007 mentioned, even those with Dec 1 start dates haven’t gotten any news. NCI hasn’t awarded any new F32s for 2011 yet. The budget issues probably don’t help, but it’s interesting that other institutes are making F32 awards and NCI isn’t.

nell said
April 7, 2011 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
I submitted an F31(diversity) to the NCI back in August 2010. I received a impact score of 22 and overall favorable reviews in the summary statement. I spoke to the PO and he informed me that my chances were good for funding and said I should not resubmit. That was in February 2011. I haven’t heard anything since and my status has not been updated on commons. My requested start date has come and gone (April 1st)…and still no word in either direction. The grant process was a useful learning process and all, but it feels like such a waste of time without a funding decision. Any thoughts?

tm said
April 7, 2011 @ 1:02 pm · Edit
I’m pretty much in the exact same scenario as you, nell. same grant, same institute, same submission time, even the same score. we probably even have the same PO, except I’ve received next to no information from him. I heard in Feb that he was working on the payline. I e-mailed a couple more times about 3 wks apart each and never even got a reply. This might take awhile…

tm said
May 13, 2011 @ 5:44 pm · Edit
i just received word from my PO today that an impact/priority score of 22 is within the payline for PA-10-109. i should hear from the NCI in the near future.

tm said
May 13, 2011 @ 5:46 pm · Edit
that is, PA-10-109 with NCI as the primary for the aug. 2010 submission.

nell said
May 13, 2011 @ 9:05 pm · Edit
tm, did you contact him or did he contact you? i got an email from him about a week ago in response to one i sent out asking him about the progress and he basically told me the paylines were just set forth in a memo and should hear something soon.

tm said
May 15, 2011 @ 6:38 pm · Edit
i contacted him. i hadn’t e-mailed for a couple months so i figured why not and this time i got a response. i just asked if they had set a payline yet, and he asked for my score. i told him and then he responded saying that it is within the payline and should hear from office of grants administration in the next few weeks.

writedit said
May 15, 2011 @ 9:46 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Best wishes for success with your research!

tm said
May 15, 2011 @ 9:54 pm · Edit
thanks! i really appreciate your blog as a hub for funding related information.

madness007 said
April 7, 2011 @ 12:31 pm · Edit
NCI is not making any funding decisions about F31s, F32s, and K99s (maybe anything except R01s? – you could check Reporter) for FY2011. Don’t feel bad about your April 1 start date having come and gone – all of us waiting with Dec 1 start dates are stuck too!

waiting4ever said
April 7, 2011 @ 2:35 pm · Edit
I think someone mentioned earlier that NCI was going to hold a “confirm the paylist” meeting today. So hopefully we will hear something soon. Good luck everyone!

SEA said
April 7, 2011 @ 8:38 pm · Edit
Anyone hear anything from NCI Program Review today? ESI/NI still in purgatory with 11% on R01 A1. I can’t imagine they are in a good mood in Bethesda.

Frustrated with NCI said
April 7, 2011 @ 9:37 pm · Edit
Congrats! You are so close to the NCI ESI/NI payline, 10%. Mine is not as close and an A0. I did not hear from my PO today.
I wonder what kind of messages that your PO gave you, very optimistic or cautious? Is yours on the so-called recommended paylist that was supposed to be confirmed today according to an earlier blog? Did you get a JIT or asked to submit a response to critiques? Thank you for sharing your experience and good luck to you.

SEA said
April 7, 2011 @ 9:54 pm · Edit
I don’t know what the “recommended paylist” is. I assume as long as I hear nothing, it’s not dead yet. PO has been encouraging but far from overtly optimistic due to general uncertainty of funding and new processes. No one really seems to know what the new rules are. Does % matter once we are all in the 11-25% pool or is programatic interest primary? I was asked to provide some additional information for program summary, which I think was more to help PO with marketing than response to critiques; no JIT. Not sure that helps much. Good luck.

Frustrated with NCI said
April 7, 2011 @ 10:12 pm · Edit
Based on a March 31 post by Arlenna, there is a “confirm recommended pay list” meeting at NCI. I am holding the same thought as you that hearing nothing is better than hearing bad news. I think Varmus did say that chances of funding get smaller when the percentile goes farer from the payline….but writedit has a colleague funded at 25%tile which is probably a very rare pick-up. I guess although the program priority is a factor but the program leaders have to have a very solid convincing reason to skip a 11%tile ESI.

NCI or Bust said
April 8, 2011 @ 10:01 am · Edit
The key issue, I think, is whether Varmus is sticking with his promise in January to fund over 1200 new RO1s this year. Given that he indicated it was a top priority (as is funding new investigators) this is what has kept me hopeful that the number of grants funded by exception this year would be larger than normal. Along these lines, the 17 % cut of all RO1s and the reduction in Cancer center funding seems to be consistent with his freeing money for new RO1s. My read from Reporter is that no exception grants at NCI that were reviewed by Council in February have been funded. From my study section 4 new RO1s were awarded. Three from established investigators and one new investigator. This seems to fit the expected number of people with 7% / 10 % scores given a study section with >100 grants and with the number of competitive renewals. As for the likelihood of which exception grants are going to be funded my interactions with PO strongly indicate that score still matters, then status, then science. Veering into wild speculation . . . I keep wondering why Varmus came back to NIH. I am guessing it is because he has an agenda. His reported high level of involvement with individual funding decisions may indicate he wants greater control than previous director regarding NCI’s scientific portfolio and if true then science may be a bigger deal than in the past.

St.Jude said
April 8, 2011 @ 6:59 pm · Edit
Varmus came back to NIH because his abrasivness got him kicked out of where he was. [not the kind of personality you want dealing with big-money donors; he offended too many people]

clottingclover said
April 8, 2011 @ 10:56 am · Edit
Anyone think it’s a bad idea to call my PO today before the putative shutdown? I’m wondering where my summary statement is.

writedit said
April 8, 2011 @ 11:05 am · Edit
Probably not a good idea to call today … and it is the SRO, not the PO, who could tell you about the summary statement.

curie said
April 8, 2011 @ 11:51 am · Edit
agree, bad idea to call anyone today as the first thing on their mind is preparing for a shutdown

AnotherESI said
April 8, 2011 @ 3:14 pm · Edit
NoA finally today. Full budget and 5 years. Thankful that NHLBI kept their word on not reducing ESI budgets ( if modular) and duration of support.

writedit said
April 8, 2011 @ 3:36 pm · Edit
Congratulations Best wishes for success with your research!

AnotherESI said
April 8, 2011 @ 7:38 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit and others for all the support. Seemed like the GMS and other staffers wanted to push out the approved grants before they left for the possible shut-down.

hopeless said
April 8, 2011 @ 6:55 pm · Edit
Highlights of NIH communication

Employees who are working on an “excepted” basis may not conduct business nor issue awards for any grant that is funded from a normal annual appropriation; including any prior year revisions or prior approvals. No awards can be issued during the shutdown. The eRA system will not be available for processing any NoAs. Awards can be released in days immediately preceding the shutdown; however, since the eRA system would be taken offline during any shutdown, any grants with an Issue Date that occurs during the shutdown would NOT be issued during that time. Once operations resume, it will take a day or so for the eRA system to be restored.

No summary statements may be compiled, edited, uploaded, or released. Applications submitted during the shutdown cannot be received, processed, or referred, whether submitted electronically or on paper. Applicants will be advised not to attempt to submit applications during the shutdown.

E said
April 8, 2011 @ 8:08 pm · Edit
Hi,

My F32 application is still pending at NCI. Since my score is borderline I’ve decided to resubmit. Again I requested NIGMS as the primary funding agency since this is where it belongs and again they shuttle it NCI! Really? I mean the work is centered on using Drosophila.

Does anyone have any advice/experience arguing for a change this early in the application process? Who would I even present my argument to?

Thank you for any help

the walrus is Paul said
April 8, 2011 @ 8:44 pm · Edit
If it’s a resubmission, they will send it to where it was before…unless you made some kind of subsequent complaint about the first review being invalid because people didn’t understand the topic area, the Receipt and Referral people will send it to where the first application went because that was the IC [and the IRG] that has dibs on it at this point. Did you talk to your PO the first time to try to get it moved? [ If so, what was NCI’s rationale for keeping it? ] If not, it’s going to be hard to make the case on a resubmission, since it likely isn’t any different in emphasis than the first version and neither the PO nor the IC thought it was misplaced that time [and if you didn’t complain, they probably think you didn’t have a problem with it either].

If you want to try to make an argument (again, if I’m reading it right, and this is a resubmission), you need to make the argument to your PO at NCI. If I’m missing something and this is a first version of an application, you have 2 options. (1) Contact CSR Receipt & Referral, and ask why it didn’t go where you requested, and make your case there or (2) you need to find a PO with that topic area [look at the PO lists] at the IC you want, and make your argument to him/her, and ask him/her to approach the NCI PO re: a transfer.
Obviously Option 1 is easier, but Option 2 is more likely to be successful.

This is why it is a “must” to find an appropriate PO and discuss your plans BEFORE you prepare/submit an application. Not only do you have someone to guide you in the process then, but you also have someone waiting for your application to come in, who you can mention in your cover letter in terms of why you are requestion a particular assignment [e.g., “please assign it to NIGMS, where I have been in contact with Dr. so and so during the preparation” ) and who will fight to get it if somehow it gets assigned elsewhere

E said
April 9, 2011 @ 12:27 pm · Edit
Thank you this is very helpful

nyt said
April 8, 2011 @ 11:21 pm · Edit
Finally, some good news on the budget agreement. We’ll see whether NIH is spared but at least things will not remain in limbo for long. Still waiting on the JIT or positive news from my PO.

Nervousnelly said
April 9, 2011 @ 3:03 am · Edit
I got an email from the director of the grants management branch of my IC, stating that they anticipate funding my K23 (I’m the one who initially scored a 40, and the revision scored a 20). The email said that a notice of grant award will be issued once all pre-award requirements are met.

I wasn’t expecting this email since council was supposed to meet in late May, but I’m definitely happy- hope nothing goes wrong from this point on. Thank you, writedit, for keeping me and other applicants sane through this process!

writedit said
April 9, 2011 @ 7:27 am · Edit
Wow – congratulations! I certainly hope this all works out smoothly. Best wishes for success with your research!

NCI or Bust said
April 9, 2011 @ 6:30 am · Edit
I spoke with PO late on Friday at NCI. All RO1s considered for exception funding from February council have been ranked, but the April 7th Confirm paylist meeting did not happen. The date because of the shutdown was not set, however, since this seems to have not occurred, it should happen early next week.

waiting4ever said
April 9, 2011 @ 7:04 am · Edit
I am a bit confused about how things work in NCI. You are saying that grants from the Feb council (for applications submitted in June, 2010) will be confirmed at the up coming meeting… but how about grants from the Sept, 2010 council (submitted feb 2010)? Have they got the list confirmed for the grants from sept 2010 council yet? This is too much waiting.

writedit said
April 9, 2011 @ 7:47 am · Edit
As I’ve posted before, I know of one NCI grant submitted in Feb 2010 that has been paid by exception (NoA had March 1 start date), so I would assume – but do not know – that most of the awards for that cycle have been issued. They may have carried over a short list of “should pay if there are enough $s” left, but this is conjecture.

NCI or Bust said
April 9, 2011 @ 5:26 pm · Edit
Since Varmus became director there has been a reduction in NOAs for RO1s and a hold on many other mechanisms, apparently because he wanted to modify current policy to reduce the number of grants awarded on payline. I know someone who got a 9 % from NCI with a summer review and fall council meeting who only got NOA in March. The “confirm paylist” Arlenna and I have been referring to is such a big deal because its when the bulk of grants that have not scored below 7/10 % (aka exception grants) are going to get funded, or likely not. Many of us lurking here recently have grants in this pool.

flymagic said
April 9, 2011 @ 8:35 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit: My NCI competitive renewal, submitted March 2010, scored at 8%, Sept 2010 Council, was paid by exception with NOA start date of April 1. Thank you for maintaining this site–it has been so helpful.

writedit said
April 10, 2011 @ 6:02 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Hard to believe an application scoring at the 8th percentile must be paid by exception … Best wishes for success with your research!

AlsoWaiting said
April 19, 2011 @ 2:43 pm · Edit
Dear Waiting4Ever
Like yourself, I also submitted a grant in Feb2010 that was scored in the gray area. It went to council in the fall and I have been waiting ever since to hear. I exchanged e-mails with my PO last week after the budget passed and he told me that there are still many grants from Feb2010 that have not been paid as they are still awaiting the final paylines. I was able, by asking politely, to find out that my grant has been recommended for special emphasis (i.e. above the payline) funding but he won’t know for a few weeks. So a) don’t give up hope and b) try to contact the PO with a short polite e-mail to find out if there is anything that he/she can tell you at this point.

FYI apparently the NIH has 6 weeks after the budget is passed to set its internal budget but for people who are truly on the cusp, you could hear as late as the last week in September.

Arlenna said
April 9, 2011 @ 11:51 am · Edit
Yeah, it doesn’t surprise me that the meeting didn’t happen–they probably scheduled it anticipating that congress would have had their act together by the day before the expiration of the last CR. We’ll see how many more weeks we’re all waiting now…

clottingclover said
April 9, 2011 @ 8:47 pm · Edit
Looks like NIH got spared (7th paragraph) in the budget deal
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/09/details-bipartisan-budget-deal

genejumper said
April 9, 2011 @ 9:48 pm · Edit
From the Pfeiffer post at the White House Blog, “We were able to avoid making than $500 million cut in lifesaving biomedical research at National Institutes of Health. “

kate said
April 9, 2011 @ 10:19 pm · Edit

Click to access Summary%20of%20the%20FY%202011%20Presidents%20Budget.pdf

It means 1.6% cut of NIH budget for 2011compared to 2010’s.

genejumper said
April 10, 2011 @ 12:01 am · Edit
Is it possible that 500 million number is based on $78.5 billion cut from Obama’s FY 2011 Budget request?

Animesh said
April 10, 2011 @ 10:03 am · Edit
Appropriation budget for 2011 for NIH was 32 billions. If 500 millions reduced from that appropriation budget then it will be 31.5 billions. The budget of NIH in 2010 was 31 billions. It will be at least 500 millions more than the last year. Am I correct or wrong? Please let me know.

kate said
April 10, 2011 @ 10:42 am · Edit
To Animesh ,

Here is my understanding:

Appropriation budget for 2011 for NIH was 32 billions. The budget for 2010 was 31 billions. The 500 millions are reduced from 2010 budget. The budget for 2011 should be 30.5. It will be at least 500 millions less than the last year. It is my assumption. Not sure.

Animesh said
April 10, 2011 @ 11:21 am · Edit
According to white house blog (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/09/details-bipartisan-budget-deal) sent by dottingclover in this site mentioned
‘This deal cuts spending by $78.5 billion from the President’s FY 2011 Budget request ——-’. If it is so, President requested for 2011 32 billions for NIH and 500 millions cut will be from President’s request of 2011 that will be included in 78.5 billion cut in 2011 not from 2010. That’s my understanding

NCI Applicant said
April 10, 2011 @ 1:25 pm · Edit
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/04/us_government_shutdown_averted.html

What Whitehouse Blog talked about is the 1-wk CR that averted government shutdown passed on April 8 that will fund the government until April 14 (Thursday). This CR cuts 2 billion and spares NIH. On April 8, the two parties plus President made a deal during negotiations on the 1-wk CR to cut a total 38.5 billions out of the FY2010 budget. Since the 3 CRs have made 12 billions cuts, there is 26.5 billions more to go. The congress is now working on where to cut to make up this 26.5 billion total reduction. This budget plan will have to be considered and voted next week by April 14. Both parties and President agreed that there will not be another CR for short-term funding. Let’s all hope that NIH will be spared or at least minimally hurt by this final FY2011 budget.

genejumper said
April 10, 2011 @ 4:14 pm · Edit
I believe the article on Whitehouse Blog is about the budget deal for the rest of FY2011. However, I am not clear on whether 500 millions are reduced from President’s request of 2011, or from 2010 budget level. If the former, NIH will be spared.

NCI Applicant said
April 10, 2011 @ 8:55 pm · Edit
you are right about the blog and about the unclear part on the base of the cut….
Well, congress is supposed to post their proposed budget plan on-line tomorrow (Mon) and we will all know where they are targeting for cuts. Then, there will be intensive fights between the 2 parties. But this time, a final budget, not a CR, for the remaining FY11 will most likely be passed. This will hopefully bring an end to the delay in funding decisions.

KGrant said
April 10, 2011 @ 8:48 pm · Edit
David Plouff (Senior Advisor to Obama) said on TV today:

Well, some of the cuts were draconian, because it’s not just the number. It’s what composes the number. So in this budget deal, the president, Senator Reid, you know, we protected medical research, community health centers, kids on Head Start. We were not going to sign off on a deal that cut those things.

HW said
April 10, 2011 @ 9:05 pm · Edit
Yes, I heard what he said and felt quite encouraging. On another Sunday morning political show, Face the Nation, an influential senator Chuck Schumer said something similar that the congress is crafting a budget plan that will not cut cancer research and other vital programs that creat jobs. But we all know that democrates want to cut 1.6 billion off NIH FY10 budget. The new budget plan will be revealed on Monday. Let’s all hope that NIH will not be targeted during the final days of the budget wars…

Animesh said
April 10, 2011 @ 9:42 pm · Edit
Where you got the information that democrats want to cut 1.6 billions from NIH 2010 budget? That was the Republican congress passed the budget during March and that budget did not even carry through through the Senate. That was the reason you all saw the big battle regarding the budget last week. Please make sure you give right information. President and Democrats repeatedly said that they want to protect Medical research funding not to be hurt.

CD0 said
April 11, 2011 @ 7:27 am · Edit
HW,
This is beyond outrageous.
The President’s budget has proposed increases for funding biomedical research since Obama arrived to the White House, which have been systematically opposed by Republicans.
Even Newt Gingrich!!! cried against the mutilating plan that Republicans had for the NIH.
I will not bother reminding you about HR1, etc…

This not new, of course. What is sad is that this dynamics only changes when some prominent Republican Senator is diagnosed with a tumor, and then starts demanding more biomedical research and urgently. Perhaps if a prominent Fox News commentator, or perhaps a Tea Party leader was diagnosed with a chronic disease (and I hope not so), there will be some hope…

HW said
April 11, 2011 @ 9:43 am · Edit
sorry, guys, I meant to say Republicans want to cut 1.6 billions

curie said
April 10, 2011 @ 9:28 pm · Edit
I am a women with PhD and got postdoctoral and Industrial research experience. For the past 1 year I am jobless and would like to explore the possibility of getting some funding in the form of research grant. My area is organic chemistry. Is there any reservation/preference for women from any funding agency? Thanks for your feedback.

writedit said
April 11, 2011 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
You cannot apply for funding from the NIH or NSF directly. You need to be employed by a university or other eligible institution/organization that would submit an application on your behalf.

tn said
April 11, 2011 @ 11:48 am · Edit
If true, this would be really terrible…. Now, I am very scared.

http://www.thenation.com/article/159847/next-round-budget-negotiation-big-cuts-health-research

The House FY2011 appropriations bill would cut the NIH budget by $1.6 billion. After accounting for biomedical inflation (each year the prices of research equipment and supplies increase by about two percent more than the general inflation rate), this would leave NIH funding at its 2001 level. An earlier Senate budget plan that aimed to cut $10 billion in spending would have maintained NIH funding at the FY 2010 level. But now that the target for cuts has nearly tripled, it’s likely that some of the cuts will come from NIH funds. Researchers and patient advocates are rightfully nervous—the cut would turn already competitive research grants into lotteries and slow scientific progress that translates into medical care.

Freckle said
April 11, 2011 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
That article in The Nation has no actual facts in it of any kind. It’s pure speculation. Supposedly today the details of the $38.5 billion in cuts that the House is scheduled to vote on on Wednesday, will be released today…fingers crossed that the statement on the WH website about NIH being spared holds up as meaning what it seemed to say: that NIH would remain at around 2010 funding levels.

Z said
April 11, 2011 @ 12:44 pm · Edit
I agree, the article in the Nation does not include some recent reports coming out from other sources:

http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2011/4/11/deal-on-fy-2011-budget-package-reached-govt-shutdown-averted.aspx

“More Details About the Agreement
The $38 billion in cuts from previous spending levels across a variety of domestic discretionary programs are expected to include $13 billion from HHS, labor and education departments, according to White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

Although NIH would be spared a $500 million cut to biomedical research, plans to double the funding for research and development at the National Science Foundation and other agencies would be scaled back, CQ Today reports (Friel, CQ Today, 4/10).”

kate said
April 11, 2011 @ 4:27 pm · Edit
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/11/news/economy/budget_spending_cuts_2011/index.htm?section=money_topstories

—-Details are sketchy as to what will be included in the longer compromise bill. It will set spending levels $38.5 billion lower than at the beginning of the year; that much is known. But the specific program cuts remain unclear.

—-Congressional staffers are now putting the finishing touches on the legislation, and details should be released late Monday night.

clottingclover said
April 12, 2011 @ 5:12 am · Edit
just in – 260 million cut for NIH.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-12/u-s-lawmakers-reach-agreement-on-38-billion-in-budget-cuts.html

clottingclover said
April 12, 2011 @ 5:13 am · Edit
just in — $260 million cut for the NIH for FY2011.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-12/u-s-lawmakers-reach-agreement-on-38-billion-in-budget-cuts.html

Animesh said
April 12, 2011 @ 8:25 am · Edit
It is a great news. Definitely, President and congress are talking about budget of FY2011 not FY2010. Therefore, NIH will get cut 250 millions from requested 32 billions of FY2011.

writedit said
April 12, 2011 @ 8:33 am · Edit
Um, I don’t think so. I believe they are working off the FY10 appropriation levels, which have been the basis of all the CRs thus far. Nothing up on Thomas yet. (thomas.loc.gov)

writedit said
April 12, 2011 @ 8:42 am · Edit
Actually, according to a summary table of cuts, the “NIH – Buildings and Facilities” is losing $250M compared with FY10 enacted but $27M more than the FY11 request. The table notes that these numbers do not include an across-the-board 0.2% cut to all non-defense accounts.

Click to access 41211SummaryFinalFY2011CR.pdf

TCGirl said
April 12, 2011 @ 8:06 am · Edit
is that $260 M cut total for the year, or the amount from the last negotiation? For the life of me i can not remember if NIH was cut in any of the CRs that were passed earlier this year.

EY said
April 12, 2011 @ 8:18 am · Edit
I wonder whether this 260M cut is based on Obama’s FY-11 budget, or is based on FY-10 budget. And this still needs votes on 4/13 for final approval, right?

kate said
April 12, 2011 @ 8:48 am · Edit
I agree, we still not sure whether this 250M is based on 2011. Spending levels $38.5 billion lower than at the beginning of the year and 78.5billion lower than that requested by Obama. From the tune of the artile, i think this cut is based on 2010 becasue it did say that there is an increase of 640M for NIH compared to 2010 level.

Obama requested 1 billion increase for 2011 budegt for NIH.

crf2s said
April 12, 2011 @ 9:01 am · Edit
It is -$260 million from 2010 appropriations.

From http://democrats.appropriations.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=767:summary-of-fy2011-appropriations-&catid=213:homepage-full-commmittee&Itemid=4:

• National Institutes of Health is funded at $30.7 billion; $260 million, or 0.8 percent, below the enacted level. HR1 cut NIH by $1.6 billion.

curie said
April 12, 2011 @ 11:55 am · Edit
that is right, it is a continuing resolution through Sep 2011.

wonder why niaid is highlighted in the bill. if any institute were to appear, i thought, nci would appear.

KGrant said
April 12, 2011 @ 9:19 am · Edit
Yes, I tried reading the actual bill (http://www.rules.house.gov/). The cuts are $210 million from the NIH plus $50 million for NIH Buildings and Facilities for a total of $260 million relative to 2010 appropriations.

(In case you read it, the bill says Buildings and Facilities is to get $50 million for FY2011. For reference, they got $100 million in FY2010).

Also, for some reason, NIAID seemed to have been spared because there is a line in the bill saying they will be given $4,818,275,000 which is the same as their FY2010 amount.

clottingclover said
April 12, 2011 @ 9:46 am · Edit
Can you post the link to the details for the cuts to each IC?

writedit said
April 12, 2011 @ 9:53 am · Edit
Here is the text related to the NIH in its entirety:

p 161

2 APPROPRIATIONS, 2011 APPROPRIATIONS, 2011 3 The following sums are hereby appropriated, out of The following sums are hereby appropriated, out of 4 any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 5 and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, 6 and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corpora7 and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corpora7 tions, and other organizational units of Government for 8 fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, namely: fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, namely:

9 TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 10 SEC. 1101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, SEC. 1101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, 11 at the level specified in subsection (c) and under the au12 at the level specified in subsection (c) and under the au12 thority and conditions provided in applicable appropria13 13 tions Acts for fiscal year 2010, for projects or activities 14 (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) 15 that are not otherwise specifically provided for, and for that are not otherwise specifically provided for, and for 16 which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made 17 available in the following appropriations Acts: available in the following appropriations Acts:

p 314

15 SEC. 1812. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level SEC. 1812. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level 16 for ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National for ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National 17 Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and In Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and In 18 fectious Diseases’’ shall be $4,818,275,000, and the re 19 quirement under ‘‘National Institute of Allergy and Infec

19 quirement under ‘‘National Institute of Allergy and Infec 20 tious Diseases’’ in division D of Public Law 111–117 for 21 a transfer from Biodefense Countermeasures funds shall a transfer from Biodefense Countermeasures funds shall 22 not apply. not apply.

23 SEC. 1813. The amount provided by section 1101 for SEC. 1813. The amount provided by section 1101 for 24 ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National In ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National In 25 stitutes of Health’’ is reduced by $210,000,000, through VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:06 Apr 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\CSAMPLES\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\FINAL2011.X p 315

1 a pro rata reduction in all of the Institutes, Centers, and a pro rata reduction in all of the Institutes, Centers, and 2 Office of the Director accounts within ‘‘Department of Office of the Director accounts within ‘‘Department of 3 Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of 4 Health’’ based on the total funding provided. Health’’ based on the total funding provided.

5 SEC. 1814. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level SEC. 1814. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level 6 for ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National for ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National 7 Institutes of Health, Buildings and Facilities’’ shall be Institutes of Health, Buildings and Facilities’’ shall be 8 $50,000,000.

http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/Floor_Text/FINAL2011_xml.pdf $50,000,000.

Click to access FINAL2011_xml.pdf

genejumper said
April 12, 2011 @ 10:01 am · Edit
Not sure how much it will affect the final payline. Some details on the bill. The amount provided by section 1101 for ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health’’ is reduced by $210,000,000, through a pro rata reduction in all of the Institutes, Centers, and Office of the Director accounts within ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health’’ based on the total funding provided.

Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Buildings and Facilities’’ shall be
$50,000,000

kate said
April 12, 2011 @ 10:30 am · Edit
Will the cut be only for the extramual funding or both intramual and extramual funding?

TM said
April 12, 2011 @ 12:11 pm · Edit
Is this reduction from the President’s proposed budget? I think he had asked for ~1.6B increase over 2010, which if approved will now be 1.4B.

TCGirl said
April 12, 2011 @ 12:42 pm · Edit
its a cut from FY2010- The numbers don’t add up perfectly, but FY2010 enacted was ~$31.0 Subtract $260 million and you get ~ $30.7

FY2011 proposed was $32.2 Subtract $1.6 and you get ~$30.6

so- this is consistent with the summary we’ve been seeing (i.e., “National Institutes of Health is funded at $30.7 billion; $260 million below the enacted level. HR1 cut NIH by $1.6 billion”)

Click to access Summary%20of%20the%20FY%202011%20Presidents%20Budget.pdf

Hung said
April 12, 2011 @ 1:04 pm · Edit
So what do you think the paylines will be….
will NCI start fundig R21s with percentile between 5-13…..

TCGirl said
April 12, 2011 @ 1:28 pm · Edit
Has NCI funded any R21s this year thus far? i havent heard of any. I hope they do start moving some NOAs for R21s – it doesnt seem ethical to me for NCI to sit on an entire mechanism when they continue to accept new R21 apps

kmc said
April 12, 2011 @ 1:42 pm · Edit
As far as I’ve been able to glean from my PO and other sources, there has been very little guidance on how to proceed with grants for the smaller mechanisms (R21s, R03s, etc.). Hopefully, that will change quickly once NCI’s final FY budget comes down…I submitted my A1 for last February’s cycle.

writedit said
April 12, 2011 @ 1:19 pm · Edit
You can also monitor/contribute to updates on the budget situation at the post just added this morning: https://writedit.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/limping-toward-fy11-appropriations/

clottingclover said
April 12, 2011 @ 1:34 pm · Edit
Looks like it could’ve been worse:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/research-survives-in-2011-budget.html?ref=ra

biogirl22 said
April 13, 2011 @ 10:20 am · Edit
For all of you out there anxiously waiting for news about NCI’s paylines for R15 grants, I just found out that the payline for this year is a 25. Additionally the PO wrote, “Unfortunately, for those applicants scoring beyond that, there is not currently an additional support/exception process. I do believe members of the SPL are trying to address it with Dr. Varmus, but, currently, there has not been a decision”.

I’m anxiously waiting to see if my 21 holds up.

As a point of reference for how things have changed at NCI over the course of a fiscal year, the Payline for 2010 was a 29 for R15 grants.

Good luck everyone. I guess only time will tell.

writedit said
April 13, 2011 @ 10:25 am · Edit
Wow – well, congratulations … you should be fine with a 21 given a payline at 25. Thanks for sharing the information from your PO, which will help a lot of folks out here put their chances in perspective. Best wishes for success with your own research!

biogirl22 said
April 13, 2011 @ 9:33 pm · Edit
Thanks Writeit! And thanks for such a great website. It has truly helped get me through the last 6 months!

NCI Applicant said
April 13, 2011 @ 10:49 am · Edit
Congratulations! I hope you don’t mind answering a couple of questions.
Was your grant submitted in Feb or June last year? Was the payline set right after the new FY11 budget plan was posted yesterday?

biogirl22 said
April 13, 2011 @ 9:29 pm · Edit
I submitted back in October of 2010. It won’t go to NCI council until the end of June. I don’t anticipate knowing for sure until probably July or later. I have a co-worker that also applied for an R15 grant in the October cycle (in 2009) and he didn’t get his NOA until early August. So hold tight. Hopefully it comes your way.

To answer your other question, I actually heard from someone very high up at NIH (will remain nameless) that R15s would be funded up to a 25 about one month ago. That was when the decision was made. Apparently it didn’t make its way down to the PO’s until recently. My PO didn’t know about it until today.

Mike said
April 13, 2011 @ 10:47 am · Edit
I was wondering if anybody has any update about the Payline for K01 at NIMH for 2011. I got the score of 27 in January and still waiting … Thanks

Rose said
April 13, 2011 @ 1:44 pm · Edit
I applied in February 2010 for a K23 from the NIDDK and got a score of 31 (council met in September, and I still haven’t received a funding decision, although I’m assuming NO). So, I resubmitted it this past fall and got a score of 20. The council will meet in May. Do you think that there is a significant chance of me not getting funded given the budget changes? With some of my current funding ending soon, I need to figure out how worried I should be.

writedit said
April 13, 2011 @ 1:59 pm · Edit
I believe I heard, prior to the budget settling, that the NIDDK payline for Ks would be at or around 20, so you should be okay … assuming the ~0.9% cut doesn’t mean further tightening due to too many applications right at the 20 mark. You may be able to get a bit of guidance from your PO, especially if you haven’t asked as yet. None of the ICs will know the exact hit to their budgets or how the cuts will need to be spread for a few weeks, so, unfortunately, the key is to remain patient.

DJ said
April 13, 2011 @ 3:27 pm · Edit
There is no hard payline for NCI in 2011. Any new investigator who falls into 10-25th will be selected for exceptional funding. Is there anyone who has an idea regarding the fraction to be selected for funding in this category? I received a 20th percentile. My budget will be ending soon. I fell so desperate.

writedit said
April 13, 2011 @ 3:38 pm · Edit
As I have noted before, a 25th percentile grant from Feb/Mar 2010 was funded by exception here at BICO, so they are going all the way up in making their decisions. Good luck.

Freckle said
April 13, 2011 @ 3:49 pm · Edit
Writedit,
What do you think will happen with R01 paylines, assuming the 0.9% cut for NIH becomes law?
Many institutes have interim paylines well below last year’s, so will paylines now go up a bit?
Some of us are sitting 1 or 2% above the interim paylines as new PIs and have been waiting a really long time. Our labs and in some cases careers are kind of on hold.
We have colleagues who have R01s who got them as new PIs with % scores in the 20s and here we are in the low teens or even lower in some cases, and our proposals are still in limbo. It’s brutal.

writedit said
April 13, 2011 @ 4:02 pm · Edit
Well, of course I have no way of knowing what might happen with paylines as a result of the budget, but I know the number of R01 awards is protected first and foremost, through additional award budget cuts if needed. Although we now kwow what the budget looks like, we do not know the size of the various piles of scored applications at each IC … so is the interim payline lower because there are so many more low-scoring (i.e., exceptional) applications that need to be accommodated, or was a very conservative payline set out of concern for the funding situation? As I posted earlier, this will take a little while to sort out still … some POs may be willing to make educated guesses sooner than the official word is released. Believe me, I know about careers, lives, decisions, etc. all being on hold due to this uncertainty … the pain and anxiety are everywhere. I wish this misery didn’t have so much company …

Freckle said
April 13, 2011 @ 4:23 pm · Edit
Thanks, writedit.
The two POs that I have talked to (this was a few weeks ago) both said that the interim paylines at their institutes (they are from 2 different IC) are low specifically because of the uncertain funding situation.

drugmonkey said
April 13, 2011 @ 5:12 pm · Edit
I’d say don’t obsess about what the ICs do with their formal paylines. At this point it is all about how many grants they can afford overall in this FY. Whether they formally move the payline or pick up the next couple of percentiles for funding it is all the same.

Freckle said
April 13, 2011 @ 6:35 pm · Edit
Thanks, DM.
I went back and checked and it’s been almost a month since I talked to my PO….OK to get in touch again just to politely touch bases or better to wait until Congress formally (hopefully) passes the darn legislation?

NCI or Bust said
April 13, 2011 @ 9:26 pm · Edit
The comment about colleagues with much higher percentiles who have RO1s is so true. This has really taught me that there are good years i.e. supplements and bad years and you must have grant in pipeline at most times or you might miss out.

EY said
April 13, 2011 @ 6:43 pm · Edit
Hi, Freckle,
Just let you know that I did get in touch with my PO and the answer remains the same: It may take weeks before they can establish the payline for FY-11. So being even more patient is still all we can do for now!

Freckle said
April 13, 2011 @ 8:09 pm · Edit
Thanks EY….I won’t bug my PO then.

Carol2 said
April 14, 2011 @ 12:23 am · Edit
Did anyone else who was recently funded by the NCI receive an administrative cut? I received the award payout in late December for a NI NCI R01. It was cut 17% during the CR budget. I need some advice on how to get that 17% back for this year – so I can plan and actually do the work.

NCI or Bust said
April 14, 2011 @ 5:13 am · Edit
I know of 6 people who have gotten an RO1/PO1 during CR and each investigator has gotten exactly a 17 % cut. It looks like this is where we are unless NCI gets more money this year than they thought during CR.

writedit said
April 14, 2011 @ 7:15 am · Edit
Every award is being cut … you cannot do anything to get the $ back, though some may be restored once the budget outlays are figured out for the FY. However, given the cut in the appropriation, it is unlikely much if any funding will be restored. You can register your concerns with your PO and indicate what you can accomplish with the reduced funding (as well as potentially needed rebudgeting and/or change in scope).

TCGirl said
April 14, 2011 @ 7:49 am · Edit
My R01 was awarded last year and rec’d a 17% across the board cut for all 4 years. The 17% cuts were happening before the CR in last FY. When my year 2 NOA came in this past February-during CR- i got another 10% cut for year 2.

Carol2 said
April 14, 2011 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
Are you an ESI/NI? I thought that we would at least be not cut as much. I know NIs at other institutes are not receiving cuts – so the NCI must not exclude ESI/NIs. I will try to contact my PO and see what he says. I cannot find anything in the wording that states there is a permanent admin cut. I suppose my backup is to send the same science to another agency to cover the cuts – and explain this to my PO.

TCGirl said
April 14, 2011 @ 12:19 pm · Edit
Yep, i was a NI and this was NCI..

NCI Applicant said
April 14, 2011 @ 8:37 am · Edit
I know that the additional 10% cut is very brutal. This happens to someone in my instititute who is going through non-competitive renewal for yr 2 funding. I wonder if this is across the board reduction like the 17% cut for the new RO1? Varmus pledges to fund similar number of RO1s in FY11 as FY10. Perhaps this is one of his ways to fullfill the pledge?

drugmonkey said
April 14, 2011 @ 11:17 am · Edit
Folks, across-the-board cuts are relatively common. In horrible times and in not-so-bad-times. Only at the peak of the doubling could one have much confidence of not getting a cut somewhere along the line of a five year grant award. IME, of course.

The ones I’m hearing about these days are worse, of course. More common to see the reduction applied across all the years of support, more common to see reductions in the number of years of support.

But the bottom line is that you always have to plan, at least partway, for budget reductions. My default set is that I’m going to lose one module at the least.

writedit said
April 14, 2011 @ 10:35 am · Edit
NIAID has a nice article describing how they select applications for funding (when paylines do and don’t apply) and how this changes over the course of the year as the budget situation settles out. We’re way behind their hypothetical timeline for FY11, but you’ll get the idea:

http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/newsletter/2011/pages/0413.aspx#a00

waiting4ever said
April 14, 2011 @ 2:26 pm · Edit
“NIAID has two options for special funding beyond the payline for investigator-initiated applications; you must be nominated for either one.”

Do investigator-initiated applications usually get special considerations beyond the payline? Whereas someone applied to a PA wouldn’t have their grants funded beyond the payline? How does one go about the “investigator-initiated applications”? Thanks in advance.

writedit said
April 14, 2011 @ 2:37 pm · Edit
“Investigator-initiated applications” refers to those submitted in response to a parent announcement (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm) or to a routine program announcement (PA) rather than an RFA, PAR, or PAS. Though, technically, they’re all investigator-initiated …

Joe said
April 14, 2011 @ 11:29 pm · Edit
I am a ESI waiting for my R01 to be paid. NIAID has a payline of 12th percentile for ESI. I was ranked at the 10th for the feb cycle and last week I received a JIT request. Does anyone know if NIAID is paying new RO1s? I hope that with the budget deal set, they start releasing NoAs. I am a little anxious.

nst said
April 15, 2011 @ 12:42 am · Edit
I have not received a JIT for my application with January council meeting. When I contact my PO, I was told to be cautiously optimistic but I didn’t want to ask directly when would I get a JIT request. Is it OK to ask this question? My original start date was more than a month ago but I don’t know what is happening even now.

writedit said
April 15, 2011 @ 6:55 am · Edit
The original start date is irrelevant in terms of gauging whether/when you will receive an award. If you ask your PO in a week or so, he or she should have an idea of whether you definitely are in line for an award and when the processing process might start.

EY said
April 15, 2011 @ 11:58 am · Edit
Dear Writedit,
I am just wondering with this little cut of the budget, will you think that most NIH institutes can at least maintain their 2010 payline or it is still too early to tell?

NCI or Bust said
April 15, 2011 @ 12:50 pm · Edit
First remember, the majority of the institutes budgets are tied up to pre-existing commitments. Thus, new grants will be inordinately affected by any overall budget cut. Second, a lot of things affect Payline besides the budget including: A) Level of commitments carrying through from previous years i.e. if Institute awarded a lot of grants last year then they may be over committed (This is apparently one of the issues at NCI this year). B) Priority shift i.e. to large translational grants. Francis Collins wants NCATS and I don’t think any of us know how this is going to shake out for the other institutes (except we know for sure NIAAA/NCRR are getting the shaft). C) Expectation of future cuts in the budget. I.e. if NIH thinks next year they are going to get slaughtered (a real possibility given the current climate) they are going to fund fewer grants this year so they will have some room to give new grants next year.

Based on this, I think its likely that most institutes are going to end up with pay lines that are reduced by more than 0.8 % from 2010. However, it also sounds like the directors are fully aware of this, and are doing what they can to ameliorate this.

drugmonkey said
April 15, 2011 @ 1:45 pm · Edit
if NIH thinks next year they are going to get slaughtered (a real possibility given the current climate) they are going to fund fewer grants this year so they will have some room to give new grants next year.

What? They have an allocation from the Congress for this year and if they don’t spend it all, they don’t get to hold it over. (And in fact if they don’t spend it then Congress is going to turn right around and say, well clearly you can do with less, again next year)

So they can’t protect next year by not funding grants this year. What they could do in this regard is to fund short(er)-duration projects. More R03s and R21s in preference to R01s. More R56 Bridge mechs, even. That gets them breathing room in the 2-3 year timeframe. Cut R01s down from 5 to 4 or 3 years and they have breathing room on a 5 year perspective.

NIH seems to have a fondness for protecting their R01 numbers, however, so I see the latter as much more likely than the former.

drugmonkey said
April 15, 2011 @ 1:48 pm · Edit
except we know for sure NIAAA/NCRR are getting the shaft

O Rly? And why do you not also “know for sure” that NIDA is getting the shaft? Has it escaped your attention that the proposal is not to roll NIAAA into NIDA but rather to dissolve both Institutes and create a new one?

I think NIDA folks were a bit slow to grok this, so you are in good company.

NCI or Bust said
April 15, 2011 @ 2:48 pm · Edit
–>DM,
Your premise that NIH must spend all their money is of course true, but . . . if repeated budget reductions are deemed likely, the uncertainty of being able to support a large number of grants in 5 years may enhance the attractiveness of other funding models that mainly employ short term grants (i.e. DOD). Trade offs may also occur to maintain intramural research and to F. Collin’s vision of large translational groups. Thus, I am guessing having money left over from funding fewer RO1s would not be a problem this year. While I agree NIH seems to value the RO1 above most things, they are going to have to address the practical reality of being able to make 5-year projections. As for NIDA, I had not heard they were dissolving it and NIAAA,. We have some fairly big shot alchohol researchers in our department who have been in a very nasty mood of late who thought they were soon joining NIDA.

drugmonkey said
April 15, 2011 @ 6:37 pm · Edit
We have some fairly big shot alchohol researchers in our department who have been in a very nasty mood of late who thought they were soon joining NIDA.

It is indubitably the case that most of the whinging and anxiety has come from the NIAAA side of the discussion. There has been a perception in some areas that, as you suggest, NIAAA is to be absorbed by NIDA. This is not going to be the case, formally speaking.

NIDA and NIAAA will be replaced by a new institute. There is a very good chance that the addiction-related portfolio in NCI (smoking, of course) will be sucked up into the new entity as well. Supposedly there will be some flow of NIAAA and NIDA portfolio elsewhere if it is seen as not central to the new Institute’s mission. Collins asked for some details on how portfolios would shake out and I think this is the current activity that needs to be completed before new and more specific proposals are made.

With that said, NIDA is about twice the size of NIAAA. You can see how alcohol folks feel like they are going to be absorbed, even if they do understand it will be a new Institute from the ashes of each of the former Institutes. I just think they are unduly worried. Alcohol will remain more-equal-than any other specific drug category within the new addictions Institute. Heck, they may even come to dominate…much of the defensive talk was how great they were at coming up with therapies in comparison with NIDA’s past efforts…

Animesh said
April 17, 2011 @ 10:36 pm · Edit
As far as NCI concerned, Dr Harold Vermus gave a talk on NCI grants funding in plenary session of AACR meetings in the First week of April. He was well-aware that the cut is coming but he did know exact amount that time. Even that uncertain budgetary time, he categorically mentioned that he is intended to fund same numbers of investigator-initiated grants in FY 2011 as of FY2010 (That number was 1250). I assume from his lecture that the cut will come mostly from program projects, spore grants, center grants etc to match same numbers of RO1 grants in NCI. Presently, investigator initiated grants are already getting cut 17% of the budget and I guess that will continue.

Freckle said
April 15, 2011 @ 2:53 pm · Edit
A NI colleague with a 15% scored A0 just got asked today by her NIMH PO for some additional material…maybe the wheels are starting to turn since the budget was passed.

Comrade PhysioProf said
April 16, 2011 @ 7:12 am · Edit
Based on this, I think its likely that most institutes are going to end up with pay lines that are reduced by more than 0.8 % from 2010.

If an IC *does* tighten its payline, it is a mathematical certainty that it’ll be by a fucketonne more than 0.8%. Let’s say that the payline is 10%ile. The minimum they can tighten it is by 1 point, to 9%ile (there are only whole numbers now, with the new scoring/percentiling system). This would be a 10% tightening.

kate said
April 16, 2011 @ 11:35 am · Edit
FY 2011 budget is reduced by 0.8%. The payline of FY 2011 should be proportional reduced by 0.8%. For example, If playline of FY 2010 is 20th, it should be 20th- 0.8% X 20th= 19.84th for 2011, Not 20th-0.8=19.2. Am I right?

Comrade PhysioProf said
April 16, 2011 @ 11:39 am · Edit
No. You are wrong. And in multiple ways.

writedit said
April 16, 2011 @ 11:45 am · Edit
No, no one should be calculating new paylines based on the budget cut, which apply to both extra- and intramural programs. The ICs will absorb the cuts in various ways, not by reducing paylines proportionally. Folks, just be patient and don’t make yourselves crazy analyzing whether you score might now be (or not be) in funding range.

curie said
April 16, 2011 @ 1:04 pm · Edit
amen writedit.

NCI or Bust said
April 16, 2011 @ 4:21 pm · Edit
This is basically my point.

Gary Williams said
April 16, 2011 @ 3:11 pm · Edit
I am an established investigator. I have a RO1 (17 perecentile). The grant was reviewed by council in Feb 2011. My commons changed from `council review completed’ to `pending administrative review’ about 2 weeks back. No word yet. Strangely, I never got a human JIT request. Does `pending admin review mean funding? I talked to my PO and GMS, they said they will be sending JIT request, but I am still waiting. The GMS also told me according to their records, it is `to be paid’. Should I submit the JITit anyway? The grant was start on April 1, but do you think by not submitting sooner, they might overlook me? Please advise.

Gary

writedit said
April 16, 2011 @ 3:20 pm · Edit
If they said they would send a request, they will. If the GMS says your award is to be paid, it will. They don’t make these statements casually, and it’s been pretty chaotic with the budget situation. I doubt that sending the JIT info preemptively will speed your award along. If there might be human/animal subjects issues, possible overlap, etc., you could ask about these to be sure you address them appropriately.

CD0 said
April 17, 2011 @ 9:28 am · Edit
I suspect that, in addition to the uncertainty that the absence of a budget has created, GMS s are seriously understaffed at the moment.
I have a grant with a fundable percentile that completed programmatic review a while ago and was passed to the assigned GMS, who finished her part and passed it to the team leader at least 7 days ago…Still no NoA…These are not ”normal” times and are hard for everybody.
Now that there is a budget, they will have to catch up with the reality of spending the money before the end of the fiscal year, which is going to add more administrative work, more programmatic work…We are all going to need a LLLOOOTTT of patience…

Buds said
April 16, 2011 @ 3:23 pm · Edit
congratulations Gary, which institute is funding your grant?

Gary Williams said
April 16, 2011 @ 8:00 pm · Edit
Buds: Thanks! It is NIDCD

Gary

sea said
April 18, 2011 @ 11:59 am · Edit
Anyone hear anything from NCI Program Review?

DES said
April 18, 2011 @ 12:11 pm · Edit
My RO1 score fall into the grey zone. I will lose my job if my RO1 is not funded this time. Do I need to tell my PO?

writedit said
April 18, 2011 @ 12:31 pm · Edit
You can ask if the research focus is of sufficient interest to consider for selective pay/pay by exception (and will the PO advocate for your application in that case) … and you can indicate that you will not have an opportunity to resubmit

since your contract will not be renewed without a grant award this cycle. Unfortunately, lots of untenured PIs are in your situation each cycle, so POs can’t help everyone on this basis alone.

DES said
April 18, 2011 @ 4:55 pm · Edit
Many thanks.

DES said
April 18, 2011 @ 5:00 pm · Edit
I have contacted my PO via an email twice in past 40 days. No response from him yet. Would it be Okay to make a call without any appointment.

writedit said
April 18, 2011 @ 10:50 pm · Edit
Sure, you can call – you would want to have clear in your mind what you want to ask so he quickly realizes you won’t be wasting his time with a rambling complaint.

ASP said
April 19, 2011 @ 1:11 am · Edit
DES, I’m in the similar situation. I know it’s extremely hard but please be a little bit patient. After two-three weeks, the picture in NCI should be clear. They have said they will fund the same number of RO1s as 2010.

NCI or Bust said
April 19, 2011 @ 7:27 am · Edit
According to my PO all the “exception grants” have been ranked for over a week. I’m guessing now what is holding up a payline confirmatino is deciding how much money is going to each mechanism. The “good” news is that none of us have heard anything, so the delay does not mean anything bad for a particular PI.

DES said
April 19, 2011 @ 10:21 am · Edit
The exception grants which have been ranked for over a week refer to the grants reviewed in Sep/Oct last year and discussed in councils meetings in Feb 2011. To my understanding, the grant reviewed in Feb in 2011 has not been ranked yet. The council meeting for NCI will be June 27-29.

NCI or Bust said
April 19, 2011 @ 10:52 am · Edit
You are correct, grants reviewed in February will not be funded any earlier than this summer. My bias would be to not contact your PO until after April as they are still focused on the cycle before yours. The PO should also have a much better feel for the range of scores that were funded by exception in the current batch at that point and this will allow them to better predict outcomes for grants in your pool.

NCI Applicant said
April 19, 2011 @ 10:02 am · Edit
DES,
I agree with ASP and NCIorBust, we are all on the same boat waiting to hear from NCI. At this point, the decision on gray zone applications is still pending. My PO told me about 2 wks ago that it will take a while…

DES said
April 19, 2011 @ 10:53 am · Edit
NCI Applicant said:

Do you think the grants from two cycles were mixed and ranked together? I don’t think this is the case. I heard that POs are handling the grants from two cycles at different time frame.

NCI Applicant said
April 19, 2011 @ 11:22 am · Edit
DES,
I do not think NCI mixes two cycles during ranking. They are now making decision on the grants that went through the Feb council (reviewed last Oct) and were just ranked. Mine falls into this pool of applications.

According to other comments including several from Writedit, NCI is done with the grants peer-reviewed last June (Oct council). If your RO1 was just reviewed in Feb, 2011, you will probably have to wait for a long while…In conclusion, I do not think they mix gray-zone proposals when they rank them for exception funding.

Writedit, would you please comment on this question?

EY said
April 19, 2011 @ 11:25 am · Edit
I wonder whether anyone sitting at the gray zone (12- 19%) with NICHD has heard anything, such as the human JIT request, or information recently from PO?

Freckle said
April 19, 2011 @ 12:55 pm · Edit
Just talked to my PO at NICHD last week to politely touch bases since the budget was passed and I hadn’t been in touch for a month. I’m sitting at 12% as a NI. Went to Council in January. PO said please be patient because it’s going to be weeks before they get their budget clarified…could even be a few months. Ouch. But all we can do is be patient at this point and hope for the best.

EY said
April 19, 2011 @ 5:00 pm · Edit
Thanks, Freckle, for the updates. Gosh, even for a few months, it is passing almost 7 months for this fiscal year. I worry that if they do not have it by the end of this fiscal year, the next one could be even much longer waiting time. And any grant only has one year as the active period for funding consideration (to us, it would be until Jan. 2012). It is really frustrating that this waiting game seems to last forever!

Freckle said
April 19, 2011 @ 6:49 pm · Edit
It is indeed frustrating, but hang in there.

SO2 said
April 20, 2011 @ 11:29 am · Edit
After read Freckle’ note, I contacted my PO about my R01 at NICHD recently. The PO told me that the payline had bee finalized at 11% for the rest of FY11, no different between established and new investigators.

freckle said
April 20, 2011 @ 10:01 pm · Edit
SO2,
Are you sure that’s what your PO said? When did you talk to the PO?
I thought IC’s were committed to helping NI/ESI?
This just doesn’t ring true.

EY said
April 20, 2011 @ 10:31 pm · Edit
I agree with Freckle that this sounds too soon and too harsh from NICHD. We were told by POs that it will take at least a few weeks (of course hopefully not months) to settle the final payline. It is also well known that NI/ESI will be given special consideration for funding across ICs. My PO was also nice enough to answer my email (6pm on Apr. 20. Sorry Freckle I just cannot help asking), saying as of yesterday, no payline was determined yet. Therefore strongly recommend not to spread uncertain news on this forum, we are all very serious about this site.

Freckle said
April 21, 2011 @ 1:29 pm · Edit
EY,
No news is definitely better than bad news.

EY said
April 22, 2011 @ 9:42 am · Edit
Hi, Freckle,
Thanks! Keep in touch and I hope we can make it.

Poyn said
April 19, 2011 @ 11:29 am · Edit
I received a score of 23 for a K08-A1 application. The A0 submission was scored a 30. Council meets in May. But in a conversation with the PO and subsequently reinforced by email, I was told that I should be optimistic about its funding. Obviously, the words “Yes, you will get funded” were never uttered. However, it was pretty close to that. This discussion took place a few weeks ago and I have since received the summary statement. While the review comments were quite good, a couple of the reviewers still had some minor issues with the research approach. There was nothing critical and each point could easily be addressed in a rebuttal. At this point, is it worth putting a call in to the PO to discuss the statement? I am hesitant to do so, especially after she gave me the initial words of encouragement. And the last thing I want to do now is come across as a pain in the a–. This is especially true since the PO controls the destiny of my research career. This may sound melodramatic, but in my case entirely accurate. Any suggestions?

writedit said
April 19, 2011 @ 11:40 am · Edit
You could send a brief e-mail offering to write a one-page rebuttal if she thinks this is necessary. Since it is an A1, there isn’t really anything to “discuss”, and a simple one-line message with this query won’t be intrusive or come across as PITA behavior.

curie said
April 19, 2011 @ 12:01 pm · Edit
i think i wouldn’t do anything about the summary statement now. by doing so, you may inadvertently make the po look at the negatives which may harm you. if you were told you were in grey zone, then it would have made sense to bring up the summary statement. so i would suggest not doing anything unless things changes.

NCI or Bust said
April 19, 2011 @ 2:08 pm · Edit
An established investigator from NCI in my department was notified today that he would be funded. He was in the exception pool from the Feb council. It therefore appears that pay lines have been confirmed. I therefore assume everyone who is going to get funded will hear shortly.

NCI Applicant said
April 19, 2011 @ 4:13 pm · Edit
Do you happen to kwow the percentile of his application?

nanoparticles said
April 19, 2011 @ 4:13 pm · Edit
Great news!! What’s his percentile? thanks.

NCI or Bust said
April 19, 2011 @ 5:47 pm · Edit
10 %. He was contacted by PO, so it was not the formal NOA which the PO said would come in a couple of weeks.

sea said
April 20, 2011 @ 1:21 pm · Edit
Colleague got rejection email from NCI (NI/ESI) with 14% – “project not congruent with program objectives” – yikes.

Buds said
April 20, 2011 @ 1:41 pm · Edit
Hi Sea……

Terrible news for your colleague………why review grants in the first place if they are not in-line with program objectives.

Was this after the Feb council meeting?

sea said
April 20, 2011 @ 1:59 pm · Edit
Grant submitted in June, Council in Jan, NCI Program Review last week. Anyone else out there hear anything?

NCI Applicant said
April 20, 2011 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
sea,
Did your colleague’s R01 go into the Feb council (reviewed last Oct)? Thanks for the info.

curie said
April 20, 2011 @ 3:06 pm · Edit
“project not congruent with prog. objectives”

–likely we will hear more of this because of the new policy about subjective consideration over 7 or 8th percentile. this has been going on in other smaller institutes which don’t operate by paylines. new things for nci.

MD said
April 20, 2011 @ 3:08 pm · Edit
Why did they host the submission in the first place then? This is a complete waste of everyone’s time.

wes said
April 20, 2011 @ 4:08 pm · Edit
14% ESI/NI not funded? That’s pretty depressing. Did they have new FY11 program objectives? It would be interesting to find out what your Colleague’s subject area is.

NCI or Bust said
April 20, 2011 @ 4:09 pm · Edit
This is surprising, mainly because a 14 % was not funded for NI/ESI. It is also interesting that the applicant received a rejection before most of us have heard anything. I would be very curious if this came from the PO “unofficially” as a way to let the PI know that they will need to resubmit ASAP.

NCI Applicant said
April 20, 2011 @ 8:12 pm · Edit
Hi sea,
Was it an A0 or A1? It would be extra cruel if it was an A1.

DES said
April 21, 2011 @ 10:18 am · Edit
Hi sea,

The NI rejected by NCI with 14th is a A0 or A1?

thanks

E said
April 19, 2011 @ 5:04 pm · Edit
Anyone hear anything lately from their POs about NCI F32′s? I have an application pending from April ’10.

john said
April 20, 2011 @ 1:33 am · Edit
No news here – I did get an email from the PO a month or so back asking me to make corrections to my Resource Sharing Plan, which I did. The PO also stated that they remained optimistic about funding, but still no decisions had been made. My plan is just to wait and hope a decision is made prior to the next submission deadline. Pretty frustrating that’s its been over a year since we submitted these.

N said
April 20, 2011 @ 12:27 pm · Edit
I also got an email from my PO (Aug ’10 app) suggesting to make corrections, which I did. And PO stated they were still optimistic about funding also. Guess we just wait it out…

john said
May 7, 2011 @ 11:46 pm · Edit
I was wondering if anyone has heard anything new about F32s from NCI. The passing of the budget and the news that the NRSA budget was seemingly not being cut continues to keeps my hopes high, but still no word. Does anyone know, or even care to speculate, as to how NCI will chose to award training grants – is it anticipated that, like R01s, that they won’t go strictly by paylines and award based on other quasi-arbitrary factors? If so, should I be contacting my PO to “lobby” for my proposal? I have elected not to bother my PO much to this point and have been advised to minimize my annoyance to them, but if it would help then I will set up a phone call. Thanks!

nell said
May 8, 2011 @ 8:19 am · Edit
Not an F32 but I sumbmitted an F31 to the NCI in Aug 2010. Contacted my PO about a week ago and he informed me that they had justs sent up the memo establishing paylines for training grants and award notices should be coming out within the “next few weeks” this was on april 27th. so I guess we are still within a “few weeks” from then. this is an exercise in extreme patience, friend. good luck

N said
April 19, 2011 @ 5:16 pm · Edit
Does anyone have any information concerning NCI F32 funding of applications from August 2010 submission?

DreamingTT said
April 20, 2011 @ 3:27 am · Edit
Hoping someone here might be able to shed some insight. Here is my situation: I currently hold an F32 fellowship and am into the 4th year of my postdoc (1.5 years left on the F32). My mentor and institution are offering me a no-cost “promotion” to research faculty in which I am in a quasi-independent state and continue to be funded by the F32. Under institutional rules, as research faculty I can apply for R03s (but not R21s or R01s) as primary investigator.

I am curious as to whether the NIH would permit me to apply for an R03 while funded by the F32? I have been hearing conflicting remarks regarding this. Some have said that F32 is a training grant that specifically , while others have said that if the institution allows this submission, then the NIH should allow it. Some have even said that submission is allowed but the F32 would be terminated before the R03 starts.

Even if I cannot go for an NIH mechanism as research faculty, it still affords the ability to go after foundation monies as PI.

Sorry if in the wrong forum/thread…

writedit said
April 20, 2011 @ 9:45 am · Edit
“If a fellow receives another NIH award, e.g., as a PD/PI on an R03, then the fellow is no longer eligible for the fellowship and the sponsoring institution should contact the awarding IC concerning early termination.”

11.2.13.2 in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2010/nihgps_ch11.htm#_Toc271265032

HW said
April 20, 2011 @ 10:11 am · Edit
I’ve know people holding non-tenure-track “Research Assistant Professor” title to apply for R01s and get funded. They actually went on the tenure-track after being funded. I do not think NIH prevents you from competing for R01 or R21 (you should present this fact to your institution offcials if they are the ones who are refusing).

If your title is “Instructor”, K01 or other K awards will be ideal. In fact, I applied for and got awarded with a K01 when I was an instructor. Hope the information helps.

Anonymous said
April 20, 2011 @ 8:13 am · Edit
Contact your grants specialist for your F32. In addition, you may want to consult with your office of sponsored projects, if you have not done so already.

cclover said
April 20, 2011 @ 12:31 pm · Edit
Just spoke to my PO. He said the NHLBI paylines most likely will not expand for the remainder of FY11.

EY said
April 20, 2011 @ 1:13 pm · Edit
Hi, SO2,
I wonder whether this is real or not. I am very shocked that some PO says it will take weeks up to months for the decision, and others have this decision right now? How official is it?

Freckle said
April 20, 2011 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
EY,
Every Institute at NIH is very different.
They are each going to sort through the budget issues at different speeds and each probably had to absorb different levels of their share of the 0.8% cut, etc.
Also, NHLBI interim paylines were dramatically higher to start with than interim paylines at other ICs like NCI and NICHD.

EY said
April 20, 2011 @ 3:25 pm · Edit
So, Freckle, Do you think 11% for both established and new investigators are really what NICHD is going to have for this year? Have you heard this from your PO as well? I think you just updated a message yesterday saying your PO told you that it will take weeks, even months, to solve this. Why all of a sudden they have a payline now? I am very, very confused and wonder whether I should call me PO now—

Freckle said
April 20, 2011 @ 5:52 pm · Edit
EY, as far as I know NICHD does NOT have a payline yet.

Remember, every institute is different.

I’m praying that they go higher than 11% for NI/ESI, but this year all bets are off.

Freckle said
April 20, 2011 @ 5:56 pm · Edit
In addition, both HD and GM do not always firmly stick to paylines anyway. If it were me, I would not call your PO at this point at least for a couple more weeks.

DES said
April 20, 2011 @ 3:29 pm · Edit
Although my grant was reviewed in Feb 20110 and the council meeting will be on June 27-29, the decision regarding whether it is funded will be no later than Oct, 1st, 2011. The end of Sep is the end of physical year, NCI has to make the decision no matter what. Am I correct?

writedit said
April 20, 2011 @ 3:34 pm · Edit
Yes, all the FY11 awards must be processed by Sept 30, 2011.

Reply
“Project not congruent with program objectives” « Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship said
April 20, 2011 @ 3:46 pm · Edit
[…] never heard of an application being labeled as such, I thought I would pull this comment out from NIH Paylines and Resources for broader dissemination and consideration: Colleague got […]

EY said
April 20, 2011 @ 6:38 pm · Edit
Hi,SO2,
I wonder when did you get this info from your PO at NICHD? Thanks!

NCI or Bust said
April 20, 2011 @ 8:57 pm · Edit
Final post for now. Established investigators RO1s at NCI for Feb Council with above 8% are definitely decided and emails should have been received for those to be funded. New/ESI grants were considered in two sections, the first is completely done, the second will be finished by early next week. My PO says all new/ESIs should hear by end of Wednesday next week if they are in the money.
Cheers and good luck!

writedit said
April 20, 2011 @ 9:38 pm · Edit
Thanks so much, NCI or Bust … all your input has been extremely helpful – you are quite fortunate to have a PO like that! Best of luck to you all …

wcde said
April 21, 2011 @ 8:28 am · Edit
Just checked with my PO, who has not heard any changes about the R01 or R21 payline.

TCGirl said
April 21, 2011 @ 9:36 am · Edit
that implies the R21s have a paytline.. but what is it? i have not heard what the payline is.. during the CR mess, all R21s were in a holding pattern with not alot of info from POs about what NCI would do…

silbrandeb said
April 20, 2011 @ 9:00 pm · Edit
Any news about where R21 are at NCI?

TCGirl said
April 20, 2011 @ 11:06 pm · Edit
I’m not sure overall.. i have a colleague that got 8th percentile on an A0 from study section July 2010 that is still in somewhat of limbo. Her PO left her a message this week that said that she hoped she might have good news soon, in about a week or so, but nothing definite.

At the same time, I just got an email from the GMS asking for just in time and whether a july 1 start date was accepted for my R21 which was reviewed March 2011 that got 4th percentile (it was a A1)

so it seems some decisions are starting to come on the R21s.. seems NCI has decided what they are doing with them, but “what” that is.. i dont know. i had heard at one point that they were going to treat them like the R01s – which might make sense for my colleague’s situation as she might be in the grey zone..

I also heard rumors that NCI will not be accepting R21s in the future.. any one hear that? it seems absurd to me..

writedit said
April 20, 2011 @ 11:20 pm · Edit
I also heard rumors that NCI will not be accepting R21s in the future… any one hear that? it seems absurd to me.

NCI does not participate in the parent R21 program announcement (neither does NIGMS), but they have plenty of their own R21 PAs out there, so unless they revoke them all, they will continue to accept R21 applications via these PAs plus additional RFAs and PARs.

TCGirl said
April 20, 2011 @ 11:28 pm · Edit
so, WRITEDIT, if i’m reading you correctly, the rumor seems a bit off.. i agree w/you. i cant imagine NCI discontinue an entire mechanism while those PAs are still out there, and as you say, there are quite a few of them. The R21s i refer to for me and my colleague were both NCI issued RFAs (Behavioral Research for Cancer Control).

The rumor is causing some hysteria at our Cancer Center.

writedit said
April 20, 2011 @ 11:34 pm · Edit
Hmm. I can check at our cancer center, but I have not heard such rumors, and unlike NIGMS, NCI does embrace the R21 mechanism when applied to specific areas of programmatic interest (that hopefully accurately reflect program objectives). I think it more likely Varmus will continue to trim big science awards (PPGs, SPOREs, et al.) than bother with the R21s.

TCGirl said
April 20, 2011 @ 11:29 pm · Edit
so, WRITEDIT, if i’m reading you correctly, the rumor seems a bit off.. i agree w/you. i cant imagine NCI discontinue an entire mechanism while those PAs are still out there, and as you say, there are quite a few of them. The R21s i refer to for me and my colleague were both NCI issued RFAs (Behavioral Research for Cancer Control).

The rumor is causing some hysteria at our Cancer Center.

I’m just wondering where the rumor is stemming from? Something Varmus said taking out of context? It is being repeated regularly by some high level mucky mucks at our CC with an air of certainty..

LSK said
April 21, 2011 @ 9:56 am · Edit
Has anyone heard any updates about funding for NCI Ks (i.e., K07 or K23)?

Freckle said
April 21, 2011 @ 1:36 pm · Edit
Question for the grant gurus here like writedit, drugmonkey, and others.

What exactly is the deal with paylines (generally) for NI/ESI?

As I understood it, all the NIH IC’s have policies committed to giving extra support to ESI or NI or both, although some only do this for ESI.

Can an institute, perhaps citing budgetary circumstances, simply choose not to give extra support to ESI/NI?

For example, NICHD currently has no specific payline for ESI/NI. All investigators have the same interim 11% payline.

Could NICHD simply choose to remain with the same 11% payline for the rest of the FY for both established and NI/ESI (i.e. not give any extra help to new PIs)? Or by their own or NIH policy do they have to give NI/ESI a boost of some kind like 1-3%?

Even if there is no policy mandating a boost, would giving no payline boost to NI/ESI be politically untenable for NICHD or other institutes?

AnotherESI said
April 21, 2011 @ 1:59 pm · Edit
When Zerhouni was NIH Director, he proposed to ensure a minimum number of total ESI/ NI R01s per year which the ICs had to implement – this has been discussed extensively in DM’s posts in the past. Per some of the POs I have talked to, institutes deal with this differently – some like NHLBI keep their extra ESI percentiles known ( +10 for now above established investigators) but others are not so transparent. Per this PO, NIDDK only publishes a +2 for ESI/NI but mostly have to go to +10 to maintain their required NI/ESI quota – this number might not be transparent. Collins have mostly said that protecting ESI/Ni funding rates continues to be a high priority for NIH and hence I doubt if they are going to do away with it at any IC. So I am figuring that the NICHD payline for ESI/NI is also going to be higher than the regular payline, but you may have to wait till they figure out their final budget numbers.

NP said
April 21, 2011 @ 2:02 pm · Edit
Does anyone know what SPL stands for? If a proposal will be discussed by the SPL in later May, how likely it will be funded? Does anyone have experience on this? Thanks.

NCI Applicant said
April 21, 2011 @ 2:29 pm · Edit
SPLs at NCI stands for Scientific Program Leaders. You can find the SPL roster on page 3 of the NCAB Dec 2010 council meeting minute.

Click to access 07dec10mins.pdf

Based on NCI FY11 funding strategies (pdf below), SPLs make funding decisions following discussions with program staff.

Click to access FinalFundLtr.pdf

NP said
April 21, 2011 @ 3:02 pm · Edit
Thanks NCI Applicant. SPL will discuss with PO or other program staff?

NCI Applicant said
April 21, 2011 @ 5:35 pm · Edit
NP,
I believe that POs (aka, program directors) and Branch Chiefs are the program staff. POs belong to Branches that are under Divisions. An example:
https://dcb.nci.nih.gov/branches/ccbb/Pages/Home.aspx

NCI SPLs are actually Division Directors whom I doubt have time to evaluate our grants. Logically, SPLs discuss with Branch Chiefs (and perhaps POs within Branchs) to make funding decisions. The take-home message is that our POs will have to advocate for us in order to move our grants upward to the Branch -> Division -> SPLs and Dr. Varmus. This is my understanding of the new system after talking to my NCI PO….

wes said
April 21, 2011 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
“Dr. Varmus indicated his goal to support approximately 1,250 new research project grants (RPGs) in FY 2011, which reflects the number of RPGs funded by the NCI in FY 2009 and 2010. In each of those years, one-quarter of the funded grants were competitive renewals (Type 2), of which 80 percent were awarded to individual investigators (R01s). Approximately 920 new grants (Type 1) were awarded, of which 50-60 percent were R01 grants; 220 of the awardees received the R01 grant for the first time, and one-half of the grantees were considered early-stage investigators.”

NCI or Bust said
April 21, 2011 @ 7:01 pm · Edit
It seems things are happening faster than my PO originally indicated. Its not surprising that they were being conservative. I got confirmation that My RO1 from NCI (NI/ESI) was funded this afternoon. Second round of NI/ESIs will probably still hear next Wednesday.

Freckle said
April 21, 2011 @ 7:56 pm · Edit
Congrats NCI or Bust! That is awesome news.

Was this your 13% R01?

I’m still in limbo with my 12% at HD…

NCI or Bust said
April 21, 2011 @ 8:53 pm · Edit
Yes. It’s been a roller coaster ride, but at least I learned about process at NIH! This website was very helpful. Thanks, writeedit.

writedit said
April 22, 2011 @ 9:46 am · Edit
You are all very welcome – and you all make the site as helpful as it is, so thanks to everyone who contributes!

Congratulations, NCI or Bust! Best wishes for success with your research!

NCI Applicant said
April 22, 2011 @ 10:41 am · Edit
Congratulations!

Hung said
April 21, 2011 @ 11:50 pm · Edit
My R21 received 12 th percentile (was submitted feb2010 cycyle)
ANy chance it will be funded???

HS said
April 22, 2011 @ 8:18 am · Edit
Hi Strad and Jackson and others at 17%tile (ESI/NI) at NCI. Have you folks heard anything?

Diana said
April 22, 2011 @ 10:02 am · Edit
Hi. I applied for an NIMH F31 in August ’10, reviewed in October, JIT request in December, council in January ’11. I received an impact score of 20 and percentile of 13. My PO is optimistic, but does not have any information about when I could anticipate a NoA. Anyone have any insight on how long the process could take or whether my score is ‘fundable’? Thanks!

DES said
April 22, 2011 @ 10:52 am · Edit
if PO said that I should be cautiously optimic, it means that my RO1 is likely to be funded. Is it correct?

DES said
April 22, 2011 @ 11:02 am · Edit
oops ! it is cautiously optimistic

writedit said
April 22, 2011 @ 11:06 am · Edit
Well, don’t start spending it yet, but given how conservative POs need to be these days especially, I think you can walk around with a smile and an extra spring in your step.

DES said
April 22, 2011 @ 1:09 pm · Edit
Thanks, writedit.

This website has been so useful and I learned a lot from it, particularly your comments

Luke Merton said
April 22, 2011 @ 9:52 pm · Edit
R01 sent to NIAAA got 31 priority score / 16 percentile. Neither NI nor ESI. Got JITrequest immediately. Does that mean I am within the funding range? Do I have a chance? Thanks in advance.

writedit said
April 24, 2011 @ 11:47 pm · Edit
If this is a recent submission, you may just be getting the standard “below 20th percentile” JIT request. Your PO can tell you how seriously to take the request and whether you are being considered for an award.

Luke Merton said
April 25, 2011 @ 12:29 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit:

Thank you so much. That is very helpful. I will contact PO about that.

ASP said
April 23, 2011 @ 9:30 pm · Edit
Hi writedit, I’m an established investigator and have a 12% A0 (NCI) reviewed on last Oct . So far, I have not heard anything for funding. My PO told me that the senior leadership makes the final decision, and he has no power to do anything on it and I may have to resubmit it. Do you have any suggestion. Thanks in advance.

writedit said
April 24, 2011 @ 11:50 pm · Edit
Well, I think your PO is being straight with you, certainly. If you have any new publications in the works or new compelling data, you could let him know. However, based on other comments here, it sounds as though NCI has already discussed the Cycle II 8-15th percentile grants that will be selected for funding, which could be why he said it’s now out of his hands. I hope you don’t need to resubmit, but it is certainly possible, and hopefully you’ll know soon. Good luck …

ASP said
April 25, 2011 @ 1:42 am · Edit
Thanks, how long do you think I should wait for the decision. If my grant was not selected for funding, do you think it may still have a chance later for fy11. My PO sounded very unhappy with the current situation in NCI, and told me that he is unable to help his grantees as he did before since the final decision for each grant will be made by the senior leadership. It is so frustrating….

writedit said
April 25, 2011 @ 6:32 am · Edit
If you can submit a strong A1 in July, you should do so … no need to wait for a decision on the A0.

Val said
April 24, 2011 @ 8:30 pm · Edit
Hi. I applied for a NINR F31 in December ’10, reviewed in February, JIT request in March, council in May ’11. I received an impact score of 30 and no percentile score. I received a lower impact score than the last two funded F31s in my school. My sponsor/advisor believes I will get funded; although I am trying to play it cool. My PO is optimistic, as I have talked with him several times via email and telephone since February. He said, I should hear something by the middle of June ’11, if not I should consider resubmitting. Does anyone have any insight on the NINR or whether my score is ‘fundable’? Thank you for your time.

writedit said
April 24, 2011 @ 11:45 pm · Edit
Odds are better at NINR (for a score like that, especially), and it seems your PO is giving you the best advice he can. Sounds like you should be cautiously optimistic, at least until June (when you’ll know whether to progress to ecstatic).

NS said
April 25, 2011 @ 3:53 am · Edit
When I recently talked to my PO, he told me that my application status shows “award pending” but also that he wouldn’t know the paylist until next 2-3 weeks. Does anyone know if all scored grant applications have this status after the council review or it means something more? I have not received a JIT request yet, so I have no clue.

waiting4ever said
April 25, 2011 @ 4:39 am · Edit
Do you have access to eRA common? Is “award pending” or “pending” what you have there? From comments here, looks like “award pending” is likely to be funded.

NS said
April 25, 2011 @ 9:21 am · Edit
The eRA commons status shows “council review completed”.

fingerscrossed2 said
April 25, 2011 @ 10:18 am · Edit
Hi! I received an impact score of 18 on my SCORE SC1 submission (A1). The application was submitted in May ’10, reviewed in Dec ’10, and the council met in Jan ’11. My PO in NIGMS has been positive all along. When I spoke to him a month ago, he said no SC* awards were made because of the budget situation. I am wondering when I might hear something back, now that we have a budget. Will there be more council meetings/programmatic reviews etc? I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

HS said
April 25, 2011 @ 12:18 pm · Edit
Hi All
Just came to know that my A1(17%tile, ESI, NCI) is not getting funded. This is from Feb council.
This was my last chance to be in academics, to become independent. I guess I need to take a diff. route in my life. This site has been very helpful and writedit keep up the good work !!

writedit said
April 25, 2011 @ 12:33 pm · Edit
Oh wow, HS. So very sorry to hear about the outcome of your excellent score, which in itself should make you an attractive candidate at other universities, if this is an option (relocation, that is) and will certainly make you attractive in many non-bench science-related career paths. Best wishes for success as you decide what to do.

wes said
April 25, 2011 @ 1:36 pm · Edit
HS, sorry about your grant not being funded. Do you currently have a K99? Since you mentioned “to become independent”? Are you a tenure track assistant prof?

I will face the same situation next year. My grant is in the gray this year, but my PO said it would not be considered for funding. So this leave me with the Oct submission deadline that I can try for a new grant and hopefully get funded for next year. If I don’t get funded, I am out.

Good luck to you with your new career.

HS said
April 25, 2011 @ 3:17 pm · Edit
I’m a non-tenure track faculty and my start-up funds are dry. I was running on soft money from my Chairman so far. Becoming an independent investigator is a dream now. .I can work under somebody or quit academics and do something else. Time will tell…
Thanks and Good luck to you, Wes.

HW said
April 25, 2011 @ 1:53 pm · Edit
There is a chance that your grant will be picked up by the end of FY11, Sept 30, since NCI has not ranked cycle III grants yet.

spacesonics said
April 25, 2011 @ 3:00 pm · Edit
Does anyone know when cycle III grant (reviewed in Feb 2011, NCI R01 with 12% on A1, NI status) to be considered ?

Betsy said
April 25, 2011 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
Any thoughts on paylines for NCI R03s? My March 2010 A1 submission received a 27 in June 2010, council reviewed Sept. 2010. Payline for 2010 was 30. My group’s previous submission (Nov. 2009) received 28 and was funded. Another R03 submission from our group in July 2010 received 27 and was told today by his PO that it was “outside the funding range” but in the “zone of consideration” but probably wouldn’t be funded because it was an 01 app. So… there must be paylines, right? So confused!

Science lover said
April 26, 2011 @ 1:29 pm · Edit
I am working in Industry. It is not a small business company. I guess it comes under the categoy ‘For-profit organization’. In that case is my company eligible to apply for R01, R03 and R21 type grants.?

SG said
April 26, 2011 @ 1:34 pm · Edit
In general yes. Look for this line in the Parent announcement or RFA.

The following organizations/institutions are eligible to apply:

For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Science lover said
April 26, 2011 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
Thank you SG. Another question I had is regarding the K02 independent scientist award. I read that it is a salary only award and the awardee has to work 75% of his time on health related research.

It says “Candidates for this award must have a doctoral degree and newly independent, peer-reviewed support at the time the award is made”.
This means candidate must have an approved research grant for applying K02.? Then why K02.? Candidate will have salary from the approved research grant, isn’t it..?

Also for K02, do we have to submit a research proposal or it is based on the CV of the candidate..? Too many questions..sorry

SG said
April 26, 2011 @ 2:31 pm · Edit
The Purpose of the K02 is to provide protected time (75%+) to newly independent scientists. The peer reviewed support does not have to be from NIH. So, if you got a smallish National AHA grant you could use the money for supplies and support and use the K02 for your salary.

This varies by IC though so you need to check. For instance, NIAID requires K02 applicants to have national peer-reviewed support, preferably an NIH R01 grant or equivalent. This grant can be from NIAID or any other institute or source.

The PA spells out pretty clearly how important CV and career development plan is versus Research Plan. (http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-10-057.html) The assumption is that if you have other peer reviewed money then the research plan must be pretty good.

Don’t forget the institutional support section too.

Science lover said
April 26, 2011 @ 2:47 pm · Edit
Thanks SG. Appreciate your time.

HW said
April 26, 2011 @ 4:36 pm · Edit
NIAID has finalized its FY11 paylines to 10 percentile (14 for NI). They were raised from 8 (12). Good news for people who applied to NIAID.

TM said
April 26, 2011 @ 4:37 pm · Edit
NIAID just posted paylines of 10% and 14% (new investigator) for R01s.
NIDDK payline is at 17% (NI) , and others probably at 15%..

Freckle said
April 26, 2011 @ 4:46 pm · Edit
Awesome! This gives me hope that NICHD might go up from a flat 11% for everyone.
Anyone hear anything about NICHD?

EY said
April 26, 2011 @ 6:43 pm · Edit
Not yet. Still waiting—

Freckle said
April 26, 2011 @ 8:05 pm · Edit
EY, best of luck to you!

patience is a virtue said
April 26, 2011 @ 5:22 pm · Edit
My R01 scored a 14th percentile and it is at NIAMS. I’m an ESI. The grant was submitted in Cycle I (Feb.) last year and reviewed in cycle II. Currently, the interim payline for NI/ESI applications at NIAMS is at the 12th percentile. If (big “if”) the final payline is >= 14 what happens? Should I receive an NOA shortly after or will my grant have to be reviewed at the next Council meeting? I think part of my lack of understanding is not really being clear on what happens when a grant is “reviewed” at Council? Any clarification would be much appreciated!!

writedit said
April 26, 2011 @ 10:00 pm · Edit
I assume you mean that you submitted in Feb (Cycle I) and it was reviewed in June (still Cycle I). Your application has already gone to Council (Oct). You should receive a JIT request prior to the NoA if an award is to be made … and that can happen any time up through Sept. If you haven’t been in touch with your PO in a while, you may want to see if he/she has any update on the potential for an award now that the FY11 NIH fiscal policy has been set and the ICs have a better idea what is expected of them in terms of absorbing their cut.

patience is a virtue said
April 27, 2011 @ 9:08 am · Edit
Hi writedit,

Thanks! Are there different submission and review cycles? For new R01s I thought there were three cycles I (Feb), II (June) and III (Oct) and a grant was always reviewed in subsequent cycles (i.e. cycle I submission reviewed in cycle II, II submission reviewed in III, etc.).

writedit said
April 27, 2011 @ 9:22 am · Edit
Applications stay in the same cycle based on their submission date, which spans a ~10-month period (in theory). You can see this clearly if you go to http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm and scroll down to Review and Award Cycles … each column (read down) covers the same cycle. What is missing in this table is the submission date span for each Cycle, which you can find in the table above, so, depending on the mechanism, Cycle I is anything from Jan-May, Cycle II is anything from May-Aug, and Cycle III is anything from Aug-Jan.

Freckle said
April 26, 2011 @ 6:04 pm · Edit
Did you guys see this?

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-068.html and this:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/nih-trims-grants-in-wake-of-budget.html?ref=ra

EY said
April 26, 2011 @ 9:57 pm · Edit
Hi, Freckle,
Thanks for the information. It is still hard to translate this NIH-wide policy to NICHD’s, but at least it seems that it should not take too long for them to decide the FY-11 payline with all the money being allocated and policies being made and announced. I think with 12% for your grant, it should almost be guaranteed to be funded. I still have 3% to reach the payline, will need to see—

EY said
April 27, 2011 @ 12:14 pm · Edit
Hi, Freckle,
Just heard from NICHD people that they are VERY close to make adjustments based on the budget. I guess either way, we should hear from them soon. Hopefully it is going to be a positive outcome!

Freckle said
April 27, 2011 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
Thanks, EY.
Any wild guess on what “VERY close” might mean? Last night I was thinking we should hear by the end of next week, but I’m hoping sooner.

Y said
April 26, 2011 @ 11:04 pm · Edit
This is the statement about non-competitive award in this notice:
“Modular and non-modular research grants, from all ICs, with the single exception of NCI, will be reduced to 1 percent below the FY 2010 award level”.

When I received funding for the non-competitive renewal of my R01 grant a few weeks ago (before congress passed the budget), I received a 10% administrative cut by my IC. With this new notice, should I expect to see the majority of the 10% administrative cut be restored? Should I speak with my PO about this?

SG said
April 27, 2011 @ 7:02 am · Edit
Yes you should see most of the cut rescinded. Your GM person would be the best one to contact. They are probably busy right now though.

nell said
April 27, 2011 @ 1:24 pm · Edit
so the anxiety got to me and I emailed my P.O. yesterday regarding my F31 application (submitted in Aug 2010, impact score 22, positive summary statement, was told I would not need to resubmit and it would be recommended for funding, have been waiting ever since). anyway, i emailed yesterday just to check in on the status of paylines and so forth and i got this one liner back today:

“You should hear within the next few weeks because we just recently have placed forward the memo establishing the payline”

So at the very least, things are moving along.

ds said
April 27, 2011 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
My Minority Biomedical Research Support SCORE SC-2 individual awards received priority score of 37. What are the chances for funding? Did anyone received notice about SCORE from NIGMS?
Thanks,

nyt said
April 28, 2011 @ 12:30 am · Edit
Reading the comments here, I gather that NIGMS does not go by payline but the priority score must mean something. Have you talked to your PO?

ds said
May 3, 2011 @ 9:51 pm · Edit
yes but no reply. I heard last year they fund 40-41priority score.
But not sure. can anyone confirm that????

Hung said
April 27, 2011 @ 3:51 pm · Edit
Anyone has any news about R21 funding from NCI…they are still accepting R21s…..which is surprising as they have not yet established any paylines for R21s….

Any idea what would be the R21 paylines? Will they fund grants reviewed last year ?

kmc said
April 27, 2011 @ 3:56 pm · Edit
No notion of the R21 payline (if there even is one at NCI…), but my PO recently asked for additional information on a cycle I (2010) A1 application that scored at the 9th percentile. She indicated that she planned to recommend the project for funding, but couldn’t make any promises. So it appears they are still planning/attempting to fund at least some R21s from FY 2010. Like so many others, fingers crossed…

cocoding said
April 27, 2011 @ 3:51 pm · Edit
Although the notice from NIH which you could find through the following link is not so bad, my PO at NIAMS is actually fairly negative about the funding situation this year. The PO mentioned that she doesn’t expect much change from the current very terrible 8% payline. I did mention to her about the this NIH notice, and cited the number of “9,050″ new awards which is not such a big change from the “9,386″ awards in 2010. It sounds like she doesn’t know much about it, and doesn’t care about what NIH is says. I agree with EY that it is still hard to translate this NIH-wide policy to each IC.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-068.html

NCI Applicant said
April 27, 2011 @ 8:18 pm · Edit
Has anyone hear from NCI today about his/her R01 that went through Feb council?

genejumper said
April 29, 2011 @ 11:53 am · Edit
Freckle and EY: Any news from NICHD in the last few days? Thanks.

EY said
April 29, 2011 @ 2:19 pm · Edit
I posted whatever I knew up to now, so no further news from NICHD yet. How about you, Freckle?

Freckle said
April 29, 2011 @ 2:34 pm · Edit
Nope. No news.
I last talked to my PO a couple weeks ago. I will wait another week and if still no news, then email. From what I understand we should be hearing any day now.
I was really hoping this would be faster….but the torture continues

bea03 said
April 30, 2011 @ 10:46 pm · Edit
Hello all. I basically join today and after reading all 985 comments I want to congratulate you for this extremely helpful forum. I thought I was the only roockie with anxiety attacks while waiting for news and trying not to bother too much my PO. So, have any of you hear about the R25 RISE fron NIGM I was requested my JIT in Feb for the May 2011 subm and Jan council. They ask for budget and few weeks ago for institutional data. However, I still not having a confirmation if I’ll be getting funded and the project was starting in April. Should I ask directly if I’m getting funded. Do you know paylines for this RFA? I’ll really appreciate it!

writedit said
May 1, 2011 @ 5:20 pm · Edit
Based on what you’ve said, only your PO can offer insight as to when your application might be approved for an award (or, if already approved, when processing of the award might get underway). If you have provided all the requested information, it would be fine now to send a brief e-mail to the PO asking about the timing of award-related decisions.

bea03 said
May 1, 2011 @ 7:38 pm · Edit
Thanks for your response. I’ll contact him in few days and let you know. Once again congrats for this site! Good luck you all!

freckle said
May 1, 2011 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
Happy May to all those still waiting…a toast to you!

SKate said
May 2, 2011 @ 10:33 am · Edit
Happy May to you as well freckle- have been watching for your posts and EY as we are in the same boat- NICHD, 12th%……it stinks to be us…..

Freckle said
May 2, 2011 @ 1:21 pm · Edit
Just checked the NIH silk database–NICHD issued no new R01s in the past week. One of these days that will change….

DES said
May 2, 2011 @ 6:41 pm · Edit
Just learned that two established investigators with 9 % (A1 or A0) were not selected for funding by NCI. It is so sad.

Buds said
May 2, 2011 @ 6:48 pm · Edit
Hi DES:

Thanks for the info. Will you be able to tell us what was the area of research that NCI did not fund? Also were both individuals in the same institute?

It is indeed sad that these individuals were not funded. I am wondering whether NCI is now refraining from supporting any specific cancer type.

DES said
May 2, 2011 @ 7:08 pm · Edit
Sorry, No further detailed info but I am pretty sure that two are working on different area. You may check with your PO and see if the objective of your RO1 fits the programmatic interests. Only PO knows the insight of programmatic interests.

Buds said
May 2, 2011 @ 7:10 pm · Edit
thanks DES for your response.

einstein said
May 3, 2011 @ 1:48 pm · Edit
would be interesting to know if they are in tobacco research. rumor has it that NCI is limiting funding of new projects there, to prevent losing Institute dollars when that part of the portfolio moves to the new addiction institute

ABCD said
May 3, 2011 @ 3:14 pm · Edit
So Varmus is cherry-picking 25%tile , but not 8, 9, 12, 14, or 17%tile (posts from before) . I’m sure there will be a backlash from the cancer scientific community for throwing the the whole review process out of the window.

Buds said
May 3, 2011 @ 3:56 pm · Edit
As I mentioned before in an earlier post, this change of policy should have been implemented for applications submitted after the announcement. Also, if indeed it is true that tobacco related (or certain other type of cancers) are no longer being supported by NCI, that should have also been announced before hand. Otherwise, as pointed out by others in this blog, the peer review process is being insulted.

I do hope that either Dr. Varmus (or his secretary) is reading these posts and becoming aware of what investigators are thinking about the whole process.

HS said
May 3, 2011 @ 4:15 pm · Edit
Buds,
If the rumor is that work on tobacco related cancers are not being entertained by NCI…then its true. I’m am an ESI with 17%tile , didn’t get picked, and my work is in lung cancer. My 4 yrs work is gone down the drain.

Buds said
May 3, 2011 @ 4:28 pm · Edit
Hi HS….

This was exactly my point. I think this is terribly unfair on investigators such as yourself. I am sure you can submit the grant elsewhere but had you known some further info (and this we are still assuming at this stage), you could have saved yourself a year. In some cases this is job or no job situation and that is where I think NIH officials are being insensitive.

whimple said
May 3, 2011 @ 5:39 pm · Edit
People always look for an external reason for why their proposal didn’t get funded. My guess is the rumor about not funding tobacco-related cancers is false. The 15% of lung cancer deaths that are unrelated to tobacco still represent the 5th leading cause of American cancer deaths, behind colon, breast, pancreas and prostate (2007 SEER data). It would be impossible for NCI to argue the lack of relevance of lung cancer research to their mission, even were they to completely discount tobacco use.

Genomic Repairman said
May 4, 2011 @ 10:18 pm · Edit
Thanks whimple for bringing some clarity to wild rumors.

anonymous said
May 5, 2011 @ 10:12 am · Edit
Not so wild. Being at one of the institutes whose portfolio is being affected, I can verify that we are generally more often deeming applications on soon-to-be-lost topics as “not in line with program priorities.” While sympathizing with the comments above about how it would have been nice to know this in advance, unfortunately, we were not made clearly aware of what we would be losing until about a month ago. As of that time, potential applicants who do the NIH-recommended “consult with a PO before applying” ARE being gently advised — gently, because we are not authorized to make public statements yet, as it is always possible that NIH plans will change.

MKim said
May 3, 2011 @ 10:46 pm · Edit
Hello ,
I have a question regarding indirect cost rate calculation

Is the indirect cost = 40% (default) of modified direct cost (direct cost minus equipment) + first $ 25,000 on equipment / subcontract.

writedit said
May 3, 2011 @ 11:23 pm · Edit
F&A costs/indirect cost rates are negotiated by your university/institution with the NIH and are not the same for everyone. The mechanism makes a difference, too: for training and career development mechanisms, indirects are set at 8%. However, since you are asking about equipment and subcontracts, I assume this is for some sort of research application. If you substitute the actual % for “default” in your equation below, it would apply in most instances. (indirects are applied at the prime applicant institution’s rate to the first $25K of each subcontract, regardless of how the money is spent)

MKim said
May 3, 2011 @ 11:37 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit, I was asking with reference to an SBIR, R43. I think if there is no special rate requested for the indirect cost then a default of 40% is applied.

Is there any case, when indirect cost is applied on 40% (default in this case) of total direct cost and not on modified direct cost?

D said
May 4, 2011 @ 7:01 am · Edit
Nope. And if you want to know why you can read this. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a021_2004

Agnes said
May 6, 2011 @ 2:15 pm · Edit
I am an early stage investigator and have an R01 under consideration. It got a good score, but probably not good enough to be funded at the institute where I requested primary assignment. However, it did get a good enough score to be funded at the institute where I requested secondary assignment. Can I get it kicked over if not funded at institute #1? Or does it happen automatically?

D said
May 6, 2011 @ 3:23 pm · Edit
The quick answers are: probably not and no. Now that isn’t to say that you can’t pursue it. (hmmm, double negative. Maybe I should have written, I encourage you to pursue it.) But, you need to contact the PO of the secondary IC (listed in Commons) and discuss the possibility directly with them.

If it is an area of science that they have a strong interest in (use your silver tongue) they can have the app switched to their Institute and fund it.

Freckle said
May 6, 2011 @ 3:48 pm · Edit
I was in a similar boat, but somehow had 3 institutes assigned. One primary and 2 secondary.

I emailed the POs at the two secondaries and politely asked if they would consider my application in addition to the primary institute, and explained why my application was of interest to them.

One wrote back and said “no” because thematically it wasn’t quite a good fit, but the other wrote back and said “yes”.

However, the “yes” was qualified by “but first let’s see what happens at the primary institute”. In the mean time the primary institute is of course taking a hundred years to establish their final FY11 payline.

D said
May 6, 2011 @ 4:19 pm · Edit
Good luck Freckle. It is great that you have a second IC who is interested.

HW said
May 6, 2011 @ 9:06 pm · Edit
Dr. Varmus sent a long email to NCI grantee today explaining the causes and degrees of the fiscal constrain that NCI faces in FY11. The key point for people waiting to hear about their FY11 RO1 and other RPGs is that NCI will not be able to make 1,250 new competing RPGs as Dr. Varmus has hoped for (NCI made 1,250 new RPGs in both FY09 and FY10). Instead, NCI will support only about 1,100 new RPGs in FY11. Not good news….Varmus said that many other ICs are doing better than NCI….

After some calculations, this means a 12% decrease of the number of new RPGs. Does this hint that for RO1 paylines, there are reductions from 15th/20th percentiles in FY10 to roughly 13/18th percentiles in FY11?

HW said
May 6, 2011 @ 9:26 pm · Edit
http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/director/relatedtopics/fiscalgrant2011
Just found this link that posts an email that Dr. Varmus sent to NCI staff which is similar to the one sent to NCI grantee.

kate said
May 8, 2011 @ 10:56 am · Edit
There is no hard payline in 2011 for NCI. 12% decrease of the number of new RPGs dosen’t mean 13/18th percentiles in FY11

CancerBiologist said
May 8, 2011 @ 1:18 pm · Edit
Dr Harold Varmus and his leadership team will not make a definite pay line. The definite pay line will be 7% for established investigators and 10 percentile for ESI. Then they will cherry pick according to their whims 8-15% for established and 11-25 for ESI. The grants are in 12, 14, 17 prcentile for ESI will not be picked. These are the craziest times at NCI.

D said
May 8, 2011 @ 7:43 pm · Edit
Except that as Federal Employees choosing which grants to fund with Federal Government money is, in fact, part of their job description. You could imagine that their “whims” will counteract the “whims” of the study section. And the “whims” of a Nobel Prize winner can’t be all that bad.

H said
May 8, 2011 @ 9:11 pm · Edit
D,
I understand your point that the perspectives from the study section are likely different from those of the program officers. In the case of NCI this year, the rationales for the cherry-picking process are far from being clear to many of us who applied to NCI many months ago before this picking policy became active. Do you have insights into how the behind-the-door cherry-picking process is conducted and what ultimately makes a gray-zoned proposal picked for funding? Thanks.

D said
May 8, 2011 @ 9:40 pm · Edit
H, Not specifically. But I can guess.

First, I think that the term “cherry-picking” is misleading. It suggests that they are selecting based on merit when really they have probably decided that all apps in the range of 8-15% are equally meritorious. The difference is meaningless.

What they might be taking into consideration (and again I do not know anything definite for NCI) are things like, how many grants does the PI already have? Is it better to support a single PI’s grant (at say a 14%) over the third grant for a PI with an 8%? Do we really need to fund study X when our portfolio already contains 3 other grants in the same area? Instead of funding very expensive grant X maybe we should fund grants Y and Z for the same money? I know for a fact that these kind of questions get asked, on a smaller scale, in other ICs all of the time. These are the type of tough questions that PhD and MD level POs and Institute Directors are paid to make. Otherwise why do we need them?

Would it be nice for them to say this? Yes. Are they willing to take the heat for basing their funding decisions on anything but a priority score? We’ll see.

J said
May 9, 2011 @ 9:07 am · Edit
This is a classic debate about fairness and efficiency of not perfect but transparent selection mechanism, versus secretive process by “wise” men. Judging by historical examples, the latter is less efficient in a long run and inevitably leads to corruption. It is rather safe to predict that if NCI will go this way, sooner or later there will be allegations of ether political or financial manipulations in “selection” of winners in the gray area of 8-15%.

D said
May 9, 2011 @ 9:48 am · Edit
On what basis do you suggest that the Study Section review is fairer, more efficient or more transparent than the Programmatic review? In fact SS review is confidential and riddled with unspoken conflicts of interest.

I would consider both the Study Section review and the Programmatic review to be a “secretive process by “wise” men” They are just different sets of “Wisemen and Wisewomen weighing different but overlapping sets of priorities.

cocoding said
May 9, 2011 @ 10:02 am · Edit
Frankly, I don’t agree with what you said. SS may not be fair as well, but at least it is something that everyone can understand and everyone can follow, and it is a hard ruler.

ASP said
May 14, 2011 @ 1:21 am · Edit
there should some transparency for federal funding. SS give their names for the reviewers, but I have no idea about who are the SPL in NCI. Does it sound right to you.

D said
May 14, 2011 @ 10:01 pm · Edit
@ASP,
Actually you don’t know who your specific reviewers are (that is those who actually read and critiqued your grant) only who was on the panel that reviewed your grant. And if you were to do a little Google search (or even read this Blog) you could find out who the SPLs for NCI are. This is public knowledge.

Members, Scientific Program Leaders Committee, National Cancer Institute, NIH
Dr. Harold Varmus, Director, National Cancer Institute
Dr. Kenneth Buetow, Associate Director, Center for Bioinformatics and Information Technology
Dr. Robert Croyle, Director, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences
Dr. James Doroshow, Director, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis
Dr. Joseph Fraumeni, Director, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
Dr. Paulette S. Gray, Director, Division of Extramural Activities
Dr. Peter Greenwald, Director, Division of Cancer Prevention
Dr. Lee Helman, Scientific Director for Clinical Research, Center for Cancer Research
Dr. Douglas R. Lowy, Deputy Director, National Cancer Institute
Dr. Alan Rabson, Deputy Director, National Cancer Institute
Dr. Dinah Singer, Director, Division of Cancer Biology
Dr. Sanya Springfield, Director, Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities
Mr. Michael Weingarten, Director, Small Business Innovation Research
Dr. Linda Weiss, Director, Office of Cancer Centers
Dr. Jonathan Wiest, Director, Center for Cancer Training
Dr. Robert Wiltrout, Director, Center for Cancer Research
Ms. Joy Wiszneauckas, Executive Secretary, Office of the Director
Dr. Robert Yarchoan, Director, Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy

Click to access 07dec10mins.pdf

John said
May 9, 2011 @ 9:46 am · Edit
Actually I think this letter did not explain the situation very clearly. NCI only has less than 1% reduction in total funding. And with the measures of reducing 3% of committed non-competitive intra- and extramural projects, this 1% reduction is probably already absorbed. How come they still need to cut the payline so significantly? And it is mentioned they are going to fund 1100 RPGs compared to 1250 PRGs in previous years. This 12% reduction in the number of RPGs translates into a 50% reduction in paylines. This really does not make any sense to me.

cocoding said
May 9, 2011 @ 9:56 am · Edit
I totally agree. To be honest, NIH is like a black box to me. You never know what is going on inside. Do we, as investigators, have any rights to ask NIH to show how they figure out the paylines for each IC ?
It is so frustrated.

writedit said
May 9, 2011 @ 9:59 am · Edit
Part of NCI’s added budget pain comes from their funding ARRA awards for 4 instead of 2 years, taking the latter 2 years out of future appropriations. Since the appropriation has not gone up since ARRA, NCI has had less $ available for new competing awards.

John said
May 9, 2011 @ 9:49 am · Edit
And another think this letter did not clarify is: what percentage of the gray zone proposals will be picked? 5%, 10%, 30%, 50%, 80%? That’s a whole lot of differences.

J said
May 9, 2011 @ 9:56 am · Edit
To answer D. With the Study Section process, the names of reviewers are known and applicant can ask to exclude certain reviewers, the critique is written, and there is a formal process of appeal. It is not a perfect process, particularly in the gray area, but it uses more safeguards that wise men/women deliberation.

DrugMonkey said
May 9, 2011 @ 1:32 pm · Edit
The names of Program Staff with duties in specific areas are named on IC websites. The ICs publish numerous documents outlining their priorities, most specifically the FOAs but also meeting minutes of Advisory Councils (and subcommittees) and a variety of “5-year Plan” type documents. There are mechanisms of appeal, the most basic of which is your advocacy on the phone with your assigned PO regarding the merits of your grey zone proposal.

Study section member, otoh, have no obligation whatsoever to publish anything regarding their professional opinions about good science, innovation, merit, the present and future of NIH IC portfolios, the extramural research force or any other such thing. So many factors that influence their decision making on applications is entirely opaque (unless you happen to know them and they are looselipped about such matters, that is).

The multi-tiered process of grant selection (study section, line PO, division/branch PO, Advisory Council, Director of IC…all with input from Congressional directives and the budget process, btw) has been in place for a *very* long time. It boggles my mind that so many commenters hereabouts are not only ignorant of this but have the nerve to complain about how this is “new”. It is most certainly not new, you are just only now appreciating how the process has always worked.

ABCD said
May 9, 2011 @ 4:48 pm · Edit
DM, since we are ignorant, can you tell us which IC has been awarding only 50% of RPGs with hard paylines and the rest 50% by ‘cherry-picking’? I’m aware that big ICs like NIAID, NHLBI, NIGMS (Berg’s data) (and NCI till last year) award only a small fraction of grants beyond hard paylines.

DrugMonkey said
May 9, 2011 @ 7:48 pm · Edit
You further display your ignorance by failing to understand that ICs are, apparently, under no obligation to be transparent about their policies. This is what makes Berg’s efforts at NIGMS so heroically awesome.

Also, that if an IC awards *any* grants beyond some “hard payline” than it is no such thing. Also, that some ICs publish post-hoc paylines which are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

The main point at hand, however, you seem not to grasp. I infer this due to your use of the term “cherry-picking”. Program Officers using their discretion and professional priorities of their institute to dictate what gets funded is no more and no less “cherry picking” than is the behavior of study section members in ranking applications.

GZ said
May 9, 2011 @ 9:44 pm · Edit
I believe the question raised by ABCD was not fully answered! Although some ICs have been exercising programmatic review without hard paylines for a long while, it is probably rare that they have a large pool of proposals in the gray zones for exceptional funding, i.e. 8-15 percentile for established PIs and 11-25 percentile for NIs. It is probably also very rare for other ICs to skip 14%tile ESIs and pick up 25%tile ESIs or to skip 8-9%tile established PIs (these incidents have recently happened at NCI according to earlier posts). Yes, I’d like to ask the same question that ABCD has asked and love to know the answer.

H said
May 9, 2011 @ 10:27 am · Edit
If the percentile is meaningless among proposals within the gray zone, the program officers have to base their decisions on something else, such as, what D has mentioned. But the few criteria D has named do not appear to be too much related to science itself. And this is rather unfortunate and unfair….

I know that programmatic review is a big deal with DoD grants as the integrative panels could skip the top scored proposals for the reason of programmatic prioity. In my experiences with DoD, my proposals were skipped (top scored) and also picked up (not so outstanding scores). Being a reviewer for DoD, I have also felt the “power” of the integrative panels. But at least DoD clearly states in their PAs that this is what they do.

What I speculate is that NCI program directors porbably at least read the abstract and summary statemens (but not the proposals) as they make funding decisions. In this way, they will consider not only the opinions of study section but also their “secretive criteria” (program goals, # of grants of the PI, budget…etc).

D said
May 9, 2011 @ 11:08 am · Edit
And yet ESIs get paid at a higher payline for reasons other than “science”. Plus, the R01 PA clearly states that grant awards are based on three things. Peer review, Money and Program priorities.

I find it hard to believe that if anyone had know a year ago that NCI Program was going to use their prerogative more fully that they would have written their grant application any differently.

And remember that anything that NCI funds out of order has to be justified.

See https://writedit.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/gao-cautions-nih-about-discretionary-funding-decisions/ for instance.

H said
May 9, 2011 @ 12:46 pm · Edit
One thing that I would have done differently if NCI has told people that more applications fall in the gray zones than the certainty zones and that for those in the gray zones, program priority is critical for being chosen for exceptional funding IS that I would have contacted a few POs before I submitted my RO1s and requested a PO in my cover letter. I always requested study sections but not porgrams, uncless it responds to RFA/PA (non-parent PA). And this will definitely change!!

Science lover said
May 9, 2011 @ 11:08 am · Edit
Its difficult to get grants. Still could anyone tell me among R01, R03 and R21 which mechanism is easier to fund. I am planning to write a grant, got a plan. It can be submitted as a short term or long term project. I would like to know which mechanism has better chance. I will be considered as a new investigator according to NIH specification.

SG said
May 9, 2011 @ 11:25 am · Edit
SL, go with what your science requires not on likelihood of funding. If you have an awesome idea that will take 12 pages to write up and will take 4-5 years go with the R01. If you need more preliminary data then go with the R21. If you have just an idea and need to do some feasibility work try and R03. Not all institutes use all of these mechanisms though. Better check first.

They are all hard to get funded though. Although I have heard that SBIRs are a little easier.

writedit said
May 9, 2011 @ 12:06 pm · Edit
You will only get a percentile break for your new investigator status on the R01 (and for NHLBI, you need to be ESI, not just new investigator). I agree with SG’s advice … though if your idea could work for an R21 or R01, it probably would not be appropriate for an R03 unless there is a small component of the work for which you need to obtain preliminary data still.

Science lover said
May 9, 2011 @ 1:03 pm · Edit
Thanks SG and writedit. Really helpful comments.

Reply
NIH Institutes played shenanigans with ARRA? | DrugMonkey said
May 9, 2011 @ 1:58 pm · Edit
[…] is, were we prepared for the reality of the crash-back-to-bad-budget levels post-ARRA? Rumor has it that the National Cancer Institute was not. Part of NCI’s added budget pain comes from their […]

Science lover said
May 9, 2011 @ 3:06 pm · Edit
Technically is it possible for a PI to submit the same research idea for consideration under different mechanisms such as R03 and R21 at the same time.?

SG said
May 9, 2011 @ 5:24 pm · Edit
SL,
Nope. Not allowed. See this Notice. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-09-100.html

Science lover said
May 9, 2011 @ 7:29 pm · Edit
Thanks SG

wesley said
May 9, 2011 @ 4:44 pm · Edit
A quick question about eSnap annual reports – when I do the cumulative inclusion enrollment report, does cumulative mean for the project year or the life of the project? Do I do a separate inclusion enrollment report for each of the discrete studies we have done, or a single report that collapses all studies?

Thanks
Wesley

mm said
May 10, 2011 @ 1:03 am · Edit
Does anyone know about the possibility of having a grant transferred to another institute? I have a 10% R01 from nci that looks like it won’t make it, but the grant also has secondary assignments to NIBIB and NIA.

SG said
May 10, 2011 @ 6:57 am · Edit
I don’t know what the odds are but it is worth contacting your Program Officers at both of the other institutes and see how much interest they have in your grant. My guess is that they will not commit to anything until they know whether NCI will fund you or not.

mm said
May 10, 2011 @ 9:50 am · Edit
will give that a try and post the results…it’s also assigned to NIEHS. thanks!

mm said
May 12, 2011 @ 7:57 am · Edit
update…NIBIB PO said she would have loved to pick it up but they are not accepting any transfers in this budget situation. Ug. At least both POs supportive and it could still get picked up by NCI before september….meanwhile starting all over again.

Dustin said
May 10, 2011 @ 11:39 am · Edit
I just received a 15% on a new R01 at NIBIB. I am a new/early stage investigator, which puts me under their 16% payline. It’s not scheduled to go to council until October. Is there any chance I could get this into the May 20 council to speed up the process?

writedit said
May 10, 2011 @ 11:43 am · Edit
Nope. Be patient – you’ve got a long wait ahead.

freckle said
May 10, 2011 @ 12:39 pm · Edit
Dustin,
I would say get ready to be incredibly patient. There is no such thing as speeding up the process.
For some perspective, my R01 went to Council with a 12% score as a new investigator on Jan. 20. I still have not heard final word on this proposal and it’s mid-May. Also, you will be FY2012 so you do not know what the relevant payline will actually be.

sleepless said
May 10, 2011 @ 12:47 pm · Edit
Does a Just-in-time request mean anything for applicants in the “gray area”?

writedit said
May 10, 2011 @ 1:30 pm · Edit
A direct e-mail request from your PO or GMS means you are at least being considered for an award. You can ask your PO for an update on your application’s status – clearly something is happening.

EY said
May 10, 2011 @ 1:36 pm · Edit
Hi, Freckle,
Just want to check to see whether you have heard any movement from NICHD (e.g. phone call, JIT request, etc.)? From an unofficial source, I was told that they will have a payline early this week. So hopefully the limbo will be ended soon. It just has been such an incredibly long waiting period—

freckle said
May 10, 2011 @ 5:03 pm · Edit
Got transferred to NIGMS and just got a JIT this morning from my new PO…I’m hoping it means something good . But now I’m out of the loop for NICHD.

Z said
May 10, 2011 @ 5:06 pm · Edit
Freckle,

Thanks for the heads up. That’s bad news for me I think. I have an R21 with the same percentile rank as you (12) and at NICHD. This probably means that your 12 is no good at NICHD, which then probably means that the payline is going to stay at 11.

EY said
May 10, 2011 @ 6:03 pm · Edit
Hey, Freckle,
Thanks for your information. I wonder whether you were told from CHD that 12% with ESI status will not be funded definitely, or you just transfer since CHD is extremely slow in deciding their payline? We appreciate your sharing!

freckle said
May 10, 2011 @ 6:21 pm · Edit
I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions.
The move of my proposal from HD to GM might have more to do with programmatic priorities as they relate specifically to my grant than to percentiles, but honestly I just don’t know either way.
However, unfortunately PO did say it will probably be another month before anything is decided for sure (i.e. NOA be issued). Just gotta be patient

Z said
May 10, 2011 @ 6:37 pm · Edit
I went up for my third year review and had the opportunity to total up my applications since February 2009. Across NIH, DoD, and private, our lab has submitted nearly 20 applications (nothing goes out of our lab without pilot data, of course). All we have to show for it is a single non-competing administrative supplement (all other applications were new competing). This funding environment is brutal, particularly for ESI’s who are still fighting to justify keeping their jobs.

EY said
May 10, 2011 @ 6:41 pm · Edit
Thank you Freckle. So it seems that the driving force of this transfer is not initiated by you, but by your PO? However, I think you have to ask for this first, and normally the institute you will transfer to would say that they want to hear the decision of the primary institute first.

freckle said
May 11, 2011 @ 8:20 pm · Edit
I initiated the process a long time ago by asking the other institute to consider the application and explaining why. However, the POs are the ones who took the action and they must have had a good reason.

patience is a virtue said
May 10, 2011 @ 3:40 pm · Edit
NIA just updated FY11payline:
http://www.nia.nih.gov/GrantsAndTraining/Policies/2010-12-Update.htm

patience is a virtue said
May 10, 2011 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
Has anyone been in contact with a NIAMS PO? If so, any word on a timeline for final FY11 paylines?

EY said
May 10, 2011 @ 6:46 pm · Edit
And for Z– As far as I know, CHD does not have a payline established yet. And R21 may have a better chance with CHD than other institutes.

Z said
May 11, 2011 @ 6:33 am · Edit
Thanks EY!

Buds said
May 11, 2011 @ 6:36 pm · Edit
Has anyone heard from their PO at NCI regarding possible funding or a request for JIT (directly from PO) of proposals submitted in Oct/Nov 2010, and reviewed in Feb/Mar 2011? Perhaps it is too early but JIT requests may have gone out………if anyone hasa received JIT please list %ile ranking of your grant also. Thanks.

slartibartfast said
May 12, 2011 @ 11:04 am · Edit
I’m in your same situation, and can only say that I’ve also not gotten a definitive ‘yea’ or ‘nay’. I can also say that my PO indicated two weeks ago that pre-Council selection decisions for this cycle started sometime either during the week of April 25 or May 2 and would take 2 – 3 weeks to complete, so my presumption is that we should hear soon. Hang in there.

Buds said
May 12, 2011 @ 11:08 am · Edit
Ok thanks and good luck.

einstein said
May 12, 2011 @ 10:59 am · Edit
NIH Director: Fewer Than One in Five Grant Applications May Get Funded This Year

By Jocelyn Kaiser

Science.com

May 11, 2011

At a Senate hearing today, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins warned that the fraction of grant applications that are funded this year could drop below 20% for the first time. Lawmakers also quizzed the NIH chief about his plan to create a new center for translational research.

The crash in so-called success rates comes because this year NIH’s budget was cut by $322 million, or 1%. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), chair of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees NIH’s budget, noted that as a result, success rates are expected to drop to 17% to 18%. That is down from 20% this year and would be “the lowest in history,” Collins later said. Harkins also worried about next year, noting that if a House proposal to cut health spending 9% prevails, “severe reductions to NIH research would be unavoidable.” President Barack Obama, by contrast, has requested a 2.4% boost over the 2010 level of $31 billion for the agency.

The hearing also discussed the proposed National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), which would spur the development of drugs. In his first presentation of the center to Congress, Collins tried to allay concerns that drug development is not the proper role of the federal agency in Bethesda, Maryland. “NCATS will complement, not compete with, the private sector. This is not Bethesda Pharma,” he said.

But ranking member Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) said that although he supports the idea of an “entity” to bridge research and industry, he wonders whether NCATS is “the right mechanism.”

The NCATS plan has also been controversial because it entails dismantling another NIH center, the National Center for Research Resources. Shelby expressed concern about the reorganization, which “will shift at least $1.3 billion” among various institutes. He called for “thoughtful consideration to the effect that [NCATS] will have on the NIH, the extramural research community, and the private pharmaceutical world.” He complained that NIH proposed NCATS in December but hasn’t yet submitted details on its budget to Congress.

Collins called the reorganization “a complicated process” but defended his decision to quickly create NCATS by October “to move the science forward.” He said the budget plan is still wending its way through various offices but should be coming “in the next few weeks.”

Other questions were more curious than critical: Shelby asked about NCATS’s plan to “repurpose,” or find new uses for, approved drugs. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), who said, “I think medical research is a huge component of the future of our country,” noted that he visited a small-molecule screening center last week at the University of Kansas that would be part of NCATS.

witsend said
May 12, 2011 @ 12:30 pm · Edit
Does anyone have news from the NIDDK? I am still waiting to hear on a K01 (cycle 1 submission) which my PO told me months ago was very very likely to be funded. I’ve heard that R grants get first priority for award notices? Can anyone share if they’ve been told the same, been funded, and/or what their score was?

writedit said
May 12, 2011 @ 1:16 pm · Edit
NIDDK Council met yesterday, so your PO should have some news soon.

TM said
May 12, 2011 @ 2:07 pm · Edit
My PO told me that NI/ESI R01s will be funded@ 17%, I assume established investigators will be 2% lower. If there is funds left over, then they fund additional grants based on programmatic priority, etc. . I am right above the payline and hoping to have some news in the next day or two!!

freckle said
May 12, 2011 @ 7:43 pm · Edit
Anyone hear anything about NIGMS?
I’d be curious if anyone knows anything about FY11 paylines or about R01 or other grants being funded or rejected recently and what %.
Thanks!

writedit said
May 12, 2011 @ 7:56 pm · Edit
As Jeremy Berg explained (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/), NIGMS does not set a hard payline, though the top-scoring applications in the pile comprise about half of the awards made, with a sizeable number discussed in the paylist meetings.

freckle said
May 12, 2011 @ 11:36 pm · Edit
Thanks, writedit. I recall that blog entry but I thought perhaps there was a soft payline emerging for FY11 for NIGMS or that people had heard about applications accepted or rejected at certain % scores….always hoping for some kind of info while waiting…..

dim said
May 13, 2011 @ 1:21 pm · Edit
Ok here is the situation. NEI emails saying funds will start x date. We are now 20 days after x and stil no NoA. Is this delay normal?

Thank you all for your help.

writedit said
May 13, 2011 @ 3:56 pm · Edit
Not the preferred operating procedure, but specially right now, not abnormal. You could check in with the GMS for a quick update.

Hung said
May 13, 2011 @ 4:39 pm · Edit
Anyone has any news on R21s (paylines….) from NCI. ….
If any one has recently recived R21 from NCI please shre teh percentile….

kmc said
May 13, 2011 @ 4:55 pm · Edit
No news here.

EY said
May 13, 2011 @ 6:24 pm · Edit
Dear Writedit and Freckle,
I just wonder how NICHD and GMS are normally go with payline. I remember there were some comments before saying these two institutes are not always abide strictly with solid payline. Is it true?

writedit said
May 13, 2011 @ 11:18 pm · Edit
NIGMS does not set a payline (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/) … NICHD does.

freckle said
May 15, 2011 @ 8:56 pm · Edit
For those wondering, no new R01s issued by NICHD in the last 2 weeks and I think also none for NIGMS (or maybe 1).
I think in 2-3 weeks that’s going to change…fingers crossed

F32 said
May 15, 2011 @ 10:25 pm · Edit
Although I am not applying for R01, I just got my F32 NOA from NICHD last Friday (council in Jan). I believe the budget got in and things are moving right now. Good luck!!

writedit said
May 15, 2011 @ 11:08 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Best of luck with this research and your career!

john said
May 15, 2011 @ 11:54 pm · Edit
Congrats! Do you mind me asking what your score was?

F32 said
May 16, 2011 @ 10:26 am · Edit
My score wasn’t impressive at all. Impact score is 32 (25%). I turned in my JIT etc. pretty quickly. As my PO told me, my score was pretty much right at the borderline of their funded F32.

SS said
May 16, 2011 @ 9:00 am · Edit
No new R01s, R21s and R03s (all RPGs) were not released during the last few weeks due to the debate at the NIH on how much to cut on 2011 pay. On April 25th there was an agreement to cut 1% across the board due to the 1% reduction in NIH funding for FY2011 compared to FY2010 (except NCI, where it is a 3% cut). However, many higher-ups at the NIH believe this much is not enough. Hence the release of grants was in limbo until last Wednesday. Now they have agreed to release the competing grants with no cuts. So, many can expect their NoA this week. But, people who are waiting for their non-competitive renewal may have to wait little longer since their cuts have not yet been finalized. This is the info I received from my GMS when I was enquiring about any possible cuts to those who are already awarded with new R01s this year.

SKate said
May 16, 2011 @ 9:27 am · Edit
I’ve heard that NICHD is sticking to 11% and this will likely go to 8%-10% after May council.

Gnome said
May 16, 2011 @ 9:57 am · Edit
Have you heard if the drop to 8-10% will affect proposals discussed at May council (reviewed in Feb/March of 2010) or only after? Also, is this for all mechanisms (R03/R21) or just for R01s?

SKate said
May 16, 2011 @ 11:12 am · Edit
I have an R03 so it is for all mechanisms I believe. I’m assuming yes on the proposals discussed at May council but not 100% sure. My R03 was reviewed in Oct with impact score of 24 and 11th%. My PO is currently looking at other Institutes for me but I’m not holding my breath on that one. I did re-submit but it seems impossible to improve to an 8-10%. So frustrating.

Rose said
May 16, 2011 @ 10:57 am · Edit
I spoke to my PO at NIDDK 2 weeks ago ( prior to the council meeting) about my K23 (score of 20, resubmission). My PO told me I had a 50/50 chance and that I wouldn’t know for a few more weeks whether it got funded. I don’t really understand the process, but the PO told me that they put in an early concurrence to the council meeting, so that my grant was not going to be reviewed there.

My secondary institute is NHLBI and I see above that they are funding Ks at 30 and above. If I don’t get funded by NIDDK, what is the process for seeking funding from NHLBI? Should I wait to hear if my K is funded by NIDDK first or is there a way to be proactive?

writedit said
May 16, 2011 @ 11:02 am · Edit
At this point, you’ll probably need to wait for an NIDDK decision, but you can certainly contact the PO at NHLBI to explain your situation and inquire whether NHLBI would pick up the application if NIDDK does not come through.

lilmd said
May 16, 2011 @ 12:27 pm · Edit
Rose or writeedit- what do you mean by they put in an early concurrence to the council meeting and that your K23 was not going to be reviewed there?
20 sounds like a pretty good score to me!

writedit said
May 16, 2011 @ 12:50 pm · Edit
I believe this refers to the electronic means for expedited Council review and approval of the top-scoring applications so the processing of their NoAs can begin before Council meets. However, the NIDDK Council met last week, so all Council actions (both early concurrence and concurrence at the meeting) should be completed by now.

Rose said
May 16, 2011 @ 1:00 pm · Edit
This is what the PO’s email said (after I emailed to set up a brief phone call to check in prior to the council meeting):
“Council is not doing anything with your application because we do an ‘early concurrence’ for most applications and yours was on the list. That just means that the review part is done and we will be putting a pay plan together once I have time to read all the summary statements. Not sure what you want to talk about, but I am at my desk now if you need to call”

I did call, but wish I hadn’t…I am really really hoping to get funded but I’m not feeling very optimistic…

lilmd said
May 16, 2011 @ 2:14 pm · Edit
I feel for you Rose. But since NIDDK council met last week per writeedit (and I assume your app would have been scheduled for discussion at this meeting), have you gotten a JIT email request?

Signaling said
May 16, 2011 @ 2:23 pm · Edit
NIDDK had a council meeting last week (May 12). Anybody knows the NIDDK new payline for RO1? I am an NI/ESI. My RO1 submitted in Oct 2010, reviewed in Feb with a percentile of 14%. Anxiouly waiting…

TM said
May 16, 2011 @ 3:14 pm · Edit
For NIDDK, NI @17% and established@ 15%.
Also I think “concurrence by council” mean that council agreed wit the judgment f of the institute personnel. In other word,s the council does not sit down and go through each application and vote up or down, they just give a stamp of approval to what the institute decided based on their set paylines etc.

@Rose, it seems like you are going to get funded. Congrats.

Signaling said
May 16, 2011 @ 4:37 pm · Edit
Thanks for the response. The status of my RO1 in eRA Common has changed to “Council Review Completed”. As an NI and first time submitter, I am not sure whether this is a good or bad sign.

writedit said
May 16, 2011 @ 4:41 pm · Edit
It’s not a sign of anything except the passage of time and your Council meeting. Your status will change again if an award is being processed.

Rose said
May 16, 2011 @ 2:49 pm · Edit
Thanks lilmd. I have not received a JIT email.

patience is a virtue said
May 16, 2011 @ 4:25 pm · Edit
Has anyone heard any word regarding final paylines at NIAMS?

freckle said
May 16, 2011 @ 5:40 pm · Edit
Just talked to an official at NICHD today.
In contrast to an earlier comment from someone above, NICHD has in fact not decided to stick at 11% or to reduce paylines to 8-10% in the future.
They are still ironing out what the final numbers will be and actually hoping it will go up a bit, but not sure.

EY said
May 16, 2011 @ 8:18 pm · Edit
It seems that the payline at CHD for NI/ESI is going to be 12%. Therefore with 14% (20 priority score), my chance there is very minimal. Do not know whether it is a historically low payline for CHD or any other institutes.

SKate said
May 17, 2011 @ 12:21 pm · Edit
Good to hear Freckle. I posted that info as it came directly from my PO at NICHD. I’m hoping you are right.

Elizabeth said
May 17, 2011 @ 12:41 pm · Edit
Friday I got an e-mail from my program director at NCI that said ” your K22 application is listed on funding plan documentation for FY2011. The application must still clear the Council in June…” She went on to say that this is unofficial and I should not think my application is funded. Can I be optimistic?

dim said
May 17, 2011 @ 12:42 pm · Edit
Hello,

NEI says they are on hold processing awards cause NIH havent told them how to spend the money. Any ideas whats going on?
thank you

bugsy said
May 18, 2011 @ 7:00 pm · Edit
Did you find out what is going on dim?

Matt said
May 17, 2011 @ 12:56 pm · Edit
Another question: I received “A Pay Letter”.. “this is to inform you that your… has been approved.. You can expect a Notice of Research Fellowship Award and Fellowship activation notice in the near future”.. This was ~3 weeks ago. I talked to the GMS, in short because I need to find out roughly when the fellowship will start for housing/financial reasons, and she said that “a final funding decision has not been authorized”. So, maybe I’m confused, but I thought that the decision had been made when I got this formal pay letter from my PO.

Also, the fellowship (F32) salary is less than what the campus has set as the minimum postdoc salary.. the difference is ~$750. Is the salary negotiable, or do I have to ask my PI to make up the difference??

NT said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:39 pm · Edit
I had similar situation before. Before the REAL NoA is issued, they just cannot give you a date on it. They just let you know there will be a fellowship for you but administrative paperwork within the institute is not finalized yet.

I hope the “near future” won’t take too long. Last time I heard “a few weeks” from my PO’s letter, it actually took three months (well, I guess it’s about 13 weeks) to get the next letter.

As far as I know, the salary is not negotiable in NIH F32. But you could ask you PI to match up the minimum salary (or higher since you save him/her a lot of money).

Matt said
May 18, 2011 @ 1:29 pm · Edit
Thanks NT… Hopefully “soon” will mean sooner than 13 weeks!!

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 3:50 pm · Edit
I am hoping that you can clarify my recent experience with NICHD. I submitted an R01 proposal in 2010 that was ranked at the 12% in the first round. However, we were under a continuing resolution so that proposal went unfunded and I was encouraged to resubmit, addressing reviewer’s comments, to bring the proposal into fundable range. The resubmission was just ranked at the 51%!! I am at a complete loss to comprehend such a precipitous drop in my percentile ranking. I do not yet have my summary statement but the reality of this completely unfundable score cannot be ignored. I have spoken to my PO who apparently did not attend the Scientific Review Meeting so I am at a complete loss. This is a large, multi-site, proposal and we have all worked very hard to produce a proposal that would make a strong contribution to child health. At the risk of repeating myself a drop from the 12th to the 51st percentile is a tremendous shock. Your thoughts and experience would be helpful. Thanks.

J said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:31 pm · Edit
Since you got percentile, your grant was discussed, not triaged. Most likely, one of the reviewers found a serious new fault and was able to convince enough members of the Study Section. If after reading Summary Statement you will find that this critique was factually incorrect, you can appeal and may even succeed and get a new review on a separate Study Section. However, if it was a matter of opinion, you would not get anywhere. So, wait until you get Summary Statement and steel yourself for fighting.

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:38 pm · Edit
Thanks for your reply. Any sense of the probability of successfully appealing should a factual error be found?

slartibartfast said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:43 pm · Edit
I thought all grants are now given percentile rankings, even those that are not discussed. I believe impact scores are reported only when a grant gets discussed.

Can someone clarify this? Please and thanks.

writedit said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:49 pm · Edit
No, not even every discussed/scored grant receives a percentile. Percentiles are only given to discussed grants, and only certain mechanisms, not for every study section.

NIAID gives a nice explanation for how percentiles are calculated (in the context of paylines): http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part10.aspx#c1

DrugMonkey said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:48 pm · Edit
Condolences, that is always incredibly frustrating when a score goes from nearly funded to out of the money.

It strikes me as very, very, very unlikely that a “factual error” was the problem here, however. This was a revision and scores do not go backward that far on a whim or a mistake, ime. The unassigned reviewers (assuming it went back to the same study section) are going to want to know why they are being asked to vote a bad score this time. Disconnects like this have a way of alerting people.

Rather than something “new”, the first suspect is always that there was something about your response to the prior criticism that drew additional fire.

Buds said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:50 pm · Edit
Has anyone ever succeeded with appeals? If so, please write. In my opinion appeals process is a facade. SRAs nned to send the revised grants back to the same reviewer’s (I am assuming Maggie’s grant did not go back to the same reviewers). Applicant is always losing out in the current review process.

writedit said
May 18, 2011 @ 2:27 am · Edit
Appeals are almost never a good idea … but some do work – in the short-term (think squeaky wheel … really annoyingly squeaky). In the long-term, you’ve pissed off your PO and the study section (your future reviewers) and you lose a lot of time. Fine if you have 3 other R01s keeping the lab going, but even if you win your appeal on scientific merit, you win a second shot at peer review (after already losing a couple of cycles) from either the original reviewers, who know you have appealed, or a new study section who knows you were sent there because you appealed your review in another study section. Think about the long-term collateral damage … and if you think you have a genuinely scientifically sound case, talk with your PO first.

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:53 pm · Edit
Unfortunately, the proposal went to a new study section. The composition was quite different from the first. I suspect that this was more the issue than that the proposal “drew additional fire.” It drew very little fire and much praise in the first round so you can imagine how shocking and disheartening this is!

DrugMonkey said
May 17, 2011 @ 5:03 pm · Edit
former NIGMS Director Berg had an overview of the appeals process on a blog post he had. unfortunately I can’t seem to locate it right now but it was the one where he detailed the advisory council process, I believe.

from memory, most appeals were either not supported (review stands) or sent back for re-review (used to be a waste of time, imo, now with only the single revision..hmm). he did seem to say the occasional application received the fairy-unicorn treatment-i.e., Council decided to overturn initial review and recommend funding. But I did not get the impression this was anything other than very rare circumstances….

DrugMonkey said
May 17, 2011 @ 5:05 pm · Edit
https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/19/the-advisory-councils-critical-roles/comment-page-1/#comment-835

That said, let me provide some data. Over the past 5 years, the NIGMS Advisory Council has acted on 177 appeals. In approximately 2/3rds of these cases, the Council concurred with the Initial Review Group. Outcomes for the remaining cases included deferral for re-review, designation as high program priority, recommendation for consideration for possible funding, recommendation for interim funding, and restoration of funds, depending on the nature of the appeal.

from da Berg…..

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 5:15 pm · Edit
DrugMonkey, thanks for providing some data on the appeals process. Numbers are very helpful for getting my mind around this. For now, we’ll just have to wait on the summary statement to find out what on earth happened!

whimple said
May 17, 2011 @ 7:15 pm · Edit
Maggie: Unfortunately, the proposal went to a new study section.

Kiss of death. It’s like rolling the dice all over again. My total guess is that your best bet for appeal was that CSR screwed up by sending it to the wrong study section and as redress you could ask for re-review by the original study section. Why did it go somewhere else? Was the original SS a one-shot deal? I hope you explicitly asked for review by the original study section.

curie said
May 17, 2011 @ 9:39 pm · Edit
@maggie: was a there why this went to a new study section? did you notice this new study section assignment before scientific review? if so, any reason why you didn’t point this out to your sra?

i think, there is still a chance that they could fund your a0 (assuming your po is advocating your a0).

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 11:49 pm · Edit
@Curie, I’m not sure why it went to another study section and I will need to review my correspondence to be absolutely clear on the chain of events. My A0 is ranked at 12% so I don’t know if there is a possibility of it being considered under the 2011 pay line but I will certainly discuss this with my PO. Thanks for your comments.

NT said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:50 pm · Edit
I had same situation before. My resubmitted version scored doubled because they found out new problems which they didn’t realize in the first round. I always have a question that, are the reviewers the same for the first and resubmitted rounds? From the summary statement, it seems that there are not the same? Anybody has info on this?

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 4:56 pm · Edit
Mine were definitely not the same. I confirmed this with my PO. I think that it may depend on whether the proposal was submitted in response to a PAR or RFA or as a parent grant. My knowledge is very limited on this point however.

J said
May 17, 2011 @ 5:01 pm · Edit
The probability of success on appeal is very low because you cannot appeal the difference in opinion, which is almost always the case with the negative reviews. If reviewer does not believe in, say, siRNA technology, and therefore is very negative, you cannot appeal this. However, if you convince your PO that you have a valid reason to appeal, (e.g. reviewer critics your plans to work with EGF, but, in fact, you are planning to work with VEGF), your grant will go a separate Study Section, which would be specifically created to consider appeal or appeals. I won once and lost once through appeal process, so I know that you need really something very meaty to convince PO.

SG said
May 17, 2011 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
@Maggie, Out of my curiosity check in Commons and see if your original submission (A0) is still marked Pending or Withdrawn.

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 5:34 pm · Edit
@SG, it is marked Council Review Completed. Your thoughts?

SG said
May 17, 2011 @ 5:49 pm · Edit
If it is not marked withdrawn then the A0 could still be funded. This assumes that a reviewer didn’t find a major deal killing problem in the grant in the second review. Discuss this possibility with your PO.

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 6:15 pm · Edit
Will do! I was wondering about the possibility of reverting to the original proposal…

writedit said
May 18, 2011 @ 2:30 am · Edit
Okay, if I’d gotten to this a lot earlier, my first suggestion would have been SG’s … if the A0 hasn’t been withdrawn, it could still be funded – especially if your PO is as shocked by the A1 review. By now I see your A1 went to a different study section (never a good idea), so your PO could – in light of the change in SRG – make a reasonable case for pay by exception/select pay if the science is good and of high priority to program and something your PO is enthusiastic about. A lot of ifs and maybes, but hopefully not hopeless. Good luck …

Maggie said
May 18, 2011 @ 2:39 am · Edit
Thanks writedit, I appreciate the reply. At least there are a couple of options here to explore. Ifs and maybes but, as you say, perhaps not hopeless.

Funding_problems said
May 28, 2011 @ 5:16 pm · Edit
You must have had a new reviewer. Someone probably rotated off study section. They have done studies on reviewers. Some are just “mean” if you get one of the hypercritical reviewers then your grant gets scored lower. That is why there is always luck involved. One study showed that you need over 30,000 reviewers to accurately separate out grants by merit. I just resubmitted an unfunded proposal to a different study section. It went from being undiscussed to getting a priority/impact score of 19. There is a lot of luck getting a good score and you had some bad luck with this reviewer(s). One negative reviewer can also impact everyone in the room, influencing them to lower your score. I once had a grant that received all “1s” from one reviewer and 4-7 from another reviewer. It is a crazy process. I serve on study section and I know first had how hard it is to give a grant an honest review, it takes forever to really do it right and they make you review like 10 grants. At least the grants are shorter now.

Maggie said
May 28, 2011 @ 5:34 pm · Edit
Hi,

Thanks for your insight! I am trying to determine how to rectify the situation if possible. What I have learned since my initial post is that the study section had only a single member with expertise in the area of the proposal and many with expertise that has little to no overlap with the proposal (there was no overlap in reviewers from the first to the second review–all new reviewers). The problem seems to be that the lead reviewer had a take on the entire premise of the research that is in stark contrast to consensus in my research area–that such research should not be done at all in short. So it was not a criticism of the methods themselves but of the very existence of this area of translational research. I want redress of this review if at all possible and am trying to think of the mechanisms that might be available to me. One is moving the original proposal to a different institute or even asking for re-review by at least one of the original reviewers. I have an appointment to discuss this in detail with my PO and would be grateful for any and all suggestions that I might put on the table.

writedit said
May 28, 2011 @ 9:46 pm · Edit
Is there a more appropriate SRG to review your proposal? If so, and especially if you had asked for assignment to a more appropriate SRG, then you can ask your PO about having the application reviewed in the right SRG. With a formal appeal, which your PO would prefer to avoid, you can ask for re-review in the same or different SRG, but you lose a cycle, and everyone involved knows you have appealed (complained about your last review). You’ll want to have supportive refs from the literature backing your concern about the prior review (must be based on objectively measured errors in understanding the science, not subjective differences in interpretation etc. … which sounds like your case as presented here). Good luck with this.

Maggie said
May 29, 2011 @ 1:11 am · Edit
Thanks again. I really appreciate your very clear and direct recommendations. I do think that there is a more appropriate SRG for my proposal and will discuss this possibility with my PO. Also, the primary criticism of the resubmission contrasts directly with general consensus among researchers in my area. Let me ask for one point of clarification: in order to obtain a review by another SRG will I lose a cycle regardless of whether I pursue informal or formal (appeal) means of rectifying the situation? (I understand that a formal appeal is the least desirable course of action.)

writedit said
May 31, 2011 @ 9:48 am · Edit
I think you will lose the time either way, and it could be the only way to have the application re-reviewed in another SRG to address your concerns would be via a formal appeal. If you weren’t unhappy with the first review (I assume from the same SRG), there may be a question as to why you now feel this wasn’t the right group to review your resubmission (and why you didn’t originally ask for the more appropriate SRG for either submission). Panels change, though, so if a number of reviewers rotated on/off between your submissions, and especially if there was a new chair, this could account for the shift in perspective about your work. It seems like a pretty big shift, though. The SRO would be better able to comment on something like that.

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 5:09 pm · Edit
Thanks J. That is very useful information. I wish it were more reassuring but, at the moment, I am grateful for useful. Thanks again.

HW said
May 17, 2011 @ 6:04 pm · Edit
Hi Maggie,
I speculate that your A0 falls in FY11 whereas the A1 falls in FY12. Since NICHD is being close in setting their final FY11 payline (see other blogs), your 12% A0 may still have a chance because their interim payline was set at 11%. You should probably bring this up to your PO.

Maggie said
May 17, 2011 @ 6:17 pm · Edit
Absolutely! I will give this a shot!

Maggie said
May 31, 2011 @ 12:04 pm · Edit
This is the problem. My resubmission was reviewed by wholly different reviewers. There was no overlap in reviewers between first and second submission. Not only that, the primary reviewer had no expertise in my research area as his criticism of the research is a criticism of the whole premise of my sub-field. It was not a criticism of the way I was addressing the question but rather of whether the question should be addressed at all. Further, I presented preliminary evidence to show that this premise is also supported using my particular methods and that preliminary evidence is now in press in a major journal. One of the top researchers in my field has recently been funded to extend these methods. This work is at the cutting edge of my research area. It is quite a shock to see a proposal that would have been funded if not for the CR (12th% in the first round) to become completely unfundable in the second round (51st%) after minor concerns were addressed. I can only conclude that it was simply not an appropriately constructed SRG for this proposal.

Experienced PI said
May 17, 2011 @ 6:05 pm · Edit
Buds is right and this madness has to end. We applicants don’t stand a chance. With module reductions on initial funding and 10% cuts here, 3% there on all of my noncompeting continuations, I’ve lost almost another whole grant! Who can I appeal these decisions to? Advisory Council? The IC Director?

SG said
May 17, 2011 @ 6:34 pm · Edit
@EI,
Try Congress. If NIH ain’t got the money they ain’t got the money. Complaining to IC Directors and Advisory Councils will get you nowhere.

madness007 said
May 18, 2011 @ 1:32 pm · Edit
Anyone have any info on NCI post-doctoral awards for FY2011? My PO has no information, and NIH reporter lists only a single K22 as the only FY2011 NCI award in the category of other K-awards and F32s. Does anyone have any insight as to why NCI is not releasing any of the award mechanisms for post-docs? I submitted in Feb2010, impact score 20, no significant criticisms in my summary statement, council was in October, and here I am in the middle of May, 15 months past submission, 7 months past council, and 5 months past my “start” date. I guess I’m hoping maybe some other post-doc waiting for their F32 might have better info from their PO.

N said
May 18, 2011 @ 2:02 pm · Edit
Zero info from PO regarding my NCI F32 submitted Aug 2010. I am not going to bug my PO again because last time I got a sort of pissy response (even though I hadn’t been in contact for over a month). I was hoping to begin writing for a K award soon, but with the timing going the way it is, I have no idea how that will work. Wish I had some info. My only thought is that they are trying to sort out all the issues with the R01′s and bigger mechanisms before they get to us… What stage are NCI R01′s for FY2011 at?

madness007 said
May 18, 2011 @ 2:35 pm · Edit
from NIH reporter is seems like they’ve already awarded 214 new R01s for FY2011, so you would think they might want to release these post-doc mechanisms. In comparison, NIGMS has funded 50 F32s and 8 K99s for FY2011.

john said
May 18, 2011 @ 7:19 pm · Edit
I’m in the same boat. Impact score of 21, April ’10 submission, still no word. Talked to PO once in December and was advised against resubmission and haven’t talked to PO since then. I’m pretty sure all the F32s at NCI are with the same PO, so I don’t suspect anyone has any new or different information. I did get an email from the PO a few months back about correcting my resource sharing plan, which I did. But still waiting. Since the budget was only passed just a few weeks back, I figure we’ll still be waiting a bit longer as they first take care of higher priority issues. It is good news that the NRSA budget was not cut in this budget, so I remain optimistic as the PO did say that a score of 21 would have likely been funded in previous years. I sure hope we all hear soon.

madness007 said
May 18, 2011 @ 11:47 pm · Edit
Why does NCI have these “high priority” issues but the other ICs don’t (maybe the answer is in that letter Varmus posted on the NCI site that basically they spent most of their money already)? In the grand scheme of things, not making funding decisions for all of the post-doc mechanisms means more PIs paying post-docs off their RO1s, so it’s not like it just affects us lowly post-docs. What I don’t understand is that the other ICs were able to make decisions about some of the post-doc grants prior to the CR being passed, but NCI is failing to release the money for these mechanisms even after the CR has passed. If you know even in a lean year that you will fund x number of grants for K99 or F32, why not send out NOAs for 1/2x awards that ranked the best? How does it help anything to not fund any? If the other ICs were following this same policy I wouldn’t be as frustrated…

slartibartfast said
May 19, 2011 @ 9:40 am · Edit
…no news is not necessarily bad news…

syzm said
May 19, 2011 @ 1:04 pm · Edit
My PO said it is a strange year for NCI. I feel with this kind of delay, there is no point to apply for career transition grant or other training grant… like Ks… In the case of K99, some of my friends said K99 is not help people to quickly transit from postdoc to independent, because it takes forever to get the $ and you have another one-year restriction before you can move to an independent position…

cipher said
May 18, 2011 @ 6:05 pm · Edit
Hi guys,

Anybody has submitted grant to NIAAA? I got a phone call from the PO regarding my K award (Oct, 2010 cycle). She said my score is not within the payline, but they have some sort of different mechanism to fund my grant. She asked me to submit a document to address reviewers’ comments. Anybody has similar experience? Should I be optimistic?

Thank you very much.

writedit said
May 18, 2011 @ 6:14 pm · Edit
You should certainly be more optimistic than if your PO had simple said your score was not within the payline (though, you would have had to initiate contact – they do not contact you if you are not going to be funded). Write a concise thoughtful response to the summary statement – I assume you were limited to one page, though you should confirm the allowed length if this was not clear. But yes, you should be optimistic … they do not create extra work for themselves for applications that are not likely to be funded.

cipher said
May 18, 2011 @ 6:41 pm · Edit
Thank you. What format this file should have? Is it like the response we write to journals when we submit paper revision? Do you address the critiques point by point? The PO didn’t explain too much details, but she wanted me to explain two specific critiques in particular. Should I also address other critiques as well?

Another question is can you include new data in this kind of response? I have some data that nicely address one major critique that the reviewers had.

Thanks again.

writedit said
May 18, 2011 @ 7:04 pm · Edit
Absolutely include the new data! Your PO will be pleased. If you have had any new publications or presentations since you submitted the application (that you have not already told the PO about), you can mention these, especially if there were any concerns about your productivity-publication record. If there were no concerns about publications mentioned in the summary statement and you have more publications-abstracts, you can let the PO know in your e-mail.

On the response, I usually recommend addressing concerns in the Resume & Summary of Discussion first, then individual reviewer concerns. I also suggest quoting the summary statement language verbatim in quotes, with your response beneath … either numbered or bulletted. If your PO asked for you to address two in particular, perhaps do those first. In general, you want to be sure your language is neutral and only addresses the scientific concern – no subjective and certainly no derogatory commentary or tone should creep in. If a reviewer misunderstood ormisinterpreted what you wrote, that is not the reviewer’s fault (in terms ofresponding to the summary statement anyway). If a reviewer cited a missingfigure or explanation or could not find key information that was in fact in theapplication, that is not the reviewer’s fault (again, in terms of yourresponse).

You should send a PDF file. The response to the prior review is limited to 1 page in a formal application. However, if your PO did not specifically say you were restricted to one page, and if you need more space, I would suggest trying to keep it under 3 pages (prior page limit on response to the summary statement). Your PO will tell you if it needs to be shorter.

PB said
May 18, 2011 @ 11:47 pm · Edit
cipher, thanks for posting, and congrats on a good sign! Would you consider sharing your score?

Hung said
May 18, 2011 @ 11:25 pm · Edit
ANyone has any idea on NCI’s final payline…is it going to stay at 7th percentile …or will move up a little

writedit said
May 18, 2011 @ 11:32 pm · Edit
No, the hard payline won’t change (nor 10th for ESI/NI). NCI has plenty from which to choose in the program discretion percentile ranges.

Scienceguy said
May 19, 2011 @ 9:43 am · Edit
Do you have any information about when we will hear about grants from NCI Feb Council meeting? Have heard nothing yet.

ABCD said
May 20, 2011 @ 10:15 am · Edit
Scienceguy, Feb council grants have been notified 3 weeks ago and if you didn’t hear it, your application was not picked up (if it is the grey zone).

chhabi said
May 19, 2011 @ 10:26 am · Edit
My RO1-A1 received 18% (Feb 2011) and I submitted JIT request (from Prog. Director) in mid-march. I am ESI, and was asked recently about my NSF grant, which in under review. Does this mean that I am in consideration for funding. The institute is NIGMS.

writedit said
May 19, 2011 @ 10:34 am · Edit
Yes, you are definitely under consideration for funding.

chhabi said
May 19, 2011 @ 10:36 am · Edit
Thank you..

Albertxu said
May 25, 2011 @ 10:04 am · Edit
Hi chhabi,

Do you hear anything from NIGMS since the call? I also received a call from them on last Monday and haven’t received any further news yet. Thanks.

Tipu said
May 19, 2011 @ 10:40 am · Edit
I have question on reporting past and current funding in response to a JIT request for an R01 application. For this project, currently I have a small foundation grant ($100K for 2 years) and I am one year into it. Though the goals and approach are very similar on paper, the scope of the two projects are very different because of the money and duration. How do I report my current funding without getting budget slashed? Do I have to report the ‘overlap’ quantitatively (% overlap) or qualitatively (pilot vs detailed project etc) in my funding list? Has anybody been in a similar situation? Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

DrugMonkey said
May 19, 2011 @ 11:00 am · Edit
Tipu,

I would say you want to do it qualitatively, quantitative without detail is next to useless.

Point out what was proposed in your new grant that is already funded by the foundation grant. Then, outline what you are going to do with the “saved” money and how this will enhance the project *as proposed*. “This will allow me to hire an undergrad for the summer..” “The postdoc proposed for 50% time will now be 75% time…” or something similar. Something that suggests you will able to do *better* without stating that you had a compromise in the original budget, if you see what I mean. A couple of additional experiments might be okay but be wary of venturing too far outside of the scope of what has been peer reviewed (in the eyes of the PO).

Tipu said
May 19, 2011 @ 11:48 am · Edit
DrugMonkey-

Do you think relinquishing my foundation grant in year 2 would be a simpler solution without raising any eyebrows?

DrugMonkey said
May 19, 2011 @ 2:25 pm · Edit
NEVER give up money unless you have absolutely no alternative!

folks over at my blog are suggesting either just saying flat out “there is no overlap between the two projects” or possibly renegotiating the Aims of the foundation grant to clarify the situation.

SG said
May 19, 2011 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
Or, spend down all of your foundation money (pipette tips and media perhaps) before starting the NIH grant.

writedit said
May 19, 2011 @ 3:28 pm · Edit
Yes, I was thinking a clever sponsored programs official/grant administrator will know how to manage both awards to avoid overlap.

MiloGoestocollege said
May 19, 2011 @ 11:21 am · Edit
Ok, I have been reading these boards for far too long without posting.

Applied for an NIGMS F31 in December ’10, reviewed March ’11, Priority Score 19, mostly positive reviews. Council meeting is today and tomorrow. Anyone have any idea how F31s have been doing at NIGMS as of late? How long should I expect to wait before hearing about a decision?

writedit said
May 19, 2011 @ 3:30 pm · Edit
If the decision is “no”, you won’t hear anything (they do not send out notices that applications will not be funded). But, your score is good, so you should be okay checking with the PO next week for an idea of your status and their timeline.

Reply
Grant Overlap | DrugMonkey said
May 19, 2011 @ 11:24 am · Edit
[…] proposes to do the exact same research. This is not uncommon and a question at writedit’s blog pleads for help in addressing overlap so as to avoid any reduction in the budget of a new award. For this project, […]

curie said
May 19, 2011 @ 5:50 pm · Edit
young investigators should practice finding ways to present facts in the jit regarding overlap. even in the worst case, a valid and most likely true justification is that the foundation support is to collect preliminary data or prepare proof for the subsequent r01 which is under question.

ethics guys, ethics.

SG said
May 19, 2011 @ 7:58 pm · Edit
I would have ethical qualms if the money was being spent on fancy cars, a new lawnmower or even a Redbox movie rental. But, since the NIH money is a grant (ie a gift) and the other grant is almost up and the purpose of both was to do great science I don’t see an ethical problem. Also, since many foundation grants are to get a junior person started then it seems a perverse reward to make them give back money as a reward.

Now, if the money was two NIH grants to fund the exact same science then I would have a problem.

curie said
May 19, 2011 @ 8:16 pm · Edit
i’m curious what is the take of the institutional research ethics guys on this. is it only tweaking research considered a breach?

DrugMonkey said
May 19, 2011 @ 8:45 pm · Edit
a grant is not a contract, curie.

Tipu said
May 20, 2011 @ 10:13 am · Edit
That’s indeed right — the foundation grant is more of a pilot though the aims of the proposal may look similar. I hope the NIH will understand this, and does not cut any budget for the future work or for what has been done in the last one year with the foundation money.
Also, with so much dead time between submission of a grant and the money really coming in, assuming the application even gets funded, the agencies should understand that we are going to turn whatever preliminary data we have into as many applications as possible.

K said
May 19, 2011 @ 4:09 pm · Edit
Have been reading this board for several months now with a 12% R01 at NIBIB. Thought I’d give an update for those who might be waiting on NIBIB as I just talked to my PO. Final decisions have not yet been made, but signs are unfortunately pointing towards them sticking to 11%.

E said
May 20, 2011 @ 12:38 pm · Edit
K, et al.: thanks for sharing. I am an ESI/NI, with a 14% R01 also at NIBIB. On the website they say that NI get +5% — any idea if that is *up to 5%*, i.e., “cherry-picked”, or does it mean that all NI R01s <= 16% are “in”? The PO said i was “in good shape” but nothing more definitive. No JIT request from the PO either. The council meeting is today… This is my first R01 that made it this close and this is nerve-racking. Any advice?

K said
May 23, 2011 @ 12:23 am · Edit
Not sure, but guessing if your PO said you are in good shape, you probably are.

DES said
May 19, 2011 @ 5:06 pm · Edit
Is JIT requested before council meeting or after?

curie said
May 19, 2011 @ 5:44 pm · Edit
which institute? because it varies from one to another.

DES said
May 20, 2011 @ 11:03 am · Edit
It is NCI

DT said
May 20, 2011 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
Our NHLBI application was reviewed earlier this week. NHLBI council meets in Sep and Oct, does anyone know which cycles are being reviewed in which month? Our grant is fundable under the FY2011 payline, but the uncertainty around the payline next year makes me worry about our chance. So we definitely hope our application will be reviewed by the Sep council, which presumably will use the FY2011 payline. Thanks!

DES said
May 20, 2011 @ 10:35 pm · Edit
see the following link

http://ofacp.od.nih.gov/committee/meet_by_institutenew.html

DT said
May 21, 2011 @ 9:55 am · Edit
Thanks, DES. As you can see from the link, The NHLBI council meets in Sep and Oct. My question was about which cycles of grant applications will be reviewed in which council meeting. Thanks again!

Ken said
May 21, 2011 @ 12:19 pm · Edit
You should be able to find this information on your commons. Either way (sep or oct), it will go to FY12, not FY11.

DT said
May 22, 2011 @ 9:51 am · Edit
I see. Thanks, Ken!

Jilan said
May 22, 2011 @ 1:39 am · Edit
any visitors to this website who recently received R21 ( NCI-June’10 submission) could you pls post your percentile .. much appreciated in advance.Only about 6 successful awardees in April’10 and none for this month yet according to NIH db !

Z said
May 22, 2011 @ 5:04 pm · Edit
Has anyone received any updates or new “words on the street” on the NICHD payline?

Does anyone know when we will hear word on whether it will stay at 11 or (hopefully) move up just a tad?

SO2 said
May 22, 2011 @ 5:42 pm · Edit
Clearly, there are several R01 grants in the 12 percentile in NICHD. I was told by my PO that the payline would remain the same (11 percentile) and that I should re-submit my grant, and I did.

SKate said
May 23, 2011 @ 9:33 am · Edit
That’s what I heard as well from my PO (and I resubmitted as well). However, others on this board have heard otherwise apparently. But I heard from my PO that they are expecting the payline to go even lower after the next council meeting.

EY said
May 23, 2011 @ 9:01 pm · Edit
Any thought why does NICHD have a much worse payline compared to other institutes? Do you resubmit as an A1, or a new submission?

writedit said
May 24, 2011 @ 8:47 am · Edit
They don’t have a huge budget and receive more competitive applications than their appropriation can accommodate. Same story for any IC. On the A1 vs A0, if you weren’t scored or if the reviewers did not find your work significant (i.e., worth funding no matter how good the preliminary data and experimental approach), then you want to start over with a better, different story, perhaps talking with the PO for guidance on programmatic priorities (though this is not necessarily of concern to reviewers). NIAID provided a nice summary of how to approach resubmission decisions: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/newsletter/2011/pages/0511.aspx#a00

freckle said
May 23, 2011 @ 8:50 pm · Edit
Before I got moved from NICHD to another institute, I was one of those with a 12% R01 at NICHD. My PO said it was by no means certain that they would stay at 11%. This was 1-2 weeks ago though.

EY said
May 24, 2011 @ 6:24 pm · Edit
Hi, writedit,
The frustration is that I cannot get funded not because the reviewers did not like my science (the 20 priority score and the summary statement all showed their support and enthusiasm), nor the research is not NICHD’s emphasis (it is one of their top priorities). Just because the funding is so stringent. Therefore I feel although my work fits NICHD the best, it may not be a good idea to send it back because of the very slim chance to get a score below 10% for an A0.

writedit said
May 24, 2011 @ 7:03 pm · Edit
I am sure frustration does not come close to describing how you feel. Unfortunately, other than to keep working closely with your PO, I don’t know what else to tell you if your application with an impact score of 20 isn’t funded by NICHD and won’t be picked up anywhere else. Yours is a sobering situation indeed.

TM said
May 22, 2011 @ 5:30 pm · Edit
I have a NIDDK R01 application that was close to payline. After I got my score in February and talked to my PO, he said if it does not get funded in May council, it could go to September council, and may be picked up then (if there is extra discretionary funds).
I found out last week that it was not funded this round, on top of that my PO said they do not re-consider multi year grants for discretionary funding in subsequent council rounds!! which essentially mean I need to revise and resubmit.
Has any one else heard of this presumably “new policy”? Is this an NIDDK thing or in all institutes? My PO told me that since future budgets are uncertain ,they are not going to use one year discretionary budgets to make multi year commitments since the money may not be there in next year’s budget.

writedit said
May 22, 2011 @ 9:08 pm · Edit
Was this the 17th percentile application your PO had said would be funded? This in itself is odd — that he would be so confident (usually POs err way on the side of caution). On the multi-year grant issue, it could be that NIDDK Council will only approve bridge funding (one year) rather than full awards with any remaining discretionary funds at the end of the fiscal year. I am not familiar with their SOP in this regard. New policy? Could just be new to you. Could be your PO doesn’t have it quite right. Each IC does their own thing, so there is no NIH-wide policy governing whether multi-year applications can be picked up at the end of the year, but at least some ICs will fund applications that were passed over in prior rounds.

CG said
May 23, 2011 @ 9:18 am · Edit
Hi,
are you an ESI/NEW ?

TM said
May 23, 2011 @ 9:57 am · Edit
I am an NI, the grant is @ 21 percentile, so the chances of straight funding were low, but not impossible since the project fit their programmatic priority pretty well.

My PO did mention the bridge funding mechanism that I will be considered for in September, for only one year if there is money.

I know colleagues whose R01s were funded 2 or 3 rounds of council after the initial review. In those cases I know their PO discouraged them from submitting revisions so that they can remain in consideration. I am just wondering if NIDDK is doing thing differently now and if anyone else has has a similar experience?

Signaling said
May 23, 2011 @ 10:39 am · Edit
TM, from what source did you hear that the new NIDDK payline for NI/ESI is 17%? I emailed my NIDDK PO several times with no response… eRA Common status changed to “Council review completed”….anxiously waiting

TM said
May 23, 2011 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
This was from my PO. You should give your PO a call. My status changed to “Council review completed” on May 12th or 13th. I talked to my PO the same day.

Signaling said
May 23, 2011 @ 4:50 pm · Edit
Thanks, TM. I will make a phone call immediately.

N said
May 23, 2011 @ 10:45 pm · Edit
Does anyone know when the SPL at NCI will meet? Thanks.

biorhino said
May 24, 2011 @ 11:05 am · Edit
Hi, thanks for helping me.

I am wondering if my status remains as pending council review after a week of the council meeting, does it mean a good or bad sign? Should I ask my PO?

My pending R01 is at NIGMS.

Thanks!

writedit said
May 24, 2011 @ 11:10 am · Edit
Well, no one will tell you if you are *not* going to be funded (no rejection e-mails are sent out). If you haven’t heard by the end of the week, after the Memorial Day holiday, you might want to ask your PO for an update on your funding status.

biorhino said
May 24, 2011 @ 2:06 pm · Edit
Thank you for the news. I will wait.

CG said
May 24, 2011 @ 11:49 am · Edit
Hi biorhino,
what percentile are you at?..I am ESI at 18%.

biorhino said
May 24, 2011 @ 2:04 pm · Edit
HI, CG:
My percentile is 20%. I am also ESI.

CG said
May 24, 2011 @ 11:44 am · Edit
My PO told me that he will only be able to provide a definitive answer by June 7. The council (NIGMS) met on 19th May and the status is council review pending. Should I wait until 7th or ask the PO for an update..Please advise..

writedit said
May 24, 2011 @ 11:46 am · Edit
You should wait until the 7th or 8th to ask, if you have not heard sooner.

E said
May 24, 2011 @ 1:35 pm · Edit
Hi – sorry for the newbie question… But, if the eRA status changes to “Council Review Completed” is that a bad sign? (this is the same E from above, with 14% R01 at NIBIB, was hoping for the ESI/NI bump).

Hohum said
May 24, 2011 @ 5:36 pm · Edit
Wanted to throw out a question out of curiosity. Are there any K99/R00 award recipients out there that have been able to secure R01 funding? Wanting to see how successful this endeavor has been.

DrugMonkey said
May 26, 2011 @ 12:48 pm · Edit
Yes, there are.

How would you define “success” however? Versus non-kangaroo folks hired at same time? Versus postdocs awarded F32 at time of K99s?

Albertxu said
May 25, 2011 @ 11:11 am · Edit
Hi chhabi,

Do you hear anything from NIGMS since the call? I also received a call from them on last Monday and haven’t received any further news yet. Thanks.

chhabi said
May 25, 2011 @ 2:31 pm · Edit
Hi Albertxu,
I did not receive a call, but an e-mail about update regarding other support. I was asked to wait until 7th June. Did they mention if they are funding you, and if I may, what % are you at and if you are ESI?

jeff said
May 25, 2011 @ 11:34 am · Edit
Anybody here knows the payline for K99 in NIDDK? I got a score of 17, but my PO said “there is a chance that we won’t be able to reach yours”, and asked me to wait for couple of weeks for outcome…

Mike said
May 25, 2011 @ 11:51 am · Edit
Anyone hear anything about NIMH?
I’d be curious if anyone knows anything about FY11 paylines or about K01 or other grants being funded or rejected recently and what %.
Thanks much!

chhabi said
May 25, 2011 @ 2:09 pm · Edit
I did not receive a call, but an e-mail about update regarding other support. I was asked to wait until 7th June. Did they mention if they are funding you, and if I may, what % are you at and if you are ESI?

Albertxu said
May 25, 2011 @ 2:26 pm · Edit
I am a ESI and got 12%. I was told that the decision will be made soon…

chhabi said
May 25, 2011 @ 2:38 pm · Edit
I think you have a very good chance..Before the passage of budget, they were funding @ 10%.

writedit said
May 25, 2011 @ 3:14 pm · Edit
Jeremy Berg announced the NIGMS FY11 Financial Management Plan on the Feedback Loop, though you will not find any payline information. On the Feedback Loop, he does include these two points to consider with regard to competing awards:

◦•Based on the appropriation level, we expect to make approximately 866 new and competing research project grant awards at NIGMS, compared to 891 in Fiscal Year 2010.
◦•It is worth noting that we received more new and competing grant applications this fiscal year—3,875 versus 3,312 in Fiscal Year 2010.
Reply

freckle said
May 25, 2011 @ 3:25 pm · Edit
That’s pretty encouraging to me as a NI with a 12% R01 pending its final outcome at NIGMS.
Although their success rate looks to drop from 26.9% to 22.3%, that drop could have been far worse.
As we all know NIGMS does not issue paylines, but an overall success rate of 22.3% seems relatively good.

witsend said
May 25, 2011 @ 6:36 pm · Edit
Just thought I’d share that they’ve finally gotten around to the Ks at the NIDDK! Got word my K01has been selected for funding!!!

writedit said
May 25, 2011 @ 6:39 pm · Edit
Woohoo! Congratulations! Best wishes for success with the project and your career in academic research!

cipher said
May 25, 2011 @ 8:01 pm · Edit
Congrats! Would you mind sharing your score? Which cycle did you submit?

witsend said
May 25, 2011 @ 9:24 pm · Edit
Thanks!! My score was a 30 and it was an A1 submission in Cycle 1 (Feb 2010). It’s been quite a wait and it’s a huge relief because my funding was running out.
..I realize that NIDDK doesn’t publish a payline and I’ve been curious what their hard and soft cutoff scores are for these grants, since we don’t get a percentile rank. Anyone else like to share?

jeff said
May 26, 2011 @ 1:45 pm · Edit
do you think NIDDK will use the same score cutoff for all K grants??

AV said
May 26, 2011 @ 11:19 am · Edit
I received a ‘Pay Letter’ from NIDDK about 4 weeks ago for my F-32, but haven’t heard anything since then. No NoA, or any other documents. Do you think it’s alright to email my PO and check if there is any progress?

Matt said
May 26, 2011 @ 11:23 am · Edit
Amazing: exactly the same thing with my.. F32, NIDDK, 4 weeks ago.. I emailed the GMS this week and she said that she had not rec’d “final authorization” to pay the award.. This makes me a bid worried, but I have to believe that they would not have sent that formal letter if it was not a done deal..

More important for me.. How likely is it that my July 1 start date will happen??

AV said
May 26, 2011 @ 11:33 am · Edit
How can they say that they don’t have final authorization when they have sent out a formal letter?? It just doesn’t make sense.

I know, I have the July 1st start date too, that I am waiting on! I am going to email my PO and see what she has to say. Will keep you posted.

Matt said
May 26, 2011 @ 11:37 am · Edit
AV: I agree. Anxious to hear what you find out.

Can anybody comment on the likelihood of the July 1 start date given what has been mentioned above? Council was May 11.

AV said
May 26, 2011 @ 4:47 pm · Edit
Matt, I just heard from my PO, who says that funds have been approved for the fellowship and the paperwork has been completed. She says I should get the NoA soon, and it should be possible to activate the award on July 1st.
I hope this helps, Good luck!

Gatordoc said
May 27, 2011 @ 8:27 am · Edit
has you grant status changed on the commons page yet? i also am waiting for the NOA for a F32 from the NIDDK, did the JIT awhile back and am now waiting the final word. thanks

AV said
May 27, 2011 @ 10:19 am · Edit
Gatordoc, My status on the commons page says “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.”
Good luck, I hope this helps!

Ken said
May 26, 2011 @ 12:34 pm · Edit
Does anyone have update from NIBIB? Council was last Friday. Thanks.

Jim said
May 26, 2011 @ 1:34 pm · Edit
Has anyone received final notification about F30 funding from NIDDK since council meeting? I’ve been sitting on a score since June ’10 and received a personalized JIT in the last two weeks, but am not sure the extent to which this is a useful metric?

Rose said
May 26, 2011 @ 3:29 pm · Edit
I’m following up on my post a few weeks ago. My K23 resubmission to the NIDDK received a score of 20 with very favorable reviewer comments about all aspects of my proposal (training, mentorship, research plan, etc). However, My PO told me today that NIDDK would not be funding my application. NHLBI is the secondary funder, so I put in a phone call to someone my PO recommended to see which PO at the NHLBI I should contact. I am waiting to hear back.

Any advice for “selling” my application to another institute? Does this ever work? Any advice about which PO I should contact? My application fits in with multiple obesity-related strategic goals of the NIH.

After I inquired further, the PO told me that the reason that they didn’t fund my application was:

“We go by score, reviewers’ actual comments, and for Ks we try and support applications across all our areas of interest. I sit in on the study section meetings, and when the comments made during the meeting and recorded in the summary statement don’t match the final score, we take that into account. We don’t have a pay line for Ks, but aim to fund about 30-35% of our applications.

We don’t take the decision on not funding an application lightly. We really don’t like to fund projects without a suitable control group, which is the major reason for not funding your application. ”

On the phone she was a bit harsher a few weeks ago and basically told me she didn’t agree with the reviewers’ score and comments and thought they were “just being nice” to me. When I asked why they would just be nice, she said “because it is a resubmission and you are working with underserved populations.”

The reviewers supported my reasons the first time for not having a control group (clustering issues for an RCT and inability to match on ethnicity and language for a case-control study) and when I spoke to my PO over the phone before resubmitting (my original score was a 31) , she did not tell me how strongly they factor having a control into their decision making processes. If fact, she told me at that time that my application was strong and that they wanted to fund me and she encouraged me to resubmit. It has been a rough couple of years waiting, and I am very upset and confused by this outcome, especially because I see that someone above was funded at a 30.

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

cipher said
May 26, 2011 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
Hi Rose,

Those comments are indeed hard to digest. Maybe you can ask your mentor to contact the PO? I also want to point out that K01 and K23 are very different. A score of 30 could be fundable for K01, but not for K23. Please don’t get upset or confused because of this matter.

Hang on there.

JBL said
May 27, 2011 @ 2:39 am · Edit
Cipher, any news since sending your PO your response to the reviewers on your K? What was your score?
Rose, according to the list above, the NHLBI payline is 30, which your 20 is way under (and an amazing score). I think the comment above re: trying to sell the NHLBI PO on why your career development is essential to their goals is the way to go.

jeff said
May 26, 2011 @ 4:31 pm · Edit
I totally understand what you feel. Give it another try next year!!!

Rose said
May 26, 2011 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
BTW-sincere congratulations to Witsend–I don’t mean in any way to take away from your accomplishment in my last post. I’m just trying to figure out how to keep my research career going!

witsend said
May 26, 2011 @ 10:10 pm · Edit
No offense taken. Your situation stinks and it doesn’t make much sense.

My understanding is that a score of 20/30/40 etc. means that more than likely both reviewers gave it a 2 and the rest of the section voted ‘within the range’, which means they ALL voted a 2.

Based on feedback from the PO and reviewers, I think my grant had the opposite score-review issue from yours (i.e. better review and comments than score). My app also got a “bump” because I had an F32 through them as well and and my area is high priority. So the score was not the whole story…

I was in your situation with my F32, which was picked up by DK (the secondary at the time). I’d be positive about the grant reviews and score to the NHLBI PO and be sure to sell the programmatic relevance, which is a big deal. Check out the NHLBI’s RFAs and initiatives and see if your work fits an area of need. The control group issue may come up and you’ll need to have an answer to the problem ready.

Rose said
May 27, 2011 @ 9:45 am · Edit
Thanks for the advice. I looked on the NHLBI website, and my grant is definitely consistent with the NHLBI program announcements and strategic goals. So I think it does make sense to see if they willl be willing to fund my grant.

My mentor is going to call the director of research training to find out who to contact there. Is my goal to try to have my K23 considered for the NEXT council meeting in September or can they make decisions sooner/
Thanks!

writedit said
May 27, 2011 @ 10:05 am · Edit
Why not the June 15th council? NHLBI goes by payline, so if the Career Development PO accepts the application (as noted by witsend, you may need to have a concise rebuttal on hand) and your JIT is in order, I am not sure why it couldn’t be considered in June.

Rose said
May 27, 2011 @ 2:12 pm · Edit
More bad news..My mentors PO at the NHLBI just told him that the NHLBI is not accepting tranfers given the difficult budget cycle.

writedit said
May 27, 2011 @ 2:20 pm · Edit
Well, if they accepted secondary assignment, then that might be a little different. You or your mentor might still check with the Career Development PO, including your score and application number, just to be sure this isn’t an option for Ks (ones with NHLBI as secondary IC). This is a tough budget year, but it’s incredibly hard to miss funding when you are so close (within payline actually).

DT said
May 27, 2011 @ 2:50 pm · Edit
Just want to share my experience earlier this year, which may or may not be related to your situation.

NHLBI was assigned as a secondary IC of my R01 application (I am an ESI). The application received a percentile that was between the payline of the primary IC and NHLBI. After multiple attempts and numerous conversations with the NHLBI, our application was not transferred even though it fit well with NHLBI’s mission. In fact, it fit better with NHLBI than the primary IC. I made a rookie mistake in submitting to the “wrong” IC. The reason I was given was: NHLBI does not accept transfer after scientific review unless the initial assignment is clearly inappropriate.

writedit said
May 28, 2011 @ 9:27 am · Edit
Thanks for sharing your experience. Different ICs handle their secondary assignments differently, and it is a shame that NHLBI is so shortsighted as to shun applications that clearly belong in their portfolio … I wonder why they accept secondary assignments if this is their MO.

Rose said
May 27, 2011 @ 12:51 pm · Edit
June meeting? I didn’t see that on the website last night. That gives me some hope. Now I just have to figure out who to speak to…..My mentor and I have put in some emails, but any suggestions of POs at the NHLBI who are interested in treating obesity and improving obesity-related health disparities in the primary care setting would be greatly appreciated.

writedit said
May 27, 2011 @ 1:04 pm · Edit
All IC council meeting dates: http://ofacp.od.nih.gov/committee/meet_by_institutenew.html

I’m not sure why it isn’t listed on the NHLBI Website, but you’ll see June meetings for the other years. NHLBI & NCI both have 4 rather than 3 Council meetings per year. Perhaps the timing right now is such that the page is in limbo (need to replace Feb agenda etc.).

Rose said
May 27, 2011 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
More bad news..My mentors PO at the NHLBI just told him that the NHLBI is not accepting tranfers given the difficult budget cycle

einstein said
May 27, 2011 @ 8:54 pm · Edit
For what it’s worth, obesity-related research (at least some aspects of it) is one of the topic areas under consideration to be move to the new Addictions institute, which may be why DK has recently become less enthusiastic about funding your project.

Rose said
May 28, 2011 @ 10:46 am · Edit
So, If I feel that I was misled and strongly encouraged to resubmit to the NIDDK by my PO because , as she said at the time “even though we want to fund you” a score of 31 at the time was “borderline” . Even though my score was much better (20) and they had the budget to fund 35% of applications (some of which had a worse score), she still didn’t fund me because of very subjective reasons on her part (“my notes from the meeting are different” from what the reviewers wrote). I think the advice she gave was inconsisten and as a result, it wasted my resubmission… So, I have 2 questions:

1. Is there any way to appeal to the NIDDK if I can’t transfer it to the NHLBI (not me but maybe my chairman or mentors)? I don’t think that this process was transparent . I know some of this is about luck, but none of my mentors and colleagues have ever experienced this.

2. What about submitting a new application to the NHLBI? I don’t understand how I can put in a “substantially” different application for next year if this is a career development award and reflects the training needs for me do my research. Obviously the candidate section can’t change much, and it would seem strange to pretend my future goals are different. How different does the application have to be?

I appreciate all of your comments. Thanks!

mark_ohio said
May 26, 2011 @ 6:59 pm · Edit
Any thoughts/experience about the impact of the 1 resubmission rule on the previous policy of automatic withdrawal of the original application

I am seeing a case where they have NOT withdrawn the previous application (NIGMS), the second proposal was slightly worse, but they are considering both applications in making a decision for funding

George Wallace said
May 27, 2011 @ 7:14 am · Edit
I am an established investigator. My competitive renewal (ES) was reviewed in October 2010 study section and I got 15 percentile. My grant was reviewed in Feb 2011 council, and was the status changed from `council review completed’ to `pending adminitrative review’ on March 31. It still says the same. I called my GMS several times, and she told me my status in her record was `to be paid’, which means I will get funded. She even sought clarification from my institution regarding F&A costs via email with a copy to me. I spoke to her last on May 16, and she said NIEHS has not made any new award since April 4, 2011, and that I should be receiving NOA any time. But I still have not received my NOA. Can any body advise me on this? Does any one know about any recent NOAs from NIEHS or any other insititues? I am really anxious!

George

Patience said
May 27, 2011 @ 6:24 pm · Edit
George, I’m on your schedule at NIGMS (Oct, 11%) and only had my GSI stalling. NIGMS has only funded RFA R01s this year, but no “general” submissions. I think our predicament is not unusual.

SF said
May 31, 2011 @ 9:30 am · Edit
has anyone heard from the NCI regarding F32′s?

john said
May 31, 2011 @ 12:31 pm · Edit
Unfortunately, I have not heard anything lately on my submission from April ’10. I had originally dismissed the suggestion that awards might not be made until this summer, but that’s starting to look more and more likely. Do you mind me asking what your score was?

LSK said
May 31, 2011 @ 10:00 am · Edit
I received an email from my NCI PO last week saying that my K07 application (June 2010 submission) “has been approved for funding.” I have not received the JIT request yet, but she said I should in the next week or two. In her email, she qualified with the following sentence: “As always, however, funding is not guaranteed until the Notice of Award is issued.” Based on this info, should I feel very confident that this will be funded? I’m not sure how concerned I should be about that last sentence. Thanks!

writedit said
May 31, 2011 @ 10:43 am · Edit
Congratulations! Her qualification is standard language, especially since your JIT has not been assessed. Assuming you are all set in terms of regulatory approvals and no overlapping funding, you shouldn’t have anything to be concerned about.

tigerhuatj said
May 31, 2011 @ 2:39 pm · Edit
Hi, Anyone has heard from NIAID about the R21 grant (Submitted last Oct). thanks

patience is a virtue said
May 31, 2011 @ 2:52 pm · Edit
NIAMS has released final 2011 paylines:
http://www.niams.nih.gov/About_Us/Budget/funding_plan_fy2011.asp

jj said
May 31, 2011 @ 3:43 pm · Edit
although fewer opportinities, I admire NIAMS’s transparent way.. what about other institutes??

Funding Patience said
May 31, 2011 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
Have anyone heard from NINR Council from May 17th meeting? What is the usual wait time for notification of funding once Council has met?

Val said
May 31, 2011 @ 5:56 pm · Edit
I’m patiently waiting to hear back from the NINR as well. This has been a really tough process, but hopefully we will hear good news soon. Have you talked with your PO?

SMK said
June 2, 2011 @ 2:21 pm · Edit
I got an email from my PO saying that the funding decisions that are made by the director will be made in an ongoing basis as per the council meeting recommendations that were made on the 17th. I got a JIT for my R21 a few weeks back and am keeping my fingers crossed.

Hopeful said
May 31, 2011 @ 11:01 pm · Edit
Just received a 15th percentile on my A1 R01 submission with NCI, up from a 20 the last cycle. I am an ESI/NI. I have yet to see a summary sheet.

Anyone with good tea leaves: Any hope?

writedit said
June 1, 2011 @ 9:31 am · Edit
If this was for an application you submitted in March, then you need to wait for the FY12 tea leaves … but essentially, you fall in the range where funding is not guaranteed (hard payline for ESI/NI applicants willl likely stay at the 10th percentile), which means you will need your PO to be an advocate for your application in terms of getting it picked to be on the pay list (this is what happens for all ESI/NI applications from the 11-25th percentiles). As time goes on … and it will drag on for a long, long, long time (you probably won’t know about funding until next year) … you will want to keep your PO updated about new publications/presentations etc. Good luck with this.

Bertal Aktas said
June 20, 2011 @ 1:47 pm · Edit
I have a grant with 14% waiting since last October as an NI. This is like water torture! My PO asked me to respond to reviewers’ criticism, which I did. I cannot get my PO to tell me anything since then (that was end of the March). I sent him acceptance of a new paper to Nature Chemical Biology, wrote an e-mail a month later but got no response. Does anyone know what is going on NCI? Who will make the decisions on the grants outside the firm pay-line?
Thanks

writedit said
June 20, 2011 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
Harold Varmus makes all funding decisions (as does any IC director). I would recommend you call (rather than e-mail) the PO at this point. I’m sure he is as frustrated as you, but he should be able to give you some sort of update.

Bertal Aktas said
June 20, 2011 @ 5:22 pm · Edit
Thank you writedit. Just for clarification my proposal was reviewed in October 2010, went through council review in February 2011 and status on commons remains the same since then (council review completed). Do you know if there is a point when they have to make a decision and if it is not to fund would you be told of it by PO (at least in response to your inquiries). Also do you know of anyone in the same situation that has received notice of award?
Thanks
Bert

writedit said
June 21, 2011 @ 8:42 am · Edit
You are not told (via NIH Commons or e-mail) that you will not be funded, but your PO will tell you if asked. The fall 2010 submissions are still being sorted out at NCI, though, so your PO may still not know for sure.

the walrus is paul said
March 24, 2011 @ 11:01 am · Edit
Speaking as an SRO…

Click to access 07dec10mins.pdf

Chris said
October 21, 2011 @ 4:58 pm · Edit
Does anyone know the cutoff pay line for K99/R00 for NIDCR? I received a 34 on my application. While I am not optimistic, I will be talking with my PO next week. Any thoughts?

writedit said
October 22, 2011 @ 12:03 am · Edit
I suspect you will be getting advice to resubmit if this was an A0 … NIDCR tends to fund higher scores, but not that high, I don’t imagine.