Funding Opportunities at the NIH : Minority Serving Institutions and small schools

1. Funding Opportunities at the NIH : Minority Serving Institutions and small schools www.cuny.edu/research Avrom Caplan, PhD Associate University Dean for Research The City University of New York

2. National Institutes of Health Office of the Director National Institute on Aging National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases National Cancer Institute National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases National Institute on Drug Abuse National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences National Eye Institute National Institute of General Medical Sciences National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National Human Genome Research Institute National Institute of Mental Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke National Institute of Nursing Research National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine National Library of Medicine National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities Fogarty International Center National Center for Research Resources Clinical Center Center for Information Technology Center for Scientific Review

3. MBRS – minority biomedical research support • SCORE – faculty support for biomedical and behavioral research – 3 different mechanisms for support, with each funding 25-35 new applications annually. • RISE – progam for student support – for all students at an MSI • IMSD – progam for student support • MARC – progam for honors student support – for URMS

4. MBRS – minority biomedical research support Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) • developmental program to enhance undergraduate research at an MSI • goal is to increase number of UR minority students advancing to PhD in biomedical and behavioral research. Also, the goal is to ensure that master’s students go onto PhD and for PhD students to graduate • one RISE grant per institution • expected to include salary support for undergraduates and plans for curricula enhancement; rcr training etc; rennovation (limited)

5. MBRS – minority biomedical research support Initiative for maximizing student development (IMSD) • similar to RISE but don’t have to be MSI • The program offers an opportunity to develop new or expand existing effective academic developmental programs, including student research internships, in order to prepare students from underrepresented groups for competitive research careers and leadership positions in the biomedical or behavioral sciences. • one IMSD grant per institution (can’t have RISE and IMSD) • expected to include salary support for undergraduates and plans for curricula enhancement; rcr training etc; rennovation (limited)

6. SCORE PROGRAM • 25 grant maximum per institution; only full time faculty can apply • Review is by special emphasis panels rather than standing study sections. No specific payline • must include developmental objective of the grant will increase research competitiveness as part of biosketch including plans for transition to R-type funding. • application dates are: Jan 25, May 25 and Sept 25 • Chief MBRS branch is Hinda Zlotnik – 301 594 3900; zlotnikh@mnigms.nih.gov http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/MBRS/SCOREDescription.htm

7. SCORE PROGRAM – SC1 SC1 – RO1-like; 12 page research strategy; up to 5 years; 125-250K/yr. Collaboration with RO1 funded investigators encouraged Only 1 PI and 1 renewal application allowed (ie 10 years) Postdocs are allowed on SC1 but not SC2 or SC3 No student stipends; tuition or journal subscriptions http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08-026.html

8. SCORE PROGRAM – SC2 – for early investigators SC2 – testing new idea; preliminary data; switching to a new field. 3 yr max; 50K-100K/yr w/300K max. No renewal. 6 page research strategy You need a mentor for SC2 – mentor activities must be described Only 1 PI; no preliminary data needed…. No postdocs; student stipends; tuition or journal subscriptions http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08-027.html

9. SCORE PROGRAM – SC3 SC3 – seek to continue competitive research of limited scope encouraged to participate in collaborations w/RO1 funded scientists. renewable (developmental – no Co-Pis). 4 yrs @ 50K- 75K http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08-028.html

10. Academic Research Enhancement Award - AREA (R15) Must have less than $6 million in support in 4 out of the last 7 years • Biomedical and Behavioral research • expose undergraduate students to research • improve research environment at the college • research grant not a training grant - describe student activities; student profiles – put these in environment and budget justification sections • 3 yrs, $300,000 total; 12 page • due dates are Feb. 25, June 25 and Oct. 25 • preliminary data not required but recommended • letter of institutional support is a benefit • multiple PIs; renewable • reviewed in regular study section – payline ~19%

11. The New Research Strategy (the old Research Plan) Specific aims 1 page Research Strategy 12 pages for R01 - Significance, Innovation and Approach • How to write a 12 page grant • Significance needs to describe what will be the result of the research assuming everything works – what is the NIH buying? • Half a page?? • Innovation must described what’s new? • Approach – put background into the intro to each aim; needs to include preliminary data

12. Formatted Reviewer Critiques

13. NIH grants: Review Criteria Significance Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

14. NIH grants: Review Criteria Innovation Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

15. NIH grants: Review Criteria Approach Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

16. NIH grants: Review Criteria Investigator(s) Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? You can address this in your personal statement for the Biosketch

17. NIH biosketch Personal statement. Briefly describe why your experience and qualifications make you particularly well-suited for your role (e.g., PD/PI, mentor) in the project that is the subject of the application.

18. NIH biosketch NIH encourages applicants to limit the list of selected peer-reviewed publications or manuscripts in press to no more than 15. Do not include manuscripts submitted or in preparation. The individual may choose to include selected publications based on recent, importance to the field, and/or relevance to the proposed research Nih now wants a PubMed central reference number if publication was financed by prior NIH support

19. NIH biosketch Research Support. List both selected ongoing and completed research projects for the past three years (Federal or non-Federally-supported). Begin with the projects that are most relevant to the research proposed in the application. Briefly indicate the overall goals of the projects and responsibilities of the key person identified on the Biographical Sketch. Do not include number of person months or direct costs. Do not confuse "Research Support" with "Other Support." Though they sound similar, these parts of the application are distinctly different. As part of the biosketch section of the application, "Research Support" highlights your accomplishments, and those of your colleagues, as scientists.

20. NIH grants: Review Criteria Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Scientific environment: your colleagues – what is the culture in which you work? - how interactive is your department; division - what is the level of funding? - physical environment Unique features: John Jay ???

21. Resources Page This information is used to assess the capability of the organizational resources available to perform the effort proposed. • Identify the facilities to be used (laboratory, clinical, animal, computer, office, other). If appropriate, indicate their capacities, pertinent capabilities, relative proximity and extent of availability to the project. Describe only those resources that are directly applicable to the proposed work. Provide any information describing the Other Resources available to the project (e.g., machine shop, electronic shop) and the extent to which they would be available to the project. This part is easy….

22. Resources Page • Describe how the scientific environment in which the research will be done contributes to the probability of success (e.g., institutional support, physical resources, and intellectual rapport). In describing the scientific environment in which the work will be done, discuss ways in which the proposed studies will benefit from unique features of the scientific environment or subject populations or will employ useful collaborative arrangements. • For Early Stage Investigators, describe institutional investment in the success of the investigator, e.g., resources for classes, travel, training; collegial support such as career enrichment programs, assistance and guidance in the supervision of trainees involved with the ESIs project, and availability of organized peer groups; logistical support such as administrative management and oversight and best practices training; and financial support such as protected time for research with salary support.

23. Resources Page institutional support: - space and arrangement of labs. - how many other funded labs physical resources: - what core facilities are available to you at your college and at CUNY as a whole? - include RCMI resources intellectual rapport: - how many scientists working in your field are in your department? - how do you interact (seminars/lab mtgs) - how about across CUNY?

24. Resources Page • SCORE instructions: Institutions with well developed environments for the conduct of research and/or research training and significant support from NIH RO1 or equivalent are generally not suitable applicants for the SCORE program. • RO1 instructions: Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? The SCORE and RO1 instructions seem mutually exclusive…?

25. Formatted Reviewer Critiques

26. NIH grants: Review Criteria • Overall Evaluation/Impact* • Based upon consideration of the 5 core review criteria (& any additional pertinent review criteria), reviewers provide an overall impact statement and score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. • An application need not be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact. (For example, a project may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative, but is essential to move a field forward, or improve clinical decisions or outcomes). • *It IS NOT the mean score of the the other 5 criteria

27. NIH grants: Review Criteria • Overall impact • Core review criteria - Significance – assumes all aims achieved - Investigator – that means you! - Innovation - so whats new? - Approach – finally, the science itself - Environment – that means your dept., college and CUNY These apply to RO1, R21, RO3, SC1, SC2 and SC3