nih grant application letter of support

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Gen Intern Med
• v.22(11); 2007 Nov

Demystifying the NIH Grant Application Process

Karina m. berg.

1 Division of General Internal Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY USA

Thomas M. Gill

2 Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT USA

Arleen F. Brown

3 Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA USA

Judy Zerzan

4 Health Services Research & Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA USA

Joann G. Elmore

5 University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA USA

Ira B. Wilson

6 Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, MA USA

7 Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, MA USA

The process of applying to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for grant funding can be daunting. The objective of this article is to help investigators successfully navigate the NIH grant application process. We focus on the practical aspects of this process, which are commonly learned through trial and error. Our target audience is generalist faculty and fellows who are applying for NIH funding to support their career development or a clinical research project.

INTRODUCTION

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the primary Federal agency supporting medical research in the United States. A successful research career in academic medicine depends, in large part, on securing NIH grant support, but this goal has never been more challenging. 1 – 3 The objective of this article is to help investigators understand and successfully navigate the NIH grant application process (Fig.  1 ). Because several excellent publications focus on selecting a research question 4 – 6 and writing a scientific proposal, 7 we will not discuss these issues. Instead, we address the practical aspects of the NIH grant application process, including planning the proposal, preparing the final documents, submitting the grant, and following up. These aspects are rarely discussed in the literature, and are instead, commonly learned by trial and error or through informal interactions with experienced investigators.

Steps of the NIH grant application process. Steps in preparing and submitting a grant proposal.

THE PLANNING PHASE

Before writing an NIH proposal, investigators must consider several critical questions, including which NIH Institute to target, whether to respond to a particular funding announcement, what grant mechanism to use, and how to leverage both scientific and administrative resources at their home institutions. A wealth of information is available on NIH Web sites, including a glossary of commonly used acronyms (Table  1 ).

Table 1

General Resources for NIH Grant Applicants

Choosing an NIH Institute

NIH Institutes The NIH is composed of 20 Institutes and 7 Centers (hereafter Institutes). Applicants must decide which Institute is most appropriate for a given proposal. Understanding the funding priorities of different Institutes and identifying ways to align your proposal with these priorities can assist this decision. Priority areas for research, detailed on NIH Institute Web sites (Table  1 ), should be carefully reviewed. General Internists may have research interests that cut across content areas. Because the NIH is organized primarily by disease and/or organ system, the Institute best suited to serve as the primary funder may not be obvious. For example, an investigator preparing a proposal to evaluate the effectiveness of screening mammography among older women might target the National Cancer Institute or the National Institute on Aging. Senior investigators (including mentors, Division Chiefs, or coinvestigators) at one’s home institution who have received NIH funding, or served on NIH study sections, can often help with these decisions.When more than one Institute is possible, one strategy is to choose the Institute that has the highest application success rate. 8 Another strategy is to investigate, through conversations with Program Officials (see below), whether two Institutes might co-fund a project.

CRISP The Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) is a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects that includes abstracts of current and prior projects funded by NIH and several other agencies. 9 CRISP can be searched using several criteria, including investigator name, scientific concepts or key words, grant mechanism, and year. A CRISP search can help identify the most appropriate Institute, funded study designs, and investigators with relevant expertise.

Program Officials Program Officials are professionals with advanced degrees, who oversee a portfolio of funded scientific projects within a specific Institute, and serve as liaisons between the Institutes and study sections (groups of experts that review and score proposals—see below for details). The importance of talking to a Program Official early in the application process cannot be overemphasized. This conversation can help applicants frame their proposal to fit the Institute’s priorities. Program Officials may suggest different award types for which the proposal is eligible, or other initiatives at their Institute or other Institutes, and can provide general counsel on preparing the application. Nevertheless, investigators should be aware that Program Officials have a wide range of responsibilities and vary in their experience and knowledge regarding specific topic areas and NIH initiatives. Because their advice may not always coincide with advice from mentors or experienced investigators at your institution, investigators should seek advice from multiple sources.

Identifying NIH Funding Opportunities: RFAs and PAs

Exploring available sources of NIH funding is an excellent place to start. Investigators can receive a weekly e-mail from the NIH listing a variety of funding-related notices, new Requests for Applications (RFAs), and new Program Announcements (PAs; see Table  1 for list serve information). When making funding decisions, Institutes usually consider whether applications are responding to a particular announcement. RFAs and PAs are the two main mechanisms by which Institutes solicit applications on specific topics. While it is not necessary for an application to be submitted under a specific RFA or PA, applications should be related to the interests of the Institute, as described on their Web sites.

RFAs and PAs differ in funding sources and submission timing. Funds for PAs are not “set aside,” and funds may not be available even if an application is reviewed favorably. In contrast, RFAs address more narrowly defined areas, so the NIH commits a set amount of money and usually specifies the approximate number of applications that will be funded. PAs have multiple receipt dates for applications (although these dates may vary by Institute) and the announcements are generally active for 3 years, whereas RFAs are usually a one-time competition with a single receipt date.

If your project fits a specific PA or RFA, verify eligibility criteria and identify any “Special Requirements” (e.g., approval from a subcommittee, letters of support, or specific wording to include in the proposal). Those in doubt about the appropriateness of their research project for a given Institute should contact the Program Officials listed at the end of the PA or RFA.

Choosing an NIH Grant Mechanism (K- and R-Series)

Several factors influence the choice of grant mechanism, including the applicant (e.g., junior vs senior investigator, M.D. vs Ph.D.), the amount of money needed, the involvement of human subjects, the project duration, available funding (for an RFA), and Institute priorities. Information about selected grant mechanisms is provided in Table  2 .

Table 2

Funding Limits and Time Frames of Specific NIH Award Mechanisms

* Not all Institutes participate in this mechanism

**Funding amount and duration correct as of May 2007

K-Series Awards The K-series includes NIH career development grants that support junior faculty to become independent investigators. 10 The NIH “K Kiosk” provides information on career development awards and features an interactive “Career Wizard” that advises applicants based on their professional degrees, prior research training, areas of expertise, and record of independent funding (Table  1 ). The two most relevant mechanisms for Generalists are the Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award (K23) and the Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award (K08). K23s and K08s are limited to investigators with clinical doctoral degrees. The K23 supports patient-oriented research while the K08 supports non-patient-oriented biomedical research. The K99/R01, or “Pathway to Independence,” bridges K awards and R01 awards (see below). The objective of this newer program is to facilitate receipt of an R01 award earlier in an investigator’s research career by providing up to 2 years of mentored support followed by up to 3 years of independent support, contingent on securing an independent research position.

R-Series Awards The “Research Project Grant” (R01) supports large projects and is the oldest grant mechanism used by the NIH. The “Small Grant Program” (R03) supports short-term projects, such as pilot studies or secondary data analyses. The R21 program encourages developmental research by funding feasibility studies or research at the conceptual stage, generally in response to specific PAs. Lastly, the “Clinical Trial Planning Grant Program” (R34) supports the development of Phase III clinical trials (i.e., establishing the research team and developing protocols); it is not designed for collecting preliminary data or conducting pilot studies. Not all Institutes support the R03, R21, and R34 grant mechanisms, so applicants should determine whether specific Institutes accept applications under the desired mechanism.

Key Conversations: Building a Research Team

As grant planning is iterative and collaborative, applicants should initiate key conversations early in the process with members of the research team such as primary and secondary mentors for K awards, coinvestigators for R awards, biostatisticians, and consultants. The strength of the research team is critical for all NIH grant applications. Reviewers evaluate the likelihood of project completion based on the team’s expertise, commitment, and resources to complete the proposed research. Each investigator should have a clearly defined role and expertise commensurate with their contribution. Applicants should explicitly address any obvious barriers to completing the research (e.g., physical distance if coinvestigators are at other institutions). Finding coinvestigators and consultants may require local networking or long distance collaborations.

Institutional Colleagues Institutional colleagues such as a Division Chief or Center Director may be able to provide administrative and intellectual support, procure additional resources (e.g., statistical support), suggest contacts at the NIH, and propose external reviewers who might provide valuable feedback before submission.

Mentorship Teams Career development awards (e.g., K08, K23, K99/R00) require strong mentorship teams to assure the applicant’s career development and completion of the proposed scientific aims. Primary mentors should have a successful record of NIH funding and mentoring junior investigators and expertise in the proposed research area. Reviewers look favorably upon established mentor–trainee relationships (e.g., coauthored publications). Secondary mentors should have relevant content or method expertise and demonstrate a commitment to mentoring junior faculty. The proposal must include a detailed, feasible, and mutually agreed-upon schedule of meetings with each mentor. The mentorship team should provide guidance during the grant preparation and writing stage.

Coinvestigators Professional relationships with coinvestigators are based on mutual scientific interests, complementary expertise, or convergent agendas, and can take time to develop. Former mentors on K awards often become coinvestigators on a trainee’s first R01. While mentors on K awards are unpaid, the relationship between the PI and coinvestigators of an R01 assumes a business aspect. This distinction requires up-front communication about responsibilities, authorship, and salary support. Of note, all Federal research agencies are currently implementing policies to allow more than one PI on individual proposals. 11

Biostatisticians Most NIH applications include biostatisticians as key personnel who are allocated some salary support. Whenever possible, the biostatistician should write a significant portion of the statistical analysis section of the proposal. However, to ensure that the analytic plan is understandable and well integrated, applicants may want to edit this section. The analytic plan must be comprehensible to a general reader, but sophisticated and detailed enough to withstand careful scrutiny by statisticians and other methodologists in the study section.

Consultants Consultants are collaborators, usually based at external institutions, who fill a specific gap in expertise. Their compensation is usually budgeted at $500–750 per day. Although their level of effort is not as high as a coinvestigator’s, they can be critical members of the research team.

Letters of Support and Biosketches A typical NIH grant application includes letters of support from all consultants and mentors and sometimes from other key institutional leaders or collaborators (e.g., the director of a clinical recruitment site). For example, a K23 application includes letters of support from the applicant’s Department Chair, primary mentor, secondary mentors, three additional letters written by professional colleagues who know the applicant well but are not involved with the proposed research, and consultants if they are listed in the research plan and budget. Biosketches in NIH format are also required for all investigators. Therefore, for any grant, substantial time is required to obtain letters updated biosketches. To facilitate the timely return of letters of support, applicants commonly offer to write a draft for the recommender. If this is the case, applicants should craft a very strong letter that targets the preparation, skills, and potential for future independence, which are review criteria for that specific type of proposal (see Gill et al. for details 10 ). Allow at least 2 months for these tasks and plan to send regular friendly reminders, follow-up thank you notes, and updates on submission and funding status.

PREPARING THE PROPOSAL

In this section, we discuss practical tips that can make preparation more efficient, and review the main components of an NIH research plan. Our goal is not to explain how to craft a high-quality scientific proposal but to detail the preparation process, in which writing is a key component. Because grant writing is a critical skill to develop, we refer readers to relevant articles. 7 , 12 , 13

Reviewing Successful Applications

Reviewing examples of successful applications can be extraordinarily helpful, particularly if they share the same grant mechanism, research design, or content area. Colleagues and mentors can help identify and procure such proposals. If such examples cannot be obtained from one’s home institution, external investigators should be solicited. CRISP can identify relevant projects and researchers who may be willing to share their proposals, discuss their results, or collaborate. A CRISP query can also supplement a standard literature search by identifying funded studies that are under way but not yet published. Funded NIH applications identified by CRISP can also be requested through the Freedom of Information Act. However, these requests may require 8 weeks or more to allow investigators to redact sensitive information, such as salaries, and the principal investigator of the funded application is given the name of the requestor. Therefore, it is often more efficient, and probably more collaborative, to contact the investigator directly.

Following NIH Instructions

All NIH grant applications are divided into numerous sections, each of which must comply with detailed instructions. Institutes will administratively reject, without review, any applications that are incorrectly prepared. Fortunately, the NIH provides online guidelines for both paper 14 and electronic 15 submissions. Despite their length, every first-time applicant should assiduously review the appropriate guidelines because they contain answers to most questions on preparing a proposal.

Formerly, applicants prepared NIH applications using a series of pages known as Public Health Service (PHS) 398. After collating individual grant components, such as the face page, budget pages, letters of support, biosketches, research plan, and appendices, applicants mailed the original and five copies to the NIH.

In August 2005, the NIH transitioned from paper to electronic applications and from the PHS 398 format to the Standard Form 424 (Research & Related), or SF 424 (R&R). To support these changes, the Federal government created a new electronic portal, http://Grants.gov , which provides information on all Federal grant programs, including those offered by the NIH. The transition is being phased in gradually, with different target dates for different grant mechanisms. Program Project Grants (R01s), Small Grant Programs (R03s), and Exploratory/Developmental Research Grants (R21s) have already completed their transition to electronic submission, and the date for transition of the K series has not yet been announced. 16 , 17

The Electronic Research Administration or eRA Commons 18 is the platform for transactions related to the receipt, review, and administration of NIH grant applications. Applicants intending to submit a proposal must register with the eRA Commons database through their home institution’s grants administration office. Applicant organizations (but not investigators) must register at http://Grants.gov as well as eRA Commons, as access to each is required for electronic submission of all NIH grant applications.

With the transition to electronic applications, PIs are no longer responsible for the final submission of their completed proposals. Each institution must designate an “Authorized Organizational Representative” (AOR) with the authority to fulfill the requirements of the application process on behalf of the institution. 19 The change to electronic submission may therefore be more challenging for senior investigators who are comfortable with the paper application process. Close and early communication with local grants administration staff who understand the new system can minimize misunderstanding and avoid missed deadlines.

Another major change is that electronic submission requires investigators to modify their timelines. Formerly, if a paper application was prepared incorrectly, it was administratively rejected and returned by mail, and the applicant could not resubmit until the next submission cycle. Electronic applications, however, involve an initial submission during which the NIH reviews proposals for administrative errors. Common errors and how to avoid them are detailed at http://Grants.gov . 20 If errors are found, the applicant and AOR have one week to correct the errors and resubmit the application to the NIH. Institutional grants administration offices generally require the complete application package 2–6 weeks before the official deadline to ensure a timely final submission.

Complying with Institutional Policies for Internal Review

Every academic institution requires submission of documents for internal review before a grant can be sent to the NIH. These documents commonly include information about the budget and human subjects. The review process varies across academic institutions, so it is necessary to become familiar with local forms and deadlines. Local grants administration office should be able to supply details.

Preparing a Budget

Applicants must carefully prepare budget pages and obtain internal approval before submission to NIH. Academic institutions provide varying levels of administrative support for budget preparation. However, even at institutions where an administrator prepares the budget, the applicant must have a solid understanding of the budgetary components and be in frequent communication with the administrator, particularly to discuss any changes to the project during preparation.

A key budgetary concept is the distinction between direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include salary support (plus fringe benefits), consultant fees, subcontracts, and supplies. Fringe benefits are a percentage of salary support, determined by each institution, that change frequently. Consultant fees are individually negotiated. A subcontract is the financial mechanism through which PIs interact with collaborators from other institutions. For projects with annual direct costs less than $250,000, a simplified or modular budget form is used. The NIH then requests more detailed budget information if funding is approved (“just in time” or JIT submissions). For projects with annual direct costs between $250,000 and $500,000, an itemized budget form is submitted with the application. For projects with annual direct costs greater than $500,000, PIs must obtain written approval from the appropriate Institute before submission. All budgets are accompanied by a written budget justification.

Indirect costs, also called facilities and administrative (F&A) costs, represent institutional overhead such as heat and electricity. Indirect costs are calculated as a percentage of direct costs, and their calculation can be challenging because they are established by individual institutions and change yearly. Thus, an application may need to be updated between the time of submission and the time of funding. Of note, a subcontract’s indirect costs are not included in a project’s direct costs.

Understanding NIH Review Criteria

Investigators should fully understand the principal NIH grant review criteria: significance, approach, innovation, investigators, and environment. These were most recently updated in 2004. 21 Additional review criteria for career development awards include quality of the candidate, mentorship team, institutional support, and training plan. Reviewers are also required to comment on the adequacy of the plan for protection of human subjects; inclusion of women, minorities, and children; and care and use of vertebrate animals.

Investigators who have never been PIs on an NIH grant— other than a K award, an R03, or an R21—qualify as “new investigators”. 22 If eligible, applicants should indicate this on the application face page, as reviewers’ evaluations and scores should reflect the more limited experience of new investigators in terms of research accomplishments, preliminary results, and general grantsmanship. In addition, some Institutes, such as the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute, maintain a higher funding percentile (see below) for new compared to established investigators. 23 , 24

Structuring the Proposal

The research plan of every NIH grant application consists of the following sections: A. Specific Aims; B. Background and Significance; C. Preliminary Work; D. Research Design and Methods; and E. Human Subjects Research. Valuable resources for preparing the research plan are provided in Table  3 . Because reviewers read numerous grants, they expect to see certain things in certain places. Thus, it is essential that applicants adhere to established formats, which they can learn by reviewing funded proposals. The only criterion that changes according to grant mechanism is the number of pages allotted for sections A–D. R03s are limited to 10 pages; R21s have 15 pages; and R01s have 25 pages. For K08s and K23s, the 25-page limit includes sections A-D and a candidate section and a detailed career development plan.

Table 3

Additional Resources for Preparing the Research Plan of an NIH Grant

The candidate section of career development awards begins with a narrative detailing the candidate’s background, training, career goals, and scientific accomplishments. The career development plan highlights gaps in the candidate’s training and strategies for filling them during the funding period. This section should therefore include a detailed schedule of mentorship meetings, relevant coursework, and concrete skill development. Reviewers critique career development plans as rigorously as they critique research plans, and proposals may suffer under review if this section is not well crafted.

Human subjects Section E of the research plan addresses issues related to human subjects research. As with other sections, detailed instructions describe the required elements, including risks to subjects; adequacy of protection against risks; potential benefits of the proposed research to subjects and others; importance of the knowledge to be gained; plan for data and safety monitoring; and inclusion of women, minorities, and children. 25 Section E is not included in the page limits and can be any length required. Further information on issues of human subjects research is provided by the Office for Human Research Protections. 26

SUBMISSION AND FOLLOW-UP

Key elements of the submission and NIH review include study section assignment and review process. In this section, we explain why the applicant should remain actively involved with the project after submission by learning which study section will review the application, when it will meet, and when the results will be announced. Steps taken by the applicant after review may vary, but are always extremely important, as it is uncommon for proposals to receive funding on their first submission.

Center for Scientific Review

The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) organizes the study sections that evaluate the scientific merit of most (70%) of the research grant applications submitted to the NIH. The CSR is divided into three major scientific divisions: Cell and Molecular, Physiological Systems, and Clinical and Population Based Studies. Review activities of the major divisions are further organized into Integrated Review Groups (IRGs). Each IRG represents a cluster of 10 to 15 study sections around a general scientific area. Research grants are usually assigned first to an IRG, and then to a specific study section within that IRG. This is in contrast to career development grants, which are usually reviewed by study sections within individual Institutes. The CSR home page (Table  1 ) provides information about peer review guidelines, selection of reviewers, and study section meeting dates. This site also includes links to resources for applicants and relevant updates, for example, revised submission deadlines that took effect in January 2007. 27

Cover Letter

Applicants can increase their likelihood of an appropriate review by including a cover letter addressed to the CSR staff. This letter should express the critical research idea in a few sentences and suggest which study section should review the application and which Institute should be the primary funder. The following generic example denotes the key elements: “My project focuses on these areas... Therefore, experts in the areas of A, B, and C are appropriate for reviewing it.” The cover letter may also suggest that a particular study-section member should not review the application because of a conflict of interest or other valid reason. While the final decision for assignment to a specific study section is made by CSR staff, reasonable requests are usually honored. In the absence of a cover letter, decisions are most often made after reading only the project title and/or abstract.

Identifying the “Right” Study Section

In addition to talking with senior colleagues, several other strategies can be used to identify the study section that is best suited to review a grant application. Check the rosters and review the specific content areas that are covered by the standing (or chartered) study sections. For R-series applications, this information is available on the CSR website. 28 For K-series applications, it is available at the eRA commons site. 29 Once your search has been narrowed to a few potential study sections, contact the scientific review administrator (SRA) for each study section under consideration and/or the designated Program Official if you are responding to a PA. Sending an email message with your research question and specific aims, followed by a phone call, is often an effective communication strategy. Note that applications submitted in response to an RFA are typically reviewed by “Special Emphasis” panels, which are formed ad hoc, so there is no opportunity to request a specific study section.

Steering a proposal to the appropriate study section will allow the applicant to anticipate who may review it. Knowing one’s audience is an advantage in determining the proper balance between breadth and specificity when crafting a proposal. If possible, cite relevant work of potential reviewers. Of course, applicants may not receive the study section they request, and reviewer assignments are not disclosed. In addition, if sufficient expertise is not already available in the study section, the SRA may recruit ad hoc reviewers who are not listed on the available rosters.

Timeline After Submission

Within 6 weeks of submission, eRA Commons will display information on study section assignment, funding Institute, review dates, and names and contact information for assigned SRA and Program Officials. The actual review usually occurs 5 to 6 months after submission. The summary statement is usually available 1 month after the review and includes written critiques by the assigned reviewers, a summary of the study section’s discussion, and a priority score and percentile. If approved by the Institute’s Council (an advisory committee of senior scientists), funding for an NIH application usually begins no sooner than 10 months after submission, although a final funding decision for an application that is close to the cut off for funding may not be available for several additional months (see below). Currently, an unsuccessful application can be resubmitted no sooner than about 9 months after the initial submission. AIDS-related applications have different submission dates (May 7, September 7, January 7) and are subject to “expedited review,” which means that they are required by law to be processed and reviewed within 6 months from receipt deadline to funding decision, as opposed to the standard 9 months for non-AIDS-related grants.

Recognizing that the review and resubmission cycle is currently too long, the NIH launched a pilot program in February 2006 to reduce the current schedule by up to 4 months for new investigators. Key features of this program include a shortened time for reviewers to consider applications, earlier study section meetings, accelerated production of summary statements, and a delayed submission date for amended applications. For example, study sections that meet in February will be required to produce summary statements by March 1, and new investigators will have until March 20th (instead of March 5th) to resubmit, which allows re-review by study sections that meet in June. This pilot was recently expanded, and by November 2007, all new investigators applying for an R01 grant will have the opportunity to submit an amended application for the next receipt deadline, about 4 months after the original application. 30

Between Submission and Study Section Review

Investigators may send additional supporting information after their application has been submitted. Including additional pilot data, manuscripts newly accepted for publication, and other major accomplishments can often strengthen an application. The supporting information should be sent to the SRA with a brief message similar to this example: “I am writing to respectfully request that the following information be made available to the members of the study section that will be reviewing my grant application.” While the SRA is under no obligation, these requests are usually honored. If submitted far enough in advance (e.g., 6 weeks before the study section meets), this information may be provided to reviewers along with their grant assignments. Otherwise, it will be provided at the meeting.

Because the summary statement will usually not be available for several weeks after the study section meets, the presence of the assigned Program Official during the review can be helpful (see below). Send the Program Official the dates scheduled for your proposal’s review and ask whether he or she may be able to attend. If the Program Official is unavailable, ask whether a colleague of theirs will be present; this individual can serve as a resource for information after the review.

The Study Section Review Process

Each application is commonly assigned by the SRA to three reviewers (primary, secondary, and discussant), who often have complementary areas of expertise. About 1 week before the study section meeting, reviewers are asked to identify applications deemed to be “noncompetitive.” These applications are judged to be in the lower half, qualitatively, of applications normally reviewed by that study section. If there is unanimous agreement, these applications are “streamlined” or “triaged”, meaning that they are not discussed at the meeting and do not receive a priority score (i.e., are “unscored”). For each application that is not streamlined, about 15 to 20 minutes are usually allotted for discussion. Reviewers provide their preliminary scores, ranging from 1.0 to 5.0 and verbally present their assessments of the application. A vigorous discussion ensues among the section members, who have also received the grant for inspection (but may have read only the abstract or skimmed the proposal). Subsequently, the reviewers provide their final scores, which usually establish a range for other section members, who score the grant anonymously. Scores between 1.0 and 1.5 reflect an “outstanding” application. Applications that receive a score between 1.6 and 2.0 are considered “excellent”; between 2.1 and 2.5 are “very good”; between 2.6 and 3.5 are “good”; and between 3.6 and 5.0 are considered “acceptable”. To provide an inside look at the scientific review process for NIH proposals, CSR has produced a video of a mock study section meeting, which shows how reviewers assess applications and how study section meetings are conducted to ensure fairness. 31

After the Review

After the meeting adjourns, the section members’ scores for each application are averaged and multiplied by 100 to obtain the priority score, which is usually available to applicants within 2 to 3 business days through eRA Commons. Because the summary statement is generally not available for at least 4 weeks, applicants may want to contact their Program Official to hear their impressions. For example, the Program Official might be able to highlight salient issues that emerged during the discussion, including some that may not be reflected in the summary statement, and might offer some preliminary feedback on the likelihood of funding. Applicants are not permitted to discuss their applications with the SRA after the review has been completed.

Summary Statements

Summary statements or “pink sheets” are posted on eRA Commons within 4-6 weeks of the study section meeting. All summary statements include the unedited critiques of the assigned reviewers and a complete listing of the section members. For applications that were not streamlined, the summary statement also includes a “Resume and Summary of Discussion,” which highlights the most important issues, the priority score, and a percentile, which reflects the application’s rank in the current meeting plus the two previous meetings of the same study section. The percentile ranking applies to R-series grants and is designed to smooth out the differences in scoring behavior between study sections and between meetings of the same study section. Depending on the Institute, the percentile rank for receiving funding (or “payline”) currently ranges from about the 8th to the 16th percentile.

If a proposal is not funded, applicants must decide whether to submit an amended version. Note that deadlines for submission of amended applications are 1 month later than those for initial submissions. It can be helpful to read the summary statement, put it away for a few days, and then review it more dispassionately. A careful rereading of the critiques should focus on the summary of the discussion, which addresses the issues on which the priority score was based. One approach is to categorize these issues into the types of action necessary to improve the proposal. These may include revising the rationale for the proposed research, including preliminary data, reconfiguring or jettisoning a specific aim, or revising the research design, the statistical analysis, or the investigative team.

Note critiques, possible responses, and “fatal” flaws that might preclude an amended application, and then seek advice about improving the application from the Program Official. Applications that were not discussed (i.e., “streamlined” or “triaged”) may not have a fatal flaw and often fare well if revised. Finally, discuss critiques with mentors, coinvestigators, and senior colleagues; listen carefully and seek frank appraisals.

If the final score is near the payline, applicants must decide whether to resubmit before a final funding decision is available. Applicants who are risk averse may want to proceed with an amended application. NIH applications remain “active”, or eligible for funding, for the duration of the fiscal year, which runs from October 1st to September 30th. Should the initial application subsequently get funded, the amended application can be withdrawn. Because NIH Institutes are often more conservative in their funding decisions early in the fiscal year, unfunded applications that are near the payline may get funded later in the year. Discussions with Program Officials are essential to making an informed decision.

In general, reassignment to a new study section is uncommon, and CSR considers this a burden. However, if the initial application did not receive a fair review, ask the Program Official about having the amended application reviewed by a different study section and be prepared to justify why.

Amended Applications

To respond to the reviewers’ critiques, applicants are allowed three additional pages, referred to as the “Introduction to Revised Application”. Craft this introduction carefully by reviewing successful revisions and getting feedback on structure, tone, and content. The revised grant may be assigned a new reviewer (or many months may have passed since the original reviewer read the initial submission), so the introduction should not assume reviewer familiarity with the content of the grant. One approach is to individually respond to each of the concerns raised. Another approach is to synthesize reviewer’s comments and organize revisions by topic area, making sure to include all critiques. Indicate how and where the application was revised, using special markings (e.g., bold, italics, or borders). Be professional and concise and clearly justify each decision and the resulting changes (or lack thereof).

As nearly a year will have passed since the initial submission, include additional preliminary data or new accomplishments as appropriate. Finally, re-read the entire proposal and strengthen other aspects that were weak. Even if the reviewers did not identify these weaknesses, reviewers regularly rotate on and off study section panels, and there is no guarantee that the same reviewers will be assigned to the amended application. Furthermore, reviewers are not obligated to limit their comments to issues that were raised in the initial review.

Skipping a Cycle

As noted earlier, the soonest an amended application can usually be submitted is 2 or 3 months after receipt of the summary statement. While this time is often sufficient, applicants can skip a cycle when the application requires extensive revisions (thereby gaining 4 months). The resulting delay in potential funding should be weighed against the NIH policy that no more than two amended applications can be submitted. Of note, there is no time limit for resubmission of an amended application.

For academic researchers, securing extramural funding is essential for a successful career. We have attempted to demystify the NIH application process, which is rarely explicitly discussed. By understanding how to plan a proposal, prepare an application, and optimize submission (and resubmission) of a grant, applicants will be better equipped to successfully compete for NIH funding.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank R. Harris for assistance in developing the Figure. Support for Dr. Berg was provided by grants K23 DA 021087 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Mental Health, and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Physician Faculty Scholar Award. Dr. Gill is the recipient of a Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-oriented Research (K24AG021507) from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Brown is supported by the Paul D. Beeson Career Development Award, NIH/NIA, K23 AG 026748. Dr. Elmore is supported by a K05 award (NCI CA104699). Dr. Wilson is the recipient of a Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-oriented Research (K24 RR020300) from the National Center for Research Resources.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This work was presented as a workshop at the Society of General Internal Medicine 29th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, April 2006.

Conflicts of Interest None of the authors disclosed any Conflicts of Interest.

Office of the Vice Provost for Research

Find Collaborators

Meaningful relationships are the foundation of successful, interdisciplinary research.

Faculty Profiles

Faculty Profiles is a search directory for Tufts faculty profiles which include bios, publications, research areas, and more.

Explore Tufts' scholarly activities using Dimensions, a research knowledge base.

Corporate Connections

Collaborations outside of academia are essential to Tufts success.

Tech Transfer and Industry Collaboration

Connect with Corporations or Foundations

Tufts Facilities & Technologies

Find research facilities and resources that are available at Tufts and connect with the experts who support them.

Search Core Facilities & Resources

Search Technologies for Licensing

Support Functions

Meet the teams that support research both within the OVPR and beyond.

Connect with Support Functions

Contact the OVPR

Tufts Centers & Institutes

Tufts University is home to more than 45 interdisciplinary centers and institutes with expertise on a broad range of topics.

How to Write an Effective Letter of Support

Letters of support from collaborators and consultants.

The following suggestions are for grant proposal letters of support from consultants and collaborators. Funding agency guidelines (e.g. NIH , NSF , other) and funding opportunity requirements take precedence over these suggestions.

If you need a letter of support, we recommend that you offer to draft the letter for your collaborator(s)/consultant(s). Providing a draft will help achieve two important outcomes:

• That the letter of support will contain all of the information you need, and
• That you will get the letter back from your collaborator(s)/consultant(s) in a timely fashion, assuming you give them enough lead time. We suggest 2-3 weeks.

Drafting your own letters of support also serves another important purpose. It can give both parties an early warning of unrealistic expectations. It is a vehicle for negotiating exactly what services, reagents, or expertise will be provided to support your work. Note that drafts of Letters of Support may need to be reviewed for compliance by the appropriate Tufts office before sending to your collaborator(s)/consultant(s).

The goals of a letter of support are to:

• Specify what the collaborator(s)/consultant(s) will contribute to the research
• Convince the reviewer that the collaborator(s)/consultant(s) will fulfill the request
• Convey enthusiasm for the work
• Lend credibility to your proposal

Letters of support should:

• Be unique and written from the point of view of your collaborator(s)/consultant(s)
• Be on institutional letterhead and signed by the appropriate party (someone authorized to make the commitment of support)
• Be addressed either to the PI of the proposal or to the granting agency – check the guidelines of the specific grant and/or agency
• Be focused on requested topics and not contain details that are expected to be in the research description section (this is required by NIH and a good idea for most agencies)
• Address any specific guidelines (e.g., particular assurances) required by the funding agency or the university, as outlined in the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) or as requested by your Research Administrator.
• 2020 NIH Research Forms F indicate that letters of support from consultants should include rate/charge for consulting services, level of effort, and if access to core facilities will be provided as a fee-for-service.
• Most NSF letters of collaboration have a specific, one-sentence, template that should be used unless the solicitation states otherwise; see the 2020 NSF PAPPG .

Be sure to follow all FOA, funding agency, and Tufts University guidelines. Beyond that, as long as your letter demonstrates specifically what your collaborator(s)/consultant(s) will be contributing to the project, there is no one way to draft a strong letter of support. One format that you might consider in the absence of specific agency guidelines follows.

Example Letter of Support Format

First Paragraph  (1-3 sentences)

• Statement of support for the project/research – use words that convey enthusiasm
• Identify the research project by name/title

Examples: “I am pleased to support your research proposal titled xxxx.” “Your proposal to do xxxx has my enthusiastic support.”

Body Paragraphs  (1-3 paragraphs, or more as necessary)

• If applicable, state how the goals/research of the collaborator(s)/consultant(s) are well-aligned with the goals of the proposed research. What is the collaborator’s motivation to work with you?
• State as specifically as possible the role of the collaborator(s)/consultant(s) in the project.
• What is their relevant experience/expertise? Have they previously worked on a similar project? Do they have a successful track record?
• Do they have specialized equipment or reagents? Other resources?
• If you have worked with this collaborator before, be sure to say so! It demonstrates that a productive relationship has already been established.
• Be sure to include all information required by the funding agency; for example, for NIH, the rate or charge and level of effort for consultant services.

Last Paragraph  (1-3 sentences)

• Include a cordial closing. The level of formality should be determined by the level of personal relationship between the PI and the collaborator(s)/consultant(s). If you know each other very well, it can be less formal.

Examples: “I look forward to collaborating with you on this work.” “Best of luck with your grant application.”

Last updated: May 2020                                                     

Source: OVPR Research Development , Tufts University

Talk to an Expert

Strategic Research Development experts can help you with targeted funding searches and proposal development.

• NIH Grants & Funding
• Blog Policies

NIH Extramural Nexus

New “All About Grants” Podcast on Letters of Support

Letters of support are a valuable part of your grant application. They provide an opportunity for you to document the commitment and support of your institution and collaborators, the availability of required resources, and more.

In this next installment of the NIH’s All About Grants podcast series , Cathleen Cooper, Ph.D., who directs the NIH’s Center for Scientific Review’s Division of Receipt and Referral, joins us to talk all about letters of support ( MP3 / Transcript ). Hear what information should be included in these letters, what should not, how they differ from other letters submitted as part of an application, and more.   

RELATED NEWS

One comment.

I, Dr. Saumya Pandey (Ph.D.), gained crisp scientific updates regarding investigator-initiated competitive grant-proposals/submitted innovative research proposals for strategic funding; the letters of support/refernces are integregal for successful grant-submissions, and the mechanistic expert critical research grants-management insights provided by Dr. Cathleen Cooper (Ph.D.) were indeed enlightening. For instance, I have continued interests in achieving my professional goals in high-quality ethical research with adherence to the core tenets of bioethics and scientific integrity with emphasis on research productivity as demonstrated in first-authorship publications (43 firsts to date), and therefore, the expert snapshots in competitive grants-management with thrust on letters of reference/support further provided an elegant overview of the overall grants-applications-process. This would certainly prove immensely beneficial in my future investigator-initiated medical research projects’ submissions to NIH USA for meaningfully contributing to the public health research globally with emphasis on good practice research and ethical human subject research for cost-effectively addressing the ever-expanding burden of diverse human disease pathophysiologies in ethnically disparate population subsets of varying lifestyles. Overall, an enriching experience in the competitive medical research field; once again, I woud like to congratulate the experts for providing such stimulating research discussions for effcetice dissemination of emerging scientific concepts! Thank you. Dr. Pandey (Lucknow, India)

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NIH Director's Pioneer Award

• Application Process
• Eligibility
• After Submission not completed
• Award Management not completed

Disclaimer:

The information in these pages are meant to provide general guidance. Instructions and procedures outlined in the funding opportunity,  SF424 Application Guide , and NIH Grants Policy Statement take precedence over any information provided and should be referred to for complete and comprehensive directions.

This section provides steps and information needed to prepare a Pioneer Award application for submission and includes samples of past Pioneer Award applications. The guidance found here is not detailed, but it is specific to the Pioneer Award. For more detailed guidance on each step, go to the NIH Grants & Funding Application Guide website .

The application process includes:

Before you can submit an application, you need to make sure you have all the necessary registrations and accounts. Work closely with your institution's business office to get registered and to determine its internal procedure for submitting an application to NIH.

Step 1: Ensure Applicant Institution Is Registered

Applicant institutions must complete and maintain the following registrations to apply and receive awards. Registration can take six weeks or more, so institutions should begin the registration process as soon as possible.

• System for Award Management (SAM)  – Institutions must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires an annual renewal that may take as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code. A Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• eRA Commons  – Institutions must have an active DUNS number to register. To submit an application, a Signing Official (SO) and Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account must be designated.
• Grants.gov  – Institutions must have an active SAM registration to complete registration.

Step 2: Ensure Applicant Is Registered

The PD/PI must have an  eRA Commons  account. The PD/PI should work with his/her institutional officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant institution in eRA Commons. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to two weeks.

Step 3: Request an Application Package

The application forms package must be accessed through one of the following systems:

• Application Submission System & Interface for Submission Tracking (ASSIST)  – ASSIST is used to prepare and submit applications electronically to NIH and other Public Health Service agencies.
• Grants.gov Workspace  – Workspace is the standard way for organizations or individuals to apply for federal grants in Grants.gov.
• Institutional System-to-System – See your institution’s administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

Step 4 (Optional): Contact NIH Institute or Center for Instructions on Clinical Trials

The Pioneer Award welcomes any project relevant to the NIH mission, including  clinical trials . Though technical and conceptual risks are expected in highly innovative projects, clinical research must also contend with potential risks to human subjects. Because awards are administered by the most topic-relevant NIH Institute or Center (IC), applicants proposing NIH-defined clinical trials should contact program staff at the appropriate IC to ensure their applications conform to NIH and IC-specific policies for clinical trials.

For a list of IC contacts for clinical trials research, see our page on  NIH Clinical Trials Contacts .

Follow the Instructions

It is critical that applicants follow the Research Instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide  except where instructed in the funding opportunity to do otherwise. When the funding opportunity provides instructions that differ from the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, the instructions given in the funding opportunity take precedence and should be followed.

All attachments should be formatted according to  NIH format standards .

Adherence to the application requirements is mandatory and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may not be accepted for review.

Required Forms

Refer to the funding opportunity and  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide  for complete instructions.

1. SF424 (R&R) Form

Follow all instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide .

Agency Routing Identifier

Enter Science Area Designations in the Agency Routing Identifier. Designate two scientific areas (a primary and secondary) from the list below. For each area, enter the one-digit code and abbreviation (e.g., 1 BSS).

1 BSS - Behavioral and Social Science 2 CB - Chemical Biology 3 CTR - Clinical and Translational Research 4 IDI - Infectious Diseases and Immunology 5 IE - Instrumentation and Engineering 6 MCB - Molecular and Cellular Biology 7 NS - Neuroscience 8 HIB - High-Throughput and Integrative Biology 9 BCB - Bioinformatics and Computational Biology

For each area, enter the one-digit code and abbreviation (e.g., 1 BSS). List the primary area first followed by a semicolon, then add the secondary area (e.g., 1 BSS; 7 NS).

The areas of science listed above are very broad and frequently overlap. Choose the primary (and optional secondary) science area that is most appropriate for your proposed project. The scientific areas are used solely as an aid to assign panel reviewers, who are chosen for their breadth of knowledge and expertise and will be able to review a broad range of applications. Science area designations do not affect an application’s funding potential, and application requirements and instructions are identical for all science areas. All applications are reviewed in the same time period, with the same review criteria, and compete for a single source of dedicated funds.

Note: The science area designations (two one-digit codes with abbreviations) must also be included at the beginning of the Research Strategy essay.

Type of Application

Must be "New."

Proposed Project

The start date should be September 30 of the funding year, and the end date should be 5 years later on July 31. See the funding opportunity for exact dates.

Estimated Project Funding

• Total Federal Funds Requested: Include Direct and Indirect Costs. Direct Costs should total $3,500,000 for the 5 years of the award.
• Total Non-Federal Funds: Enter $0.
• Total Federal & Non-Federal Funds: Include Direct and Indirect Costs.
• Estimated Program Income: Enter $0.

Note: The budget request is entered only in the fields for "Total Federal Funds Requested" and "Total Federal & Non-Federal Funds" as described above. Funds may be requested for personnel (including collaborators), supplies, equipment, sub-contracts, data management and sharing costs, and other allowable costs. A detailed budget and other budget forms are not requested and will not be accepted.

Cover Letter Attachment

Use the Cover Letter Attachment if relevant information needs to be conveyed as outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide . The cover letter is for internal NIH use only and will not be shared with peer reviewers. Note, applicants are NOT required to have agency approval documentation for budget requests of $500,000 or more because the funding opportunity expressly states that large budgets are welcome.

2. PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement Form

3. r&r other project information form.

Follow all instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide  with additional instructions for the sections outlined in the funding opportunity below.

Project Summary/Abstract

There is a limit of 30 lines of text.

Project Narrative

There is a limit of three sentences.

Bibliography & References Cited

Do not use this section. Reference citations are not required. Citations considered essential may be included in the essay and must be included in the page limit.

Facilities & Other Resources

Upload a brief statement (one page maximum) of the facilities to be used for the conduct of the research.

Do not use.

Other Attachments

• For more help on human subjects, visit the  NIH Grants & Funding website .
• Foreign components are defined as the performance of any significant scientific element or segment of a project outside of the United States, either by the recipient or by a researcher employed by a foreign organization, whether or not grant funds are expended. It is crucial that you disclose all foreign components, which include foreign collaborations that will result in co-authorship. See the definition of  Foreign Components  for more details.

4. Project/Performance Site Location(s)

5. r&r senior/key person profile form.

Follow all instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide , but only the PD/PI’s biosketch is allowed.  Inclusion of other personnel or collaborator biosketches anywhere in the application will result in your application being administratively withdrawn.

Profile Project Director/Principal Investigator

Attach a list of Current and Pending Support from all sources, including current year direct costs and effort in person months devoted to each project.

Profile - Senior/Key Person

Do not use. Submit information for the PD/PI only. Information on collaborators and other key personnel is not required but may be included in the Research Strategy essay.

Additional Senior/Key Person Profile(s)

Do not use. Only the PD/PI may submit a Biographical Sketch. Inclusion of other personnel or collaborator biosketches anywhere in the application will result in your application being administratively withdrawn.

6. R&R Budget of Modular Budget Form

Do not use. A detailed budget is not requested and will not be accepted.

7. R&R Subaward Budget

8. phs 398 research plan form.

Follow all instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide  with additional instructions in the funding opportunity.

Specific Aims

Research strategy.

The Research Strategy essay should contain the information below and be saved as a pdf titled "Essay.pdf."

Your essay should describe:

• Your innovative vision for addressing a major challenge or pursuing an outstanding opportunity of relevance to NIH.
• The importance of this challenge or opportunity.
• Your qualifications to engage in groundbreaking research.

No detailed scientific plan should be provided since the research plan is expected to evolve during the tenure of the grant. The essay should include the following sections in the order given with the headings as shown below:

• Scientific Areas : Provide 1-digit code and abbreviation for primary and secondary science areas at the beginning of essay. See "Agency Routing Identifier" information above for codes and format.
• Project Title : The project title must be descriptive of the proposed project.
• What is the scientific challenge or opportunity that will be addressed, and why is this important?
• What are the pioneering, highly innovative approaches that, if successful, would lead to groundbreaking or paradigm-shifting results?
• Evidence of PD's/PI's Innovativeness : What concrete evidence can you provide for your claim of innovativeness? For example, qualities common to many highly innovative people include the ability to integrate diverse sources of information; an inclination to question paradigms; a willingness to work with intellectual uncertainties; persistence in the face of failure; an ability to work collaboratively with researchers from diverse disciplines; and the energy and concentration necessary to plan and execute effective strategies for accomplishing goals.
• How the Planned Research Differs from the PD's/PI's Past or Current Work : How does the proposed project represent a new and distinct direction for your research? While a new research direction may have the PDF/PI's prior work and expertise as its foundation, it cannot be an obvious extension or scale-up of a current research enterprise which could be appropriate for a more conventional NIH funding mechanism, such as a new or renewal R01. Rather, a new research direction must reflect a fundamental new insight and which may involve the development of exceptionally innovative approaches and/or the posing of radically unconventional hypotheses. Applications for projects that are extensions of ongoing research should not be submitted.
• Suitability for Pioneer Award Program : Why is the planned research uniquely suited to the stated goal of the Pioneer Award rather than a more “traditional” grant mechanism?
• Statement of Research Effort Commitment : A statement must be included that, if chosen to receive an award, the PD/PI will commit more than 6 person-months (at least 51%) of his/her research effort to the project supported by the Pioneer Award in the first three years of the award and at least 4 months (33%) research effort and at least 3 months (25%) in years four and five, respectively. Applicants with current research commitments of 6 person-months or more must provide a compelling explanation describing how their effort on existing grants will be adjusted to permit them to devote the required minimum effort to the Pioneer Award project

Applicants considering research involving clinical trials are strongly advised to discuss their research ideas with  IC staff  at the scientifically most relevant NIH Institutes or Centers (ICs) to ensure that such research would conform to the clinical trial research policies of those ICs. Funding of applications involving clinical trials is contingent upon conformance to the policies of the IC administering the award.

Note: References are not required but if included must fit within the page limit. Figures and illustrations may be included but must also fit within the page limit. Letters of collaboration will not be accepted. Information on collaborators may be included in the Essay and their names and affiliations should be listed in the PHS Assignment Request Form (see below).

Progress Report Publication List

Multiple pd/pi leadership plan, consortium/contractual arrangements, letters of support, resource sharing plan.

You are expected to comply with instructions for Resource Sharing Plans in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide , but the plans will be asked for as Just in Time information if an award is being considered.

Only limited Appendix materials are allowed as described in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide .

9. PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

Follow the instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide . But if you answered "Yes" to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the  Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information   form or  Delayed Onset Study  record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

Follow the instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide .

Delayed Onset Study

Follow the instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide . Note: Delayed onset does not apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).

10. PHS Assignment Request Form

Follow all instructions in the  SF424 (R&R) Application Guide , but do not request an assignment to a particular review panel (integrated review group) or awarding component (NIH Institute or Center). All applications are automatically received as "Office of the Director" applications and reviewed by a single Special Emphasis Panel convened by the Center for Scientific Review.

Provide the names of collaborators reference letter writers and their institutional affiliations so the Scientific Review Officer can avoid conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers. Also, if you wish to exclude individuals from reviewing your application, list their names, institutional affiliations, and the reasons why they should not serve as reviewers. NIH will consider your request but is not obligated to accept it.  

Letters of reference are an important element of the Pioneer Award application. Applicants must arrange to have three (and only three) letters of reference submitted on their behalf.

Applications that are missing letters of reference will be considered incomplete and will not be reviewed. Late letters will not be accepted. Applicants are responsible for monitoring the submission of letters to ensure that three letters have been submitted prior to the submission deadline. Applicants are encouraged to check the status of their letters in their eRA Commons account.

Letters of Reference Vs. Letters of Support

Letters of reference differ from letters of support. Letters of reference are typically from scientists or others who know the applicant well and are qualified to evaluate the merit of the project proposal and the applicant’s qualifications to fulfill the proposed project. Letters of reference are submitted to NIH directly by the referee and are never seen by the PD/PI.

Letters of support typically come from outside individuals or organizations whose cooperation, assistance, or guidance is needed to successfully complete a project. The letter of support affirms the person or entity’s commitment to assist in the project. Letters of support are not permitted for the Pioneer Award application.

Referee Selection

It is best to select referees who can speak to your scientific expertise, leadership experience, and management skills and address how you are qualified to conduct successful independent research. It may not be best to choose referees based primarily on their official position, such as your departmental chair or institutional dean.

Instructions

For applicants.

• Arrange to have three (and only three) letters.
• Letters must be submitted by 5:00 P.M. (local time of referee) on the application due date (late letters will not be accepted).
• Letters must be submitted electronically through  eRA Commons  (paper copies will not be accepted). Note: The referee does not need an eRA Commons account to submit a reference letter for an applicant, but the applicant must have a valid eRA Commons account.
• Your eRA Commons user ID
• Your last name as listed in eRA Commons
• Funding opportunity number (e.g., RFA-RM-24-002)
• URL to eRA Commons: https://public.era.nih.gov/commonsplus/public/reference/submitReferenceLetter.era  (click on the "Submit a Reference Letter" link on the page)
• URL to eRA help on submitting reference letters:  https://www.era.nih.gov/erahelp/commons/Commons/Ref_Ltr.htm
• You will not have access to the letters.
• An email confirmation will be sent to you when a letter is submitted.
• Check the status of your letters on eRA Commons periodically, and remind referees to submit their letters on time.

For Referees

For more help, see the eRA page on submitting reference letters .

• Letter must be submitted by 5:00 P.M. (local time of referee) on the application due date (late letters will not be accepted).
• Letter must be submitted electronically through  eRA Commons  (paper copies will not be accepted). Note: The referee does not need an eRA Commons account to submit a reference letter for an applicant, but the applicant must have a valid eRA Commons account.
• PD/PI's name on top of letter
• Signature block with your full name, title, institution, and contact information
• 1-2 page description of the applicant's qualities relating to scientific expertise, leadership experience, and management skills necessary to conduct successful independent research (provide specific examples when possible)
• Provide your first and last name, email address, institution/affiliation, and department.
• You will need the applicant's eRA Commons user ID, applicant's last name, funding opportunity number (e.g., RFA-RM-24-002), and confirmation number (if submitting a revised Letter).
•  An email confirmation will be sent to you when the letter is submitted.

NIH expects that applications be submitted on time, which means the application is submitted error free no later than 5:00 PM local (applicant institution) time on the application due date. There is no deadline extension to correct for errors in the application, so all errors must be corrected by the submission deadline.

Institutions often have their own internal deadlines, so be sure to check when your institution needs your application.

About Submitting

Electronic submission of your application is required. Your institution may submit using the NIH Application Submission System and Interface for Submission Tracking (ASSIST) , Grants.gov Workspace , or an institutional system-to-system. If your institution uses a proprietary application system, keep in mind that the system may have its own forms, layouts, or special fields.

Regardless of the application method, all applications pass through Grants.gov for a timestamp and validation checks. To be on time, Grants.gov must successfully timestamp your application by 5:00 PM of your institution's local time on the receipt date listed in the funding opportunity.

Submitting your application may not be straightforward, so be sure to learn more about the process and work with your institution’s business office. If you encounter any problems, contact the NIH Service Desk immediately. They will document the date and time you contacted them, which is helpful in case there are delays in resolving the issue and there are downstream effects.

For technical support and information, use the following links:

• Avoiding Common Errors
• Annotated SF424 Grant Application Forms for field-by-field tips on avoiding common application mistakes
• eRA Training
• NIH Service Desk
• Grants.gov Support

Late Applications

As stated in the funding opportunity, late applications will not be accepted.

Sample Applications

Always follow the funding opportunity and SF424 Application Guide's instructions for application format. Time has passed since these grantees applied, and the samples may not reflect the latest format or rules.

The text of these applications is copyrighted. You may use it only for nonprofit educational purposes provided the document remains unchanged and the PI, the grantee organization, and NIH are credited.

Note on Section 508 Conformance and Accessibility: We have reformatted these samples to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and users of assistive technology. If you have trouble accessing the content, please contact NIH staff at [email protected] .

Thank you to the PIs and institutions for allowing us to post their Pioneer Award applications. We appreciate their assistance and willingness to share.  

More questions? Contact us at  [email protected] .

This page last reviewed on March 26, 2024

• Utility Menu

6b604b7f91d918e5639cf90ab80a98b4

Harvard t.h. chan school of public health research administration.

• Institutional Info
• eRA Commons Setup
• NIH Samples

9d9ee58dac12ca6107d51197bc45ef8d

Source: NIAID Website

NIH & NIAID Sample Applications & Other Documents

Several NIAID investigators have graciously agreed to share their exceptional applications and summary statements as samples to help the research community. Refer to  NIAID's Application Samples webpage to see the full list of available sample applications, attachments, summary statements, forms, sharing plans, letters, emails, and more.  

The text of these applications is copyrighted. You may use it only for nonprofit educational purposes provided the document remains unchanged and the PI, the grantee organization, and NIAID are credited.

• Sample Cancer Epidemiology Grant Applications
• Sample Behavioral Research Grant Applications
• Sample Implementation Science Research Applications
• Annotated SF 424 Grant Application Forms
• Biosketch Format Pages, Instructions and Samples
• Reference Letters 
• Sample Data Tables for Training Grant Applications
• Additional Senior/Key Person Profile Format   – for over 100 senior/key people
• Additional Performance Site Format   – for over 300 performance sites
• Other Support Format Page
• Scientific Rigor Examples
• Authentication Plan Examples
• Examples of Data Sharing Plans
• Examples of Project Leadership Plans for Multiple PI Grant Applications
• Example calculations in the  Usage of Person Months  questions and answers
• Examples of Allowable Appendix Materials
• Sample Project Outcomes Description  for RPPR
• Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section (VAS)
• Sample Animal Study Proposal

NIAID Samples

• Sample Data Sharing Plan
• Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) Examples and Templates  and  Complex Sample Data Sharing Plans
• Complex Model Organisms Sharing Plan
• Model Organisms Sharing Plan for Mice
• Simple Model Organisms Sharing Plan
• Sample Letter to Document Training in the Protection of Human Subjects
• Withdrawal of an Application Sample Form Letter
• Sample Just-in-Time Email From NIH
• Sample NIAID Request for Just-in-Time Information
• Preparing for a Foreign Organization System (FOS) Review
• Subaward Agreement Forms   from the Federal Demonstration Partnership
• DMID Quality Management Guidance and Tools
• Find Funding
• Funding Sources
• Proposal Deadlines
• PI Eligibility
• Limited Submissions
• Letters of Support
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• eRA Commons
• NIH Submission Systems
• NSF Applications

Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

Información en español

Celebrating 75 Years! Learn More >>

• Opportunities & Announcements
• Funding Strategy for Grants
• Grant Writing & Approval Process
• Managing Grants
• Clinical Research
• Small Business Research

Letter of Intent

Many Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) (whether Program Announcements or Requests for Applications) request that prospective applicants submit a letter of intent prior to the submission of a grant application. For those FOAs that request it, a letter of intent should include the following:

• Descriptive title of proposed research
• Name, address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institutions
• Number and title of the funding opportunity

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows Institute/Center (IC) staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.

The letter of intent should be sent by the date listed on the specific FOA and to the contact and address listed therein. For more information, contact the Program Officer (Scientific/Research Contact(s)) listed in the FOA.

Also, remember that if your budget is at or going to exceed $500,000 in direct costs for any year of the project, NIH policy ( NOT-OD-02-004  ) requires prior approval from IC programmatic staff at least six weeks prior to the anticipated submission date. Information regarding this approval should be submitted in a cover letter along with the application.

Back to Forms and Instructions

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

Department of Contracts and Grants

Changes Coming to NIH Applications and Peer Review in January 2025

April 11, 2024

Announcement:   The National Institutes of Health(NIH) will be implementing multiple changes that will impact the preparation and peer review of most grant applications submitted to NIH for due dates on or after January 25, 2025 . A recent guide notice   was distributed that provides an overview of each of the changes to help contextualize them as details are released over the next few months. In addition, NIH has developed an informative video  that provides an overview of the following changes:

Simplified Review Criteria for Most Research Project Grants

• This initiative was announced this past October and an informational webinar was held in November.
• NIH will be providing additional information on what this means for funding opportunities in an upcoming webinar  on April 17, 2024 .

Revisions to the Fellowship Application and Review Process

Over the next few weeks, NIH will be releasing details of the resulting fellowship application and review changes they are implementing. 

The changes are intended to: 

• Better focus reviewer attention on the fellowship candidate’s preparedness and potential, the research training plan, and the sponsor/sponsoring institutional commitment to the candidate.
• Ensure a broad range of candidates and research training contexts can be recognized as meritorious.
• Reduce bias in review by emphasizing the commitment to the candidate without undue consideration of sponsor and institutional reputation.

NIH will be hosting a webinar  to walk the community through the fellowship changes on September 19, 2024 .

Updates to Reference Letter Guidance

NIH is updating the instructions for reference letters to provide more structure for reviewers. Resulting letters will better assist reviewers in outlining the candidate’s strengths, weaknesses, and potential to pursue a productive career in biomedical science. The updated instructions will be posted later this fall on the Reference Letter  web page .

Updates to NRSA Training Grant Applications

Later this spring, NIH will publish an NIH Guide notice announcing changes to training grant applications that, at a high level, include:

• Updating the NRSA Data Tables to reduce applicant and reviewer burden.
• Including the Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research and the Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity as items that contribute to the overall impact score.
• Enhancing research training programs by further defining expectations for mentor training and clarifying positive outcomes related to preparing trainees for the breadth of research and related careers relevant to the NIH mission.

NIH will be hosting a webinar  to walk the community through the training grant changes on June 5, 2024 .

Updated Application Forms (FORMS-I)

NIH will release updated application forms to support many of the changes coming in 2025. The new forms must be used for application due dates on or after January 25, 2025. Applications submitted for due dates prior to January 25 should continue to use FORMS-H. Please review the FORMS-I Guide Notice  to learn more about the timing and availability of the new forms.

Common Forms for Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support

To be adopted in 2025 for all applications and Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPRs) submitted to NIH, the Common Forms represent a collaborative effort between Federal research agencies to ensure standard disclosure requirements as outlined in the National Security Presidential Memorandum – 33 . In addition to providing greater standardization across federal agencies, the Common Forms  provide clarity regarding disclosure requirements (e.g., who discloses what, relevant limitations and exclusions), disclosure process (e.g., updates, corrections, certification, and provision of supporting documentation), and expected degree of cross-agency uniformity. NIH will be providing details on the implementation and timing in the next few months.

Questions? If you have any questions, please feel free to contact your DCG Officer .

NIH Guide Notice Updates

Below is a summary of recent NIH Guide Notices. Please review the notices and forward them to faculty, researchers and staff, as appropriate. Questions regarding the notices should be directed to your Contract and Grant Officer.

• Overview of Grant Application and Review Changes for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2025 (NOT-OD-24-084)

This notice provides an overview of application and peer review changes impacting      grant applications submitted for due dates on or after January 25, 2025, including:

• Simplified Review Framework for Most Research Project Grant Applications
• Revisions to the NIH Fellowship Application and Review Process 
• Updates to Reference Letter Guidance
• Updates to NRSA Training Grant Applications
• Updated Application Forms (FORMS-I)
• Common Forms for Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support
• Simplified Review Framework for NIH Research Project Grant Applications – Update and Implementation Plans (NOT-OD-24-085)

This notice provides an update and implementation plans for the simplified framework for peer review for the majority of research project grant applications announced in October ( NOT-OD-24-010 ). It updates and clarifies impacted activity codes, plans for updating funding opportunities, and timing for application forms availability.

NIH remains on schedule to implement the simplified review framework for application due dates on or after January 25, 2025.

Please review the notice for additional information regarding the update and implementation plans.

• New NIH “FORMS-I” Grant Application Forms and Instructions Coming for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2025 (NOT-OD-24-086)

This notice provides information regarding changes to grant application forms and application guide instructions for due dates on or after January 25, 2025.

The following application forms include substantive form changes (i.e., new/deleted/modified fields). 

• PHS 398 Research Training Program Plan
• PHS Fellowship Supplemental Form
• PHS Assignment Request Form
• PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement Form

Key Changes:

• A new attachment field for the Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity on the PHS 398 Research Training Program Plan. Additional changes for institutional training grants will be detailed via NIH Guide notice by late spring 2024.
• As part of NIH efforts to improve the peer review process for NRSA Fellowship applications, there will be modifications to some sections of the PHS Fellowship Supplement Form. Additional details will be provided via an NIH Guide notice by late spring 2024.
• NIH adoption and required use of the Common Forms for Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support by May 2025. Additional details will be communicated via NIH Guide notice by summer 2024. 

February 5, 2024

Related Announcements

• August 20, 2021 - Notice of Special Interest: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) T32 Complementary and Integrative Health Practitioner Supplement Program for Pre- and Postdoctoral Candidates. See Notice NOT-AT-21-014 .
• October 9, 2020 - Administrative Supplements to Existing NIH Grants and Cooperative Agreements (Parent Admin Supp Clinical Trial Optional). See NOFO PA-20-272 .

NCCIH announces an opportunity to allow existing NCCIH-funded Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Institutional Research Training Grant (T32) programs to apply for an administrative supplement to support an additional training slot for predoctoral and postdoctoral candidates with professional clinical complementary and integrative health degrees. NCCIH encourages applications for administrative supplements to support complementary and integrative health degreed individuals and practitioners in an intensive, supervised research experience that will lead to a better understanding of, and practical experience in, complementary and integrative health research. For this notice, complementary and integrative health degrees include (but are not limited to): acupuncture, music therapy, chiropractic, naturopathic, physical therapy, and/or osteopathic degrees. A very limited number of supplementary slots will be available in each fiscal year and the number awarded will depend on the number and merit of applications received and the availability of funds.NCCIH recognizes a compelling need to develop clinician scientists from clinical complementary and integrative health degree backgrounds. Providing more flexibility to add predoctoral or postdoctoral trainees from clinical complementary and integrative health backgrounds to T32 programs will help enhance the pipeline for clinician-scientist training in complementary and integrative health research.

T32 Program Eligibility for a Predoctoral or Postdoctoral Complementary and Integrative Health Practitioner Supplement

Programs must email their NCCIH program officer to confirm their eligibility prior to applying.

The T32 program must have at least 1 year of funding remaining at the time of the supplement award. T32 programs under a no-cost extension are not eligible for supplements, and supplements will not be awarded beyond the funded period of a parent T32. The minimum duration of the supplement is 1 year, the maximum duration is 3 years. The T32 program must have enough active years of funding remaining on the parent award to cover the requested time of the supplemental award (e.g. if the program requests a 3 year supplement, there must be at least 3 years of funding remaining on the parent award). Postdoctoral trainees appointed through this supplement will incur a payback obligation for the first 12-mo of support as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , thus a minimum 2 yr supplement duration is recommended for postdoctoral candidates, or the PI should provide justification for how the payback obligation will be completed..

All NCCIH-funded slots on the T32 grant must be filled at the time that the supplement request is submitted, with documentation submitted and accepted by NCCIH. In addition, there must be strong evidence that the T32 program has been following their Diversity Recruitment and Retention Plan to ensure diversity within the funded slots of the parent T32 award.

Individual Eligibility for a Supplementary Complementary and Integrative Health Practitioner Predoctoral or Postdoctoral Slot

Complementary and Integrative Health Practitioner predoctoral or postdoctoral candidates must meet all of the administrative requirements for any trainee supported by a NRSA (e.g., citizenship requirements, payback obligation; please see FAQs at https://researchtraining.nih.gov/programs/training-grants for more information) and must meet the standards for prior training, experience, and commitment to research expected of any other trainee in the T32 program proposing to support them.

Individuals must have a clinical complementary and integrative health degree to be eligible (e.g. acupuncture, music therapy, chiropractic, naturopathic, physical therapy, and/or osteopathic degrees). Please check with NCCIH program staff to confirm eligibility of the proposed degree background.

A T32 program may not request a supplementary slot for an otherwise eligible predoctoral or postdoctoral trainee who is appointed to a regular slot on the parent T32 grant, or to another T32 at the same institution, at the time of submission of an NCCIH T32 diversity supplement application.

The training experience for the complementary and integrative health practitioner supplement candidate must take place in the laboratory of a previously approved mentor in the T32 program.

Instructions for Electronic Application Submission through Grants.gov : Use the “Apply” button(s) in Part I of the PA-20-272 program announcement to access the application forms package posted at Grants.gov.

When presented with more than one form package, use the form package with Competition ID “FORMS-F-ADMINSUPP-RESEARCH.”

Prepare applications using the SF424 (R&R) forms associated with the chosen package. Please note that some forms marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this announcement. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate required and optional forms, with the following additional guidance:   

• Documentation of the recent efforts of the T32 program to recruit and retain clinician-scientist candidates, and a description of the process by which this nominated complementary and integrative health practitioner candidate was identified and selected. (1 page limit)
• For predoctoral candidates, the most recent transcript. Transcripts are not required for postdoctoral candidates. Predoctoral candidates must be already accepted and enrolled in a doctoral program. (no page limits)
• A statement of the training plan for the candidate (prepared by the T32 PI). If the projected T32 appointment is expected for only 1 year, the applicant should provide a justification that the duration is appropriate and outline plans for the candidate to extend their training and complete their NRSA payback obligation in the T32 program is not renewed. If longer than 1 year, the applicant should justify this according to the program’s normal appointment durations and the expected appointment times of the currently appointed trainees. (2 page limit)
• A brief statement of the research plan for the candidate prepared jointly by the proposed T32 mentor and the candidate. In the case of a predoctoral candidate who will do lab rotations before choosing a mentor, the rotation scheme and timeline for choosing a mentor, and some potential research interests, should be identified. (2 page limit)
• A brief statement from the candidate describing their career goals and future plans. (1 page limit)
• Letter of Support: Include a letter, on institutional letterhead, signed by the T32 PI and the authorized institutional official, with a statement of the expected length of time needed for the supplement, as estimated by the expected tenures of trainees in the “regular” T32 slots.
• For funding consideration, applicants must include “NOT-AT-24-033” (without quotation marks) in the Agency Routing Identifier field (box 4B) of the SF424 R&R form. Applications without this information in box 4B will not be considered for this initiative

Project/Performance Site Location form: Include the primary site where the proposed supplement activities will be performed.

Senior/Key Person form:

• List the PD/PI as the first person (regardless of their role on the supplement activities).
• List Senior/Key Personnel who will be serving as the candidate’s mentor.
• List the candidate proposed to be added through this supplement.
• Biographical sketch Senior/Key Personnel: Include a biographical sketch of the T32 PD/PI(s) and the proposed mentor.
• Biographical sketch Candidate: The personal statement of the candidate’s biographical sketch should include a description of their research objectives and career goals, and why their experience and qualifications make them particularly well-suited to receive an NCCIH T32 supplement award. Relevant factors include previous training and research accomplishments in complementary and integrative health research and any source(s) of current funding.

Budget forms: Using the R&R budget form,only include funds requested for the additional supplement activities.

R&R Other Project Information form, Facilities and Other Resources attachment: Describe how the scientific environment in which the career development activities will be done contributes to the probability of the candidate’s success (e.g., institutional support, physical resources, and intellectual rapport).

These items are meant to document the suitability of the complementary and integrative health practitioner candidate for a training position; therefore, they should be personalized for the individual being nominated. General descriptions of the selection process and research plan taken verbatim from the T32 application are not acceptable . Because NCCIH-funded T32 programs were found to be highly meritorious by peer review, the quality of the overall training program and the other mentors will not be reevaluated during the supplement review process. Therefore, detailed descriptions of the general training program and the biosketches of other T32 mentors should not be included in the supplement application.

Review  Considerations

The supplement materials will be subject to administrative review by NCCIH extramural staff. Because NCCIH- funded T32 programs were found to be highly meritorious by peer review, the quality of the overall training program and the other mentors will not be re-evaluated during the supplement review process.

The complementary and integrative health practitioner candidate will be evaluated for: 1.) The quality of their academic record (if predoctoral) and prior research experience and productivity; and 2.) Their potential to develop as an independent and productive researcher in biomedical, behavioral, or clinical science, as demonstrated in the training plan. These two aspects should be of roughly the same quality as those of other trainees at the same level who were awarded T32 slots in a particular program. The overall individual training plan, including coursework, research experiences, and the opportunity to build career skills needed for independent research, will be evaluated for its ability to provide the complementary and integrative health practitioner candidate with opportunities to become part of the broader scientific community and develop into an independent and productive research scientist. The research plan will be evaluated for: 1.) Its fit with the mission priorities of NCCIH; 2.) Its fit with the complementary and integrative health practitioner candidate’s stated career goals and future plans; and 3.) Its consistency with the complementary and integrative health practitioner candidate’s stage of research development.

Additional Criteria for Selection

Due to budget constraints, only a very limited number of T32 complementary and integrative health practitioner Supplement slots will be awarded in a given fiscal year. NCCIH program staff will evaluate the applications using the requested materials and evaluation process described above, in addition to the following criteria:

1. Are the program’s T32 slots consistently filled with high quality trainees?

2. Does the T32 program have an outstanding overall record of training predoctoral and/or postdoctoral trainees for successful research careers?

After review by NCCIH program staff, the T32 PI will be notified of the funding decision. If funding is approved, a supplemental Notice of Award will be issued by Grants Management. The complementary and integrative health practitioner supplemental slot will be administered in the same manner as other positions on the training grant.

Reporting Requirements

Progress for complementary and integrative health practitioner trainees supported via this mechanism must be reported in the same way as all other trainees in a Type 5 non-competing continuation application each year that the supplement is needed. The progress and plans of the candidate should be explained in a paragraph or two of text in the body of the progress report. The stipends for these complementary and integrative health practitioner slots should not be included in the budget pages for the Type 5 application because these funds will be awarded as a supplement each year. Instead, a separate budget page for the complementary and integrative health practitioner candidate should be included in the progress report. An individual supported by a complementary and integrative health practitioner supplement slot must be included in the usual reporting tables required for renewal (Type 2) as well as non-competing continuation (Type 5) applications.

Description of circumstances for which administrative supplements are available.

All requests for supplemental slots should be preceded by consultation with NCCIH program staff to determine availability of funds and to ascertain the suitability of the candidate.

Applications for this initiative must be submitted using the following opportunity or its subsequent reissued equivalent.

• PA-20-272 - Administrative Supplements to Existing NIH Grants and Cooperative Agreements (Parent Admin Supp Clinical Trial Optional)

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and PA-20-272  must be followed, with the following additions:

• Application Due Dates: March 1, and June 3, and November 1, 2024., March 3, and June 2, and November 3, 2025, and March 2, and June 1, and November 2, 2026 ; by 5:00 pm local time of applicant organization
• Requests may be for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years, consisting of 12-month appointments (depending on the eligibility of the parent award). Supplements will not be awarded beyond the funded period of the parent T32 award.
• Only existing NCCIH T32 awardees are eligible to apply for a supplement to support a new trainee.
• A T32 program may only apply for one NCCIH T32 Complementary and Integrative health Practitioner Supplement a year, and may only have up to 2 active NCCIH T32 Complementary and Integrative Health Practitioner Supplements at any given time.

Jennifer N. Baumgartner, Ph.D. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) Phone: 301-402-4084  Email:  [email protected]

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files .

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Funding news for global health researchers: April 15, 2024

Subscribe to Funding News for Global Health Researchers

NIH global health news: View and subscribe to Fogarty's Global Health Matters newsletter

Featured Fogarty News and Information

• Talking Global Health with Fogarty: Dr. Jennifer Webster-Cyriaque on Oral Health Research [VIDEO] Fogarty International Center, 2024
• AI model has potential to detect risk of childbirth-related post-traumatic stress disorder NIH/NICHD News, April 11, 2024

On behalf of the Fogarty International Center at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the following funding opportunities, notices and announcements may be of interest to those working in the field of global health research. Updates are typically distributed once a week.

Special Announcements

Supporting Women in Science

Aga Khan University is seeking early-career women researchers/practitioners, from South and Central Asia and East Africa, pursuing careers in reproductive, maternal, fetal, and newborn health, nutrition and development, climate change, and SDGs for a capacity building research program.

• More information
• Application due date: May 10, 2024

Wash U Regenerative Medicine Fellowship

The Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) is now accepting applications for the Rita Levi-Montalcini Postdoctoral (RLM) Fellowship apostdoctoral opportunity in the Center of Regenerative Medicine (CRM). This 2-year fellowship is open to postdoctoral researchers of outstanding talent, especially those of international background, to pursue research in regenerative medicine within a CRM lab.

• Application due date: June 15, 2024

Upcoming Deadlines for Fogarty Funding Opportunities

• Bioethics Application deadline: June 6, 2024
• Chronic, Noncommunicable Diseases and Disorders Research Training Application deadline: July 15, 2024
• Fogarty HIV Research Training Application deadline: August 22, 2024

Upcoming deadlines for all Fogarty funding opportunities

Funding opportunities on which Fogarty is a partner:

• Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (R03 Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (PAR-22-106) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (R21 Clinical Trial Optional) (PAR-22-109) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.

Administrative supplements for current grantees:

Current Fogarty grantees can apply for supplementary funds via the notices below:

• Administrative Supplements to Promote Research Continuity and Retention of NIH Mentored Career Development (K) Award Recipients and Scholars Application due date: June 30, 2024
• Administrative Supplement for Continuity of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Among First-Time Recipients of NIH Research Project Grant Awards Application due date: June 30, 2024

All administrative supplements

Funding Opportunities

NIH funding opportunities focusing on global health and foreign collaboration:

• Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID) Network (U01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (RFA-AI-24-006) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID) Network Coordination Center (U01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (RFA-AI-24-016) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Limited Interaction Targeted Epidemiology: Epidemiology of Transmission and Treatment of HIV Among People Who Are at Increased Risk for HIV Infection in Latin America (LITE-LA) (UG3/UH3 Clinical Trial Optional) (RFA-AI-24-009) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Feasibility of Novel Diagnostics for TB in Endemic Countries (FEND for TB) (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (RFA-AI-24-010) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.

NIH funding opportunities for which foreign organizations and/or foreign components of U.S. organizations may apply:

• Cell and Gene Therapies for HIV Cure: Developing a Pipeline (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (RFA-AI-24-013) Application due date: July 30, 2024
• Neuropathological Interactions Between COVID-19 and ADRD (R01 - Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (PAR-24-203) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Education Activities for Responsible Analyses of Complex, Large-Scale Data (R25- Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (RFA-DA-25-039) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.

NIH funding opportunities for which foreign components may apply:

• Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award (Parent K23 – Independent Clinical Trial Required) (PA-24-184) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award (Parent K23 – Independent Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (PA-24-185) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award (Parent K23 Independent Basic Experimental Studies with Humans Required) (PA-24-186) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• NIDCR Predoctoral to Postdoctoral Transition Award to Promote a Diverse Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Research Workforce (F99/K00 Independent Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (PAR-24-139) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Feasibility Trials of the NIH Music-based Interventions Toolkit for Brain Disorders of Aging (R34 Clinical Trial Required) (PAR-24-168) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.
• Protective Strategies to Reduce Amyloid Related Imaging Abnormalities (ARIA) After Anti-Amyloid Beta Immunotherapy (R01 - Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (PAR-24-198) Application due date: Multiple dates, see announcement.

Other Funding News

Other funding updates that may be of interest to global health researchers.

General NIH notices:

• Notice of Pre-Application Webinar for the NIH Biomedical Data Repositories and Knowledgebases Program (DRKB) (NOT-OD-24-097)
• Request for Information (RFI): Improving research frameworks to enable rigorous study of the effects of racism on brain and behavioral health across the lifespan (NOT-MH-24-210) Response date: June 14, 2024

Notices of changes to NIH funding opportunities:

• Notice of Change to Application Due Date for PA-21-180, "Pilot Health Services and Economic Research on the Treatment of Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Use Disorders (R34 - Clinical Trial Optional)" (NOT-DA-24-024)
• Notice of Extension of the Expiration Date for PA-21-221 "NICHD Small Research Grant Program (R03 Clinical Trial Required) (NOT-HD-24-021)
• Notice of Extension of the Expiration Date for PA-21-231 "NICHD Small Research Grant Program (R03 Basic Experimental Studies with Humans Required)" (NOT-HD-24-022)
• Notice to Extend Parent R01/R03/R21 Parent Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOT-OD-24-099)

Notices of intent to publish funding opportunities:

• Funding Opportunity Announcement for Archiving and Documenting Child Health and Human Development Data Sets (R03 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

Non-NIH funding opportunities:

• The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene is accepting applications to its Early Career Grants Programme. Applications are welcomed from researchers from anywhere in the world. Applications due: April 22, 2024
• Cures Within Reach has released a new request for proposal (RFP) for projects in any unsolved disease and must repurpose an existing off-patent drug, off-patent device, nutraceutical and/or indigenous medicine in a new indication. Letters of intent due: April 26, 2024
• The Clinical Group of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) would like to invite clinicians from low and low-middle income countries to apply for a travel award to attend the ASTMH Annual Meeting. The travel award will include complimentary registration for the meeting as well as $2,500 US to cover airfare (economy/coach class), lodging and meals for one person. Application deadline: April 29, 2024
• International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) Research Grants program is accepting applications. The program is open to researchers who hold positions at universities or research institutes in one of the 22 ICGEB member states. Applications due: April 30, 2024
• CRDF Global is accepting proposals from joint U.S., Japan, and other regional Asia-Pacific (APac) based investigators working in the field of infectious disease and immunology research for the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Medical Sciences Program (USJCMSP) Collaborative Awards . Applications due: June 3, 2024
• More non-NIH funding opportunities

Events for global health researchers:

NIH Simplified Review Framework for Research Project Grants (RPGs): Implementation and Impact on Funding Opportunities

• Date: April 17
• Location: Virtual
• Hosted by the NIH Office of Extramural Research

Digital Transformation in East Africa Conference

• Date: April 17 & 18
• Location: Nairobi, Kenya
• Hosted by the Aga Khan University

Stakeholder Listening Session for the G20 Health Track

• Date: April 18
• Hosted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Global Affairs

Navigating NIH to Prepare for Your Grant Application K awards

• Part of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Grant Writing Webinar Series

International Symposium on One Health Research: Improving Food Security and Resilience

• April 21–23
• Location: Galveston, Texas, USA
• Sponsored by the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB)

World Health Summit Regional Meeting

• Date: April 22–24
• Location: Melbourne, Australia

Fogarty calendar of events

Limited Submission Opportunity: 2024 V Foundation Pediatric Cancer Research Awards

Media inquiries.

• 615-322-6397 Email

Latest Stories

• Vanderbilt, U.S. Army strengthen connection with new education partnership agreement
• Vanderbilt University launches sustainable lab program 
• Pietenpol to receive American Society of Clinical Oncology’s highest honor

Apr 17, 2024, 9:45 AM

Applications due April 25

This is a joint competition for VU and VUMC investigators. All investigators should follow these instructions .

Vanderbilt (VU and VUMC, collaboratively) may choose one nominee for the Pediatric Cancer Research Grant Program. The single nominee may apply in either the V Scholar or the Translational program type for support.

Note that internal competitions for the V Foundation awards (V Scholar, Translational) focused on adult cancers have already closed for 2024.

• Translational projects should move a novel strategy from the laboratory into a human clinical trial or use specimens from a clinical trial to develop biomarkers or mechanisms.  The research should apply in some direct way to human beings within the time frame of less than 3 years from the end of the grant.  If biomarker research is undertaken, a validation set or independent clinical trial is essential.  A plan for biomarker validation, if applicable, must be included in any proposal. The endpoint of the project should be the planning or initiation of a new clinical trial.
• This award is specifically for pediatric cancer research that falls into preclinical/translational research as described above. Please note that research areas not included in this scope are epidemiology, behavioral science, and health services research.
• This award is specifically for pediatric cancer research. Please note that research areas not included in this scope are epidemiology, behavioral science, and health services research.

Eligibility

• Exceptions may be made for non-tenure track faculty holding Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor positions. Please reach out to [email protected] if you are interested in applying but are not tenure-track.
• Applicants must be either US citizens or have a legal permit (temporary or permanent) to work in the US.
• Non-promotable, adjunct, affiliated, temporary, part-time or acting faculty positions are not eligible for the V Scholar award.
• Extensions may be given on a case-by-case basis .
• Clinical scientists are eligible if their department can demonstrate that it will fully support the research applicant (e.g., dedicated lab space, start-up funds, dedicated research time).
• For M.D., a minimum of one year is acceptable if only one year is required for their specialty.
• Applicant must be a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident in the U.S.
• Applicants must NOT have accepted or received notification of an R01 award by this nomination due date.
• Applicants must NOT have accepted or received award notification of any peer-reviewed, non-mentored single grant that totals or exceeds $750k in total direct funding at ANY point in their professional career. This calculation should exclude indirect costs.
• The V Scholar award is intended to support research to leverage these larger awards; so, the nominee should not have already received such awards.
• View the 2024 V Scholar Eligibility: Are they Eligible handout for additional guidance.

Internal Application Process

Anyone interested in being considered as Vanderbilt’s nominee for either of the Pediatric Awards above must submit the following (in PDF format) to [email protected]   by 11:59 p.m. on April 25, 202 4. Late applications will not be considered.

• Brief (2 page maximum) research plan including summary budget;
• V Scholar award does not allow indirect costs. V Scholar letters must acknowledge that this grant does not allow indirect costs. This statement can be used/modified within the letter: “The Department recognizes that this grant does not allow indirect costs and will commit to covering any associated indirect costs per applicable institutional/school policy.” Consult [email protected] for further guidance.
• Translational award allows 10% indirect costs; indirect cost statement is not required.
• NIH Biosketch or 5-page CV
• Please fill out the Grant Awards table and any “Notes and Remarks.”
• Other information and signatures not required for internal selection process.

Submissions should reference the award type (Translational Research Award or V Scholar) in the subject line of the email.

A short nomination package for Vanderbilt’s selected candidate will be submitted to the V Foundation by May 10, 2024. The candidate will then receive an invitation to submit a full application, due June 17, 2024.

Email [email protected] if you have any questions about the program, foundation or internal review process.

Keep Reading

Limited Submission Opportunity: 2024 V Foundation Women Scientists Innovation Award for Cancer Research

Limited Submission Opportunity: 2024 Pediatric Cancer Research Foundation Grants

Limited Submission Opportunity: 2024 St. Baldrick’s Foundation Research Grants

Explore story topics.

• Research Blog
• limited submission opportunity
• Office of the Provost