1. Understanding NIH Office of Research Development Karen Drew, Director
Logan Schmidt, Sr. Research Development Officer
Jenna Horan, Research Development Administrator
Hello, and welcome to Understanding NIH.
Introduce RD

2. Presentation Overview
NIH Mission & Organization
Interacting with NIH
Review Process
Q&A with Panelists
Before we get started, we’d love to hear about who you are, what you’re working on right now, and why you’re interested in NIH.
[introductions around the room]
For this presentation, we’re going to start off by talking about the NIH and how it’s organized (and why both of those things matter to you and your project!)
Then we’re going to talk about how you interact with the NIH, and finally we’ll finish with the review process.
If any of you have experiences with NIH that you’d like to share as we go, or have questions, please ask – the closer this is to Q&A and a dialogue, the better – these slides are just an aid and some signposts.

3. Our Panelists Erin Cram, Professor,
Department of Biology
Jessica Oakes, Assistant Professor,
Department of Bioengineering;
affiliated with Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
Amy Lu, Associate Professor,
Communication Studies & Health Sciences

4. Federal Budget Breakdown
First, a big picture look at federal funding from FY17. Here you can see that NIH is a particularly tempting target for funding by researchers: it’s the largest non-mission-driven agency, and it’s the second-most-well-funded overall just behind the entire Department of Defense research expenditures.
This year, the NIH is looking at between $33 & $34 _billion_ in total budget; the NSF is up to $8billion.

5. NIH FY 2018 Operating Budget
An overall breakdown of the NIH itself shows that over 50% of the funding goes to Research Project Grants – and that’s excluding Research Centers, here at 8%, and Intramural Research – that is, research down within NIH itself by NIH-employed researchers, at 11%.
The other pie slice I’d like to draw your attention to is the “Other Research” slice, at 10%. This includes the Office of the Director, which puts out a number of special awards. We’ll go through those awards and drill down into them in our future workshop on Advanced NIH topics, but these awards include the DP2 New Innovator Award, and a handful of other prestigious awards you may have heard of. When you’re looking at those it can be important to know that they’re funded from a separate pool than regular research project grants. If you have questions we can get into details, but that’s the takeaway for now.
NIH Budget Office:

6. The NIH’s Mission:
…to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.
The NIH’s mission – reads – is important because it’s the fundamental measurement for all grants in all institutes and centers, in all divisions and all programs.
In every case, eventually, someone who makes a funding decision on your project is going to be looking for answer to this question – how does your project help advance this, the NIH’s fundamental and statutory mission.

7. 27 Institutes and Centers
Organization of NIH
Office of the Director
27 Institutes and Centers

8. Other Priorities: 21st Century Cures Act
Precision Medicine Initiative
Brain Research Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN)
Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot
Regenerative Medicine
The 21st Century Cures Act, passed in Dec 2016, also put in place not only a sizeable jump in funding for NIH ($1b over 2 years). This funding was primarily tagged to support these projects, and subsequent funding increases have allow continued funding for them. You probably recognize them because, especially BRAIN has on a lot of funding opportunities that have been coming out. They are new projects and areas of emphasis for NIH somewhat akin to the Big Ideas for NSF, although more focused and with specific funding attached to each of them.

9. Types of Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA)
Type of FOA
Description
Program Announcements (PA, PAR, PAS)
Highlights areas of focus
Usually ongoing (3 yrs)
Often use standard receipt dates
Requests for Applications (RFA)
Narrowly defined scope
Usually single receipt date
Set aside funds
IC usually convenes review panel
Parent Announcements
Type of program announcement
Generally span the breadth of NIH mission
By activity code (R01, R03, etc)
For “investigator initiated” or “unsolicited” research ideas

10. Fitting Project to Program and Mission: Where do you fit?
Once you’ve identified an FOA…
Read the mission statement of the institute or center, division, and program that you’ve identified
Read the website for strategic plan, big ideas, etc.
Search recently funded awards from the directorate
Check with your Program Officer (PO)
Once you’ve identified an FOA that you are interested in pursuing, you want to read the FOA carefully to check for the participating institutes and centers.

11. Find your Program and PO
As that will help you find the PO that you can talk to. Here, the Division of Applied Science & Technology in NIBIB has Image-Guided Interventions, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Magnetic, Biomagnetic, and Bioelectic Devices, and Molecular Imagining Program Areas, all with a designated PO.

12. How to contact your PO
After all due diligence, your PO with a brief (!) outline of your project and a request for a call
Expect a 30 minute call appointment
Ask about: program fit, if there are any other programs they would recommend, any problems they anticipate
Listen to the PO, and give them time to speak
Ask if they would encourage you to apply for the next funding cycle with this project
Offer to be a reviewer
Contacting the PO at NIH should be one of the first steps you take before writing a grant, as with NSF.
To contact the PO, you want a 1-page or less outline of your proposed project, and all the due diligence we’ve run through – you’ve found an FOA, you’ve found a participating I/C,
You’ve reviewed their mission, their project areas, found your PO to contact, and now you’re ready to ask questions about your project, outcomes, and program fit

13. Many ways to make contact with POs
NIH Grants Conferences
Professional Conferences
Meet-and-greet travels to DC (often organized by College)
Webinars/Q&A
updates & Twitter
You can also meet POs in many other circumstances – at NIH grants conference, professional conferences
Colleges also sometimes organize meet-and-greet travel to DC
There are also program-specific Webinars where you may be able to ask Q&A answers of the POs or otherwise follow up
Also check out our calendar for upcoming events, as sometimes a PO will be giving a talk at a Boston university

14. Twitter has useful news and updates
Even Twitter can be useful.

15. Program Officers (PO)s Scientific Review Officers (SROs)
POs and SROs
Program Officers (PO)s
Advise applicants and grantees
Oversee progress of funded grants
Encourage scientific opportunities, and
Help develop NIH policy
Scientific Review Officers (SROs)
Move applications through initial peer review process
Appoint reviewers to study sections
Run study section meetings
Prepare summary statements
After Scoring
After funding: POs are your contact for scientific or programmatic questions
Rejected: POs can help explain reviewer comments
POs in NIH have a different role than, for example, Program Officers in NSF. POs are your contact point, and as you see here, they advise applicants and oversee the progress of funded grants.
Scientific Review officers in NIH actually run the peer review process, and generally don’t have contact with applicants.
POs are your contact point for questions about the review process, and can you understand review comments and with submission.

16. NIH Review Process NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Scientific Focus & Mission Relevance
Program Officials
Funding Institute(s)
Initial review groups
Scientific review groups
Scientific Review Group
DRR
Application
Council IC
Director
The Peer review process is illustrated here – it’s useful to know that, after routing by the Division of Receipt and Referral, your proposal proceeds to the Scientific Review Group. The proposal is reviewed by a study section. NIH publishes information on the standing study sections, and you can (and should!) find and identify your study section to know who is going to review it.
Council - In a second level of review, the advisory council/Board of the funding institute will consider the study section’s recommendations and determine the relevance of your proposed research to the institute’s priorities and public health needs. The Advisory Council/Board also advises the Institute/Center director concerning funding decisions.
The Institute/Center director makes final funding decisions based on staff and Advisory Council/Board advice.
DRR – CSR Division of Receipt and Referral
Council – Advisory Council/Board of the funding institute
IC Director – Institute/Center Director

17. CSR: Finding your Study Section
The Center for Scientific Review online has the study sections listed, along with the Scientific Review Officers.
Available at:

18. Sample Study Section: MEDI
Here’s a sample study section. It has a description of what they review, and a membership roster. NOTE! Do _not_ contact any study section members about review of your proposal, or you will be disqualified from NIH funding.
Available at:

19. NIH Review Criteria
Significance: relevance to human health and disease, large advance (not incremental step) in the field
Approach: feasibility and appropriateness of your methods
Innovation: originality of approach
Investigators: PI training and experience
Environment: facilities/ institutional support
Now that you’ve reviewed the NIH mission, the I/C mission, strategic priorities, you’ve gotten all your due diligence out of the way, contacted the PO, you’re ready to write the grant, or rewrite it in response to reviews.
First and foremost are the standard NIH Review Criteria: Significance, Approach, Innovation, Investigators, and Environment.
I’d note, these criteria are not all that different from NSF criteria, with the exception of broader impacts:
Advance knowledge and understanding in intellectual merit is similar to significance
Innovation is similar to creative, original, and potentially transformative concepts
Plan and Approach are the same
NSF also asks for a well-qualified team;
and asks for adequate resources and environment criteria, like Environment.
So other than broader impacts, it’s a very similar set.

20. NIH Scientific Review: Study Section Fast Facts
Typical study section:
20-35 Reviewers
Applications
1½ Days (not much time!)
How it’s organized:
Your primary, secondary and tertiary reviewers
All other panel members
Every panel member gets a vote, and may only read your Specific Aims
At an NIH panel, you might have reviewers, applications, and 1.5 days to review them all. While your primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers will have read your proposal, or at least parts of it, everyone who is present gets a vote.

21. Before the Review Meeting
Reviewers’ Task:
Examine assignments (~ six weeks in advance)
Often participate in an SRO orientation teleconference
Read applications, prepare written critiques
Enter preliminary scores and critiques into NIH website
Read and consider critiques and preliminary scores from other Study Section members
Before the meeting, reviewers will have read the applications and entered preliminary scores into NIH website.
Generally, the bottom 50% of applications are not discussed

22. At the Review Meeting Reviewer 1 (Primary):
Introduces the application and presents critique.
Reviewers 2 and 3:
Highlight additional issues and areas that significantly impact scores
All section members join the discussion
Summary by Chair
Assigned reviewers provide final scores, setting range
All section members provide final scores privately.
If voting out of range, rationales are given
Non-score-able issues discussed: budget, data sharing plan, foreign applications, etc.
For the other 50% of applications, at the review meeting, Reviewer 1 introduces the application and presents their critique. Reviewers 2 and 3 highlight additional issues and areas that significantly impact scores.
----you need these people, or at least one of them, to become your advocate, and to explain why they liked/loved your proposal. Your proposal, and in particular your specific aims, needs to be _crystal clear_ so that someone who only has your application can reliably explain what’s amazing, what’s scientifically exciting, what’s fantastic about your approach or what you might discover.
Your Aims have to be clear and readable enough that the other reviewers can SKIM the material and understand it WHILE THE OTHER REVIEWERS (1-3) ARE TALKING. The other committee members _may_ have reviewed your application beforehand, but quite possibly not. They generally have carefully reviewed their own primary, secondary, and tertiary apps, but not the rest beyond a skim.
All members provide scores. If you’re voting out of the general range, you explain why, and issues are discussed.

23. Post-Review: Funded!
Whoo!

24. Or…Revise and Resubmit!
Read the reviews carefully
Talk to the program officer
Take a look at who was funded
Revise with reviews in mind – you may have the same scientific review panel
Most of the proposals have a higher chance of getting funded after resubmission
Or, the usual. Talk to the program officer! They may not have been at the review personally, but they can contact the SRO and let you know if resubmission to the same program is the best course of action.
Resubmission is normal! Often your chances will improve, unless priorities or the field shift.

25. Upcoming Workshops Writing NIH Specific Aims
Thursday, November 15: 11:30 am – 1:00 pm
See the full workshop schedule and RSVP at: northeastern.edu/resdev/training

26. Appendix: Additional resources
Training videos
NIH Events Calendar
Award types and paths

27. NIH Peer Review Revealed
NIH has a video of a mock peer review. They have also recently released a new walkthrough of what happens to your application after submission – that’s available on our website and linked to in the appendix slides.
Available at:

28. NIH Grants on Youtube
Available at

29. Grants.gov Youtube Channel: Tutorial Central
Available at:

30. What Happens to your NIH Grant Application - 2018
From Center for Scientific Review, available at:

31. In-depth Review from an SRO (1 hour)
Available at:

32. Career Path and Funding Options
Graduate/ Clinical Training
Postdoctoral Training/Clinical Residency
Early Research Career
Established Investigator
T32, T35
T32
K01, K07, K25
K08, K23
R03, R21, R01
P01, P50
R25, K12
K22,
K99
K22, R00
F30, F31
F32
K02, K24
Loan Repayment Programs
Diversity Supplements
Re-Entry Supplements

33. Early Research Career Development
Graduate/ Clinical Training
Postdoctoral Training/Clinical Residency
Early Research Career
Established Investigator
K08, K23
R03, R21, R01
K22,
K99
K22, R00
Loan Repayment Programs
Diversity Supplements
Re-Entry Supplements

34. NIH Events Calendar Cumbersome but comprehensive
Available at: