# Presentation: 201911

## Peer Review of NIH SBIR/STTR Research Grant Applications Anthony M. Coelho, Jr., Ph.D.Review Policy OfficerOffice of the Director NIHOffice of Extramural Research

## The handout material is a reference resource 

**The handout contains more information than I will cover **
**Information that is important is repeated to remind you that it is important**

## Anthony M. Coelho, Jr., Ph.D.
Review Policy Officer

Previous Experience:
Scientific Review Administrator and
Chief - Clinical Studies and Training
Scientific Review Group  - NHLBI          7 years
Peer Reviewer				      12 years
Funded Investigator                           18 years

**Review Policy Officer**
**Previous Experience:**
**Scientific Review Administrator** and
**Chief** - Clinical Studies and Training
- Scientific Review Group  - NHLBI          **7 years**
**Peer Reviewer**				      **12 years**
**Funded Investigator****                           ****18 years**

## NIH Peer Review Process based on Laws

**NIH Peer Review Practices  based on Study Section Culture**** **
**My objective is to help you understand both**

## National Institutes of Health

**National Institute**
**on Alcohol Abuse**
**and Alcoholism**

**National Institute**
**of Arthritis and**
**Musculoskeletal**
**and Skin Diseases**

**National Cancer**
**Institute**

**National Institute**
**of Diabetes and**
**Digestive and**
**Kidney Diseases**

**National Institute**
**of Dental and**
**Craniofacial**
**Research**

**National Institute**
**on Drug Abuse**

**National Institute**
**of Environmental**
**Health Sciences**

**National Institute**
**on Aging**

**National Institute**
**of Child Health**
**and Human**
**Development**

**National Institute on**
**Deafness and Other**
**Communication**
**Disorders**

**National Eye**
**Institute**

**National Human**
**Genome Research**
**Institute**

**National Heart,**
**Lung, and Blood**
**Institute**

**National Institute**
**of Mental Health**

**National Institute**
**of Neurological**
**Disorders and**
**Stroke**

**National Institute**
**of General**
**Medical Sciences**

**National Institute**
**of Nursing Research**

**National Library**
**of Medicine**

**Center for **
**Information**
**Technology**

**Center for **
**Scientific Review**

**National Center**
**for Complementary**
**and Alternative**
**Medicine**

**National Institute**
**of Allergy and**
**Infectious Diseases**

**Fogarty**
**International**
**Center**

**National Center**
**for Research**
**Resources**

***National Institutes of Health***

** **
**Clinical Center**

**National Institute of **
**Biomedical Imaging **
**and Bioengineering **

**National Center on **
**Minority Health and **
**Health Disparities **

*** **

**No funding **
**authority**

## NIH 2004 Budget 

**~ 28 Billion**

**26 Billion**** for Research**

## NIH

**NIH**

- Applying for Funding

## Offices at NIH

**Offices at NIH**

## NIH

**NIH**

- Send $$

**The wrong way to request funds**

## Response to the wrong form of request

## Correct Way to request Funds

**Correct Way to request Funds**

## PHS Research Grant Application Kit (form PHS 398)

***Electronic Forms and Instructions***

## +

**+**

**=**

**NOBEL**
**Prize**
**Dr. Me**

- Great Expectations

## +

**+**

**Peer Review**

**NOBEL**
**Prize**
**Dr.Me**

**+**

## Response to Unsuccessful Peer Review

**Response to Unsuccessful Peer Review**

## NIH GRANT$

-  =

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

**Formula for Grant Success**

**NIH GRANT****$**

## Good

*******Knowing + Understanding**
**What to do**
**How to do it **
**When to do it**
**What to do when things don’t go as planned**
*******Being willing to do what is needed**
**Passion and Commitment**
*******Doing it- doing what is needed**
**Commitment**

**Good**
**Grantsmanship**

******* ****Understanding Peer Review**

## Elements of Grant Success

**Elements of Grant Success**

**Good Ideas**

**Good Timing**

**Good Presentations**

**Good Reviewers**

**Good Luck**

**Good Grantsmanship**

## The “other” method of applying for grant funds

## Slide 20

## Understanding 

**Understanding **
**NIH Peer Review**

## Simple Model of the NIH Review Process for a Research Grant

**Not Funded**

**Grant**
**Award**
**    ****$**

**Application**

**N  I  H**

**Referral**

**Review**

**Program**

**Principal Investigator**

## REVIEW PROCESS FORNIH RESEARCH GRANTS

**Small Business**
**(Applicant)**

**Principal Investigator Initiates**
**Research Idea**

**Conducts **
**Research**

**Submits**
**application**

**Allocates**
**Funds $$**

** **

**Center for Scientific Review**

**Scientific Review Group**

**Institute**

**Advisory Council or Board**

**Institute Director**

**Assign to**

**IC and SRG**

**Review  for**

**Scientific**** ****Merit**

**Evaluate for       Relevance**

**Recommends**

**Action**

**Takes final action for NIH Director**

**Research Grant **
**Application**
**(PI)**

**National Institutes of Health**

## Dual Review System for Grant Applications

**Dual Review System for Grant Applications**

**Second Level of Review**
**Advisory Council**
**Assesses Quality of SRG Review of Grant Applications**
**Makes Recommendation**** to Institute Staff on Funding**
**Evaluates Program Priorities and Relevance **
**Advises on Policy**

**First Level of Review**
**Scientific Review Group (SRG)**
**Provides Initial Scientific Merit**
_**Review**_** of Grant Applications**
_**Rates**_** Applications and**
_**Recommends**_** for Level of Support **
**  ****and Duration of Award**

## STUDY SECTIONS DO NOT FUND !

_**INSTITUTES FUND!**_

**Rule #1 **

## You must satisfy the needs of reviewers and the needs of the funding agency

**Rule #2 **

## STUDY SECTIONS DO NOT FUND !

_**INSTITUTES FUND!**_

**STUDY SECTIONS JUDGE**
**Scientific and Technical Merit**** **
**Institute staff use the evaluations as part of the process of considering the relevance of applications to the Institute’s mission, research priorities and portfolio of existing research**

## Grant Application Receipt and Assignment

## Applications Submitted to NIH

**Approximately  ****65,000+**** grant applications are submitted to NIH ****each year****, **
**25-30% are funded**
**Competing grant applications are received for three review cycles per year**

##  Timeline

**Feb 1/Mar 1* ‘04**

**Jun 1/Jul 1* ‘04**

**Feb Mar ‘04**

**Jun Jul ‘04**

**Oct Nov ‘04**

**Mar- Jun‘04**

** ****Sep 30‘04**

**Nov- Feb‘05**

**May/Jun ‘04**

**Sep/Oct ‘04**

**Jan/Feb ‘05**

**Jul 1 ‘04**

**Dec 1 ‘04**

**Apr 1 ‘05**

**      ****Standard**
**   ****Receipt Date**
**    ****(new/ *revised **
**and continuation)**

** ****Initial**
**  ****Peer**
**Review**

-    ***Funds Released for Payline Grants Chosen for Expedited Second-***
***     ******Level Review***

** ****Council Meeting; Funding Approved **
**  ****for Nonexpedited and Special Action   **
**        ****Awards**
**  **

**Anticipated**
**    ****Award**

**Submission**

**Review**

**Post-Review Phase**

** ****Timeline**

## ????What Happens To Your Application When It Arrives at NIH????

## Mail room 1

## Center for Scientific Review (CSR)

**Focal Point for Receipt and Referral**

**Central receipt point for PHS applications**
**Referral to ****Institutes (Funding Components)**** and to ****Study Sections**** ****(Review Components)**
** ****CSR study sections reviews of most investigator initiated research and research training applications for scientific merit**

## Assignment to CSR Study Sections

**Applications assigned to study sections known as Scientific Review Groups (SRG) based on: **
**specific referral guidelines for each SRG and**
**information contained in your application**
**(****Go to the Website**** **_**[http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm](http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm)**_
**to learn about study sections – their scientific mission and their scientific membership****)**

## WHO/WHAT DETERMINES WHICH GROUP REVIEWS THE APPLICATION?

**Mechanism****  **
**     ****Type of application **
**	****	****CSR or Institute Review**
**Referral and Review Staff**
**Past Review History**** (if any) of application**
**Principal Investigator**
**     ****Letter attached to application; self-referral**

## YOU DO!

**The words that are in your application**
**Your title**
**Your abstract**
**Your specific aims**
**Your methods**

***WHO/WHAT DETERMINES ******WHICH GROUP ******REVIEWS THE APPLICATION?***

## 
           Individual                             Serial                                   Amended
           Research                             Number                 
           Grant

    1     R01          CA         123456          01        A1

  New                         National                                     Grant
  Application             Cancer                                     Support
                                   Institute                                      Year

**           ****Individual                             Serial                                   Amended**
**           ****Research                             Number                 **
**           ****Grant**
**     **
**    ****1     R01          CA         123456          01        A1**
**  ****New                         National                                     Grant**
**  ****Application             Cancer                                     Support**
**                                   ****Institute                                      Year**

***Sample Application Number***

## Assignment Notification Letter

**Dear Dr. Sample:**
** ****Your grant application entitled ****“CEREBRAL VESSEL INNERVATION IN HYPERTENSION”**** has been received by the National Institutes of Health and assigned to a Scientific Review Group (SRG) for scientific merit evaluation and to an Institute/Center for funding consideration.  Specific information about your assignment is given below.  The initial peer review should be completed by ****March, 2001****, and a ****funding decision**** made shortly after the appropriate National Advisory Group meets in ****May, 2001.****  Questions about the assignment should be directed to the Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) or the Division of Receipt and Referral, Center for Scientific Review at ****(301) 435-0715.****  Other questions prior to review should be directed to the Scientific Review Administrator and questions after the review to the program staff in the Institute/Center. **

## Assignment Notification Letter (continued)

_**Principal Investigator: **_**Sample Pamela**
_**Assignment Number**_**:**** 2  R01  HL12345 - 12A1 **
_**Dual Assignment**_**:**** NS**
_**Scientific Review Group**_**:**
**Epidemiology and Disease Control Subcommittee 2  SS (EDC2)**
**A roster of the membership of this Scientific Review Group located on the following website: **
** **
_**[http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm](http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm)**_

## Assignment Notification Letter (continued)

_**Scientific Review Administrator**_**:**
**DR. DAVID MONSEES,  SRA**
**CTR FOR SCIENTIFIC REV  **
**6701 ROCKLEDGE DR  RM 3199  MSC7802**
**BETHESDA   MD  20892**
**(301) 435-0684**
_**Assigned Institute/Center:**_
**NATL HEART,  LUNG, &  BLOOD INST**
**DIV/EXTRAMURAL AFFAIRS  RK2  7100**
**NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH**
**BETHESDA,  MD  20892**
**(301) 480-5295**

## Assignment Notification Letter (continued)

**IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please review the information on human and animal subjects research located at:**
** **_**[http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/hum_anim_notice.pdf](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/hum_anim_notice.pdf)**_
** **
***as these requirements will affect the priority score on your application.***

## Study Section Meeting:Scientific Review Groups

## TYPES OF REVIEW COMMITTEES:
Chartered Study Sections 
when the subject matter of the application matches the referral guidelines for the standing study section

Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) 
when the subject matter does not fit into any study section, or
when assignment of an application to the most appropriate study section would create a conflict of interest, or
Special Mechanisms (RFA, Fellowships, SBIRs, AREAS, etc.)

**Chartered Study Sections**** **
**when the subject matter of the application matches the referral guidelines for the standing study section**
**Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs)**** **
**when the subject matter does not fit into any study section, or**
**when assignment of an application to the most appropriate study section would create a conflict of interest, or**
**Special Mechanisms (RFA, Fellowships, SBIRs, AREAS, etc.)**

## Study Sections at NIH

**Study Sections are managed by a Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)****   who is a professional (at Ph.D. or MD level) whose scientific background is close to the expertise of the study section**
**Each standing study section has 12 - 24 members**** who are primarily from academia**
**60 - 100 applications ****are reviewed at each study section meeting**
**Several hundred study section meetings**
**Special Emphasis Panels ****vary in size and number of applications that they review per meeting**

## SCIENTIFIC REVIEW GROUP

**Scientific Review Administrator**** **
**Recruits and selects reviewers **
**Insures that the review that is competent, thorough and fair (unbiased)**
**Proper review criteria used to evaluate application**
** ****Reviewers**
**Some charter members; some temporary members**
**Scientists with appropriate expertise**
**High professional profiles**
**Dependable, reasonable, open minded **

**Grants Technical Assistant**
**Mails material to reviewers**
**Handles paperwork**
**Organizes meeting room**
**Enters scores and codes**
**Assists with summary statements**

## Center  for Scientific ReviewExample of Varied Expertise on a Sample Study Section

**  **_**Surgery, Anesthesiology and Trauma Study Section**_
**          **_**Selected Areas of Competence of Members**_
**  ****Biochemistry**
**  ****Burn Physiology and Electrolyte Metabolism**
**  ****Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Physiology**
**  ****Clinical Anesthesiology**
**  ****Drug Metabolism (Anesthetics)**
**  ****General Surgery**
**  ****Immunology and Transplantation**
**  ****Nutrition**
**  ****Pharmacology (Analgesics, Narcotics and Antagonists)**
**  ****Pulmonary Embolism**
**  ****Shock and Trauma**
**  ****Toxicology of Anesthetic Drugs**
**  ****Vascular Surgery**

## WHO ASSIGNS REVIEWERS TO MY APPLICATION?

**  ****Scientific Review Administrator**** **
**Assignment to Specific Reviewers **
**Based on application content**
**Based upon expertise of reviewers **
**Based upon knowledge of the field**
**May consult with Institute staff**
**May consult with chairperson**
**Suggestions from PI on **_**type of expertise needed**_** to evaluate (**_**NEVER names**_**)**
**Considers review history**

## Criteria For Selection of Peer Reviewers

**Demonstrated Scientific Expertise**
**Doctoral Degree or Equivalent**
**Mature Judgment **
**Work Effectively in a Group Context**
**Breadth of Perspective**
**Impartiality**
**Interest in Serving**
**Adequate Representation of Women and Minority Scientists**

##     This will certify that in the review of applications and proposals by (study section) on (date), I did not participate in the evaluation of any grant or fellowship applications from (1) any organization, institution or university system in which a financial interest exists to myself, spouse, parent,child, or collaborating investigators; (2) any organization in which I serve as officer, director, trustee, employee or collaborating investigator; or (3) any organization which I am negotiating or have any arrangements concerning prospective employment or other such associations.
 ____________________     ____________________
 ____________________     ____________________
 ____________________     ____________________
 ____________________     ____________________

** ****____________________     ____________________**
** ****____________________     ____________________**
** ****____________________     ____________________**
** ****____________________     ____________________**

***Certification of No Conflict of Interest***

**SIGNATURES**

## Confidentiality

**Review materials and proceedings of review meetings represent privileged information to be used only by consultants and NIH staff.**
**At the conclusion of each meeting, consultants will be asked to destroy or return all review-related material.**
**Consultants should not discuss review proceedings with anyone except the SRA.**
**Questions concerning review proceedings should be referred to the SRA.**

## Title 18 United States Code

**Crimes and Criminal Procedure**
**Fraud and False Statements**
**Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully – **
**(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; **
**(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or **
**(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; **
**shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. **

## WHAT HAPPENS IN A STUDY SECTION MEETING?

** ****Closed to the public (FACA rules apply)**
** ****Orientation**
**     ****Conflict of interest**
**     ****Developments of interest to the study section**
**     ****Changes in policy or procedure**
**     ****Introduction of persons present**
**     ****Role of persons present**
** ****Streamlining or list provisionally approved**
** ****Application by application discussion**
**Persons with conflicts of interest excused**
**Assigned reviewers give preliminary scores**
**Discussion of application’s scientific and technical merit**
**Assigned reviewers first, then other members**
**Range of scores set**
_**Every member scores every application **__*****_
**Assignment of gender, minority, and children codes,**
**       ****human subjects codes;  recommended changes to budget**** **

## WHAT IS STREAMLINING?

**Process by which reviewers judge which applications are in the lower half of those assigned for review. **
**Applications in the lower half are evaluated by the reviewers prior to attending the meeting but they are ****not discussed**** at the Scientific Review Group meeting.**
**Any member can object to the streamlining of an application**
**Requires that all reviewers agree to streamline an application**
**Streamlined applications receive written reviewer critiques**
**Why?**
**Shortens meetings**
**Reviewers more willing to serve**** ****on committee **
**Allows more time for discussion of applications**

## “Review” of Applications

**Applications are not reviewed at the meeting. They are evaluated prior to the meeting.**
**The meeting is a time for discussion and negotiation of a priority score and for making a recommendation that best reflects the scientific and technical merit of the application.**

**Strong applications get brief discussion**
**Weak application get brief discussion**
**Marginal application get longer discussion to ensure fairness to the applicant**

## Review of Research Grants

_**	**__**	**__**	**_
**REVIEW CRITERIA:**
**  ****Significance **
**  ****Approach**
**  ****Innovation**
**  ****Investigator**
**  ****Environment**

**Described in detail in the PHS 398 application instructions**

## Research Involving Human Subjects

**Important Considerations that must be addressed in the application because they impact on priority score - considered to be part of the Approach**
**Are there any risks* to the human subjects?**
**Are the protections adequate?**
**Are there potential benefits to the subjects and to others?**
**What is the importance of the knowledge to be gained?**
**Is the proposed study exempt from human subject review?**
**Are the plans for inclusion of minorities, both genders and children adequately addressed?**
_**No page limits**_

*** “Risks” include the possibility of physical, psychological, or social injury resulting from research.**

## Research Involving Human Subjects

**Education Research**
**normal educational practices**
**Educational Tests, Survey or Interview Procedures, or Observation of Public Behavior**
**subjects not identified**
**subjects’ privacy rights protected **
**Educational Tests, Survey or Interview Procedures, or Observation of Public Behavior Not Exempt in Previous Category if: subjects are public officials or public office candidates federal statute requires confidentiality without exception**

***Areas of exemption***

## Research Involving Human Subjects

**Collection or Study of Existing Data, **
**	****   ****Documents, Records, Pathological Specimens**
**information publicly available**
**subjects not identified**
**Research and Demonstration Projects**
**        ****Regarding Certain Public Benefit or **
**        ****Service Programs**
**Taste and Food Quality Evaluation and Consumer Acceptance Studies Using **
**foods without additives**
**U.S. Government approved food ingredient**

***Areas of exemption***

## Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Clinical Research

** ****Women and Minorities ****must be considered for inclusion in all clinical research supported by NIH **
** ****or **
**Appropriate justification ****must be provided to explain why they are not included in the proposed research**

## Research Involving Children

**or **
**Appropriate justification ****must be provided to explain why they are not included in the proposed research**

**Children must be considered for inclusion in all human subject research supported by NIH**

## Research Involving Children

**Effective for all new applications received after   October 1, 1998**
**Child is defined as an individual under age 21**
**If children are included, Investigator must address**
**age range**
**expertise of investigative team**
**facilities**
**sufficient numbers**

**Children must be considered for inclusion in all human subject research supported by NIH**

## Research Involving Children

**If children are not included, must justify exclusion:**
**Topic irrelevant to children**
**Laws/regulations bar inclusion of children**
**Knowledge already available or being obtained**
**Separate study warranted**
**Unable to judge potential risk to children**
**Collecting data on pre-enrolled adults**
**Other special cases**

## Important Considerations
Will the anticipated results be for the good of society?
Will the work be planned and performed by qualified scientists?
Will the animals be treated so as to avoid any unnecessary discomfort, pain, anxiety, or poor health?
Species chosen?
Animals in short supply?

**Will the anticipated results be for the good of society?**
**Will the work be planned and performed by qualified scientists?**
**Will the animals be treated so as to avoid any unnecessary discomfort, pain, anxiety, or poor health?**
**Species chosen?**
**Animals in short supply?**

***Animal Welfare***

## Scientific Review Group or Study Section Actions

**Scored,  Scientific Merit Rating**
**Priority scores: **
**	****	****1 (best) to 5 (poorest) and percentiles**
**Unscored (lower half)**
**Deferral**

## Summary Statement

**After the review meeting is finished, the results are documented by the SRA in a summary statement and forwarded to the PI and to the assigned NIH Institute. The assigned NIH Institute is responsible for making a funding decision.**** **
**The summary statement contains:**
**Overall Resume and Summary of Review Discussion**
**Essentially Unedited Critiques of Assigned Reviewer**
**Priority Score and Percentile Ranking**
**Budget Recommendations**
**Administrative Notes**

## National Advisory Council or Board Review

## Council Actions

**Assesses Quality of SRG Review**
**Concurs with study section action**
**	**_**or**_
**Modifies SRG (study section) action**
** ****	****	**_**Can not change priority score**_
**Deferral for re-review of the same application – no changes allowed**
**Makes Recommendation**** to Institute Staff on Funding, Evaluates Program Priorities and Relevance and Advises on Policy**

## NIH Policy does NOT allow Rebuttal of Peer Review outcome

**There is an Appeal process**
**HOWEVER Differences of Scientific Opinion Can NOT be Appealed! **
**NIH policy permits appeal of review outcome if**
**	****1. Procedural error in review process**
**	****2. Factual errors (not differences of interpretations or understanding)**

## REVISE & RESUBMIT Do Not Appeal Review Outcome

**NIH Appeal Outcomes:**
**Council Denies Appeal ****(bad outcome)**
**Council Accepts Appeal: Original Application and Letter of Appeal is sent to the Same Study Section for a second examination and evaluation ****(bad outcome)**
**Council Accepts Appeal: Original Application be sent to a new Study Section but without the Letter of Appeal ****(bad outcome)**

## Timeline Consequences 

**	****	****	****	****BestWay****	****Revision****	****Appeal**
**Submit****	****	****	****Feb   04****	****Feb****	****04**	**Feb   04**
**Review****	****	****	****June 04****	****June****	****04**	**June 04**
**Council****	****	****	****Sept  04****	****Sept****	****04**** ****	****Sept 04**
**Earliest award****	****	****Dec   04****	****	**
**Review 2****	****	****	****	****	****	****	****Oct   04**
**Council 2****	****	****	****	****	****	****	****Jan   05****   **
**Earliest Resubmission****	****	****	****March****	****05**
**Earliest Award****	****	****	****	****	****	****Apr   05**
**Review 2****	****	****	****	****	****June****	****05**
**Earliest Resubmission****	****	****	****	****	****July  05**
**Council 2****	****	****	****	****	****Sept****	****05**
**Review 3****	****	****	****	****	****	****	****Oct   05**
**Earliest Award****	****	****	****	****Dec****	****05**
**Council****	****	****	****	****	****	****	****Feb   06**
**Earliest Award****	****	****	****	****	****	****June 06**

## What Determines Which Awards Are Made?

**Scientific merit +**
**Program Considerations +**
**Availability of funds**

## You do not want a reviewer to make this comment about your application:“This application is characterized by ideas that are both original and scientifically important. Unfortunately the ideas that are scientifically important are not original and the ideas that are original are not scientifically important.”

## You do not want a reviewer to make this comment about your application:“In addition to proposing a research design that  is a fishing expedition, the applicant also proposes to use every type of bait and piece of tackle ever known to mankind.”

## The research that you propose in your application must be innovative and focused

## NIH Information Sources

## NIH GUIDE for Grantsand ContractsU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

**Announces NIH Scientific Initiatives**
**Provides NIH Policy and Administrative Information**
**Available on the NIH Web Site :   **
**   ****http://www.nih.gov      ****	**
**	****http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html    **

## http://crisp.oit.nih.gov

**http://crisp.oit.nih.gov**

## Slide 78

## Learn the mission of the study section !

**Learn the mission of the study section !**

## Learn the membership of the study section!

**Learn the membership of the study section!**

## Program Announcements are very important for you

**Invites grant applications in a given research area**
**May describe new or expanded interest in a particular extramural program**
**May be a reminder of a continuing interest in a particular extramural program**
**Generally has no funds set aside**
**Applications reviewed in CSR along with unsolicited grant applications**

## Requests for Applications (RFA) are very important for you

**Announcement describing an institute initiative in a well-defined scientific area**
**Invitation to submit research grant applications for a one-time competition on a specific topic**
_***Set-aside of ***__***funds***__*** for a certain number of awards***_
**Applications generally reviewed within the issuing institute**

## Selected Sites of Interest   

**National Institutes of Health**** **
**	****    ****http://www.nih.gov**
**Office of Extramural Research ****	**
**	****http://www.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm**
**Grants Policy**
**	**_**[http://www.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm](http://www.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm)**_
**NIH Study Section Rosters** _[http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm](http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm)_

## Center for Scientific Review 

**  ****http://www.csr.nih.gov**
**Referral and Review**
**http://www.csr.nih.gov/refrev.htm**
**Overview of Peer Review Process in CSR**
**http://www. csr.nih.gov/review/peerrev.htm**
**NIH Peer Review Notes**
**http://www.csr.nih.gov/prnotes/prnotes.htm**

**Office of Extramural Research: Grants Page**
**	****http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/index.cfm**

## Office of Extramural Research

**Handles requests for grant applications, program guidelines, general information on grant applications and review policy**
**Office of Extramural Research**
**National Institutes of Health**
**6701 Rockledge Drive, Suite 6095**
**Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7910**
***PHONE*****:****   301-435-0714**
***FAX:*****         301-480-0525**
***e-mail:*****      grantsinfo@nih.gov**

## NIH GRANT$

-  =

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

**Formula for Grant Success**

**NIH GRANT****$**

## Good

*******Knowing + Understanding**
** ****What to do**
-  **How to do it **
** ****When to do it**
** ****What to do when things don’t go as planned**
*******Being willing to do what is needed**
*******Doing it- doing what is needed**

**Good**
**Grantsmanship**

**Understanding Peer Review**

## Thank You