SUMMARY STATEMENT

PROGRAM CONTACT: ( Privileged Communication ) Release Date: 10/23/2019

Revised Date:

Application Number: 1 G11 AI152201-01

Principal Investigator

AKUFFO, OYE NANA

Applicant Organization: NOGUCHI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE / MEDICAL RES

Review Group: ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel 

Global Infectious Disease Research Administration Development Award for Lowand Middle-Income Country Institutions (G11)

Meeting Date: 10/16/2019

Council: JAN 2020

Requested Start: 06/01/2020

RFA/PA: PAR18-335

PCC: X84

Project Title: Capacity Building for Enhanced Research Administration (CaBERA- II) in Africa

SRG Action: Impact Score:

Next Steps: Visit 

Human Subjects: 10-No human subjects involved

Animal Subjects: 10-No live vertebrate animals involved for competing appl.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/next_steps.htm 

Project 

Year

1 

TOTAL

Direct Costs 

Requested

Estimated 

Total Cost

ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET NOTE: The budget shown is the requested budget and has not been adjusted 

to reflect any recommendations made by reviewers. If an award is planned, the costs will be calculated by 

Institute grants management staff based on the recommendations outlined below in the COMMITTEE 

BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS section.

Text from the application is copyrighted. The awardee provided express permission for NIAID to post the

grant application and summary statement for educational purposes. The awardee allows you to use the

material (e.g., data, writing, graphics) they shared in the applications for nonprofit educational purposes only,

provided the material remains unchanged and the principal investigators, awardee organizations, and NIH 

NIAID are credited.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NIAID is strongly committed to protecting the integrity and

confidentiality of the peer review process. When NIH responds to FOIA requests for grant applications and

summary statements, the material will be subject to FOIA exemptions and include substantial redactions. NIH

must protect all confidential commercial or financial information, reviewer comments and deliberations, and

personal privacy information.

Contact Information. Email NIAID's Office of Knowledge and Educational Resources at deaweb@niaid.nih.gov.
1 G11 AI152201-01

AKUFFO, O 

2 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

1G11AI152201-01 Akuffo, O 

FOREIGN INSTITUTION

RESUME AND SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: This outstanding new Extramural Associate Research 

Development Award application entitled “Capacity Building for Enhanced Research Administration 

(CaBERA- II) in Africa” was submitted in response to PAR18-335: Global Infectious Disease Research 

Administration Development Award For Low-and Middle-income Country Institutions (G11-Clinical Trial 

Not Allowed) by the Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research (NMIMR), Legon, Ghana with Dr. 

Oye Akuffo as Principal Investigator (PI). The application aims to (1) expand on the success of the 

CaBERA project to include other institutions in the subregion and assist them to revamp their research 

management offices, (2) provide training and capacity building services to staff of the selected research 

management offices, (3) serve as a resource hub for grant management and sustainability to 

institutions in the sub region, and (4) sustain and support the two universities from the CaBERA project 

to submit at least one award winning grant.

This application addresses the important need for improved research administration knowledge and 

training for health sciences research in low-to-middle income countries (LMIC). The application builds 

upon the successful execution of a 2016 G11 award, presenting a straightforward plan to improve 

research administration and capacity building at NMIMR and other institutions in the subregion. The 

aims presented in the application are clear, and the proposed focus on mentoring of other institutions in 

the region is innovative. The program is designed to support both research administrators and scientific 

faculty, focusing on gaps in the research administration program identified using a needs assessment. 

Sustainability is adequately addressed through plans for regular refresher training. The Principal 

Investigator has the appropriate experience, passion and willingness to extend efforts beyond NMIMR, 

and is supported by well engaged staff. The associated staff at Yale University are highly accomplished 

grants administrators and have the necessary expertise to facilitate training of administrators at the 

selected institutions. The collaboration with Yale is properly articulated, and an appropriate level of 

commitment is in place at both NMIMR and Yale to support the proposed work, supported by 

successful collaboration established during the previous iteration of the award. The strengths of the 

application are balanced by a few minor weaknesses. The application does not include adequate 

evidence of commitment from the regional institutions to be mentored by NMIMR, making it difficult to 

assess whether their participation will be welcomed and supported. In addition, although sustainability 

plans are presented, it is not clear how they will be financially supported. Further detail is needed 

regarding benchmarks of success, mitigation of potential issues, and alternative strategies. The 

application would also be strengthened by additional description of plans for mentoring junior staff, 

training specialists at other institutions, and alteration of institutional grants management practices.

Overall, this is an outstanding application for which enthusiasm is tempered by a few minor 

weaknesses. Based upon the evaluation of scientific and technical merit, this application received an 

Impact/Priority score of .

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Research underpins the successful implementation of health 

intervention programs, which is lacking in low-to-middle income countries (LMIC) where most of 

preventable diseases occur. The LMICs account for 90% of global burden of preventable diseases and 

yet they are recipients of only 10% of the resources available for research. The obstacles are many and 

although this situation has improved in recent times through external collaborations with scientists and 

institutions they do not significantly address the problem. This situation is further compounded by the
1 G11 AI152201-01

AKUFFO, O 

3 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

volume of work required to satisfy the requirements; compliance of pre-and post-award, of the major 

funding agencies including the NIH, Wellcome Trust, EU etc. The frequent changes in policies and 

regulations make it more difficult for LMICs to follow without the institutional structures/mechanisms in 

place. We hypothesize that a major contributing factor to the dearth of health research in LMICs is the 

inability to secure competitive research grants by LMICs’ scientists and research institutions because of 

the virtual non-existence of offices to support grant applications. We propose the establishment of 

offices of research management in three selected African tertiary institutions. Over the course of 

eighteen months, this initiative will set up registered research management offices in at least 3 African 

institutions and provide training to staff to gain competencies in managing sponsored research grants 

that meet the requirement of funding agencies. It will build on the successes of CaBERA award that 

established three offices of research management in Ghanaian tertiary institutions. It will also build on 

the long standing record of the Ghana-Yale Partnership for Global Health for capacity building for

health research.

PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: The Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research (NMIMR), 

Ghana collaboration with Yale University’s Office of Sponsored Research successfully applied to NIH in 

2016 for a G11 capacity building grant titled Capacity Building for Enhanced Research Administration 

(CaBERA) at Noguchi Memorial Institute with the aim to strengthen the ORS at NMIMR and in addition 

help establish such offices in two other tertiary institutions in Ghana. At the end of the project period, a 

systematic evaluation of the project, especially in establishing research offices in two other Institutes, 

revealed the need for such offices across Africa. The overall objective of this project is therefore, 

building upon the successes of the first project, seek support for the establishment of research 

management offices in three selected Institutes in Africa.

CRITIQUE: The comments in the CRITIQUE section were prepared by the reviewers assigned to this 

application and are provided without significant modification or editing by staff. They are included to 

indicate the range of comments made during the discussion, and may not reflect the final outcome. The 

RESUME AND SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION section summarizes the final opinion of the committee 

after the discussion and is the basis for the assigned Overall Impact/Priority score.

CRITIQUE 1 

Significance: 2 

Investigator(s): 1 

Innovation: 3 

Approach: 2 

Environment: 2 

DESCRIPTION (provided by reviewer): The proposed capacity building for enhanced research 

administration in Africa is well built on the successes of the CaBERA-I. The PI is experienced, and the 

environment is supportive. It’s helpful to see that the project rides on long standing collaboration with 

Yale University and that the support will extend beyond Ghana to neighboring institutions in the region.

Overall Impact: The project aims at capacity building for research administration building on the 

successes and lessons learnt from CaBERA-I. The project is beneficial because of demand driven 

need to not only support Noguchi Memorial Institute but other institutions within Ghana and beyond.
1 G11 AI152201-01

AKUFFO, O

4 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

1. Significance:

Strengths

• The project responds to capacity building needs for research administration and necessary 

institutional development

• The project leverages on CaBERA-I which is a good add on for the proposed project

• Capacity building of both administrators and faculty is necessary for required research expertise

Weaknesses

• None were noted.

2. Investigators:

Strengths

• The proposed PI has the relevant experience, authority and passion to succeed

• The ongoing collaborations with Yale University. Yale University has the required expertise for 

skills transfer and have proposed a solid follow up mechanism

• The proposed key staff are equally engaged and provided commitment to support the project

Weaknesses

• None were noted.

3. Innovation:

Strengths

• The proposed project is incremental to what was already started in CaBERA-I 

• The project proposes to expand to two other institutions in the region which is good for shared 

scarce research administration support with required experience in both pre and post award 

mechanisms

Weaknesses

•

for the Noguchi team’s time post the project for the newly established research support offices 

especially if there are no other grants to support the establishment

Inadequate mention of how the efforts established will practically be sustained i.e. who will pay 

4. Approach:

Strengths

• Project has a needs assessment from which a training plan will be developed around gaps 

identified

• Proposed support from recruitment to training with ask for permanent roles necessary for 

sustainability

• Includes regular training and refresher necessary for sustaining efforts

• Builds on success of CaBERA-I 

Weaknesses

• None were noted.
1 G11 AI152201-01

AKUFFO, O

5 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

5. Environment:

Strengths

• Institutional support has been provided

• Key staff have provided commitment support

• Yale University has provided support

• The institutions have required equipment and internet infrastructure for such arrangements

Weaknesses

• It would have been beneficial to see expression of interest or request from the other universities 

needing support – this could demonstrate the required demand

CRITIQUE 2 

Significance: 2 

Investigator(s): 3 

Innovation: 4 

Approach: 3 

Environment: 2 

Overall Impact: There is a high likelihood that business practices for management of US federal grants 

and cooperative agreements will be improved if the project plan laid out in this proposal is successfully 

implemented. The foreign and US personnel designated to conduct the activities proposed in this grant 

possess the administrative and technical knowledge needed to successfully complete the project and to 

create an environment to provide adequate oversight of funding and compliance with NIH funding 

policies. The plan outlined in the proposal is sufficient to create an environment of sustained grants 

management through training, collaboration and mentorship at the NMIMR and other institutions in the 

region. Additional detail in the approach for development and implementation of the improvements and 

training program at other institutions would provide added confidence that the effort can achieve 

sustained grants management improvement at the applicant institution and other institutions.

1. Significance:

Strengths

• Project addresses the important problem of lack of research administration (RA) knowledge and 

training for health sciences research in low-to-middle income countries.

• Track record of success in RA training and capacity building as evidenced by successful 

completion of the 2016 CaBERA G11 award.

• Strong partnership with US collaborator Yale University.

• Straightforward plan to improve grants management.

• Intensive interactions with all elements of sponsored research to ensure knowledge transfer 

from a top-notch US institution.

Weaknesses

• Lack of detail related to sponsored research deficiencies and how to remedy them.

• Lack of specifics about research administration personnel, roles and responsibilities at NMIMR.
1 G11 AI152201-01

AKUFFO, O

6 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

• Inconsistencies in effort and funds requested.

2. Investigators:

Strengths

• PD/PI and other key personnel have relevant training and experience and are well suited to the 

project.

• PD/PI has demonstrated an ability to accomplish the objectives of the proposal as evidenced by 

successful completion of the 2016 CaBERA G11 award.

• Successful prior collaboration with the US academic research institution supports the NMIMR 

team’s ability to accomplish the objectives in collaboration with Yale University.

Weaknesses

• None were noted.

3. Innovation:

Strengths

• The application provides a solid plan for transferring knowledge from a top-notch US academic 

research institution to the NMIMR and other institutions in the region.

• The application proposes to use up-to-date communication technologies to foster information 

transfer, training and collaboration.

Weaknesses

• The proposed approach does not utilize novel concepts, approaches or methodologies.

• The application does not propose new ideas or strategies for improving institutional grants 

management training or business practices.

4. Approach:

Strengths

• The strategy, methodology and timeline are well-reasoned and appropriate.

• Specific aims are detailed and reasonable.

• The application adequately details the timeline for training at Yale, NMIMR and other in-country 

institutions.

• The proposal puts forth a detailed plan to expand upon prior successes by continuing to expand 

capacity at the home institution, to mentor other institutions engaged in the previous award and 

to take on new mentees.

Weaknesses

• The proposal lacks detail on benchmarks for success, alternative strategies and ways to 

mitigate potential problems.

• The proposal lacks detail on plans for mentoring junior staff, changing institutional grants 

management practices and training specialists at other in-country institutions.

5. Environment:
1 G11 AI152201-01

AKUFFO, O

7 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

Strengths

• The strong and supportive administrative environment at Yale and NMIMR contribute to the 

probability of success.

• The institutional support, IT and communication equipment and infrastructure are adequate for 

the proposed project.

• The project is likely to benefit from a solid and continued collaboration with Yale.

• High level leadership exhibits strong support for strengthening research administration.

• The NMIMR appears to have adequate staff, facilities and resources to improve training in 

research administration.

• The US institution has appropriate grants management staff and sponsored research 

environment to train the foreign grants managers.

Weaknesses

• The administrative environment in which the work will be performed is not sufficiently described.

• The institutional support, equipment and physical resources are not sufficiently described.

CRITIQUE 3 

Significance: 3 

Investigator(s): 3 

Innovation: 3 

Approach: 4 

Environment: 4 

Overall Impact: The present application proposes to build upon the achievement of a previously NIHfunded application. Along these lines, during the previous support, the Noguchi Memorial Institute for 

Medical Research developed its infrastructure for handling the grant management of federal research 

grants and contracts. This was achieved with the assistance of the Office of Sponsored Programs at 

Yale University. In addition, previous funding was used to the develop the capacity for effective grant 

management at other two institutions in Ghana. In the present application the PI proposes to develop 

the grant management offices of other institutions in Ghana as well as other in the Western region of 

Africa. This intention is perceived as innovative and meritorious. The PI and collaborators at Yale 

University have the necessary skills to implement the project. The approach is straightforward and 

seems to be doable, but very little is said with regards to how the mentee institutions outside Ghana will 

be selected. Letters of commitment from these potential mentee institutions could have been of benefit 

to the application. A comprehensive assessment plan to evaluate the impact of the program on mentee 

institutions is not presented.

1. Significance:

Strengths

• The project addresses an important problem in the field

• The proposed project builds upon the achievements of a previously NIH-funded grant intended 

to strengthen the management of federal grants at the host foreign institution and two others 

located in Ghana.
1 G11 AI152201-01

AKUFFO, O 

8 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

• If the aims of the project are achieved, several institutions in Ghana as well as other in the 

Western sub region of Africa will be in position to strengthen their infrastructure to manage 

grants and contracts from the NIH and other federal agencies.

Weaknesses

•

different institutions is lacking from the proposal

A comprehensive assessment program to evaluate the impact of the training activities at the 

2. Investigators:

Strengths

• The PI and collaborators are experienced grant managers

• The PI and her assistant have already received training to manage federal grants particularly 

from the NIH. They have the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out the training plan

• The PI seems to have the required authority to implement the activities contemplated in the 

application

• Consultants at collaborating USA institution (Yale University) are experienced and 

accomplished grant administrators and, thus, have the necessary skills to assist the foreign 

institution.

Weaknesses

• Collaborators/contact individuals at the mentee institutions (Ghana as well as others in Western 

region of Africa) were not identified

3. Innovation:

Strengths

• The proposed approach of mentoring various institutions in Ghana as well as other institutions 

in the Western region of Africa, in the area of grants management of federal grants and 

contracts, is innovative.

Weaknesses

• Activities designed to train in the area of grant management are standard

4. Approach:

Strengths

• Aims of the project are clearly spelled out

• The proposed approach is generally well-explained and appears to be doable

• Plans to assure sustainability seem to be adequate

Weaknesses

• It is unclear how the mentee institutions outside Ghana will be selected for participation in the 

project

• An assessment plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the program is not provided

• Commitment of mentee institutions is unclear

5. Environment:
1 G11 AI152201-01

AKUFFO, O 

9 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1)

Strengths

• The overall environment currently available at the host foreign institution seems to be adequate

• The host institution seems to be committed to PI and the project

Weaknesses

• Letters of collaboration from mentee institutions are not included. Are they committed to the 

project?

• Plans for coordination and communication between the host institutions and the mentee 

institutions are uncertain

THE FOLLOWING RESUME SECTIONS WERE PREPARED BY THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW 

OFFICER TO SUMMARIZE THE OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE ON 

THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS: NOT APPLICABLE 

INCLUSION OF WOMEN PLAN: NOT APPLICABLE 

INCLUSION OF MINORITIES PLAN: NOT APPLICABLE

INCLUSION OF INDIVIDUALS ACROSS THE LIFESPAN: NOT APPLICABLE 

VERTEBRATE ANIMAL: NOT APPLICABLE

RESOURCE SHARING PLANS

DATA SHARING PLAN: NOT APPLICABLE

MODEL ORGANISM SHARING PLAN: NOT APPLICABLE 

GENOMIC DATA SHARING PLAN: NOT APPLICABLE

FOREIGN INSTITUTION: JUSTIFIED

Comments: Ghana

AUTHENTICATION OF KEY BIOLOGICAL AND/OR CHEMICAL RESOURCES: NOT APPLICABLE 

BUDGETARY OVERLAP: NOT APPLICABLE

COMMITTEE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS:

The budget is recommended as requested in all years.

Footnotes for 1 G11 AI152201-01; PI Name: Akuffo, Oye Nana
1 G11 AI152201-01 10 ZAI1 AMC-D (J1) 

AKUFFO, O

NIH has modified its policy regarding the receipt of resubmissions (amended applications). 

See Guide Notice NOT-OD-14-074 at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD14-074.html. The impact/priority score is calculated after discussion of an application by 

averaging the overall scores (1-9) given by all voting reviewers on the committee and 

multiplying by 10. The criterion scores are submitted prior to the meeting by the individual 

reviewers assigned to an application, and are not discussed specifically at the review meeting 

or calculated into the overall impact score. Some applications also receive a percentile 

ranking. For details on the review process, see 

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm#scoring.