NIH Grant Applications: No More Paper
Terry Rogers Bishop, PhD, and Delia Tang, MD
Dr. Bishop is the Hematology Program Director at the National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases.
Dr. Tang is a Scientific Review Administrator for the Erythrocyte and Leukocyte Biology Study Section at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health.
NIH will soon require that all competing grant applications be submitted electronically through Grants.gov, using the SF424[R&R] form. NIH recommends that applicants be prepared and start early by finding out when their grant mechanism will require electronic submission. Transition dates differ for R01s, U45, etc., so check the timeline online at http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/files/Electronic_receipt_timeline_Ext.pdf. Applicants should not try to send a paper application after the transition date. Once a grant mechanism "goes electronic," no paper applications will be accepted. Another important step is to register with eRA Commons. Your organization also must be registered with eRA Commons and Grants.gov. Organizations can register at
http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm.
How to Apply for a Grant:
Step 1: You search for a grant opportunity in NIH Guide for Grants and
Contracts or on Grants.gov.
Step 2: You download the grant application package (SF424[R&R]).
Step 3: You complete your application and save a copy on your computer.
Step 4: The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) submits the
application to Grants.gov, either directly using PureEdge Viewer or system-to-system data streaming (XML), or indirectly through a service
provider. All required registrations must be completed before
submission.
Step 5: Grants.gov performs basic form validation and virus check on submitted
application.
Step 6: You can track the status of the submitted application at Grants.gov until
you are notified via e-mail that NIH has received it.
Step 7: eRA software performs NIH business rules validation on submitted application.
Step 8: NIH asks both Principal Investigator (PI) and AOR by e-mail to check
the eRA Commons for results of NIH validations check. All errors must
be corrected and the entire corrected application submitted back through Grants.gov before a grant image will be assembled by eRA Commons. You
should carefully review warning messages, but you are not required to"fix" warnings prior to moving to the next step. Please remember that
some warnings may not be applicable or may need to be addressed
after application submission.
Step 9: Once the application image is assembled in the eRA Commons, the PI
and AOR have two business days to view the application image. If
everything is acceptable, no further action is necessary. The AOR will
have the option to "Reject" the application if, due to an eRA Commons
or Grants.gov system issue, the application does not correctly reflect the
submitted application package.
Step 10: After two business days, the eRA Commons saves the data and grant
image, and NIH begins processing the application.
Step 11: Applicants can track the progress of their application in eRA Commons.
Special Notes: Mac users need to use PC emulation software or download free CITRIX client application (www.grants.gov/MacSupport).
Each Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) will provide a link to the application form and instructions. The two most frequently occurring errors are missing commons user ID in the credential field and PDF issues. Detailed information on these problems is available at http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/files/Top_Two_Errors_in_Electronic_Submission.htm. For more information on electronic submission, view the frequently updated FAQ, Tips and Tools, and Training pages, as well as other important details at http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt.
Additional input provided by Megan Columbus, NIH Office of Extramural Research.
Figure 1
Return to Top
NIH Funding for Hematology Research - The Best of Times, the Worst of Times
George Weiner, MD
Dr. Weiner is Director of the Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, C.E. Block Chair of Research, and Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Iowa.
Introducing the topic of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) support for hematology research by quoting Dickens ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…") may seem a bit over the top; nevertheless, it does serve to illustrate both the positive and the negative aspects of our current situation.
In many ways, it is indeed the best of times. Hematology research that has been supported by NIH funding has led to fundamental advances that have had a major clinical impact in a variety of fields including oncology (kinase inhibitors and BMT), vascular medicine (low-molecular-weight heparin), and cardiology (thrombolytics). The scientific opportunity for hematology research is greater now than it has ever been before. A number of NIH Institutes, including the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, support hematology research and look at their hematology research portfolios as paradigms for outstanding science that leads to clinical advances. Looking across the Institutes, the number of funded grants that are classified as hematology research has remained fairly stable since the NIH doubling was completed in 2003.
On the other hand, hematology investigators who are dependent on NIH funding for their research know that the chances of getting a particular grant funded based on its peer-review priority score are lower than they have been in a generation. The NIH budget over the past few years has been flat in real dollars. This, combined with biomedical inflation and a move for increasing amounts of funding to support NIH roadmap initiatives, has put the squeeze on funding for R-01s, PPGs, and other forms of investigator-initiated biomedical research. This tightening is particularly challenging for young investigators. To some degree, this is the price of success. The NIH doubling has increased the foundation of knowledge on which additional research is based, including translational studies with potential clinical significance. This has led to an increase in the number of grants being submitted. The NIH payline is a reflection not only of the amount of funding available, but also the number of grants submitted, and the increase in the "denominator" of grants submitted has contributed the painful change in the pay line.
Looking forward, there is no question that we are making scientific progress faster than ever before in hematology research and are wiser than we have ever been. There is also no question that it would be foolish to waste the scientific momentum we have gained from the NIH doubling just at the time when these advances are leading to additional improvements in our ability to treat our patients. We must continue to highlight, for the public and federal policy makers, the positive impact NIH support for hematology - indeed all biomedical research - is having on clinical medicine. Only in this way can we assure that the future brings the "best of times" for both hematology research and our patients.
Return to Top
Return to Table of Contents
|
