Generally the First Stage of an Alternative Dispute Resolution System Is Peer Review

Department of Health and Human Services

Part 1. Overview Information

Participating Organization(south)

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Components of Participating Organizations

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Funding Opportunity Title

Inquiry Projects in Cancer Systems Biology (U01 Clinical Trial Optional)

Activity Code

U01 Research Project – Cooperative Agreements

Related Notices

    Run into Notices of Special Interest associated with this funding opportunity

  • September 1, 2021 - Notice of Change to the Expiration Date and the Concluding Receipt Date of PAR-nineteen-287, "Research Projects in Cancer Systems Biological science (U01 Clinical Trial Optional)". Meet Find Non-CA-21-110.
  • Janaury 27, 2021 - Observe of Special Interest (NOSI): Understanding the effects of cancer and cancer treatment on aging trajectories and aging outcomes. See Notice NOT-CA-21-031.
  • March 10, 2020 - Reminder: FORMS-F Grant Awarding Forms & Instructions Must be Used for Due Dates On or Afterward May 25, 2020- New Grant Application Instructions Now Available. See Notice NOT-OD-20-077.
  • August 23, 2019 - Clarifying Competing Application Instructions and Find of Publication of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Regarding Proposed Human Fetal Tissue Inquiry. Encounter Notice NOT-OD-19-137.
  • July 26, 2019 - Changes to NIH Requirements Regarding Proposed Human Fetal Tissue Research. Come across Notice NOT-OD-19-128.

Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number

PAR-19-287

Companion Funding Opportunity

 None

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s)

 93.396, 93.395

Funding Opportunity Purpose

 The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Cancer Systems Biology Consortium (CSBC) supports systems biological science approaches to cancer research and includes U54 CSBC Research Centers, a U24 CSBC Coordinating Centre and, through this FOA, well-divers, detached and circumscribed U01 Research Projects. CSBC Inquiry Projects are expected to involve interdisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers, and cancer researchers who collaborate to advance our agreement of the mechanisms underlying cancer initiation, progression, and treatment. CSBC Research Projects proposed in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement must be based upon explicit integration of experimental biological science and computational modeling to examination and validate novel hypotheses in cancer research.

Key Dates

Open up Date (Primeval Submission Engagement)

 June 15, 2019

Letter of Intent Due Date(s)

30 days prior to the application due date

Application Due Date(s)

July xv, 2019, November 15, 2019, July 10, 2020, November 17, 2020, July 9, 2021, Jan 28, 2022, by 5:00 PM local time of bidder organization. All types of not-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on these dates.

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to let adequate time to make whatever corrections to errors institute in the application during the submission process by the due date.

AIDS Application Due Date(s)

Not Applicable

Scientific Merit Review

October-Nov 2019, Feb-March 2020, October-November 2020, February-March 2021, October-November 2021, February-March 2022

Advisory Quango Review

January 2020, May 2020, Jan 2021, May 2021, January 2022, May 2022

Earliest Start Appointment

April 2020

Expiration Date

New Date Jan 29, 2022 per issuance of NOT-CA-21-110

Due Dates for E.O. 12372

Not Applicable

Required Application Instructions

It is critical that applicants follow the Inquiry (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Detect from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all awarding instructions in the Awarding Guide as well as whatsoever program-specific instructions noted in Department Four. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the programme-specific instructions. Applications that practise not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Tabular array of Contents

Part 1. Overview Information
Part ii. Full Text of the Declaration

Section I. Funding Opportunity Clarification
Section II. Award Data
Department 3. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Department VI. Accolade Assistants Information
Department VII. Agency Contacts
Section Viii. Other Information

Part 2. Full Text of Annunciation

Section I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose

The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to solicit research projects addressing challenging cancer problems using systems biological science approaches. In back up of this goal, the National Cancer Plant (NCI) has created the Cancer Systems Biology Consortium (CSBC).

Currently, the CSBC consists of:

  • Several U54 CSBC Inquiry Centers (supported under RFA-CA-15-014);
  • One U24 Coordinating Centre (supported under RFA-CA-15-015);
  • Several specialized U01 Inquiry Projects (currently supported under PAR-16-131; the U01 Research Projects to be supported under this FOA volition be added to this pool).

Information about the scientific goals of the currently funded CSBC Research Centers and Inquiry Projects tin be found at www.csbconsortium.org.

CSBC U01 Research Projects proposed in response to this FOA should accost a well-defined, discrete, and circumscribed research question in cancer incorporating quantitative experimentation, analysis, modeling, and validation, which are the hallmarks of systems biology.

Groundwork

The Cancer Systems Biological science Consortium (CSBC), which began in 2016, supports projects that apply cancer systems biology approaches focusing on disease mechanism. CSBC defines "cancer systems biology" as a holistic approach to the report of the complexities of cancer through the explicit integration of experimental biology and computational and mathematical methods to build predictive models of cancer that are tested or validated in a disease-relevant context. This definition requires an iterative framework, encourages interdisciplinary research, and leverages resource developed in other NCI programs. Because the range of specific cancer questions addressed past applicants to the CSBC is non prescribed, the unifying theme of the CSBC is the common pursuit of a mechanistic understanding of disease through the matrimony of experiments and computation. In a distinct, simply complementary fashion, NCI supports programs to develop bioinformatics technologies (NCI Informatics Technologies for Cancer Enquiry) and multiplex genomics screening efforts for drug development (NCI Cancer Therapeutic and Drug Discovery Network) which have resulted in novel algorithmic and experimental approaches.

General Objective and Structure of The Cancer Systems Biology Consortium

The CSBC initiative is intended to promote further development of the field of cancer systems biological science.

CSBC overall arrangement: Currently, the CSBC consists of U54 CSBC Research Centers, U01 CSBC Research Projects and a U24 Coordinating Center that coordinates activities betwixt the CSBC and a related program, the Physical Sciences in Oncology Network (PS-ON). All parts will exist governed past the CSBC Steering Commission with representatives from the currently funded CSBC U54 Research Centers and U01 Research Projects, the CSBC/PS-ON Coordinating Heart and NCI Program staff. Applicants are encouraged to visit the CSBC website for more information regarding the role of the U24 CSBC/PS-ON Coordinating Center. The CSBC functions equally a collaborative network allowing Research Centers and Projects to leverage resources, cross-test ideas, integrate diverse information sets, and validate (or refute) theoretical, experimental, or clinical models through monthly teleconferences, annual in-person meetings, and various scientific working groups.

As part of the CSBC, the U01 Research Project awardees to exist supported under this FOA will exist required to participate in Consortium activities (for details see Section Six.two Cooperative Understanding Terms and Weather condition of Honor.)

Governance of the CSBC: The CSBC program will be governed by the CSBC Steering Committee. This governance extends to CSBC U01 Enquiry Projects (meet Section Vi: Terms and Conditions of Cooperative Agreement.)

Evaluation of the Program: CSBC awardees (including Research Projects awardees) will be required to participate in an external evaluation process of the CSBC program coordinated by NCI Program Staff (meet Section 6: Terms and Atmospheric condition of Cooperative Agreement.)

Scope and Objectives of CSBC Research Projects nether this FOA

Applicants responding to this FOA should propose only ane single, cohesive project that is based upon a systems biology approach to cancer research. This approach should include explicit integration of experimental biology and computational or mathematical modeling to build, test and/or validate hypotheses or ideas.

At that place are a multifariousness of cancer research areas that are especially amenable to a systems biology arroyo. Examples include, just are not express to:

  • Decoding dynamic tumor-stroma and/or tumor-immune system interactions, including understanding the mechanisms past which the dynamics of these interactions influence tumor evolution and/or progression;
  • Building integrated models of chemic, molecular, structural, network, and localization information across space and time to understand tumor initiation, progression, and metastasis;
  • Quantifying how private jail cell states and behaviors (tumor and non-tumor) shape tumor ecosystems, including mathematical modeling of single-prison cell dynamics or development and testing of combined experimental and computational approaches that quantify how private cell behaviors manifest at the tumor, organ, and whole-body levels;
  • Determining the mechanisms by which external factors, such as the microbiome, affect tumor initiation, progression or treatment; and
  • Bridging the many cancer hierarchies through the integration of molecular systems biology and population-scale models of cancer, including the apply of mathematical or statistical formalisms to span a mechanistic systems biology model at one scale and a population-level model at the other.

Potential applicants are encouraged to visit the CSBC website or NIH Reporter to learn more nearly what U01 Enquiry Projects are included in the CSBC portfolio. A diversity of systems biological science approaches and cancer questions are of programmatic interest. Potential applicants are encouraged to contact NCI Program Staff prior to submission with questions regarding project goals and scope.

The emphasis of the proposed U01 projects must be on a specific cancer-relevant question or hypothesis. Nonetheless, such projects may include appropriate efforts to develop new experimental and/or computational and/or mathematical systems biological science approaches. Note: for projects entirely focused on methods or tools development, applicants should consider culling initiatives, such as those under the Informatics Technologies for Cancer Enquiry or Innovative Molecular Analysis Technologies programs. For projects focused on the physics of cancer, applicants should consider the Physical Science-Oncology Network.

Research with Human Subjects. Inquiry involving human subjects, albeit not required, is permitted under this FOA, including inquiry that meets the NIH definition of clinical trials stated in Not-OD-15-015. However, if such studies are proposed, they must be mechanistic (e.one thousand., designed to understand a biological phenomenon, etiology of disease, or machinery of action) and Non focused on the development of application of an intervention.

Resource Relevant to CSBC Research Projects

CSBC Research Project awardees volition have the opportunity to take advantage of consortium-wide working groups and organizations and will be expected to participate in consortium-related activities within the CSBC.

Depending on the focus of a given Research Project, interactions with investigators from other NCI-supported consortia may exist appropriate. In item, Research Projects focused on bridging molecular and population-level models may benefit from access to the resource inside the NCI Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Non Appropriate for This FOA

The post-obit are examples of projects that are not appropriate for this FOA:

  • Enquiry projects focused on purely bioinformatic analyses of omics information that are not borne of a specific, testable hypothesis;
  • Research projects for which experimental validation or testing of systems biology predictions within a relevant cancer context is not proposed;
  • Research Projects proposing correlative studies related to host-microbiome interaction (or similar ecology factor) with no underlying mechanistic interrogation, or those cataloging changes in the microbiome (or similar ecology gene) due to tumorigenesis or drug treatment without a cancer systems biology model;
  • Research Projects proposing validation of clinical correlative statistical models, such as validation of hits from GWAS, in the absence of the study of disease mechanism; and
  • Research project proposing clinical trials that include clinical development or testing of therapeutic interventions, evaluation of intervention safety, efficacy, clinical direction etc. will be viewed as low programmatic priority.

See Department Eight. Other Information for honor regime and regulations.

Section II. Honour Information

Funding Instrument

Cooperative Agreement: A support mechanism used when there will be substantial Federal scientific or programmatic involvement. Substantial involvement ways that, later award, NIH scientific or program staff volition assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in projection activities. See Section Vi.2 for additional information near the substantial involvement for this FOA.

Application Types Allowed

Funds Available and Predictable Number of Awards

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Honor Upkeep

Awarding budgets are limited to $400,000 in direct toll per year and must reverberate the actual needs of the proposed project.

Award Projection Period

 Project periods of up to five years may be proposed.

NIH grants policies equally described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will utilise to the applications submitted and awards fabricated from this FOA.

Section 3. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

Eligible Organizations

Higher Education Institutions

  • Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
  • Private Institutions of Higher Teaching

The following types of College Instruction Institutions are e'er encouraged to utilize for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of College Education:

  • Hispanic-serving Institutions
  • Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
  • Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
  • Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
  • Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Educational activity

  • Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
  • Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Instruction)

For-Turn a profit Organizations

  • Pocket-size Businesses
  • For-Profit Organizations (Other than Pocket-size Businesses)

Governments

  • State Governments
  • County Governments
  • Eligible Agencies of the Federal Regime
  • U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

  • Non-domestic (non-U.Due south.) Entities (Foreign Institutions)

Foreign Institutions

Not-domestic (not-U.South.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are  eligible to utilize.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are  eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are  allowed.

Required Registrations

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must consummate and maintain the post-obit registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to use for or receive an accolade. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more than, so applicants should brainstorm the registration procedure equally shortly as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to consummate registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

  • Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) - All registrations require that applicants exist issued a DUNS number. After obtaining a DUNS number, applicants tin begin both SAM and eRA Eatables registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, besides as on the grant application.
  • System for Award Direction (SAM)– Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal procedure may crave as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Regime Entity (Muzzle) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
  • NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Lawmaking – Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
  • eRA Commons - Applicants must have an active DUNS number to annals in eRA Eatables.  Organizations can register with the eRA Commons as they are working through their SAM or Grants.gov registration, merely all registrations must be in identify past time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to place at least 1 Signing Official (And then) and at to the lowest degree 1 Program Managing director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) business relationship in order to submit an application.
  • Grants.gov – Applicants must accept an active DUNS number and SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Programme Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(south)/PI(southward) must have an eRA Commons business relationship.  PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new business relationship or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Eatables account can take upwards to ii weeks.

Eligible Individuals (Program Director/Principal Investigator)

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Programme Managing director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(due south)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are e'er encouraged to apply for NIH support.

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Plan Managing director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Contour (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

 Due to the multi-disciplinary nature of the projects and the focus on collaboration and expertise sharing, this FOA encourages the use of the multi-PD/PI mechanism.

2. Cost Sharing

This FOA does not require price sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Applicant organizations may submit more one application, provided that each application is scientifically singled-out.

The NIH will not have duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time.  This means that the NIH will not accept:

  • A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
  • A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
  • An awarding that has substantial overlap with another application pending entreatment of initial peer review (run across Non-OD-11-101).

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through Assist, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional organization-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you lot programme to use an institutional organization-to-system solution.

ii. Content and Class of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Alphabetic character of Intent

Although a letter of intent is not required, is non binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the data that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.

By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:

  • Descriptive title of proposed activity
  • Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(south) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
  • Names of other primal personnel
  • Participating establishment(s)
  • Number and title of this funding opportunity

The alphabetic character of intent should be sent to:

Shannon Hughes, Ph.D.
Partition of Cancer Biology (DCB)
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Phone: 240-276-6224
Email: Shannon.Hughes@nih.gov

Folio Limitations

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Folio Limits must exist followed.

Instructions for Awarding Submission

The following section supplements the instructions constitute in the SF424 (R&R) Awarding Guide and should exist used for preparing an awarding to this FOA.

SF424(R&R) Cover

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Projection/Functioning Site Locations

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Other Project Information

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Contour

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must exist followed.

R&R or Modular Budget

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

R&R Subaward Budget

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

PHS 398 Enquiry Plan

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the post-obit boosted instructions:

Specific Aims:State the specific aims of the Research Project and provide the rationale for the proposed systems biology arroyo.

Enquiry Strategy: Applicants should construction Research Strategy using the standard sub-sectionsSignificance, Innovation, and Arroyo as divers in the standard SF424 instructions. Under these sub-sections (in addition to standard content), address the following specific aspects:

  • Explain how the proposed Research Project uses systems biology and/or integrated systems biological science/population scientific discipline approaches for enquiry goals that could not exist accomplished utilizing molecular, cellular, biochemical, or computational/mathematical approaches alone.
  • Highlight any innovative systems biology methodologies utilized or developed within the context of the proposed research.

Resources Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans equally provided in the SF424 (R&R) Awarding Guide, with the following modification:

  • All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any 1 yr, should accost a Data Sharing Plan.
  • The Sharing plan must address the NIH Genomic Information Sharing Policy if applicable, i.e., if the proposed studies will generate big-scale human or non-homo genomic information (see Non-OD-xv-027 for boosted guidance).
  • Information, software, and models from this FOA are expected to be shared in accordance with the policies determined by the CSBC U24 Coordinating Center. For more information see the Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Accolade in Department Six of this FOA.

Appendix:

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

PHS Human being Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

When involving NIH-defined human being subjects inquiry, clinical research, and/or clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials enquiry experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Man Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If yous answered "Yeah" to the question "Are Man Subjects Involved?" on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one man subjects report record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Data form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Report Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must exist followed

Delayed Onset Report

Note: Delayed onset does Not apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed get-go).

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Awarding Guide must be followed.

PHS Consignment Request Form

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must exist followed.

Foreign Institutions

Foreign (not-U.Southward.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions.

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Honor Direction (SAM)

See Role 1. Section III.one for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining agile registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Office I. Overview Information contains data about Fundamental Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications earlier the due date to ensure they have fourth dimension to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the adjacent business organisation day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems bank check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time.  If a Inverse/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their awarding before the due appointment in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is non subject area to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and weather condition, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Pre-award costs are allowable just as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

vii. Other Submission Requirements and Data

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Awarding Guide.  Paper applications volition not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations earlier the application due engagement. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information most registration.

For assist with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Employ – Application Guide. If you see a organization issue across your control that threatens your power to consummate the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with Arrangement Problems guidance. For assistance with awarding submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Department VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Eatables ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Bundle. Failure to annals in the Eatables and to include a valid PD/PI Eatables ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Department Iii of this FOA for information on registration requirements.

The bidder organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization's profile in the eRA Commons and for the Organization for Accolade Management. Additional data may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Run across more than tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with awarding instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete or non-compliant volition not exist reviewed.

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for mail-submission materials, every bit described in the policy. Any instructions provided here are in add-on to the instructions in the policy.

Section V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described beneath will be considered in the review process.

Applications submitted to the NIH in back up of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

For this particular announcement, note the following:

The emphasis and maximal priority of this FOA are on projects that address highly challenging cancer problems that can be solved only through systems biology approaches with the experimental testing and/or validation of computational predictions. To exist viewed as meritorious, projects proposed must be potent in both aspects and must be based on appropriately integrated interdisciplinary efforts.

For applications involving clinical trials:

A proposed Clinical Trial awarding may include report blueprint, methods, and intervention that are non past themselves innovative merely accost important questions or unmet needs. Additionally, the results of the clinical trial may point that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted or lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.

Overall Bear on

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reverberate their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the post-obit review criteria and additional review criteria (equally applicative for the project proposed).

Scored Review Criteria

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and requite a dissever score for each. An awarding does not demand to exist stiff in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific affect. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to accelerate a field.

Significance

Does the projection address an important problem or a critical bulwark to progress in the field? Is the prior enquiry that serves as the primal support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific cognition, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How volition successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that bulldoze this field?

In improver, for applications involving clinical trials

Are the scientific rationale and demand for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or data in the literature or cognition of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the rubber, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors or health care policy?  For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?

Specific to this FOA: To what extent does the project pose a challenging cancer question that can simply exist answered through a systems biology arroyo?

Investigator(s)

Are the PD(southward)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early on Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have advisable experience and grooming? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that accept avant-garde their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, exercise the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure advisable for the project?

In add-on, for applications involving clinical trials

With regard to the proposed leadership for the projection, practise the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they take appropriate expertise in written report coordination, information direction and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational construction appropriate and does the awarding identify a core of potential eye investigators and staffing for a coordinating centre?

Specific for this FOA: Does the squad include the necessary multidisciplinary capabilities with both computational/mathematical modeling expertise as well as cancer biology experience/capabilities to accomplish their goals?

Innovation

Does the awarding challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to i field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new awarding of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

In improver, for applications involving clinical trials

Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as advisable, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to accelerate scientific noesis or clinical practice?

Specific to this FOA: How are the proposed cancer systems biology approaches existence applied in an innovative fashion (i.due east. if the methods themselves are non innovative, how are they being practical in an innovative mode)?

Approach

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and advisable to attain the specific aims of the projection? Accept the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior enquiry that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Accept the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, volition the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex activity, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials

Does the application fairly address the post-obit, if applicable

Study Design

Is the report pattern justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that volition be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the report based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the written report populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and elapsing of the trial, appropriate and well justified?

Are potential upstanding issues fairly addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent advisable? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data drove? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the demand for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?

Are the plans to standardize, clinch quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a program to obtain required study amanuensis(southward)? Does the awarding advise to use existing available resources, every bit applicable?

Data Management and Statistical Analysis

Are planned analyses and statistical arroyo advisable for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data direction and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for information management to appraise the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis inside the proposed menses of the award?

Specific for this FOA: Is the approach based upon the combination of hypothesis-driven data drove (experimentation) and modeling/theoretical approaches indicative of cancer systems biology? Are the plans for validation or testing of systems biology predictions well thought out and sufficient to accomplish the goals of the project?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address

1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and

2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, also as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and inquiry strategy proposed?

Environment

Will the scientific surround in which the piece of work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources bachelor to the investigators adequate for the projection proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject area populations, or collaborative arrangements?

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials

If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, advisable for the trial proposed?

Does the awarding fairly accost the capability and ability to carry the trial at the proposed site(south) or centers? Are the plans to add or driblet enrollment centers, equally needed, appropriate?

If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application fairly accost the complication of executing the clinical trial?

If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (i) enroll the proposed numbers; (ii) attach to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational construction?

Additional Review Criteria

As applicative for the projection proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not requite separate scores for these items.

Written report Timeline

Specific to applications involving clinical trials

Is the written report timeline described in detail, taking into account starting time-up activities, the predictable rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up cess? Is the projected timeline viable and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and apply existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based inquiry networks, electronic medical records, authoritative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?

Are potential challenges and respective solutions discussed (eastward.g., strategies that can be implemented in the consequence of enrollment shortfalls)?

Protections for Human Subjects

For inquiry that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the  categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Office 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human being subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following 5 review criteria: i) risk to subjects, 2) capability of protection confronting risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, four) importance of the cognition to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves homo subjects and meets the criteria for i or more of the  categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Role 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and iii) sources of materials. For boosted information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Man Subjects.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-divers clinical enquiry, the commission will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, also equally the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if information technology is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.

Vertebrate Animals

The committee will evaluate the interest of alive vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment co-ordinate to the following criteria: (i) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (two) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers volition assess the use of chimpanzees every bit they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals department, delight refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.

Biohazards

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to inquiry personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether acceptable protection is proposed.

Resubmissions

For Resubmissions, the committee volition evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Renewals

For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the terminal funding period.

Revisions

Not Applicable.

Additional Review Considerations

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but volition not requite scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall affect score.

Applications from Foreign Organizations

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the apply of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the U.s.a. or augment existing U.S. resources.

Select Amanuensis Research

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this department of the application, including one) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, ii) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(south) will be used, 3) the procedures that volition be used to monitor possession apply and transfer of Select Agent(south), and 4) plans for advisable biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Resource Sharing Plans

Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resources Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resource, are reasonable: (one) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3)  Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).

Hallmark of Cardinal Biological and/or Chemical Resources:

For projects involving fundamental biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Upkeep and Menses of Back up

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

2. Review and Option Process

Applications will exist evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) advisable Scientific Review Grouping(due south) convened by NCI, in accord with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Consignment to a Scientific Review Group volition be shown in the eRA Eatables.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:

  • May undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to take the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
  • Will receive a written critique.

Applications volition be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. Post-obit initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review past the National Cancer Advisory Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

  • Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project every bit determined by scientific peer review.
  • Availability of funds.
  • Relevance of the proposed project to plan priorities.

iii. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

Later on the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory quango review, and earliest offset date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Section VI. Honor Administration Information

1. Award Notices

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "only-in-time" information from the bidder every bit described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Honor (NoA) will exist provided to the applicant system for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants direction officer is the authorizing certificate and will be sent via electronic mail to the grantee's business concern official.

Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section Iv.5. Funding Restrictions. Pick of an application for accolade is non an authorization to begin functioning. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's adventure. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered commanded pre-laurels costs.

Any application awarded in response to this FOA will exist subject field to terms and weather found on the Honour Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.  This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and every bit approved by, the NIH and are bailiwick to the IC-specific terms and atmospheric condition identified in the NoA.

ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title Eight, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain "applicable clinical trials" on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Data Website (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov). NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more than information, encounter https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/alphabetize.htm

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ideals Commission Approval: Grantee institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the condom of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the awardee must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols. Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the rubber of participants and the validity and integrity of the information. Further information apropos these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the awarding instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).

Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consequent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the employ of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).

2. Authoritative and National Policy Requirements

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement equally part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Argument Function II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General  and Office II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More data is provided at Accolade Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.

Recipients of federal fiscal help (FFA) from HHS must administrate their programs in compliance with federal ceremonious rights police. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, historic period and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency.  HHS recognizes that enquiry projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the master investigator's scientific involvement, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications constitute that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.

For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA. HHS provides general guidance to recipients of FFA on coming together their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful admission to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Delight see https://www.hhs.gov/ceremonious-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/express-english language-proficiency/alphabetize.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights as well provides guidance on complying with ceremonious rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/alphabetize.html; and https://www.hhs.gov/ceremonious-rights/for-providers/laws-regulations-guidance/index.html.  Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Delight contact the HHS Part for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/virtually-us/contact-usa/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD one-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=two&lvlid=53.

In accordance with the statutory provisions independent in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authority Act of Fiscal Twelvemonth 2009 (Public Police force 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Data System (FAPIIS) requirements.  FAPIIS requires Federal laurels making officials to review and consider information virtually an bidder in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award.  An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information nigh itself that a Federal bureau previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS.  The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement almost the applicant'southward integrity, business ideals, and tape of operation nether Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants every bit described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 "Federal awarding agency review of chance posed by applicants."  This provision volition utilize to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Weather condition of Laurels

The following special terms of award are in improver to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicative U.S. Function of Direction and Budget (OMB) authoritative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Homo Services (DHHS) grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is applicative when Land and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.

The administrative and funding musical instrument used for this program will be the cooperative agreement, an "assistance" machinery (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the operation of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the laurels recipients in a partnership role; information technology is not to assume direction, prime responsibleness, or a dominant office in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.

The PD(s)/PI(south) volition accept the primary responsibility for:

  • Overseeing the scientific research in the Research Project, analyzing and interpreting enquiry data, reporting results to the scientific customs, and disseminating approaches, methods, models, software, and tools broadly.
  • Like-minded to exist an active participant in the CSBC, including attention the Annual Investigators Meeting, participating in other consortium sponsored meetings and workshops, and participating in collaborative activities.
  • Promoting trans-CSBC and external collaborations to accelerate cancer systems biology inquiry.
  • Participating in collaborative activities with other relevant NCI consortia every bit deemed appropriate past NCI program staff.
  • Serving on the CSBC Steering Committee. The CSCB U01 Enquiry Project PD(s)/PI(s) (contact PD/PI for applications with multiple PD(s)/PI(south)) are required to serve as members of the Steering Committee (meet Areas of Joint Responsibility below).
  • Abiding by the governance of the CSBC and all program policies agreed upon by the CSBC Steering Committee and approved by NCI Program Officials to the extent consequent with the applicable rules and regulations.
  • Reporting progress to the NCI Program Officials on all CSBC Research Project inquiry activities annually. The PD(s)/PI(s) may be expected to provide boosted information, outside the scope of the standard reporting requirement, as needed and requested by program staff members on a semi-annual basis.
  • Ensuring that information are deposited in a timely style in appropriate publicly available locations, and that models, software, and other tools and resources developed as part of this Enquiry Project are made publicly bachelor according to CSBC policies.
  • Ensuring that results of the Research Project is published in a timely manner.

For the deposition of information and other relevant resources, all CSBC Research Projects awardees volition be required to utilize the CSBC/PS-ON Knowledge Portal or whatever successor NCI-supported resource of similar nature, equally guided by NCI Programme Staff.

Awardees volition retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed nether these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies. CSBC Inquiry Projection investigators are encouraged to organize and participate in other Consortium meetings and workshops, organize collaborative activities, and promote Trans-Consortium collaborations, and organize and participate in scientific and programmatic working groups.

NIH staff will take substantial programmatic involvement that is in a higher place and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:

1 or more designated NCI Plan staff members will have substantial involvement equally Project Scientists in the awards under this FOA. The specific roles of the essentially involved NCI staff members include the post-obit activities:

  • Serving as voting members of the CSBC Steering Committee.
  • Profitable the Steering Committee, the CSBC/PS-ON Analogous Heart, and current and future individual U54 and U01 awardees in avoiding unwarranted duplications of effort across the CSBC and/or any successor CSBC-related initiatives.
  • Assisting the awardees as a resources in facilitating their broader interactions with other NCI and NIH programs to disseminate results, tools, and models from the CSBC and accept advantage of existing NIH/NCI resources and infrastructures. This will specifically include acting as a liaison betwixt the CSBC and PS-ON and between the CSBC and CISNET.
  • Ensuring that the CSBC/PS-ON Knowledge Portal is provided to CSBC and PS-ON members in a reasonable and expeditious way.
  • Evaluating the effectiveness and facilitating consortium-wide adoption of practices for current CSBC/PS-ON Knowledge Portal (or any successor NCI-supported resources of similar nature).
  • Monitoring the operations of the CSBC awardees and making recommendations on overall project directions and allocations of CSBC Project funds.
  • Reviewing the progress of the CSBC network, including any CSBC-related successor initiatives, conducting periodic site visits, and taking other actions as needed.
  • Participating in organizing almanac CSBC meetings, specialized workshops, and webinars of the consortium.
  • Additionally, an agency programme official or IC plan managing director will exist responsible for the standard scientific and programmatic stewardship of the accolade and volition be named in the laurels notice.

Areas of Joint Responsibility include:

The CSBC is governed by a Steering Committee. The CSBC Steering Commission consists of:

  • The contact PD/PI (for CSBC Research Centers or Inquiry Project with multiple PD(south)/PI(s)) from each awarded CSBC Inquiry Center and Research Project.
  • NCI Project Scientist(south), maximum 2

All members of the Steering Committee take one vote.  Additional NIH/NCI program staff and other government staff may participate in CSBC Steering Committee meetings every bit non-voting members. The structure is designed to let awarded investigators and NCI staff to work together to facilitate trans-CSBC activities based on synergistic expertise and projects.

Ii PD(due south)/PI(s), representing two different CSBC awards, are selected to serve as chairs of the Steering Committee on an annual footing. All CSBC Steering Commission decisions and recommendations that require voting will be based on a majority vote.

The Steering Committee may have boosted non-voting members. The contact PD/PI of the awarded CSBC/PS-ON Analogous Center (U24) is a permanent non-voting member.

The CSBC Steering Commission meets in-person annually at the CSBC Almanac Investigator Meeting and as needed.

The CSBC Steering Committee:

  • Identifies scientific and policy problems that demand to be, or tin do good past existence, addressed at the Consortium level and develop recommendations to NIH/NCI Plan Officials for addressing such issues.
  • Reviews progress of the CSBC toward coming together the overall Consortium goals.
  • Ensures that all CSBC members utilize the CSBC/PS-ON Knowledge Portal, or any successor NCI-supported resource of similar nature, as guided by the NCI Program Staff.
  • Coordinate dissemination of Consortium output to the broader cancer research community.
  • Review the potential for sharing of Consortium resources (e.g. Share Resource Cores) to serve the needs of other Research Centers or Research Projects and develop appropriate policies for such activities.
  • Ensure that the Consortium takes reward of existing NCI and NIH resources and programs.
  • Institute, as necessary, subcommittees to ensure progress of the CSBC Network and its current (as well equally whatsoever successor) components.

Dispute Resolution:

Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Console composed of three members will be convened: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a 3rd designee with expertise in the relevant area who is called by the other two; in the example of individual disagreement, the beginning member may exist chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does non alter the awardee'south correct to entreatment an agin activeness that is otherwise appealable in accord with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part l, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part xvi.

3. Reporting

When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Written report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A final RPPR, invention argument, and the expenditure information portion of the Federal Fiscal Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Argument.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Deed), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to study information well-nigh first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or afterwards.  All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000.  Encounter the NIH Grants Policy Argument for additional information on this reporting requirement.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Role 75, recipients that have currently agile Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any catamenia of time during the catamenia of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Honor Management (SAM) well-nigh civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connectedness with the accolade or performance of a Federal award that reached terminal disposition within the most recent five-year catamenia.  The recipient must also brand semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly bachelor in the designated integrity and operation system (currently FAPIIS).  This is a statutory requirement under department 872 of Public Constabulary 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313).  As required past department 3010 of Public Police force 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance arrangement on or after April xv, 2011, except past operation reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available.  Full reporting requirements and procedures are establish in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Role 75 – Award Term and Atmospheric condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

Section Vii. Bureau Contacts

Nosotros encourage inquiries apropos this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

Application Submission Contacts

eRA Service Desk-bound (Questions regarding Help, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission past the due engagement, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Gratuitous)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, awarding processes, and NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-945-7573

Grants.gov Customer Back up (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Eye Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov

Scientific/Enquiry Contact(s)

Dr. Shannon 1000. Hughes
Division of Cancer Biological science, NCI
Phone: 240-276-6224
Electronic mail: shannon.hughes@nih.gov

Peer Review Contact(due south)

Referral Officeholder
National Cancer Constitute (NCI)
240-276-6390
ncirefof@dea.nci.nih.gov

Fiscal/Grants Management Contact(south)

 Mutema Nyankale
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6291
Email: mutema.nyankale@nih.gov

Section 8. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may bear upon your awarding submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Authority and Regulations

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act every bit amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Office 75.

NIH Office of Extramural Research Logo

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - Home Page

Department of Wellness
and Man Services (HHS)

USA.gov - Government Made Easy

NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®


Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Give-and-take, Excel, PowerPoint, Sound or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.


smithinart1960.blogspot.com

Source: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-19-287.html

0 Response to "Generally the First Stage of an Alternative Dispute Resolution System Is Peer Review"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel