Extramural Funding Opportunities |
|
Site map
Contact us |
Home | Funding | Advisory | NCI Research Priorities | Funded Awards | Research Resources | Events | NCI News |
FOREWARD These Guidelines for the Program Project Grant (P01) of the National Cancer Institute are intended as a resource for prospective applicants and for reviewers of NCI Program Project applications. The Guidelines dated January 2006 are effective for all P01 applications submitted February 1, 2006, and later. Program Projects constitute one of the major extramural research mechanisms supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NCI has found the P01 grant mechanism to be particularly effective and highly productive, especially in areas where interdisciplinary collaboration and specialized core resources are needed to achieve a larger objective than can be supported through the traditional single project R01 grant. Submitting and reviewing a P01 application requires a substantial investment of effort by applicants, applicant organizations, NCI staff, and peer reviewers. To maximize the potential of this effort, prospective applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss their ideas with relevant NCI program staff prior to the submission of a formal application. Individuals should contact the NCI Referral Officer in the Division of Extramural Activities (DEA), NCI (e-mail: ncidearefof@dea.nci.nih.gov or 301-496-3428) for assistance in identifying appropriate NCI program areas and program staff. Applicants must obtain approval from the NCI at least 6 weeks before the anticipated submission of a P01 application (including resubmitted/amended applications and requests for supplemental funds) requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year [NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts, dated October 16, 2001 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-004.html)]. In addition, for Type 2 (renewal/competing continuation) applications budget requests for direct costs for the first requested year must not exceed an increase of 20 percent over the direct costs awarded in the last noncompeting (Type 5) year. Details of the restrictions on budget requests are provided at this Web site: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/flash/NCIPolicy_p01_escalation.htm. To determine the base for calculation of the maximum allowed increase in the first renewal year, the Principal Investigator is strongly advised to contact appropriate NCI program staff for assistance. It is a requirement that NCI P01 applications be prepared according to the instructions described in this document. The instructions for NCI application formatting refer to current procedures outlined in the Application for a Public Health Service Grant, PHS 398 (Rev. 5/01) as well as the latest changes in policies governing the submission, review, and award of NCI P01s (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html) (see http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm). Applications not prepared using this or later versions of the PHS 398 application kit or not adhering to the instructions for preparation contained in this document may be returned without review. Applications involving clinical research must meet the NIH requirement for addressing the protection of human subjects from research risk; the inclusion of women, minorities, and children in the study populations; plans for data and safety monitoring (for research involving clinical trials)) and plans for model-organism sharing. Expected accruals must be presented in tabular form for each clinical study proposed. Applicants should refer to the information in this document and the PHS 398 instructions. Failure to provide such information will result in the application being returned as nonresponsive or deferral of review until adequate information is provided. Investigators submitting an NIH application requesting research support of $500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year are expected to include a plan for data sharing or state why data sharing is not possible. This requirement is a reaffirmation of the NIH policy endorsing expedited translation of research results into knowledge, products, and procedures to improve human health. Applicants should refer to the policy statements provided by the NIH Office of Extramural Research (http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/index.htm). The NIH continues to evolve policies governing all extramural awards, including Program Projects. Applicants are strongly encouraged, therefore, to make certain to obtain the latest policy and procedure information as the first step in preparing a new or renewal P01 application. Updated information and additional copies of the P01 Guidelines may be obtained over the Internet by accessing the Home Page of the National Cancer Institute Division of Extramural Activities at: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/awards/P01.htm. Further information and guidance may also be obtained from the NCI Referral Officer (see contact information below). For current grantees, information may be obtained from your NCI Program Director.
Division of Extramural Activities National Cancer Institute 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8041 BETHESDA, MD 20892-8329 Rockville, MD 20852 (for courier delivery) 301-496-3428 301-402-0275 (FAX) ncirefof@dea.nci.nih.gov The process for submitting an NCI P01 application is different from that for most grant applications. All NCI P01 applications, including new, resubmitted/amended, revised/supplemental, and competing renewal applications, must be submitted on or before the P01 receipt dates—January 25, May 25, or September 25. The original application and three copies must be sent to the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at the address provided in the PHS 398 form. Two copies of the application must be sent directly to the NCI Referral Office at the address above. BEGINNING WITH APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE FEBRUARY 1, 2006, RECEIPT DATE, NCI IS UNDERTAKING A PILOT STUDY OF A SINGLE-TIER REVIEW PROCESS FOR P01 APPLICATIONS. APPLICATIONS ON RELATED TOPICS WILL BE REVIEWED TOGETHER IN LARGE (UP TO 10 APPLICATIONS) CLUSTERS AND SCORED BY A SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANEL (SEP) ENCOMPASSING APPROPRIATE EXPERTISE. APPLICATIONS WILL BE GROUPED BASED ON COMMONALITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AREAS AND GENERAL TECHNICAL APPROACHES. ALTHOUGH THE THREE NCI P01 CHARTERED COMMITTEES WILL NOT MEET AS THE SECOND TIER OF REVIEW DURING THE PILOT STUDY, COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE SEPS. TELECONFERENCES WITH APPLICANTS WILL NOT BE CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SUMMARY OF CHANGES This page is a summary only. Detailed information is presented in the appropriate section. Changes Made in the December 2006 Guidelines Changes in Receipt Dates for P01 Applications
As the NIH transitions to the new electronic SF 424 R&R application form, there has been a change in terminology to make the terms used at NIH congruent with terms used throughout the Federal government. These changes have been incorporated into these updated Guidelines.
Changes Made in the May 2006 Guidelines Changes in NCI P01 Policies Regarding Resubmitted/Amended Applications
Changes in Review and Scoring Process Beginning with applications submitted for the February 1, 2006, receipt date:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
REMINDERS
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROGRAM PROJECT GRANT OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE I. INTRODUCTION The Program Project (P01) grant is a mechanism for the support of an integrated, multiproject research program involving a number of independent investigators who share knowledge and common resources. This type of grant has a well-defined central research focus involving several disciplines or several aspects of one discipline. The individual projects should be interrelated such that the research proceeds synergistically so that research progress proceeds at a greater rate; hence, they are expected to result in a greater contribution to program goals than if each project were pursued separately. These Guidelines provide:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
II. DEFINITIONS AND IMPORTANT URLs FOR GRANTS POLICIES
Awaiting Receipt of Application (ARA) - an internal NIH document submitted to CSR by NCI staff to indicate willingness to accept an application (a) requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year, or (b) for programmatic relevance. Core - a separately budgeted component of the P01 that provides essential facilities or services to two or more of the proposed research projects. Grants Management Specialist - the NCI official who serves as the focal point for all business-related activities associated with the negotiation, award and administration of grants. Letter of Intent - a nonbinding notification submitted to NCI staff by a Principal Investigator indicating intent to submit an application. National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) - a Presidential-appointed chartered advisory committee to the Secretary, DHHS and the Director, NCI, composed of both scientists and lay members, which performs the final advisory review of grant applications and advises on matters of significance to the policies, missions and goals of the NCI. The members include outstanding authorities knowledgeable in relevant programmatic areas that are especially concerned with the health needs of the American people. P01 - the NIH activity code which identifies a Program Project application or grant. Principal Investigator - the one person designated by, and responsible to, the applicant/awardee institution for the scientific and administrative direction and proper conduct of all aspects of the P01. Program Director - the NCI scientist administrator responsible for the development of initiatives and for the scientific management of research programs sponsored by the NCI. This person serves as the focal point for all science-related activities associated with the negotiation, award and administration of grants. Program Project Grant (P01) - an assistance award for the support of a broadly based multidisciplinary research program that has a well-defined central research focus or objective. It may also include support for common supporting resources (cores) required for the conduct of the component research projects. Interrelationships between projects are expected to result in a greater contribution to the program goals than if each project were pursued separately. Project - a research component of the P01 application with a separate detailed budget. Project Leader/Core Director - the investigator responsible for the scientific direction and conduct of an individual research project or core component of a P01. R01 - the NIH activity code that identifies an individual, investigator-initiated research project application or grant. Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) - the NCI scientist administrator responsible for the organization, management and documentation of the initial review process for applications. Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) - an advisory group of scientific experts convened for a specific review or collection of reviews. Summary Statement - the official record of the evaluation and recommendations of the scientific review panel. Important URLs for Grants Policy
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
III. PROGRAM PROJECT (P01) FUNDING MECHANISM
The P01 grant is intended solely for the support of multidisciplinary or multifaceted research programs having a strong central theme. There are several features that distinguish P01 grants from other assistance mechanisms: Each project within a P01 is similar to the traditional research grant application in the sense that each is reviewed for scientific merit compared to a standard of quality in a broader scientific discipline. However, a component project also is evaluated within the context of the special collaborative interrelationships and environment required for a P01. Interaction between projects should be such that the acquisition of knowledge is accelerated or of a quality beyond that expected from the same projects conducted separately, without combined leadership or a common theme. Individual investigators may apply their specialized research capabilities to basic research projects, clinical research projects, cancer control, and cancer prevention research projects or combinations of such projects as they relate to the focused, central theme of the overall P01. Thus the P01 funding mechanism offers a special way to achieve research synergy through the sharing of personnel, facilities, equipment, data, ideas, and concepts. Each application should include a sufficient number of scientifically meritorious projects to promote an effective collaborative effort among the participating investigators. To be eligible for an award, a P01 must consist of a minimum of three scientifically meritorious projects. Conversely, the P01 should not be so large that it exceeds the scientific and administrative leadership capability of the Principal Investigator, or that it loses a tight focus. Applicants should realize that the larger the program, the greater the likelihood that some components will be of lower quality. The inclusion of projects of lower quality or of peripheral relationship to the central theme will have a negative impact on the overall evaluation. The maximum number of research projects recommended, therefore, is six. Plans to submit applications with more than six projects should be discussed with the appropriate NCI Program Director. Alternatively, investigators considering research programs with a larger number of projects should consider submission of separate more focused P01 applications each containing fewer projects. Please note that division of projects into subprojects in order to designate additional key investigators or to fragment the experimental approach is not permitted. Applications may include projects by NIH intramural investigators. However, since funds for such a project will come from the NCI intramural budget, the application should not include a requested budget for such a project. Otherwise, applications should not include projects or core components for which no funds are requested, such as for projects which are already funded. For competing (Type 2) renewal/competing continuation applications for which a former project is now supported by another award mechanism (i.e., a separate R01 grant) but will continue to collaborate with the P01, the Program Overview section of the application and relevant projects may refer to the other non-P01 projects/activities to emphasize a greater institutional research environment, resources, and support. Letters of collaboration from the separately funded investigators should also be included in the application. However, resubmitted/amended P01 applications may include one or more projects that were in the original P01 application but which have subsequently been awarded as a separate grant (i.e., an R01 grant) during the course of the resubmission process for the P01. The Principal Investigator should indicate within the Program Narrative which project(s) have been awarded funds. All resubmitted/amended applications must include at least two unfunded projects. In this case, NCI policy is that the funded project(s) will not be discussed or scored during the review, but will be considered under the Environment and Integration review criteria for the Overall Program and that the funded project(s) will be folded into the P01 award at the awarded budget levels and period of support. The application should contain a statement signed by all investigators agreeing to these stipulations. Finally, P01 applications may not include requests for unspecified funds (seed money) for developmental projects, or for training. A P01 application may contain one or more core component(s), each with a separate budget, for administrative or research support services that are required for and shared solely within the P01. Core components should be important to the overall success of the program, and each core must serve at least two projects. Core components also may include research designed to improve core services. If a P01 grant application originates from an institution that is supported by an NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30), or there are Special Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) (P50) on related research topics, a list of existing Cancer Center Shared Resources/Cores and SPORE resources and cores should be provided. If cores proposed within the P01 application duplicate existing institutional resources, clear and substantive justification should be provided for such duplication. Instead, funds may be requested to supplement existing facilities in accordance with the needs of the P01. Central to the quality of a P01 is the leadership of the Principal Investigator and the other senior participating investigators. The Principal Investigator of the P01 should be an established scientist with a strong record of accomplishment who is substantially committed to, and exercises the responsibility for the scientific leadership, integration, and administration of the entire P01. The Principal Investigator need not serve as a project leader or core director. The component projects should be directed by investigators who are experienced in the conduct of independent research as evidenced by grant awards and publications and whose backgrounds and interests relate sufficiently to one another to allow for integrated group pursuit of the proposed P01 goals and objectives. There is one designated project leader and one designated core director for each project and core. This named person is the one responsible for overall management and coordination of the component.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IV. ADVANCE COMMUNICATIONS with NCI STAFF
Research groups planning to submit a P01 application have found it useful to establish advance communications with relevant NCI staff. Such communications should begin at least 3 months before the submission date. Specific issues that might be discussed include:
Applicants must obtain approval from the NCI at least 6 weeks prior to the anticipated submission of any P01 grant application, including requests for supplemental funds, requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any one year (NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts, dated October 16, 2001 [http:/grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-004.html]. This rule also applies to resubmitted/amended applications and applications that have been delayed to a later submission date.. An informative Letter of Intent, as described below, will assist NCI staff in preparing the ARA, the NIH internal document required for such approval, in a timely manner. Communications about intent to submit a P01 application should be with personnel in the NCI Referral Office. If the application is received without prior staff concurrence and an ARA filed it will be returned to the applicant without review. All applications including resubmitted/amended applications must have this permission 6 weeks in advance of the planned receipt date. If application submission is delayed, a new communication to the NCI Referral Office must be made to update NCI staff regarding the intent to submit the application. Although the Letter of Intent is not binding either for the planned submission date or for final detailed research content, the information provided also allows NCI review staff to estimate the potential review workload and to avoid conflict of interest in the review. Therefore, the Letter of Intent should include at a minimum:
Descriptions for the program, projects, and core are also very helpful. Letters of Intent should be sent to:
Division of Extramural Activities National Cancer Institute 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8041 BETHESDA, MD 20892-8329 Rockville, MD 20852 (for courier delivery) 301-496-3428 301-402-02757(FAX) ncirefof@dea.nci.nih.gov Electronic transmission of the Letter of Intent is acceptable. The Referral Office will send a copy to the Chief, Research Programs Review Branch, and to the appropriate NCI program director. If you have previously been in communication with an NCI program director, please provide that person’s name in the letter and forward him or her a copy of the letter. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
V. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS for PREPARATION of PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATIONS General instructions for the preparation of the P01 grant application are contained in the Grant Application Form PHS 398 (Interim Revision 4/2006). Please note that the instructions provided in the PHS 398 document are designed primarily for traditional research project (R01) applications. P01 applications require additional information as outlined below. Clear and concise organization of the document is essential to the efficient study and review of the application. Page limitations are presented in the PHS 398 instructions; these should be followed closely for each individual project and core unless otherwise noted. In particular the font recommendations must be followed. Page limitations for the sections relating to the overall program are noted under the specific categories. Use the current PHS 398 forms and instructions as provided in the PHSPHS 398 Interim Revision (4/2006). When submitting the application, please attach a cover letter that includes the following information: the institute (NCI) which has agreed to accept the application (see NIH Policy), the name of the NCI program director, and response to a Program Announcement or RFA (if applicable).
Type "PROGRAM PROJECT" in the top left hand corner of the face page immediately above the words "GRANT APPLICATION." Complete all items on the face page of the application as in a traditional research grant application. This is page 1 of the application; all succeeding pages should be numbered consecutively.
Form Page 2 is now two pages (Form Page 2 and Form Page 2-continued) which include five sections: Description, Performance Sites, Key Personnel, Other Significant Contributors, and Human Embryonic Stem Cells. The Description is meant to serve as a succinct and accurate description of the proposed work when it is separated from the application. State the application’s broad, long-term objectives and specific aims, making reference to the health relatedness of the program. Clearly state the contribution of each component to the overall theme and goals. The second component of the Description is Relevance. Using no more than two or three sentences, describe the relevance of this research to public health. Use plain language that can be understood by a general, lay audience. Under Performance Sites, list the applicant institution and all other sites where work described in the research plan will be conducted. The Key Personnel for the entire P01 should begin with the Principal Investigator and then list alphabetically all project and core leaders, coleaders, coinvestigators, and consultants and consortium collaborators, whether receiving salary or not, who will provide effort and/or significant intellectual input into the proposed research. List under “Other Significant Contributors” other personnel who will be other collaborators or consultants. The names of involved institutions should be spelled out in full for the first mention with acronym in parenthesis. The acronym may be used subsequently. To aid in the review of the application, include information concerning the distribution of effort of all key personnel on each project and core. This could be presented in a tabular form such as that shown in Appendix B: Sample Table of Distribution of Professional Effort, NCI P01 Guidelines.
Replace the PHS 398 Form Page 3 with a detailed table of contents that enables reviewers to find specific information readily. Identify projects by number, title, and responsible investigator. Identify cores by letter, title, and responsible investigator. A sample Table of Contents is included at the end of these Guidelines as an example of how the order and format of the application could be organized (see Appendix A, NCI P01 Guidelines). For renewal/competing continuation or resubmitted/amended applications, renumber all projects and cores in sequence if an existing or previously reviewed project or core is discontinued or deleted.
The PHS 398 Instructions (Part 1, Sections 1-C4 and 1) should be followed closely in preparing a detailed composite budget for all requested support for the first year using of the PHS 398 application. Form Page 4: Detailed Budget for Initial Budget Period should be used for the first year requested budget. A summary budget for the entire proposed period of support should be prepared using Form Page 5: Budget for Entire Proposed Period of Support of the PHS 398 application. The composite budgets should summarize all project/core expenses by category, i.e., personnel, equipment, and supplies. Budget requests for direct costs for renewal/competing continuation P01 grant applications must not exceed an increase of 20 percent over the direct costs to be awarded in the last noncompeting (Type 5) year. The Principal Investigator is encouraged to contact NCI program staff for assistance in preparing budgets. (http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/flash/NCIPolicy_p01_escalation.htm).
Follow the instructions on the “Biographical Sketch Format” page. Biographical sketches are required for all key personnel participating in individual projects and cores and for all consultants. In arranging the biographical sketches, the Principal Investigator should be listed first, with other key personnel in alphabetical order. Each sketch may not exceed four pages. For publicly available citations, URLs or NIH PubMed Central (PMC) submission identification numbers may accompany the full reference. NOTE: Copies of these publications may no longer be included as appendix material. Information on other support beyond that required in the biographical sketch should not be submitted with the application. Specifically, do not list award amounts or person months in projects, nor address potential scientific and/or budgetary overlap. It is the policy of the NCI that meritorious projects reviewed as part of the P01 be funded as part of the P01 even though other funding (e.g., in the form of an R01 grant) may be available.
The narrative for the P01 should provide explicitly the required information in the order noted below. Efforts should be made to keep the narrative as concise as possible. Typically, eight to twelve pages are sufficient.
Describe each project in sufficient detail to enable reviewers to judge the scientific merit based on information in the application. Be explicit enough to enable experts in other areas to follow the main objective of the project. All projects are to have a single theme, project leader, and budget. Separately numbered subprojects (i.e., such as Subprojects 3A and 3B) are not allowed. Subcontract services or other activities should be included in the project or core they support, and should not be numbered as separate subprojects.
In the upper left-hand corner of the initial year and total budget forms, identify the project or core. The PHS 398 Instructions (Sections 1-C4 and 1-C5) should be followed closely in preparing the budgets for individual projects and cores. If collaborative efforts or "purchased services" involving other institutions or organizations are anticipated, itemize all costs associated with such third party participation, including any applicable indirect costs, on separate budget pages and enter the total under the "Consortium/Contracted Costs" direct costs budget category. For details, refer to "Consortium Agreements," available on the Web at http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part12.htm. The budget pages for subcontracts should be identified by project or core and the name of the sub-contractual institution. They should be placed in the application in sequence after the main budget pages for the project or core.
The following information is not a part of the 25 page maximum but should be written succinctly.
For P01s that involve human subjects, applicants must address (a) the protection of human subjects from research risk, (b) the inclusion of women, minorities, and children in the study population, and (c) the plan for data and safety monitoring (for projects involving any type of clinical trials), in accordance with information provided in the "NIH Instructions to Reviewers For Evaluating Research Involving Human Subjects in Grant and Cooperative Agreement Applications" (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/hs_review_inst.pdf). For P01s that involve NIH-defined clinical research, investigators must report ethnic/racial enrollment in TABULAR form, as specified in the PHS 398 application. There must be a Data and Safety Monitoring Plan for ALL clinical trials. The Plan should be commensurate with the potential risk to subjects in the trial. All Phase III clinical trials require a full Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Deficiencies in the application with respect to these issues will be considered in evaluating the research approach, and may impact on the recommended scientific merit rating of individual projects and the overall application.
NIH policy no longer requires Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval of the proposed research before NIH peer review of an application. See PHS policy section on Vertebrate Animals and http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-064.html. See also the Just-In-Time-Policy.
Data Sharing Plan: Investigators seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year must include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss their data sharing plan with their program contact at the time they negotiate an agreement with the Institute/Center (IC) staff to accept assignment of their application. See Data-Sharing Policy or http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/index.htm. Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all NIH applications proposing development of new, genetically modified variants of model organisms and related resources are expected to include a specific plan for sharing these organisms or state why such sharing will be restricted or not possible. The term “model organism” includes mammalian models (such as the mouse and rat) and non-mammalian models (such as budding yeast, roundworm, Arabidopsis, fruit fly, zebrafish, frog, etc). Examples of model organisms for which sharing plans are expected when new, genetically modified organisms are developed are posted on the NIH Model Organisms for Biomedical Research Web site: http://www.nih.gov/science/models.
The cores of a P01 may include laboratory and clinical facilities, equipment, and services that will be shared by two or more projects of the P01. A core may also include support for administration, such as the costs of fiscal and business management, consultant, secretarial and clinical services associated with the P01 unless these items are included in the institution's indirect cost rate.
Do not submit appendix materials with the application. The SRA for the review will give applicants a specific deadline for submitting appendix materials and late-breaking information. In November, 2006, the NIH published new limits on Appendix materials for all applications submitted on or after January 3, 2007. These new instructions can be found at: http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-018.html. Each project and core in the P01 should be considered equivalent to an R01-type application for the purposes of allowable Appendix materials. An applicant has the option of submitting appendix material as paper copies or as an electronic media format or a combination thereof. If paper copies are submitted, they should be collated in sets by project or core with a cover sheet listing the contents of the collated set. The format for the appendix material can be discussed with the review SRA. The electronic media format for the NCI P01 Appendix is a CD clearly labeled with the applicant name, application number, and sponsoring institution. All documents should be converted to PDF format. The CD should be formatted by Project and Core with a well-developed list of Bookmarks to indicate different folders and folder contents. If there are illustrations that will not be legible in the black and white copy of the application produced for reviewers by the central NIH print shop, these illustrations may be submitted as PDF attachments under the appropriate project and core. You may view the scanned image of the application to assess its completeness and quality of reproduction by logging onto the NIH eRA Commons.at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/. One copy of the CD should be submitted to the SRA in a well-protected mailing container. NCI staff will make copies of the material on the CD to send to the reviewers. Therefore, the contents of the CD must not be “copy protected” in any way. Applicants are cautioned not to use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations of the Research Plan. An application that does not observe the relevant policies and procedures may be delayed in the review process. For P01s submitted in response to an RFA, the appendix material should be submitted with the application.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VI. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF RESUBMITTED/AMENDED APPLICATIONS
NIH allows two resubmissions/amendments (A1 and A2) of an application. There is no longer a time limit for resubmission of these applications. However, it is worth noting that a lengthy hiatus between the initial submission and resubmission may necessitate extensive modification of the research goals and research plan due to significant advances in the scientific field in the intervening period, and the relevance of the previous review critiques may be reduced. Principal Investigators and their institutions need to exercise their best judgment in determining the advisability of submitting a resubmitted/amended application after a significant amount of time has elapsed. As described in Section III, resubmitted/amended P01 applications may include one or more projects that were in the original P01 application but which have subsequently been awarded as a separate grant(s) (i.e., an R01 grant) during the course of the resubmission process. However, all resubmitted/amended P01 applications must include at least two unfunded projects to be accepted for review. Funded projects will be discussed only in terms of the Environment and Integration of the Overall Program. The funded project(s) will be folded into the P01 award at the awarded budget levels and period of support. The application should contain signed agreements from all investigators to these stipulations. Prepare a resubmitted/amended application according to instructions provided in Section V of these Guidelines. A resubmitted/amended application will be returned without review if substantive changes are not clearly apparent and identified.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VII. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS for REVISION/COMPETING SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATIONS
Requests for supplemental funds may be submitted only for grants with at least 2 years of support remaining in the current award. Conversely, a revision/supplemental application is not accepted before the original application is awarded funding. The request for supplemental funds needs to have a well-founded basis: unexpected costs and/or pursuance of an unanticipated scientific opportunity; continuation of a currently funded project/core; or inclusion of a new project/core relevant to the goals of the funded program. It should contain sufficient detail to permit an adequate evaluation of the requested expansion of the overall P01. A revision/supplemental application will not be accepted if (a) it is to restore administrative cuts or (b) it does not fit within the theme of the existing P01 or extend the program’s scope. If the request for supplemental funds exceeds $500,000, applicants must obtain approval from the NCI by sending a letter of intent to the NCI Referral Office at least 6 weeks prior to the anticipated submission date. Consultation with the program director of the original application may precede the submission of a revised/competing supplement application. (See Section IV – Advance Communication with NCI Staff.) All the information requested in these Guidelines (Section V above) should be included in the application, but adjusted to the requirements of the supplement as follows:
Type “PROGRAM PROJECT” in the top left-hand corner of the face page immediately above the words “GRANT APPLICATION.” Complete all items on the face page of the application as in a traditional research grant application. This is page 1 of the application; all succeeding pages should be numbered consecutively. The P01 Principal Investigator must be the Principal Investigator for the supplement application. The Title should include the grant number of the parent grant.
The Description should state concisely the overall goals of the entire P01 and include the contribution that the requested supplemental funds will make to the overall theme and goals. Under Performance Sites, list the applicant institution and all other sites where work described in the research plan will be conducted. Key personnel for the entire P01, including consultants and consortium collaborators, if any, should be listed alphabetically. Investigators added specifically for the supplemental funds request should be identified by an asterisk (*) with annotation.
The PHS 398 Instructions (Part 1, Sections 1-C4 and 1) should be followed closely in preparing a detailed composite budget for all requested support for the first year and subsequent years of the requested supplemental funding. Form Page 4: Detailed Budget for Initial Budget Period should be used for the first year requested budget. A summary budget for the entire proposed period of support should be prepared using Form Page 5: Budget for Entire Proposed Period of Support of the PHS 398 application. If the supplemental funds request is related to more than one project or core, each component should have separate budget requests and justifications. These secondary budgets should be associated with the specific component. Immediately after the supplemental funds budget summary tables and justifications, present a detailed composite budget table for all years of the current P01 award (Form Page 5). Label the composite budget table page in the upper left hand corner: CURRENT PROGRAM BUDGET
The program narrative for a request for revision/supplemental funds application should summarize briefly the overall theme and research goals of the funded program; provide justification for requesting additional supplemental funds; and summarize the progress made in each funded project and core including numbers of publications and identification of completed aims. Typically, four or five pages are sufficient for the Overall Narrative.
Requests for supplemental funds can be for a new project or core, continuation of a currently funded project/core, an opportunity to follow a new research lead, provision of additional core support, or special equipment to achieve certain program goals. The format for the Research Plan will vary depending on the purpose of the request for revision/supplemental funding. For each application, a one-page introduction should be inserted at the beginning of the Research Plan that describes the nature of the request; the relevance of the newly proposed research/new resources to the entire P01; and how the funds will influence the specific aims, research design, and methods of the current grant.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VIII. APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCESS
Division of Extramural Activities National Cancer Institute 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8114 BETHESDA, MD 20892-8329 Rockville, MD 20852 (for courier delivery) 301-496-3428 301-402-0275 (FAX) ncirefof@dea.nci.nih.gov It is to the advantage of the applicant to be certain that the Referral Office copies are submitted separately. This allows NCI staff to direct early attention to such issues as review scheduling and avoidance of conflict of interest in the review.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IX. REVIEW PROCEDURES
The SRA serves as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) with legal responsibility for managing the review and ensuring that the review is conducted according to relevant laws, regulations, policies, and established NIH and NCI policies and procedures. The SRA provides guidance and direction with respect to review procedures and criteria; the need for a well-documented review; the functions of the NCI staff; conflict of interest policies; implications of the Privacy Act; the need for confidentiality of the proceedings; the necessity of addressing gender, minority, and children representation in clinical study populations; and other policy and logistical matters. The NCI program director serves as a resource, as needed, concerning the history and development of the program, changes in program direction, and other relevant program matters.
Program Project applications, like all other PHS grant applications, are received and initially processed by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Following the current National Cancer Institute referral guidelines, the application is assigned to NCI. The NCI referral office subsequently assigns the application to a program area. Finally, RPRB review staff assign the application to a particular cluster SEP SRA who manages the review. Applications that do not meet the referral guidelines for NCI programs are referred to another NIH institute.
Upon receipt, the SRA reviews the application for conformance to NIH policies and NCI Guidelines. If the deficiencies can be resolved easily post-submission, then the Principal Investigator is notified and remedial action is taken. If the deficiencies are extensive or cannot be resolved quickly, the application will be returned to the applicant without further consideration.
Beginning with applications submitted for the February 1, 2006, receipt date, the NCI is undertaking a pilot study of reviewing P01 applications in large clusters (up to 10 applications) in a one-tier, “paper only” review process. Teleconferences with applicants will not be conducted. Thus, the success or failure of an application will depend on how well the application text conveys the intent, merit, and impact of the proposed research. Applications must be complete as submitted so that they can be reviewed without communication between the applicant and review groups. During the pilot, all review panels will be constituted as Special Emphasis Panels. The SEP reviewers will evaluate and score projects and cores, and assign the overall priority score to each application. Each SEP will review up to 10 applications in a general research area. Applications will be grouped based on commonality of scientific research areas and general technical approaches. New, competing renewal, resubmitted/amended and revision/supplemental applications will, therefore, be reviewed together. P01 SEP Review Group Descriptions are in Appendix D. Applications will be assessed according to a standard of P01 quality as defined in the P01 review criteria. The SEP membership will include senior investigators who can view the proposed science in a global perspective, specialists for specific scientific areas, and members of the three NCI P01 chartered review committees. Key members of the previous review panel will be included for continuity of review of the resubmitted/amended applications. In organizing the review panel membership, conflicts of interest, either real or perceived, will be avoided. The SEP meeting date will be determined by the NCI SRA according to the availability of suitable Chairpersons and senior investigators. Applicants will be asked to provide a cell phone number and/or e-mail address so that they can be reached in the rare instances that a critical question must be addressed for the review to proceed. The SEP will convene in a face-to-face meeting in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area or elsewhere at the convenience of the reviewers. The SRA will provide an introductory orientation on NIH and NCI review policies and procedures and administrative and logistical matters relating to the review. Then, each application will be evaluated by the reviewers. The reviewers will have the option to streamline the review and unscore applications with low merit. For applications that are discussed fully, the reviewers will discuss and rate each project and core component, then discuss the overall program. The review panel will assign the final overall priority score to the application. NCI SRAs will prepare the summary statement using the minimally edited reviewers' comments and summaries of discussion prepared by selected SEP members and/or the SRA.
The SRA will contact the Principal Investigator to obtain background information relevant to the application and names of investigators in collaboration with the members of the applicant group and other investigators who may be in conflict with the group, and to request the number of collated copies of appendix materials required for the review. The SRA also may contact the Principal Investigator to discuss the specific disciplines or specialty areas of expertise that the PI feels are required to review the application properly. However, NIH policy prohibits either the SRA or the program director assigned to the application from asking for or receiving names of potential reviewers from any member of the applicant group either directly or indirectly. Full consideration is given to valid reasons presented by the Principal Investigator requesting that a particular reviewer not be invited, but the final decision rests with the SRA responsible for the review. The Principal Investigator should discuss these issues fully with co-investigators before communicating this information to the SRA. The SRA will provide a deadline for receipt of appendix materials and any supplemental data obtained after submission of the application. This deadline generally will be 5 to 6 weeks prior to the review so that all materials related to the application(s) can be sent as one mailing to the reviewers. Major changes in scope of the projects or cores cannot be accepted after submission of the application; submission of such information in the appendix may result in deferral of review. Brief updates may also be sent electronically to the SRA up to 1 week before the review meeting. The SRA will forward these electronic updates to the reviewers for incorporation into their critiques and have printed copies of the information available at the review meeting.
Shortly after receipt of the application, the SRA contacts appropriate NCI program staff and other individuals for supplemental information and recommendations for prospective reviewers where appropriate. Program and/or grants management staff members discuss with the SRA any unusual features of the application which might require additional material for reviewers, or any special problems that they anticipate in the review of the application. All review related communications with actual or potential reviewers are through the SRA.
The size and composition of each SEP review panel will be determined by the particular details of the applications to be reviewed. It is the responsibility of the SRA to make these determinations based upon thorough review of the applications and consultation with program and review staff. In identifying prospective qualified reviewers, the SRA takes full advantage of many available resources, including existing databases of experienced reviewers, lists of grantees and contractors, and consultation with recognized authorities in the scientific community. The SRA, as well as program staff, will identify reviewers who, because of collaboration, affiliation, or bias, should be excluded from the review. As noted above, applicants are prohibited from suggesting names of prospective reviewers. However, applicants may suggest expertise areas appropriate for inclusion in the review panel. Resubmitted/amended applications will have a core of membership from the previous review but there also will be new reviewers assigned to the application. The Chairperson of the review panel will generally be a senior investigator experienced in the review of complex multidisciplinary applications and generally knowledgeable in the broad scientific areas to be reviewed. Each application will have an assigned Discussion Leader who has the responsibility of coordinating the discussion of that application. The review panel membership will reflect a balance in terms of experience, expertise, and specialty so as to afford peer review of the separate components as well as the overall P01s in the cluster. A consultant experienced in management and fiscal administration may be included if applications with complex consortium arrangement are to be reviewed. The fiscal consultant does not assign merit ratings for projects or cores or assign a priority score for the application, but does express opinion of the overall program administration. For relevant applications including clinical or population-based studies, a patient advocate/consumer will be included in the review group. These individuals, who have full scoring privileges, will address issues related to protection, recruitment and retention of human subjects in the proposed research. The SEP roster will be available on the NIH Web site (http://era.nih.gov/roster/#sep) approximately 30 days before the review meeting.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
X. REVIEW CRITERIA
Peer review emphasizes a synthesis of two major aspects of the P01 application: (1) review of the merit of each of the individual research projects and core components compared to a standard of quality in a related, broad, scientific discipline, and (2) review of the overall program as an integrated research effort focused on a central theme. The review criteria for both the overall program and the individual projects are the standard NIH review criteria of Significance, Approach, Innovation, Investigators, and Environment (NIH Guide, Vol. 26, Num. 22, June 27, 1997 [http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not97-010.html]). The sections below give more detail about how these five criteria are applied to the overall program and the individual projects. The goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. Note that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward.
Projects may be “Not Recommended for Further Consideration" (NRFC) based on seriously flawed research approach or on inclusion of research hazardous to human subjects. (NOTE: Synergy and thematic relatedness between the projects and cores, and their significance for the program as a whole, are not discussed when rating individual projects. These characteristics are discussed and rated under the Integration review criterion when evaluating the Overall Program.)
As part of the peer review process, the review panel will evaluate the proposed involvement and protection of vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment of Approach and Environment criteria and according to the following five points: 1) Detailed description of the proposed use of the animals; 2) Justification for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) Adequacy of proposed veterinary care: 4) Procedures for limiting pain and distress to that which is unavoidable; and 5) Methods of euthanasia.
Amended applications should be assessed based on the overall merit of the application as now presented. An amended application may be improved, the same as, or worse than the previous application.
Projects are scored numerically, from 1.0 (best) to 5.0 (worst), or are not recommended for further consideration (NRFC). Cores are rated Superior, Satisfactory, or NRFC (unsatisfactory). Program Integration is rated Highly Integrated, Integrated or Not Integrated. Reviewers will consider all of the review criteria for Overall Program in assigning a single score for the application as a whole. Reviewers will focus on the meritorious projects and cores of the program, excluding any components not recommended for further consideration, in assigning the final overall score. However, components that are of poor quality or are not related to the main theme of the P01 will be considered evidence of poor judgment by the Principal Investigator and a deficiency in the coordination of the overall program administration. Reviewers do not have the option to select only the better components of the program to improve the overall score. Following discussion of the Overall Program, each SEP member will privately assign a score for the application. The Overall Program may be scored numerically from 1.0 to 5.0 if it is fully discussed, unscored if the review panel judges that it has very low merit relative to all P01 applications normally received by the NCI and streamlines the discussion of the application, or not recommended for further consideration if it does not have three scored projects or posses very serious risks to human subjects.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
XI. SUMMARY STATEMENT
The findings and recommendations of the reviewers are summarized in a written report called the summary statement that accurately conveys the evaluation of the P01 application. The summary statement for applications discussed fully during the review meeting will include a Resume and Summary of Discussion, an Overall Critique addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the Overall Program and summary paragraphs addressing the strengths and weaknesses of each project and core, and the essentially unedited critiques from reviewers assigned to each project and core. The individual reviewers’ critiques, which were prepared prior to the review meeting, may not be updated to reflect their final opinions after the discussion. For “unscored” applications which were not fully discussed during the meeting, the summary statement may not include a Resume and Summary of Discussion and/or Overall Critique section, but it will include the individual reviewers’ essentially unedited critiques for all projects and cores. The summary statement will be transmitted to the NCAB for advisory review, to the NCI official file and to the appropriate NCI staff. The applicant can access the summary statement through the NIH Commons shortly after it has been released by NCI review staff.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
XII. AWARD
The award and administration of P01s are subject to the same policies and procedures as other research grants. These policies and cost principles are set forth in the current PHS Grants Policy Statement, other NIH and NCI issuances and Federal legislation and regulations. Following review by the NCAB, scored applications are considered for funding by the NCI. When an award is made, it is the policy of NCI that meritorious projects reviewed as part of the P01 be funded as part of the P01 even though other funding may be available. Duplicate funding will not be awarded. NCI program staff may administratively delete funding or reduce the duration of support for components of P01s that are judged by peer review to be less meritorious and/or nonessential to the conduct of the P01.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
XIII. QUESTIONS
Questions related to NCI P01 review may be directed to:
Deputy Chief Research Programs Review Branch Division of Extramural Activities National Cancer Institute 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8125, MSC 8328 Bethesda, MD 20892 8328 Rockville, MD 20852 (Express Mail) Telephone: (301) 496-9236 FAX: (301) 496 6497 E-mail: vw8z@nih.gov
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPENDIX B: (SAMPLE TABLE) DISTRIBUTION OF PROFESSIONAL EFFORT (%) ON THIS APPLICATION
First lines should be reserved for project and core directors; other investigators should follow thereafter.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPENDIX C: (SAMPLE TABLE) PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SCIENTIFIC CORE RESEARCH RESOURCES TO PROJECTS
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPENDIX D: SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS (SEPs) FOR PILOT OF SINGLE-TIER REVIEW OF NCI P01s MOLECULAR BIOLOGY SEP
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
National Cancer Institute (NCI) | National Institutes of Health (NIH) | Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) | Links |