Purpose and Description of the Award
Submitted applications will use the new combination K99/R00 funding mechanism. As an applicant, the candidate and his/her mentor are jointly responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed mentored phase of the research project.
The Pathway to Independence Award program provides an opportunity for outstanding new investigators to obtain two forms of support from a single NIH award. The support is interconnected and combines an initial mentored career development phase followed by independent research support. The initial 1-2 year mentored phase allows investigators to complete their mentored research work, publish results, and search for an independent research position.
The independent phase provides up to 3 years of support and allows successful awardees who are appointed to an independent assistant professor (or equivalent) position to continue to work towards establishing research independence and to prepare an application for NIH Research project type grant support (e.g., R01, etc.). Because the focus is on achieving independence as a researcher, reviewers should consider this mechanism as a career development award rather than an independent research project.
Points of Special Emphasis:
1. These are career development awards. Please consider all review criteria, not just the research plans.
2. The applicant should demonstrate the need for additional mentoring, i.e., both phases of this award should be well justified.
3. Phase 1 (the mentored phase) should lead logically and convincingly to Phase 2 (the independent phase).
A Note on Eligibility
Applicant eligibility will be determined by NIH staff before applications are sent out for review. If a reviewer has questions about the eligibility of an applicant, these questions should be communicated in an administrative note, but must not be considered when evaluating the merit of the application.
Review Criteria (Excerpted from Program Announcement Number: PA-06-133)
In their written evaluations, reviewers are asked to comment on each of the following criteria in order to judge the scientific and technical merit of the proposed career development and research plans.
Candidate
- Potential to carry out independent research, based on the postdoctoral candidate's experience level and research training background leading up to the current application;
- Potential for becoming an outstanding successful independent investigator who will contribute significantly to a chosen health-related research field;
- Evidence of the candidate’s research productivity, including quality of peer-reviewed scientific publications;
- The overall quality of the candidate's postdoctoral research training experience including expertise gained at the current stage of his/her career;
- How this experience will prepare the candidate to implement successfully the independent phase project;
- Letters of reference from well-established scientists addressing the above areas and any other evidence that the candidate has a high potential for becoming an independent investigator;
- Mentor’s (sponsor’s) statement, and statement from the institutional training grant director (if applicable), as well as the quality of the research project proposed for the independent phase.
Career Development Plan
- Appropriateness of the career development plan and the likelihood that the award will contribute substantially to the scientific development of the candidate;
- Appropriateness of the content and duration of the proposed didactic and research components of the award;
- The consistency of the career development plan with the candidate’s prior research experience and current research career goals;
- For individuals currently supported in research training programs, appropriateness of the current training and how such training is preparing the candidate for continued support leading to independent career status.
Research Plan
Reviewers should recognize that an individual with limited research experience is less likely to be able to prepare a research plan with the depth and breadth of that submitted by a more experienced investigator. Nevertheless, a fundamentally sound research plan must be provided.
- Scientific and technical merit of the research question design and methodology;
- A sound research project that is consistent with the candidate’s stage of research development and as a vehicle for developing the research skills described in the career development plan;
- Appropriateness of the proposed specific aims for the mentored phase of research, and evidence of long-term viability of the proposed research at the subsequent independent scientist phase;
- A brief description of the planned mentored phase career development program, followed by a thorough description of the planned independent phase research project;
- Potential of the proposed research to contribute significantly to the research and scientific literature associated with the mission of the NIH awarding component;
- Significance of the proposed research;
- Approach to the planned research;
- Innovation of the proposed research, i.e., do the plans develop or employ novel concepts, approaches or methodologies, tools, or technologies for the specific area of research?
Mentor
- Appropriateness of the mentor’s research qualifications, scientific stature, experience and mentoring track record for the applicant’s career development needs;
- Adequacy and extent of proposed supervision that will occur during the mentored phase period of support, and the commitment of the mentor to the applicant’s continued career development;
- Evidence of mentor’s consultations and collaborations with sponsoring institution (intramural NIH or extramural institution) ensuring commitment to the candidate;
- Appropriateness of mentor’s support of the candidate’s efforts to transition to independence and support of the proposed career development and research plans;
- Appropriateness of the mentor’s description of the elements of the research training plan and career development activities, including formal course work.
Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate
- Adequacy of research facilities and the availability of appropriate educational opportunities, including collaborating faculty, when necessary;
- Clear commitment of the sponsoring institution to ensure that the required effort of the candidate will be devoted directly to the research training, career development, and research activities described in the proposed career development and research plans;
- Strength of the institutional commitment to fostering the career development of the candidate;
- Unique features of the scientific environment that benefit the proposed research; i.e., employ useful collaborative arrangements or subject populations;
- Quality and relevance of the environment for scientific and professional development of the candidate.
Plans to Evaluate Progress
- Adequate plans for evaluation of the mentored awardee’s progress to determine suitability for transition to the independent phase of the award;
- Appropriate timeline planned for the transition to the independent phase of the award.
Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research
- Appropriateness and adequacy of training in the responsible conduct of research.
Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk
The involvement of human subjects and protections from research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research should be assessed (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).
Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children in Research
The adequacy of plans to include subjects from genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research should be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).
Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research
If vertebrate animals are to be used in the project, the five items described under Section F of the PHS Form 398 research grant application instructions should be assessed.
Biohazards
If materials or procedures are proposed that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, determine if the proposed protection is adequate.
Budget
The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research transition award program. The priority score should not be affected by the evaluation of the budget.
