Proposals for MARC U*STAR, MBRS RISE, Bridges to the Baccalaureate Degree, and Bridges to the Doctoral Degree Programs

The MORE Division conducted several regional grant writing workshops in March and April 2001. The following information was presented at these workshops in an effort to assist attendees in preparing successful grant applications to the MARC Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research (U*STAR), MBRS Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE), Bridges to the Baccalaureate Degree, and Bridges to the Doctoral Degree Programs.

Additional assistance in developing successful research grant applications is available through the University of Kentucky online grant writing workshop.

Important Steps in Preparing a Competitive Grant Application
How to Develop A Good Research Plan

The Grant Application Format and the Sequence of Topics in the Proposal
Introduction (only for revised applications and supplements)
Specific Aims/Objectives
Institutional Background and the Problem (need)
Rationale for the Strategy (literature review)
Progress Report (if competing renewal)
Activity Plan (research design and methods) to Achieve the Objectives

The Proposed Intervention Activities to Remedy Identified Problems
The Anticipated Impact of the Activities
Who Will Implement the Plan?
Possible Pitfalls and Probable Solutions
How are the Participants in the Activity Chosen?
The Timeline for Implementation

Evaluation Plan to Determine Program Outcomes
Administration of the Program
Other Elements of the Grant Application

Title Page
Description of the Project (Abstract)
Budget
Biographical Sketches of Key Personnel
Institutional Resources

Most Common Reasons for Failure
Examples of Impediments in Preparing Students for Careers in Biomedical Research (specific needs/concerns)
Examples of Goals and Specific Measurable Objectives

II. What Happens to the Proposals Submitted to NIH?

Scientific Review Administrator
Institute
Study Section
Institute Staff
Program Administrator (also known as the program director)
Grants Management Specialist
National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council
Review Criteria
Priority Score
Funding Decision
Budgetary or Council Issues

III. MARC U*STAR

Eligibility Requirements
Allowable Costs
Unallowable Costs
Model MARC U*STAR Budget
Unique Features
Most Common Reasons for Failure

IV. RISE

Eligibility Requirements
Types of Activities Supported
Allowable Costs
Unallowable Costs
Model RISE Budget

V. Bridges

Eligibility Requirements
Typical Needs
Types of Activities Supported
Allowable Costs
Unallowable Costs
Unique Features

Responsible Conduct of Research
Written Agreements
Grant Duration and Option to Subcontract
E-STAR

VI. Regulations Regarding Protection of Human Subjects and Laboratory Animal Welfare

Protection of Human Subjects
Laboratory Animal Welfare

I. Characteristics of a Successful Science Education Grant Application

• A successful proposal has first and foremost a good research plan.
• The proposal is organized in a logical format.
• There is clarity in presentation.
• The grant application is free of typos, grammatical errors, etc.

Important Steps in Preparing a Competitive Grant Application

• Read the instructions: what type of activities does the granting agency support?
• Read the pertinent instructions: what is the required proposal format and when is the proposal due?
• Read the correct instructions: what type of information is required?
• Read the most current instructions: do not assume the guidelines are the same as when you applied last time!
• Find the latest MORE Division funding opportunities, policy statements, etc., by visiting the MORE Web site.
• Know what you want to accomplish (i.e., identify the problem or need).
• What exists (faculty, laboratory, and library) - what should be
• What is (curriculum and student preparation) - what ought to be
• Present status (graduates' career plans) - desired status

How to Develop a Good Research Plan

• A good science education grant plan begins with identification of the problem(s).
• An analysis of the curricular and academic programs is the prerequisite to identifying the problem(s).
• Pinpoint the courses in which students stumble, drop out, get low grades, etc.
• Identify the faculty strengths and weaknesses in motivating students.
• Collect baseline data on student enrollment, graduation rate, grade point average, GRE scores, typical career plan, faculty research activities, etc., to strengthen your assumptions regarding problems in the curriculum.
• Formulate the overall long-term goals of the institution.
• Plan specific, measurable objectives to be achieved in the grant period.
• Put forward explicit academic activities that could ameliorate the problem.

The Grant Application Format and the Sequence of Topics in the Proposal

NIH grant applications are made using Form PHS 398. These forms are available online at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html. Information requested on the grant application falls under specific topics, described below.

Introduction (only for revised applications and supplements)

The introduction is brief (usually 1-2 pages) and contains the following:

• A rebuttal or acceptance of the critique provided by the reviewers (if the grant is a revised proposal).
• A list of modifications in the narrative of the proposal (how the modified sections are identified).
• The rationale for adding new activities (if the application is a supplement to a funded grant submitted within the past 18 months).

Specific Aims/Objectives

• The specific aims and objectives should be brief and focused--there is a limited opportunity to explain.
• Present the long range goal of the institution and the realistic specific measurable objectives for the proposed project(s).
• Briefly state each specific objective and the specific plan of activity to achieve the objective, and how the objective is linked to the needs and the resources available.

Page limit - one page.

Institutional Background and the Problem (need)

This section sets the stage that the institution has the specific needs and the personnel and other resources to meet the need if grant assistance becomes available.

• Define the nature of the institution in terms of enrollments, academic programs (graduation requirements and rates and graduates' career choices), faculty, laboratory, library, and administrative assets.
• Substantiate the availability of eligible students (include data, in tables or graphs with necessary legends, on minority student and general enrollment).
• Identify any courses that are particularly demoralizing for these students.
• Document faculty credentials, teaching loads, and laboratory and library facilities.
• Identify the specific problems that impede student academic excellence.
• Formulate goals and specific measurable objectives to overcome these problems.

Page limit - three to four pages.

Rationale for the Strategy (literature review)

• Highlight the problem to be addressed.
• Give the rationale for the choice of plan.
• Put the program plan in context (student retention, scholastic achievement, GPA/GRE scores, interest in research, etc.).
• Reference relevant literature for selecting the specific activity.

Progress Report (if competing renewal)

• Briefly outline the goals and objectives and activities in the currently funded application.
• Describe the accomplishments and outcomes of each activity during the previous grant cycle.
• Provide statistical data on student performance (at the beginning and at the end of the grant period), and emphasize improvements.
• Highlight specific achievements of individual students and/or faculty.
• Provide explanations for changes in the original plan, if any.
• Provide an explanation for not meeting the objectives, if necessary.

Page limit - six pages plus any tables.

Activity Plan (research design and methods) to Achieve the Objectives

This is the main part of the proposal. Present in this section the specific activities that you propose to overcome the problems. Your narrative of planned activities should refer to the problem/need identified, as well as to the institution's ability to deliver the program.

Describe:

• The proposed intervention activities to remedy the identified problems.
• The anticipated impact of the activities.
• Who will implement the plan.
• Possible pitfalls and probable solutions--alternative approaches.
• How are the participants in the activity are chosen.
• The timeline for implementation.

Page limit - there is no page limit, but the entire proposal (excluding the progress report) should not exceed 25 pages.

The Proposed Intervention Activities to Remedy Identified Problems

• Restate your long-term goal in simple terms.
• List the measurable objectives (i.e., anticipated outcomes of the proposed activities). These are not a list of proposed activities--they are connected to problems/needs.
• Identify the target group for the activities--freshmen, sophomores, etc.; or students in specific course; or a specific faculty member or group.
• Describe the activities expected to achieve the individual measurable objectives (use a separate subsection for each objective).
• Explain how the activity affects the problems/needs.
• Emphasize the rationale for the chosen activities (i.e., cite literature to support your choice of activities).
• Consider alternative strategies and justify your selection of the activity.
• Provide baseline data.

The Anticipated Impact of the Activities

• Give the current baseline data for each of the identified needs (retention, GPA/GRE scores, graduation rate, admission to post-graduate research degree programs, research publications, grant proposal submissions and awards, etc.).
• State the anticipated effect of the proposed activities on student academic performance, faculty research, and/or institutional instructional infrastructure.
• Provide the expected net measurable increase in student performance, etc.

Who Will Implement the Plan?

• Identify the faculty member (s) in charge of the activity described.
• Allude briefly to the credentials and suitability of the selected coordinator (education, research, and teaching experience, and any special qualifications or awards--details should be included in the biographical sketch).

Possible Pitfalls and Probable Solutions

Discuss the "what if" scenario (i.e., retention in "gatekeeper courses" or preparation of pre-matriculates for college level courses does not respond to group study, internet based study and testing, or peer tutorials. Interest in research careers is not stimulated by research seminars by minority or other famous researchers).

• When and how formative evaluations would be conducted to identify the inadequacy of the proposed activity.
• Suggest alternative strategies to achieve your objective.
• Justify their choice as alternatives rather than the primary choice.
• Describe the methods of implementation of the alternative protocols.

How Are the Participants in the Activity Chosen?

• Identify the student group or faculty individual (or group).
• Briefly restate the pool size and the anticipated number of participants.
• Explain the criteria for selection (GPA, SAT scores, previous experience, etc.).

The Timeline for Implementation

• State when the activity will be implemented.
• Describe the frequency of the activity.
• State the time of formative evaluation of the activity, if any.
• Give a date when you expect to see the effect on the identified baseline.

Evaluation Plan to Determine Program Outcomes

• Describe formative evaluations--these are evaluations carried out during the course of implementing activities to assess its suitability for the need.
• Describe summative evaluations--these evaluations are carried out at the end of the activity to assess the outcome.
• Discuss the use of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods.
• State when in the course of implementing the activity data will be collected.
• State any plans to make a mid-course modification of activities if formative evaluations indicate a need to change.
• Provide examples of questionnaires to be used to collect qualitative improvements such as perceptions of participants.
• State how data will be analyzed and provide the types of statistical methods to be used, if any, to test the reliability of the data.
• Identify who will collect and analyze the data and provide credentials of the person(s) selected for collection and analysis of data.

Note: Special help in understanding evaluation methods is available on the American Physiological Society Web site at
http://www.the-aps.org/education/promote/promote.html.

Administration of the Program

• Describe the credentials of the program director and the position of the program director in the institutional administrative hierarchy.
• Identify the duties of the program director in administering the program.
• Describe the composition and duties of an advisory committee, composed of representatives of the participating departments, administrators, and external experts. An advisory committee is optional, but its presence hints of institutional commitment.
• Detail the institutional administration--the organization of academic and finance divisions, and identify individuals responsible for financial matters.
• Identify key personnel for the program's implementation and provide their credentials (details of credentials can be described in their biographical sketches, but should also be referred to in this section).

Other Elements of the Grant Application

• Title Page
• Description of the Project (Abstract)
• Budget
• Biographical Sketches of Key Personnel
• Institutional Resources

Title Page

See the model pages under MARC, RISE, and Bridges.

Description of the Project (Abstract)

• Distills and summarizes the objectives, rationale, the plan, and the anticipated outcomes. Indicate whether the application is new, revised, or a renewal.
• Limited in space.
• Be succinct and motivating--this is most often the first section to be read.
• It is an abstract of the proposal. Do not list the needs, objectives, target groups, planned activities, their rationale, mode of implementation, and evaluation, but summarize all this information.

Budget

• The budget should never drive the proposal.
• List salaries and wages of all individuals to be employed by the grant under "Personnel."
• Justify all personnel with respect to effort and expertise.
• Itemize separately all anticipated expenses related to a specific activity in the section on supplies.
• The role of consultants (persons not employed by the applicant institution) should be clearly stated (i.e., specialist in evaluation).
• The equipment request must be congruent with the resource statement and stem from the proposed activities.
• Indicate the institutional contribution, if applicable.
• Provide a justification.

See the model budget under RISE.

Biographical Sketches of Key Personnel

• Document the credentials of the program director, coordinators of individual activities, and evaluators (education, research, teaching, and administrative experiences) accurately.
• Provide details of training and expertise that are relevant to the application and follow the strict page limits.
• Include only relevant and full citations in the bibliography.

Institutional Resources

• Describe the laboratory and lecture room space available for implementing the research and/or teaching activities.
• List all equipment needed for teaching and/or research.
• Include information on library resources (physical or internet).
• Specify the computational, internet, and other information technology equipment.

Most Common Reasons for Failure

• Lack of clear and well-defined measurable objectives.
• Incomplete documentation of the need.
• Missing or inadequate baseline data.
• Activities poorly related to the objectives.
• Poorly developed or missing evaluation plan.
• Lack of institutional support.
• Lack of coordination with other institutional programs aimed at accomplishing similar goals.
• Lack of information on intellectual and physical resources available.
• Lack of detailed specific schedules for implementation.
• Lack of clarity in presentation.

Some Tips:

• Write with the reader in mind--readers do not simply read, they interpret.
• Readers form opinions about the proposal from the clues they receive from its organization and emphasis.
• Information is interpreted more easily and correctly if it is placed in the expected place.
• Don't use jargon or buzz words.
• Include comments to convince the reader of your convictions in the choice of activities.
• Let the proposal flow logically throughout.
• The application should be easy to read and comprehensible.
• Use simple declarative sentences.
• Avoid imprecise use of words, unusual abbreviations, and poor syntax.

Examples of Impediments in Preparing Students for Careers in Biomedical Research (specific problems/needs)

• Matriculated students do not have necessary learning skills.
• Students do not have the necessary science background and find science courses difficult.
• Science courses do not challenge investigative instincts.
• Advanced science laboratory courses necessary for admission into doctoral degree programs are not available.
• Appropriate laboratory space and equipment are not available.
• Faculty lack the necessary expertise/experience to teach the courses.
• Current graduation requirements do not allow the addition of the courses into the students' curriculum.
• Opportunities to provide research experiences to undergraduates are limited or nonexistent.
• Science courses do not seem "relevant" to students.
• Science courses are not rigorous enough to prepare students for research work.
• The faculty course load does not allow time to update courses.
• Students have no role models engaged in research.
• Students do not have the confidence to embark on post-graduate research studies.
• GRE scores are not high enough for admission into doctoral degree programs.

Examples of Goals and Specific Measurable Objectives

• Increase the number of minority science graduates with high GPAs as a way of increasing the pool of potential graduate school applicants.
• Increase retention in science courses.
• Improve graduation rate.
• Improve communication skills.
• Improve quantitative skills.
• Improve student performance on the GRE.
• Increase student interest in biomedical research.

Note: Conducting an activity is not an objective (i.e., organizing a GRE course, research seminars, workshops, science days, tutorials, or other pedagogical methods are not objectives).

II. What Happens to the Proposals Submitted to NIH?

• The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) assigns the application a grant number.
• CSR assigns the application to an institute and study section.
• Each study section is managed by a Scientific Review Administrator (SRA). (Information on the assignment is sent to the program director listed on the application.)
• The SRA assembles a panel of specialists appropriate for the group of applications assigned to the study section.
• Each grant application is assigned to three members of the panel who prepare an in-depth critique. In addition, all members of the review panel receive the proposals.
• Following a detailed discussion lead by the primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers, the study section evaluates the application for scientific merit and feasibility, and assigns it a priority score.
• Institute staff attend the review to answer any questions about policy.
• The SRA prepares the summary statements based on study section discussions.
• Institute staff send the summary statement to the program director named on the application.
• The National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council reviews the recommendations of the study section and provides the second level of review.
• Institute staff select applications for funding.
• The Program Administrator (program director) and the Grants Management Specialist administer the funded grants.

Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)

• Handles applicant concerns about review prior to the study section meeting.
• Accepts or denies supplemental material before the review committee meeting.
• Selects the study section members.
• Assigns the applications to specific reviewers and arranges for additional special reviews.
• Arranges for the study section meeting and helps the chair of the committee to conduct the reviews.

Note: You may add a cover letter to your application to communicate with the CSR to apprise the SRA of any special considerations (i.e., persons who may have unusual bias against a proposed set of activities).

Institute

The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) is one of over 25 institutes and centers of NIH. NIGMS administers the MARC U*STAR, RISE, and Bridges grant programs through its Division of Minority Opportunities in Research (MORE).

The MORE Division has three components:

• Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC)
• Minority Biomedical Research Support (MBRS)
• Special Initiatives

Study Section

Selection of members takes into consideration, in addition to programmatic expertise:

• Geographic representation.
• Ethnic representation.
• Gender representation.
• Institutional affiliation.

Role:

• Reviews the application for scientific merit and feasibility based on the review criteria.
• Reviewers prepare detailed critiques of the proposal and their opinions are discussed at the study section meeting.
• As a group, assigns the application a priority score.
• Makes budgetary recommendations.
• Identifies overlap with other grants of key personnel and human subjects, animal, or biohazard concerns.

Institute Staff

MORE Division staff administer programs in specific states and can be reached at 301-594-3900 or by e-mail:

Program Administrator (also known as the program director)

• Manages a portfolio of grants for an institute.
• Handles questions from potential applicants and current grantees.
• Handles concerns about review after the study section meeting.
• Identifies budgetary or Council issues.
• Recommends final funding decisions in accordance with institute policy.
• Serves as a contact person for grantees. Call or e-mail your program administrator when you have questions about priorities of the institute, program policies, etc.

Grants Management Specialist

• Reviews budgets, budget justifications, and compliance of human and animal welfare considerations.
• Is responsible for sending out the award statement once a funding decision is made.
• Monitors fiscal management and policy implementation.
• Receives noncompeting renewal applications.
• Reviews financial status reports.

National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council

• Composed of eminent scientists/educators.
• Provides the second level of review.
• Advises the Institute on matters of policy and priority.
• Resolves any challenges to the study section review submitted by the program director.
• Acts on study section recommendations:
  - concur with recommendations;
  - modify recommendation--but cannot alter priority score; or,
  - defer an application for further review.

Review Criteria

• Is there adequate documentation for the institutional need?
• Are goals and specific, measurable objectives derived from baseline data?
• Do the proposed student, faculty, and institutional activities constitute a coherent program?
• Are the proposed activities feasible and are they likely to help achieve the stated goals, measurable objectives, anticipated milestones, and/or outcomes?
• Is the rationale for the choice of activity appropriate?
• Are credentials of the faculty coordinators of the proposed activities provided?
• Are plans to manage access to the requested equipment and its maintenance adequate?
• Is there evidence of institutional commitment?
• What is the quality of the evaluation plan?
• Is the program director suitable?
• Is the administrative plan for managing the proposed program appropriate?
• Are letters of commitment and other expressions of interest by on-campus or off-campus scientists and/or institutions, and their credentials, included?

Priority Score

• The priority score ranges from 100 (best) to 500 (worst).
• Represents an average of all reviewers' scores (1 to 5 increments of 0.1) multiplied by 100.
• Cannot be altered.
• Used in calculation of percentile ranking of grant applications.
• Priority scores of all applications reviewed by three consecutive review panels are pooled to compute the percentile rank of an application.
• In the MORE Division, only applications with a priority score in the top 50th percentile are likely to be funded.
• The study section may decide by majority vote not to score an application if the reviewers recommend that it receive a designation "not scored."
• In some cases, the study section may decide not to consider the application further.

Funding Decision

• Recommended by the program staff on the basis of:
  - merit measured by percentile rank, reviewers critiques, and progress report;
  - programmatic considerations (i.e., priorities announced in policy); and,
  - availability of funds.
• Approved by the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.
• Made by the NIGMS director.
• Cannot be appealed.

Budgetary or Council Issues

• The NIGMS council may not approve funding a proposal recommended by Institute staff.
• The NIGMS council may recommend funding a proposal that was not initially recommended by Institute staff.
• There is not enough money in the budget to fund all recommended applications.

III. MARC U*STAR

The MARC U*STAR Program provides fellowship support for advanced academic and research training of minority honors undergraduate juniors and seniors in biological, biomedical, behavioral, and related sciences in preparation for entry into doctoral degree programs. U*STAR also supports academic enhancement activities aimed at preparing freshmen and sophomores for participation in MARC training activities, and for faculty development.

Eligibility Requirements

State or private, post secondary educational institutions with an adequate number (typically four times the number of scholars the institution proposes to support under the program) of honors minority students matriculated in biological, biomedical, and behavioral science undergraduate degree programs are eligible to apply for MARC U*STAR grants.

Allowable Costs

• Stipend for MARC trainees in the junior and senior years.
• Tuition and fees.
• Travel for the trainee and faculty, including attendance at scientific meetings.
• Training-related expenses--a supply allowance for the student, health insurance for the trainee, and equipment if fully justified.
• Salary support for faculty who are directly involved in the special training activities for MARC students, if clearly justified.
• Faculty development--costs of workshops or courses to enhance pedagogical and/or research training skills.
• Administration of the program--percent time and effort of the program director and a secretary or program assistant, and evaluation costs.
• Pre-MARC student development activities--costs related to student development activities for freshmen and sophomore students but not tuition, stipends, and student travel.
• Facilities and administrative costs--an indirect cost allowance based on a percentage of the total allowable direct costs (excluding tuition, fees, health insurance, and equipment).

Unallowable Costs

• Stipend for pre-MARC students.
• Research support for faculty.

Model MARC U*STAR Budget

Use pages OO and PP in Form PHS 398.

Unique Features

Include in the MARC student training plan a program to acquaint the students with the responsible conduct of research.

• Describe in detail plans for teaching responsible conduct. This is a mandatory requirement.
• Give information on the subject matter of the instruction; the format, including attendance requirements; the frequency and duration; and the extent of faculty participation.
• Provide a rationale for the choice of the proposed plan.

Note: These instruction plans constitute part of review criteria. Irrespective of the priority score, applications with unacceptable plans will not be funded until a revised, acceptable plan is provided.

Pre-MARC student enrichment activities, if included, should describe:

• Recruitment strategies and entry of students into the program at different points in their education.
• How the pre-MARC program participants are incorporated into the MARC training program.

Faculty development activities, if included, discuss:

• How they form a component of an ongoing institutional faculty development plan.
• How the activities impact the training capabilities of the institution.

See the MARC U*STAR Policy Statement for details.

Most Common Reasons for Failure

• Incomplete or superficial information throughout.
• Poorly developed and/or absence of specific measurable objectives.
• Poorly developed training plan and/or training activities.
• Inadequate or underdeveloped evaluation plan.
• Lack of baseline data or imprecise presentation of baseline data.
• No linkage between the specific measurable objectives, the training activities, and the evaluation plan.
• Lack of capacity for intramural research when it is proposed as a cornerstone of the institutional MARC U*STAR program.
• Inexperienced program director.
• Absence of credentials of the evaluator or training faculty.
• No evidence of institutional support.

IV. RISE

The RISE Program provides grant support for student, faculty, and institutional development activities at minority institutions that are designed to increase the number of academically competitive bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree graduates and faculty interested in research careers in biological, biomedical, and behavioral sciences.

Eligibility Requirements

Only non-profit, state or private, post secondary educational institutions with substantial (i.e., more than 50 percent) enrollment of minority students in biological, biomedical, and behavioral science courses are eligible to apply for RISE grants.

Types of Activities Supported

There are no limitations as to the types of academic enhancement activities supported by the RISE Program if the rationale and appropriateness to meet the specific need are convincing to the review groups. The MBRS Program encourages novel approaches to pedagogy as well as motivation of students for research careers in biological, biomedical, and behavioral sciences.

Allowable Costs

• Undergraduate student participants in special enrichment activities may be paid hourly wages commensurate with wages paid other students doing comparable work.
• Graduate students are also paid an hourly wage, tuition expenses are also permitted.
• Salary support for faculty developing special pedagogical methods based on percent effort and the fraction of the total time commitment to the university that will be reduced to carry out the programmatic activities.
• Salary support for faculty engaged in research proportional to percent effort.
• Travel for faculty and students to attend scientific meetings and present research papers.
• Travel expenses of the program director and a grants management representative to attend program directors' meetings.
• Cost of supplies and small pieces of equipment necessary to provide laboratory experiences to students.
• Renovation and alterations to laboratory space up to a maximum of $40,000.
• Summer salary is limited two months at 100 percent effort or 2/9ths of academic year salary.

Unallowable Costs

• Undergraduate tuition, recruitment costs, and meals.
• Costs of mentoring (i.e., general student counseling).
• Membership in scientific societies and subscriptions to journals.
• Laptop computers.
• Renovation for office space or for conference rooms.

See the RISE Policy Statement for details.

Model RISE Budget

PHS 398 (Rev. 05/01) (Form Page 4) Page ________ DD

EE Principal Investigator/Program director (Last, first, initial) John Q.

(Calculate the estimated expenses for the entire grant period. Explain any increases such as X percent cost of living increases in salaries, increase due to cumulative increase in the number of students employed, etc. Similarly, explain any reductions such as equipment needs are only for the first year.)

Justification: Follow the budget justification instructions exactly. Use continuation pages as needed.

Personnel: (The examples of developmental activities included in the budget are arbitrarily chosen, only to discuss the underlying rules.)

Program Director: The program director in charge of the RISE program has teaching and administrative duties as a professor in department X. In order to relieve the program director of some of these duties and devote time to administer the RISE program grant, 10 percent release time is requested. The duties include supervision of the selection of students as well as coordination of the different student and faculty developmental activities. Since student selection for the pre-freshman scholastic workshop and organization takes place in summer, 25 percent summer salary is also requested for the program director. (Note that fringe benefits are calculated at 10 percent of salary for convenience in this mock budget. The institutional finance office will provide the correct figure.)

Secretary: The services of a secretary to assist the program director in conducting RISE grant-related business is budgeted at 10 percent of the salary of XXX, lead secretary in the X department office.

Coordinator-Student Activity 1: (It is useful to give descriptive titles for each developmental activity and use that acronym instead of using a number.) Dr. X, professor of Y, will be in charge of the 8-week long summer workshop required of all prospective RISE program students who are admitted as freshman. He will be responsible for organizing and conducting the workshops to enrich reading and writing skills. Summer salary for 2 months for this activity coordinator is requested. (It is important to identify the faculty member who will be conducting the course.)

Instructor-Student Activity 1: The workshop components designed to help students with quantitative skills will be designed and conducted by Professor X, a specialist in mathematics education. Forty percent of this instructor's summer salary is included in the budget.

Coordinator Student Activity 2: Professor X will also teach the introductory calculus course in which RISE program students will be enrolled. The instructor will organize study groups, review sessions, and additional activities to assist their comprehension of the subject. Funds for 20 percent release time for one semester (10 percent per year) are requested.

Faculty Development 1: Dr. Y, an associate professor, will teach introductory chemistry courses and organize the additional support activities for the students. In addition, she is proposing to develop pedagogical tools suitable to teach freshman chemistry to students whose knowledge of high school chemistry is less than optimal. It is anticipated that this activity will be undertaken with a small group of students in one summer and will be further refined in the second summer. One hundred percent salary for two summers and 20 percent academic year release time for 4 years are requested. (Indicate in the faculty development plan the anticipated outcome of this pedagogical tool development activity.)

Faculty Development 2: Dr. Z, a senior professor with an active research program, plans to spend a summer in the laboratory of Professor X at the University of ?? to learn xxx methods and to initiate a collaborative project on X. Funds for 100 percent summer salary are budgeted for year one only. (Note that it is important to identify the faculty member and host institution if the information is available, or at least identify the probable host institutions and include any commitment letters.)

Students-Activity 1: Students often plan to work in the summer preceding their matriculation in the school. Hence, it is necessary to treat the students in the pre-freshman summer workshop as employees and pay them. Normally, all freshman who are on work study or other employment on the campus are paid $6 per hour. The budget reflects these employment charges for 12 students for 8 weeks. Fringe benefits for students are charged at 8 percent of wages to cover social security and related taxes only. (Note that undergraduates cannot be paid a stipend. The RISE participants must have only an employer/employee relationship. Always use the prevailing wage rate. No housing or meal allowances are permitted under the RISE Program.)

Students-Activity 2: This budget item refers to the salary of six students (half sophomores and half juniors) engaged in research in an off campus setting and their wage is set at $10 per hour, considering the related expenses. (Note that only some fraction of each freshman group may be expected to show interest and are prepared to engage in research.)

Students-Activity 3: These students are engaged in research on campus during the academic year. These students will also participate in a special literature survey, in collaboration with the prospective research mentor, to prepare them for their summer research. (It is important that the student wage budgets are given separately for each developmental activity even if the hourly wage is the same. Further, note that RISE participants cannot be paid for attending special courses or workshops that are designed to improve their scholarship or preparation to take GRE tests, etc.)

Consultants: Professor X, a specialist in educational metrics, helped with the design of the questionnaires presented in the evaluation section and will serve as a consultant for the grant. (If the specialist is a faculty member in one of the participating departments, that person cannot be paid as a consultant. But the expense should be charged as release time or summer salary, or both, depending on the anticipated load.)

Equipment: As noted in the institutional development section, we plan to include a laboratory course in cell and molecular biology to complement our histology and anatomy lab course. The equipment budget reflects cost of equipping the lab. (Make sure the specifics of the course are given in the pertinent section of the proposed plan. List the price of each item. Do not include purely research instruments such as ultracentrifuges and recording spectrophotometers. Other venues for funding research equipment purchases have to be explored. If the course is entirely new, it is justified to ask for salary for a faculty member for one summer to have a trial run and release time for one semester when the course is first offered. If the equipment requested is to implement two different curriculum development activities, itemize the list and request funds pertinent to each activity separately.)

Supplies: These funds are for the purchase of the listed items needed to conduct the new lab course proposed in the curriculum development (see page X), and to provide supply money for the student and faculty research activities outlined in sections X and Y, pages # and #. (Note the supply budget itemizes separately the anticipated costs for each of the student and faculty development activity.)

Travel: In addition to the program director's travel to the annual program directors' meeting, funds are requested for travel for faculty members X and Y to attend national scientific meetings. These travel expenses are supplemented by the institution. Funds are also requested for six students to travel to their summer research lab and six to travel to a national scientific meeting to present their research results. The Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students and/or annual or regional meetings of scientific societies such as the American Society for Cell Biology, the American Society of Human Genetics, and the Society for Developmental Biology.

Alterations and Renovations: The alteration and renovation costs are essential to implementing the curriculum development activity described in the section on institutional development (see page #). The quotes for the supply of new lab benches (###) and the labor charges for hooking up the benches (###) are included in appendix 1. (Please note alterations and renovations costs for faculty and/or student offices are not allowable. Similarly, any item considered a cosmetic improvement is not allowable. Essentials such as a fume hood in the lab will be allowed even if it is not directly required for a specific curriculum development activity, but it improves the research environment or infrastructure of the institution. A $40,000 alterations and renovations limit applies for the entire grant period, not per year.)

Other expenses: A modest supply budget is requested to offset the extra recordkeeping and related activities arising from the RISE Program. A computer (specify the type) dedicated for RISE-related activities is needed to keep student records. This helps to keep a running tally of the expenditures as well as the progress of students including their appointments with mentors, group study activities, etc. (Note laptop computers are not allowable.)

Common Deficiencies

• The need for the programmatic activity for the intended group is not established.
• The rationale for the programmatic activity is not clear.
• There is a weak linkage between the institutional self analysis, objectives, and plan.
• The size of the student pool is not substantiated.
• There is no baseline data, or the data is incomplete.
• The program director and/or the proposed activity coordinators have weak credentials.
• The availability of resources is not documented.
• There is no evaluation plan, or it is not well described.
• For competing renewal applications, there's an unexplained lack of success in the reporting period.
• Sloppy preparation of the application.

V. Bridges

The Bridges to the Future Program supports academic enrichment activities for junior college and master's degree students through partnerships between 2- and 4-year institutions and between master's and doctoral programs.

Eligibility Requirements

The goal of the Bridges Program is to develop partnerships that support and facilitate underrepresented minority student transfers at two key points in the educational career--from the associate degree to the baccalaureate degree, and from the master's degree to the doctoral degree. Hence, eligibility for these grants requires a partnership between at least two educational institutions.

Of the two collaborating institutions that apply for a Bridges to the Baccalaureate grant, one must offer no higher than an associate degree, and the other must offer the baccalaureate degree. More than one associate degree granting institution may team up with a bachelor's-degree granting institution. Similarly institutions applying for a Bridges to the Doctoral grant must have at least one institution that offers the master's degree as the terminal degree.

Typical Needs

• Implementing courses that satisfy graduation requirements at all partner institutions (both course content and course requirements).
• Student recruitment and retention at the second level partner institutions.
• Exposing the students from the first level partner institution to a greater variety of courses, research, and other academic experiences, and thus to career opportunities available at the second level partner institution.

Types of Activities Supported

• Planning for course articulation so that courses at each of the partner institution satisfy graduation requirements at the senior partner institution.
• Exposing students from the first level partner institutions to advanced courses and/or research experiences available at the second level partner institution.
• Tutorials and/or other methods to increase the number of students transferring from the first level to the second level institution.

Allowable Costs

• Salaries for the program director, coordinators, and evaluator.
• Supplies and small equipment for student research.
• Travel to scientific meetings and to the annual Bridges program directors' meeting.
• Costs for travel between campuses, if justified (and only rarely).
• Undergraduates:
  - hourly wages based on the institution's scale; and
  - tuition remission for specific required courses only.
• Graduate students:
  - salaries and wages based on the institution's scale up to $26,000; and
  - tuition remission.

Unallowable Costs

• Stipends.
• Student wages once the student transfers to the second level institution (4-year and doctoral).
• Recruitment costs.
• Housing and food.
• Costs for daily commuting.

Unique Features

Responsible Conduct of Research

All students in the Bridges to the Doctoral Program must receive instruction on the responsible conduct of research. Include in the plan the type of instruction proposed.

• Describe, in detail, plans for teaching responsible conduct--a mandatory requirement.
• Give information on the subject matter of the instruction, the format, including attendance requirements, frequency and duration, and the extent of faculty participation.
• Provide a rationale for the choice of the proposed plan.

These instruction plans constitute part of review criteria. Irrespective of the priority score, applications with unacceptable plans will not be funded until a revised, acceptable plan is provided.

Written Agreements

All partner institutions must have written agreements specifying the areas of cooperation involved in implementing the Bridge-supported activities. The agreement document with signatures of the appropriate institutional administrators must be included as a part of the grant application.

Grant Duration and Option to Subcontract

Bridges grants extend for 3 years and are renewable. Funds may be received and disbursed by one of the partners, who acts as the lead institution. Funds then go to the grantee institution, which pays all personnel at all partner institutions directly under no subcontract. Alternatively, funds for each of the partner institution are budgeted as subcontracts. Then the lead institution receives the funds and disburses them to the partner institutions. The partners pay personnel at their institutions directly. In either case, the Financial Status Report (FSR) is due from the lead institution and must include FSRs from each partner.

E-STAR

Data on each student who has received Bridges funding must be entered in a central, secure NIH database for tracking these students. Longitudinal data will be maintained.

See the Bridges to the Future policy statements for details:

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/funding/grntmech.html#bridges (Bridges to the Baccalaureate)
http://www.nigms.nih.gov/funding/grntmech.html#e (Bridges to the Doctoral)

VI. Regulations Regarding Protection of Human Subjects and Laboratory Animal Welfare

All persons conducting research on laboratory animals or humans with NIH grant funds must clear the experimental protocols through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) that has been authorized by the appropriate federal agency. This rule applies even if the proposed research is not conducted at the grantee institution (i.e., if a student or faculty member supported by NIH funds conducts research at another institution). Although U*STAR, RISE, and Bridges grants do not require the applicant to describe the research project in detail, it is not unlikely that one more student or faculty members supported by these grants may do research on laboratory animals and/or human subjects. Hence it is important that the applicant institution become familiar with these regulations.

NIGMS cannot fund an approved grant application if the institution does not have on file appropriate assurances that the institutional animal welfare and human protection committees have the necessary experience and expertise to handle human subjects or animal welfare concerns.

Protection of Human Subjects

The Office for Human Research Protections in the Department of Health and Human Services develops and administers Human Subjects Protection policies. Contact http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/ for procedures to set up the IRB and obtain a general authorization to review research protocols and issue assurance. IRB approval of the research project is not required prior to NIH peer review of the application. Mark Item 4 on the face page "No." Explain in the body of the application that if any student or faculty member plans to engage in research involving human subjects, the necessary IRB approval of the research protocols will be obtained before they begin the study. If you know that one or more students are involved in research using human subjects, you must mark Item 4 on the face page "Yes." Address the questions of gender and minority inclusion to indicate a diverse group of individuals are included in the study. Similarly, address the question of the inclusion of children. Note that six types of studies on humans are exempt from these regulations. Identify by number the specific exempt category (see pages 27-28 of PHS Form 398 instructions related to human subjects.)

Laboratory Animal Welfare

The NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) must approve the institutional supervision of humane care and use of laboratory animals. OLAW reviews institutional procedures to ensure the humane care of vertebrate animals (maintenance of animal care facilities, record keeping, reporting) prior to approval of Animal Welfare Assurance. Each institution must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to supervise the animal care facilities and animal use procedures. The IACUC must approve all the experimental protocols in which laboratory animals are used, and this assurance must be submitted at the time of submission of the grant application or with 60 days of submission. NIH cannot fund a grant application if the animal welfare assurance is not included with the proposal or at least submitted in a timely manner.