Toolkit for NIH Funding

Mission and Organization of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

 
NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and is the primary Federal agency conducting and supporting medical research. NIH is composed of the Office of Director, 20 individual Institutes, and seven Centers.  Information about the organizational structure of NIH http://www1.od.nih.gov/oma/manualchapters/management/1123/nih.pdf and about each specific institute or center http://www.nih.gov/icd is available online.  Note: To see presentations from the most recent NIH regional grants conference, click here.

 
The mission of NIH is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to promote healthy lives and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.  Consequently, NIH funds research in the biomedical and health sciences.  Fundable research projects include those related to understanding fundamental biological processes and/or the associated abnormalities of disease surrounding those biological processes, in addition to outreach and education activities about disease, its prevention and treatment, and its occurrence in specific environments or geographies.  Although the individual institutes and centers have certain areas of interest, the Office of the Director, in consultation with various advisory committees and based on input from individual investigators, may suggest specific areas of research for the individual institutes and centers. Directors of each institute and center then use such input to focus their funding priorities accordingly.

NIH Funding Priorities

 
NIH funds research projects both within its own laboratories and at national or international locations.  “Extramural” funding is available to people and institutions outside NIH, while “intramural” funding is available only to those members of specific institute or center laboratories located within the NIH campus. 

 
Extramural funding from NIH can come in various forms, but in general, proposals are categorized as solicited or unsolicited.  A solicited proposal is one where NIH or one of its institutes and centers has an interest in a specific topic and they will advertise (post to their website) a solicitation for proposals on that particular topic. Each institute and center within NIH generates a list of solicitations, called requests for applications (RFA) or program announcements (PA), which target a specific research area.  There is a place to sign up for email notification of these solicitations by going to the NIH website, http://www.grants.gov/FedGrantsNotification2.  These solicitations may have due dates different from the regular dates.  Read the solicitation carefully to determine eligibility and due dates.  

On the other hand, an unsolicited proposal is one that an investigator sends to an institute or center within a general area of research (e.g., cell biology of cancer) using a regular cycle of submission dates http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm.  Most grant proposals submitted to NIH are unsolicited.  As a percentage of the total number of grant proposals submitted to NIH, only a very small percentage (~18%) are awarded in response to a solicitation.  On the other hand, a very large proportion (~82%) of the total number of grant applications submitted to NIH and subsequently awarded are the result of investigator-initiated, or unsolicited proposals.

                                                         Source: grants.nih.gov/grants/choosing_fundInstrument.doc 

What types of projects does NIH fund and is there a specific emphasis in a particular area?  That information can be found by looking at the websites of specific institutes and centers for their funding priorities http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/IC_Funding_Plans.htm; by reading press releases and speeches by institute and center directors; and by looking up historical award data from various institutes to see what types of proposals have been funded (either through each institute and center website, or by going to CRISP and doing a search of funding by institute http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generate_screen.  Brief descriptions of the institutes and centers, as well as their abbreviations are listed at http://www.nih.gov/icd/.

 
As a unified entity, NIH has made some specific recommendations in terms of areas of research that will guide the field of biomedical science through the current century.  This idea began as a critical evaluation of the current state of affairs of biomedical and health-related research findings, and how those findings have guided the practice of medicine in terms of reducing the burden of disease on the human population.  That critical analysis led to the development of a general set of guidelines for all institutes and centers to adopt in terms of a more focused effort in the use of their funding allocations with respect to the application of the funded research directly to the clinic (“bench to bedside,” or “translational research”).  The NIH Roadmap is the overall document that provides leadership to the directors of institutes and centers in their strategic planning for future research initiatives http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/.  There are also funding opportunities for funding specific to the NIH Roadmap initiatives at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/grants/index.asp.  An objective of the roadmap was to encourage investigators, institutes, and centers to cross traditional boundaries (institute-specific, techniques and methods, career [physician/scientist], discipline [medicine/engineering]) in order to make new and significant discoveries towards common NIH goals.  One outcome has been Trans-NIH Scientific Initiatives (e.g., Pain Research Consortium, Model Organisms for Research Consortium, Bioengineering Consortium) and other non-institute and center-directed research (e.g., NIH Obesity Research, NIH Neuroscience Blueprint).

Funding Avenues, Funding Instruments, and Research Activities

There are various resources available in order to identify the most appropriate funding mechanism for a particular research topic.  See the table below for a brief description of the many programs and opportunities NIH offers to secure extramural funding. For a complete list of NIH funding mechanisms and links to a thorough description of each, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm. 

This table was taken from a larger document that can be found at: http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/choosing_fundInstrument.doc.
Finally, be sure that NIH is the right place to fund a project in a particular area of research before deciding to which institute or center a proposal should be sent.  Information about which federal government agency can help with the process of deciding on a particular funding agency can be found at the following website, http://www.grants.gov/TypesofGrants, where there is a listing of different research areas funded by the various 26 federal agencies.  If NIH is the right place for a particular research project, this website provides some guidance with respect to the decision about the appropriate grant mechanism to use.

Overview of NIH Grant Review: the Center for Scientific Review (CSR)

 
The Center for Scientific Review is the main portal for NIH grant applications and their review for scientific merit. They organize peer review groups or study sections that evaluate the majority (70%) of research grant applications sent to NIH.  They also receive all grant applications for NIH, as well as for some other components of DHHS. The mission of CSR is to ensure that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews.  CSR receives nearly 80,000 applications a year and recruits over 14,000 external experts to review applications in its study sections, which often meet three times during the year. Additional scientists serve on other NIH advisory councils, which provide a second level of peer review and make funding recommendations based on priorities set by Congress, DHHS, and the public. For a brief presentation on the review process at CSR, go to http://cms.csr.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/382C309C-8393-4C78-9672-D430B0E81A08/5502/csr_overview.ppt#256,1,Center for Scientific Review

 
CSR receives all solicited and unsolicited applications for NIH extramural funding. Study sections within the various IRGs mainly review research project grant applications;  however, some applications are sent to specially convened study sections (e.g., special emphasis panels), especially if the application is sent in response to a particular RFA or PA.  Most National Research Service Award individual fellowship applications (NRSA) and other NIH Career Awards are reviewed in special study sections that are designated for these reviews. More information about the Fellowship Study Sections is available at http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/Fellowship.

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) applications are reviewed in Special Emphasis Panels within CSR's integrated review groups (IRG). While most study sections at CSR are composed of standing committee members (i.e., the same members stay on the same study section for about three years or roughly nine grant cycles), small business review panels are assembled on an ad hoc basis for each meeting and are subject to change. Additional information about Small Business Applications reviews can be found at http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/sbirsttr/ and on the page entitled CSR Study Section Roster Index at http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp. In addition, each of the CSR IRG descriptions can be found at http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/

Grant applications are reviewed by a group of research peers; thus the term, “peer review process” has been used to describe the grant review.  For a complete overview of  specific steps in the grant review process, see http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/OverviewofPeerReviewProcess.htm

The objective of the peer review process is to provide a fair, objective review of all grant applications for scientific merit.  While most grants are reviewed using the same general guidelines (see below), differential emphasis is placed on some review criteria depending on the type of proposal.  Basic guidelines used to evaluate a proposal include the following five criteria: significance, approach, innovation, investigator, and environment.    For an example of the guidelines for reviewers of R01 new grants, see http://cms.csr.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/849C0F12-A897-4D17-B5D0-09EFE9184667/5552/R01_Research_Grants1.pdf).  However, for more information about variation from the set criteria for specific grant applications, see http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/PolicyProcedureReview+Guidelines/Guidelines+for+Review+of+Specific+Applications/  (section B.)  For a good overview of the proposal submission and review process, use the following link http://www.nibib1.nih.gov/events/thermography/ppts/Sipe/thermosipe.ppt.

 
Unless a proposal is streamlined or triaged (see below), it will receive a priority score and percentile ranking from the study section through the Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) for a particular study section.  Each scored grant application is assigned a single, global score that reflects the overall impact that the project could have on the research field based on consideration of the five review criteria (significance, approach, innovation, investigator, environment), with the emphasis on each criterion varying from one application to another depending on the nature of the application and its relative strengths.  The best possible priority score is 100 and the worst is 500.  Individual reviewers mark scores to two significant figures (e.g., 2.2; one decimal place) and the individual scores are averaged by the SRA, and then multiplied by 100 to yield a single overall score for each application, e.g., 253.  Once research grant applications (R01s) reviewed by CSR study sections are scored, they are assigned a percentile rank.  The conversion of priority scores to percentile rankings is based on scores assigned to applications reviewed during the current, plus past two review rounds.  Note that at CSR, applications other than R01s are not percentiled.

 
Unfortunately, not all unsolicited (or investigator-initiated) grant applications will receive a priority score (nor a percentile rank), but all proposals will be reviewed for scientific content and comments from each of the reviewers will be sent back to the PI verbatim through the SRA.  CSR calls this process “streamlining” and it involves reviewers assessing the merit of each application, and then reducing the total number of applications by half, so only the “top 50%” of proposals submitted will get assigned a score.   For more information on the streamlining process, see http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/PolicyProcedureReview+Guidelines/Guidelines+for+Review+of+Specific+Applications/
Guidelines+For+Study+Section+Reviewers+and+Chairs/StreamlinedReviewProceduresusedinCSR.htm    Note that the streamlining procedure only applies to research applications, not to fellowships or career applications; all fellowship and career applications are scored. 

 
To view the success rate (percent funded grant applications) for awards made through NIH broken down by specific categories (such as agency, type of award, etc.), go to http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/success.htm.

CSR and Agency-Specific Grant Writing Tutorials

 
Of all the Federal funding agencies, NIH has one of the most structured formats for proposal submission.  The specifics of the proposal format can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html and http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/instructions2/p1_specific_instructions.htm. Guidelines may differ slightly depending on a specific solicitation and the size of the proposal (single investigator or center grant proposal). If responding to a specific solicitation, be sure to read the entire document to determine if the proposal format deviates from the typical NIH proposal (the PHS398 forms).   CSR, as well as specific institutes, have developed tutorials for helping individuals prepare for submitting proposals, found at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ep/Tutorial.html and http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm

NIH offers specific resources for proposal development, submission, and revised proposal submission.

     Grant Writing Tip Sheets
     Annotated R01 Grant Application
     Advice on Research Training and Career Awards
     Preparing Grant Applications from the National Cancer Institute
     Quick Guide for Grant Applications from the National Cancer Institute
     Quick Guide for the Preparation of Grant Applications NCCAM
     All About Grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
     FAQ: Grant Application and Review Information from the National Library of Medicine
     New NIH Grant Applicants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences

NIH website for new investigators

 
If an investigator is very new to the NIH proposal preparation and submission process, the NIH maintains a website specifically designed to answer junior investigator’s questions. Go to http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/ to find out the answers to many NIH-specific questions.  And finally, if help is needed with the interpretation of an RFA or PA, call the program officer listed on the announcement for guidance through the specifics of the announcement.

Other Helpful Resources