Key Dates
Release Date:  November 7, 2016

Related Announcements
NOT-OD-16-134
NOT-OD-16-062    

Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Purpose

The purpose of this Notice is to announce the process whereby recipients of Kirschstein-NRSA institutional training grant and individual fellowship awards supporting currently active postdoctoral trainees or fellows with 0, 1, or 2 years of experience as of December 1, 2016, will received increased stipends. The Notice also provides instructions for requesting one-time supplemental funding to cover the stipend increase.

As previously announced (NOT-OD-16-134), stipend levels for postdoctoral NRSA recipients with 0, 1 or 2 years of experience will be increased in furtherance of the NIH mission. This increase is distinct from a projected cost-of-living adjustment for postdoctoral stipends that is subject to the availability of FY 2017 appropriations.

Current NRSA stipend levels at years 0, 1 and 2 years of postdoctoral experience are shown below along with the amount of the increase for each career level. 

Process

In order to acknowledge the significant contributions of postdoctoral researchers to our research mission, eligible NRSA awardees may request supplemental funds as outlined below.  Specifically, recipients of Kirschstein-NRSA institutional training grant and individual fellowship awards supporting currently active postdoctoral trainees and fellows at levels 0, 1, and 2, ending after December 1, 2016, may apply for one-time supplemental funding to support the stipend increase using the Parent Announcement for Administrative Supplements to Existing NIH Grants, PA-16-287.

For Institutional Training Grants:

Applications may be submitted based only on the number of appointees at levels 0, 1, and 2. Applicants may not increase the number of appointees under the current award as a result of this supplemental funding notice.  Applications must remain consistent with the current experience level of each postdoctoral appointee, which cannot be adjusted as a result of this notice.

Applicants must be careful to accurately identify the number of postdocs at each level and request an accurate, corresponding supplemental dollar amount.  Applicants should only request funds to cover increases in stipends at these levels from December 1, 2016 up to the end date of the current period of appointment. 

Examples:

Institution A has 3 postdocs at Level 0, 1 at Level 1, and 2 at Level 2 with periods of appointment ending on January 31, 2017. Its supplemental funding request would be:

Institution B has 3 postdocs at Level 0, 1 postdoc at Level 1, and 2 postdocs at Level 2 with periods of appointment ending on August 31, 2017 for all except for the Level 1 postdoc, whose period of appointment ends earlier, on June 30, 2017. Its supplemental funding request would be:

Note: For periods less than a whole month (i.e., days and weeks) stipends should be prorated as appropriate.

Additionally, in the interest of providing additional funds as quickly as possible, recipients should not propose within the supplemental funding application any change to the grant that would otherwise require prior approval from the awarding Institute/Center.  Once a supplement has been issued, it will not be revised to account for any errors within an application.

Current NRSA awardees that meet the criteria above wishing to apply for this one-time supplemental funding must submit an application to the awarding IC as soon as possible, and applications will be reviewed as quickly as possible in an effort to issue these awards expeditiously.

Appointments of postdoctoral trainees at the Levels 0, 1, and 2 made via xTrain as of December 1, 2016 will reflect these new stipend levels.  Additional guidance will be forthcoming about adjustments to appointment records for currently active trainees at those levels.   

For Individual NRSA Postdoctoral Fellowships:

Applications may be submitted to cover projected stipend increases for individual NRSA postdoctoral fellows at levels 0, 1, and 2. Applicants should only request funds to cover increases in stipends for postdoctoral fellows at levels 0, 1 or 2 from December 1, 2016 up to the end date of the current budget year of the award. The subsequent Notice of Award (NOA) for the next budget year will reflect the FY 2017 stipend levels. 

Examples:

Individual fellowship budget year ends June 30, 2017.  Supplemental funding requests for fellows at career levels 0, 1 or 2 would be as follows:

Individual fellowship budget year ends August 31, 2017.  Supplemental funding requests for fellows at career levels 0, 1 or 2 would be as follows:

* For periods less than a whole month (i.e., days and weeks) stipends should be prorated as appropriate.

Current NRSA awardees that meet the criteria above wishing to apply for this one-time supplemental funding must submit an application to the awarding IC as soon as possible, and applications will be reviewed as quickly as possible in an effort to issue these awards expeditiously.

Reminder of Other Relevant Policies

For institutional training grants (T32, T90, TL1) and individual fellowships (F32), the stipend level for the entire first year of support is determined by the number of full years of relevant postdoctoral experience when the award is issued. Relevant experience may include research experience (including industrial), teaching, internship, residency, clinical duties, or other time spent in a health-related field beyond that of the qualifying doctoral degree. 

Kirschstein-NRSA support for postdoctoral research training is limited to three years. The presence of eight discrete levels of experience does not constitute an endorsement of extended periods of postdoctoral research training. The NIH provides eight postdoctoral stipend levels to accommodate individuals who complete other forms of health-related training prior to accepting a Kirschstein-NRSA supported position for research training. 

Inquiries

General inquiries about this notice may be directed to:

Division of Grants Policy
Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration
National Institutes of Health
6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 350
Bethesda, MD 20892
Phone: 301-435-0938
Email: GrantsPolicy@od.nih.gov

For any specific financial or grants management questions regarding the administrative supplement notice (PA-16-287) please contact the Grants Management Specialist or Grants Management Officer listed on the NoA of the most recent parent award.

Additional Information

Note that the interpretation and implementation of the FLSA and the DOL overtime regulations are under the authority of the DOL and the courts. While NIH plans to raise its NRSA stipends for consistency with spirit of the DOL’s support for increased pay, as reflected in its recent revisions to the overtime regulations, the NIH takes no position on the applicability of the overtime regulations to a particular worker supported by NIH grants. Institutions should consult their own counsel and/or local Department of Labor office about the applicability of the overtime regulations and for information on overtime obligations.

• Background on NIH initiatives in support of scientific workforce diversity

• Resources for scientific leadership & faculty members to use to further diversity in their programs
• Resources for investigators and trainees to develop their careers, find training and mentorship, and learn about others’ careers through personal stories and video interviews
• Reports and data on diversity in the NIH-supported workforce, and in the broader research workforce

For more information visit: https://extramural-diversity.nih.gov/

(1) what, when, and how data should be managed and shared; and,

(2) setting standards for citing shared data and software.

The complete RFI, as well as instructions on how to comment, can be found on the NIH OSP website.  NIH will consider all public comments before taking next steps.

Additional information about the importance of this RFI can be found in an “Under the Poliscope” blog published today by Dr. Carrie D. Wolinetz, NIH Associate Director for Science Policy.

For more information, please contact the NIH Office of Science Policy by email at SciencePolicy@od.nih.gov or by telephone at 301-496-9838.

By preparing a research or program/service proposal in class which could be potentially submitted to a funding agency, you will learn key grantsmanship techniques that work. For more information contact J. S. Job, MD, DrPH (jjob@llu.edu). Employees: please check with Talent Management Services for tuition benefits. Registration opens on December 5, 2016.

This module-based course:

• Presents an overview of the basic principles and practice of successful grantsmanship both from a research and programmatic perspective;
• Provides a comprehensive understanding of the different processes, structures, factors and essential skills required when developing competitive proposals that are funded;
• Describes the various key elements involved in proposal preparation such as identifying potential funding resources (government and private/foundations), formulating objectives, determining appropriate project/research design and evaluation methods, building budgets and sustainability plans, and understanding the grant review process.

NEW Clinical Health Profession Student Training Program

Application Deadline: Thursday, February 9, 2017

Objective

To enhance the integrated research and clinical training of promising students who are matriculated in a clinical health professional degree training program and who intend careers as physician-scientists or other clinician-scientists.

http://professional.heart.org/professional/ResearchPrograms/ApplicationInformation/UCM_489785_Clinical-Health-Profession-Student-Training-Program.jsp

NEW Clinical Scientist Training Program

Application Deadline: Friday, February 10, 2017

Objective

To support cardiovascular and stroke research training to post-baccalaureate clinicians who are not yet independent. The applicant must be embedded in an appropriate research group with the mentorship, support, and relevant scientific guidance of a research supervisor.

Recognizing the unique challenges that clinicians experience in balancing research and clinical activity, this award mechanism aims to be as flexible as possible to enable candidates to develop academic careers in research alongside fulfilling clinical service commitments.

http://professional.heart.org/professional/ResearchPrograms/ApplicationInformation/UCM_489792_Clinical-Scientist-Training-Program.jsp

If you were lucky enough to attend the NIH Regional Seminar conference in Chicago last month you may have heard Scarlett Gibb, Customer Relationship Manager for eRA Commons, discussing the new Final RPPR.

Tentatively scheduled for required use as of January 1, 2017, the Final RPPR report will replace the current Final Progress Report for Closeout. As you know, the Final Progress Report is not strictly formatted, and basically has some half a dozen topics that need to be addressed, including a statement of progress; list of significant results, inclusion report, if applicable; list of publications; as well as any award specific instructions. The report is then uploaded as a PDF through eRA Commons and submitted to the agency by the signing official.

As part of Uniform Guidance (UG), we transitioned to the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) back in October of 2014.

So, come 2017, the RPPR format will be extended to the Final Progress Report. One of the differences between RPPR and the Final RPPR is that not all sections will be part of the final report. For example, Section D – Participants; Section F – Changes; and Section H – Budget will not be part of the Final RPPR. Plus, instead of a PDF upload, the information will be entered into RPPR-like screens. The new screens will include a new Section I – Outcomes.

The transition date from the current Final Progress Report Process to the Final RPPR will be a strict one. The anticipated plan specifies that if you have a progress report due, and you want to use the old format, it must be submitted prior to January 1, 2017. Any final progress report submitted after January 1, 2017 will need to be submitted as a Final RPPR. Any other submission format will be rejected and you will need to resubmit in the Final RPPR format.

This is just an introduction to what is coming so you can be ready. And now a brief musical interlude… “They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning, No-one you see, is smarter than he, and we know Flipper…”

They say I must upgrade as fast as I can, otherwise Commons may not run.

The time is near, warnings I hear, November 30^th fast approaching,

HTTPS to be secure, my browser I must be preparing;

But O Chrome! IE! Firefox!

               Supported you are by this Fed

      Versions I must check else my browser be dead.

Just a little nod to Walt Whitman as a reminder to check that you are using a compatible browser as eRA transitions to meet federal security guidelines. For more information, see the communication sent on October 26, 2016.

You may remember that early this year, January 22, to be exact, we introduced a new view of the Status Results screen for Principal Investigators (PIs). This new design grouped applications and awards into families. These groups can be expanded with a click, or left collapsed, giving you a more concise view of your data. The design is responsive, adjusting to various window sizes, and recently color coded to provide the most recent status of an application.

And now a new feature has been added. A set of buttons in the upper right corner lets you toggle between the newer look (Grouped View) and a more traditional look (Flat View).  In the Flat View you will see all of your applications and awards listed, organized in the traditional manner of columns: Application ID, Grants.gov Tracking #, Proposal Title, etc.

So not only is the world round, but now you get the best of both of them…Well, in Status Results anyway!

How many of you remember this little guy from your high school biology class? Oh, wait, look whom I’m asking!  But flatworms aren’t alone in being flat. Now your Status Results screen can be flat too!

You may remember that early this year, January 22, to be exact, we introduced a new view of the Status Results screen for Principal Investigators (PIs). This new design grouped applications and awards into families. These groups can be expanded with a click, or left collapsed, giving you a more concise view of your data. The design is responsive, adjusting to various window sizes, and recently color coded to provide the most recent status of an application.

And now a new feature has been added. A set of buttons in the upper right corner lets you toggle between the newer look (Grouped View) and a more traditional look (Flat View).  In the Flat View you will see all of your applications and awards listed, organized in the traditional manner of columns: Application ID, Grants.gov Tracking #, Proposal Title, etc.

So not only is the world round, but now you get the best of both of them…Well, in Status Results anyway!

Key Dates
Release Date: November 8, 2016
Response Date: December 18, 2016  

Related Announcements
None    

Issued by
Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives, Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP)

Purpose

With this time-sensitive Request for Information (RFI), the Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP) solicits comments from the biomedical research community about the significance of standard environmental conditions in facilities and laboratories for the scientific rigor of animal model experiments and the effects of such conditions on the reproducibility of related experimental outcomes.

Background

ORIP, located in the NIH Office of the Director’s Division of Program Coordination Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, supports programs that enable the advancement of science and enhance research funded by all NIH Institutes and Centers. In particular, these programs include the development and modernization of research facilities, and support resources that create, maintain, and distribute models of human diseases using animals and cultured cells. ORIP is interested to learn from the research community about the impact of variations in standard environmental conditions in facilities and laboratories on the experimental reliability and reproducibility of research which uses animal models.

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (hence forth referred to as the Guide) published by the National Research Council of the National Academies provides guidance “to assist institutions in caring for and using animals in ways judged to be scientifically, technically, and humanely appropriate”. The Guide sets general standards and recommendations to achieve a performance baseline for the best quality care and maintenance of laboratory animals. For the purpose of this RFI, we refer to the Guide’s recommendations as standard conditions or best practices. Details of the implementation of these standards at different institutions typically somewhat vary as the oversight at a local level is provided by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

NIH-funded investigators rely on many types of animal species as models for biomedical research; including, but not limited to roundworms, fruit flies, African clawed frogs, zebrafish, mice, rats, and rhesus macaques. Depending on a particular animal species and the scientific questions under considerations, details on how the animal is managed and maintained may be necessary to adequately describe the relevant experimental biological variables. Specific environmental conditions such as temperature, light on /off cycles, light color, noise level, humidity, feed type and feeding protocols - all within standards for animal research facilities as outlined in the Guide - may differently affect animal responses depending on what research protocols are undertaken. In some cases, these environmental conditions may need to be controlled for and become a part of an experimental design; in other situations, their influences on experimental outcomes may not be that critical. Each animal species requires a different housing environment and is maintained according to different protocols to ensure that the standards of best care practices are met. These best practices allow for a range of environmental conditions (e.g., temperature ranges, light or noise levels) and some variation in care protocols (e.g., feeding regimens, socializing, type of bedding); different animal models may respond differently to the same variations of environmental conditions in the course of similar scientific investigations.

The animal research community encompasses many investigators with different scientific interests and expertise: researchers who rely on animals, researchers who develop new animal models, and researchers who work in animal research facilities. This RFI seeks input from these diverse groups, as their experiences and professional interests in the design, conduct, and analysis of different animal experiments may be complementary and point to different pressing issues associated with the influences of environmental extrinsic factors, the ability to control them, and the reliability of experimental results.

In particular, different communities and different individuals might have different preferences on how to tackle the volume of issues addressed by this RFI. Of interest is the perceived relative importance of different animal species in the context of the scientific rigor of animal research as well as the relative impact of different extrinsic factors. Also, opinions about specific scientific areas or experimental approaches which would require special attention with regard to extrinsic factors, might vary among different experts. ORIP is interested to learn about a set of priorities which could direct ORIP’s efforts to further strengthen the rigor of animal research and to increase reproducibility of outcomes, by better monitoring of and accounting for standard environmental conditions.

The issues addressed in this RFI are directly related to NIH efforts to enhance scientific rigor and transparency, as outlined in the NIH Director’s Notice NOT-OD-16-011. The goals stated in this Notice include rigorous experimental design, leading to robust and unbiased results for all NIH-supported research.

This RFI DOES NOT seek information about responses to stress, drugs, microbiome, and other similar special causes. This RFI DOES NOT seek information about the value of or the rationale for to use animals in research. Responses addressing such issues won’t be considered.

Information Requested

ORIP is interested to learn from the research community who uses or relies on animals, about the current knowledge and practices regarding monitoring of extrinsic environmental conditions, accounting for them in the experimental design, identifying their influences on experimental results, and sharing such information with other researchers. ORIP is also interested to learn from the members of the community about their views on priorities on addressing these issues; in particular, with regard to specific animal species, scientific thematic areas, experimental approaches, and the most dominant extrinsic environmental factors. The focus of this RFI is on standard environmental conditions and best care practices - as outlined in the Guide - for specific animal species, in the context of biomedical research. Any comments will be helpful and may include the following areas:

1. Current knowledge about the effects of standard environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, noise level, type of feed, feeding protocols, cycles of lights on/off, color of light, quarantine procedures) on the design and conduct of experiments using specific animal species as models for biomedical research (e.g., roundworms, fruit flies, African clawed frogs, zebrafish, mice, rats, and rhesus macaques), and on the reproducibility of experimental outcomes

a) Correlations between specific extrinsic environmental conditions and experimental outcomes
b) Biological mechanisms affected by standard environmental conditions in specific animal models as relevant to specific research areas (e.g., genomics, metabolomics, neuroscience, immunology, cancer research)

1. Missing knowledge about the effects of environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, noise level, type of feed, feeding protocols, cycles of lights on/off, color of light, quarantine procedures) on outcomes of specific experiments (e.g., gene expression investigations, cell-cycle regulation studies, measurements of drug responses, memory retention testing) using different animal species (e.g., roundworms, fruit flies, African clawed frogs, zebrafish, mice, rats, and rhesus macaques)
2. Current practices regarding monitoring, accounting for, and reporting influences of particular environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, noise level, type of feed, feeding protocols, cycles of lights on/off, color of light, quarantine procedures) on outcomes of specific experiments (e.g., gene expression investigations, cell-cycle regulation studies, measurements of drug responses, cell-cycle regulation studies, memory retention testing) in different scientific areas (e.g., genomics, metabolomics, neuroscience, immunology, cancer research) using specific animal species (e.g., roundworms, fruit flies, African clawed frogs, zebrafish, mice, rats, and rhesus macaques); strengths and deficiencies of these practices
3. Priorities for ORIP's decision making on how to proceed to strengthen the scientific rigor and to improve reproducibility of animal research experiments in the context of monitoring of and accounting for external standard environmental conditions, for the benefit of the animal research community; comment on priorities regarding animal species, scientific areas, experimental approaches, and extrinsic environmental factors
4. Effective approaches to disseminate to the broad research community, knowledge and practices about environmental factors which contribute to the rigor of experimental design and reproducibility of experimental outcomes of animal model research

Any comments about animal research, related to extrinsic environmental factors contributing to the rigor of experimental protocols and reproducibility of experimental outcomes

All interested parties are invited to respond and all responses are voluntary. It is optional for the responders to provide their professional position, expertise, and experiences. Similarly, it is optional for the responders to state types animals they are commenting about.

How to Respond

All responses to this RFI must be submitted on the website https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/FactorsRFI by December 18, 2016.

Responses to this RFI are voluntary. This RFI is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation for applications or an obligation on the part of the Federal Government, the National Institutes of Health, or individual NIH Institutes or Centers. The government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the government’s use of that information.
The information provided will not be considered confidential. The NIH will use the information submitted in response to this RFI at its discretion; the submitted information will be reviewed by the NIH and shared with the NIH Institutes and Centers that have an interest in this matter. The NIH will not acknowledge receipt of information submitted or provide comments to any responder. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response. The government reserves the right to use any non-proprietary technical information in any resultant solicitation(s), policies or procedures; responses to the RFI may be reflected in future funding opportunity announcements. The information provided will be analyzed, may appear in reports, and may be publicly shared on an NIH website.

Inquiries

Please direct all inquiries to:
Office of Research Infrastructure Programs
Email:  RFI-FACTORS@nih.gov