Superfund Research Program Funding Opportunity Web Seminar: September 5, 2013 Biogeochemical Interactions Affecting Bioavailability for in situ Remediation of Hazardous Substances (R01) Introduction: William A. Suk, SRP Director Presenters: Heather Henry, SRP Program Administrator Lisa Edwards, NIEHS Grants Management Specialist Sally Eckert-Tilotta, NIEHS Scientific Review Officer Moderators: Jean Balent, EPA/TIFSD Justin Crane, MDB, Inc. 1
Transcript
Superfund Research Program Funding Opportunity Web Seminar:
September 5, 2013
Biogeochemical Interactions Affecting Bioavailability for in situ Remediation of Hazardous Substances (R01)
Introduction: William A. Suk, SRP Director
Presenters:Heather Henry, SRP Program Administrator
Moderators:Jean Balent, EPA/TIFSDJustin Crane, MDB, Inc.
1
NIH Research Mission
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Fundamental Knowledge
Health Outcomes
…of living systems
…reduced illness & disability
Superfund Research Program (SRP)
Superfund Research Program (SRP)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS)
…with environmental
exposures
…caused by hazardous substances
…including health effects, risk
assessment, detection and remediation
…relevant to Superfund
stakeholders
SRP Funding Mechanisms
Multi-Project Centers (P42)Designed for integration across disciplines: Biomedical and Non-Biomedical Research; Community Engagement, Research Translation, and Training. Basic and application-oriented.Request for Applications. Annual RFA.
Multi-Project Centers (P42)Designed for integration across disciplines: Biomedical and Non-Biomedical Research; Community Engagement, Research Translation, and Training. Basic and application-oriented.Request for Applications. Annual RFA.
Individual Research Project (R01)Designed to address specific issues to complement the multi-project research program; tackle issues of emerging concern for Superfund. Current solicitation:
Biogeochemical Interactions Affecting Bioavailability for in situ Remediation of
Hazardous Substances (R01)
Individual Research Project (R01)Designed to address specific issues to complement the multi-project research program; tackle issues of emerging concern for Superfund. Current solicitation:
Biogeochemical Interactions Affecting Bioavailability for in situ Remediation of
Hazardous Substances (R01)
Small Business Research Grants SBIR/STTR (R41-44)Foster the commercialization of technologies, relevant to hazardous substance clean-up and monitoring. Ongoing Funding Opportunity
Small Business Research Grants SBIR/STTR (R41-44)Foster the commercialization of technologies, relevant to hazardous substance clean-up and monitoring. Ongoing Funding Opportunity
3
Conference Grants (R13)Provides funding for conferences related to SRP mandates. Ongoing Funding Opportunity
Conference Grants (R13)Provides funding for conferences related to SRP mandates. Ongoing Funding Opportunity
R01 Biogeochemical Interactions Purpose•Unveil complex biological, geological and chemical processes that have implications for both remediation effectiveness as well as exposure risk to humans. Mechanistic research that will advance effectiveness of "in situ" remediation of contaminated:
– Soil – Sediment– surface water– Groundwater
Goal •Utilize mechanistic knowledge
– to understand how biogeochemical processes influence remediation effectiveness – To identify which biogeochemical processes drive the availability of hazardous
substances to living systems •Make linkages to effective decision-making for Superfund-related exposure scenarios
4
• Interactive Teams– Interdisciplinary teams to adequately address the in situ environment
(i.e. relevant biological, geological, and chemical conditions)– Real-world expertise through involvement of in situ remediation and
risk assessment practitioners– Teams should target fundamental research areas
• RFA lists examples of research topics within the scope of this RFA, but do not feel limited by this list…
5
R01 Biogeochemical Interactions
• Responsive to FOA:– Relevant to SRP Stakeholders– Drivers of risk at hazardous waste sites: chemical contaminants such as halogenated organics,
volatile organic compounds, DNAPLs/LNAPLs and metals/minerals (e.g., lead in soils, metal mixtures)
– hazardous substances that are targeted for remediation in soils, sediments, surface water, or groundwater
• Not Responsive to FOA:– work on hazardous substances that are not yet targeted for remediation in soils, sediments,
surface water, or groundwater– petroleum or natural gas (including hazardous substances associated with hydraulic fracturing) – pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP) (see: http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/) as the
target hazardous substance– engineered nanoparticles/nanomaterials as a target hazardous substance (however, using
nanotechnologies as a remediation/detection tool is fine)
• Please highlight the innovative aspect(s) of your application:– Innovative approaches or methodologies to provide new insight:
• Advanced imaging or analytical techniques (e.g. synchrotron-based research)• Innovative use of stable isotope or bioavailability assays• Environmental molecular diagnostics,
– Innovative, cutting-edge remediation technologies– Innovative “green technologies” for remediation that offer improved
energy/resource-efficiency and reduce waste generation relative to other remediation technologies.
– Innovative approaches to technology development through trans-disciplinary research (synthesis and extension of disciplinary boundaries)
7
Research Translation Plan• Applicants should include a "Research Translation Plan” -
specific plans for translation of findings to end-users as well as any relevant and timely policy or risk assessment applications for their research
• Such activities may include, but not be limited to:– Identifying potential end-users and delivering outcomes in a manner
most appropriate for the given end-user audience. – Coordinating with end-users for optimization of technologies with
regard to improving cost-effectiveness or sustainability of innovative techniques or remediation technologies.
– Providing technical expertise for technical guidelines (e.g. standard operating procedures) as relevant to the SRP-funded work.
8
SRP’s Key Stakeholders are Sister Superfund Programs (US Environmental Protection Agency and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) as well as federal agencies, state, local, and tribal entities responsible for sites; individuals and communities living near hazardous waste sites. See: http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/about/Strategic%20Plan.pdf
SRP’s Key Stakeholders are Sister Superfund Programs (US Environmental Protection Agency and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) as well as federal agencies, state, local, and tribal entities responsible for sites; individuals and communities living near hazardous waste sites. See: http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/about/Strategic%20Plan.pdf
Research Translation Plan• One-paragraph plan should be sufficient. • This is not part of the Research Strategy (and therefore is not
included in the 12 page limit).
• Include this as part of the “Data Sharing Plan” (a subsection of the Resource Sharing Plan*).
9
* Per SF424 (R&R), the Resource Sharing Plan includes three sections: a Data Sharing Plan, a Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies. The Data Sharing Plan is likely to be the only applicable section for this RFA.
* Per SF424 (R&R), the Resource Sharing Plan includes three sections: a Data Sharing Plan, a Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies. The Data Sharing Plan is likely to be the only applicable section for this RFA.
Retrieved by R&R, assigned and distributed to IC or CSR
Retrieved by Scientific Review Officer (SRO) who organizes the review
• Applications are reviewed for completeness on receipt.• Applications are administratively reviewed for responsiveness to the
RFA.• Format, location, date for review are decided.• Reviewers are recruited for expertise, geographical distribution, and
diversity.• After the review meeting, results are reported by Summary Statement• Watch PI eCommons account throughout the process.
NIH Application Process
Some Granularity… • Reviewers evaluate and score assigned applications at preliminary
stage.• All formats involve discussions of some kind, either face-to-face,
telephone, or chat room. Video conferencing is used occasionally.• Final scores are determined at the meeting.• Not all applications receive Overall Priority scores; generally
streamline approximately half.– Poorer half receive scores on individual review criteria.– More meritorious half receives criteria scores, overall score.– ALL applications receive a Summary Statement composed of written
critiques from assigned reviewers.
Review Criteria
• Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, Environment -- standard and required criteria for research grants and cooperative agreements.
• Reviewer decides the weighing of each criterion.• Definitions are in the solicitation and are tailored to address
program intent.
Scoring Uses a 9-point RangeScore Descriptor Additional Guidance
1 Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses
2 Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
3 Excellent Very strong with only some minor weaknesses
4 Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses
5 Good Strong but with at least one moderate weakness
6 Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses
7 Fair Some strengths but with at least one major weaknesses
8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses
9 Poor Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses
Summary Statements
• Released through the PI’s Commons Account• Critiques are reviewers’ verbatim comments,
minimally edited. Resume and Summary of Discussion usually written by SRO.
• First page contains Program Officer’s contact information on top left corner. “Next Steps” link on the first page provides guidance on what to do next.
What Makes an Application with a Good Idea Score Poorly?
• Write a “trust me” application which fails to give adequate detail.
• Give detailed background and fail to tell us what you will do on the project.
• Fail to acknowledge barriers and provide potential alternatives.
• Lack of clarity, inconsistencies, and cut-and-paste errors.
Specific Aims
• What are specific aims?– Objectives, not milestones. If these are accomplished, the
goals of the project will be met. Either prove hypothesis or develop an end product.
– Related but don’t depend on each other; if one fails then the problem can be attacked through the other aims.
– For an R01, typically see 3-5 specific aims.
Specific Aims are limited to 1 PageSpecific Aims are limited to 1 Page
Research Strategy
• Easiest and clearest organization is by the review criteria in the funding announcement, starting with background and significance.
• Contains the details that builds foundation to the project, convincing reviewers of likelihood of success.
• Use “touchstones” to guide reviewers through the story.
Research Strategy is limited to 12 PagesResearch Strategy is limited to 12 Pages
Investigators
• Don’t necessarily see reference to investigators in the research strategy because have biosketches (including personal statements) to describe in detail (4 page cap)
• In research strategy can highlight specific strengths, especially emphasize communication among the team if several collaborators and/or multiple institutions.
Innovation
• Highlight novel aspects of the project, techniques used, strategies, or hypothesis.
• If not particularly novel, emphasize state-of-the-art, filling a niche, or essential need for the project.
• Refer to RFA
Approach
• Scores still often driven by approach, with significance close behind.
• How detailed?• Include all essential details.• Invest in yourself or ask a mentor to discover what the
reviewers need to know.• Strongest applications have preliminary data section
for R01 to establish feasibility.• Must address barriers and alternative strategies.• Timeline is strongly encouraged.
……..Continued
• Fill all the rest of available space with detail on the approach – what, why and how.– Give enough detail of methodologies to establish
credibility, especially if not commonly used.– Extensive experimental detail least important, strategies
most important. Give an example, if possible. If you can refer reader to specific references, then do so.
….and Finally.
• Explain decisions.• Use graphics if possible.• Use respectful margins, font size, and white space.
NIEHS GRANTS MANAGEMENT
LISA EDWARDS, MA
Budget
25
R01 Allowable Costs• Salary and fringe benefits for Principal Investigator, key personnel, and
other essential personnel• Equipment and supplies• Consultant costs• Alterations and renovations• Publications and miscellaneous costs• Contract services• Consortium costs• Facilities and Administrative costs (indirect costs)• Travel expenses
Travel to Annual Meeting – Budgets should include funds for travel of the PD/PI and one graduate student to attend the SRP Annual Meeting.
(Meeting is held each fall and alternates between grantee locations and Research Triangle Park, NC)
Travel to Annual Meeting – Budgets should include funds for travel of the PD/PI and one graduate student to attend the SRP Annual Meeting.
(Meeting is held each fall and alternates between grantee locations and Research Triangle Park, NC)
Budget Preparation• Grant Direct Cost Limit
– Does NOT include third party F&A*– Consideration of equipment in the out-years
will be based upon justification and availability of funds
• Subcontracts– Must follow same guidelines as above; budget pages required
* Keep In Mind – Please do not circumvent the $150K ceiling through third party expenditures. NIEHS has finite funds for this entire FOA.
* Keep In Mind – Please do not circumvent the $150K ceiling through third party expenditures. NIEHS has finite funds for this entire FOA.
Budget Preparation• Other Support
– “0”, “Varies”, “As Needed”, etc., are not acceptable– Total effort cannot equal more than 12 calendar months
• Budget Justifications– Be detailed and specific
• Are all costs itemized?• Are all additions and changes in future years fully justified?• Are all time and level of effort > 0?
Important Dates, Resources, ContactsSummary
29
Important DatesApplications Details
Letters of Intent: October 1, 2013Due Date: November 1, 2013Direct Cost/Duration Limits: $150K per year / up to 4 years
Scientific ReviewSpecial Emphasis Panel: expertise according to applications submittedPeer Review Dates: Spring 2014Review Criteria in RFAAwards Start Date: Summer 2014 (earliest)
30
If you have never submitted to NIH, you must register in three places BEFORE you submit:•CCR, Central Contractor Registration (and renew annually), organizations•Grants.gov, organizations•NIH Commons, organizations, and key personnel must have a Commons IDMay take up to 4 weeks
If you have never submitted to NIH, you must register in three places BEFORE you submit:•CCR, Central Contractor Registration (and renew annually), organizations•Grants.gov, organizations•NIH Commons, organizations, and key personnel must have a Commons IDMay take up to 4 weeks
ResourceseRA Commons - https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/index.jsp Registered PD/PIs can check assignment/contact information, review outcome, and other important information.
eRA Commons Help Desk:Hours: Mon-Fri, 7AM-8PM EDT/EST Web: http://era.nih.gov/help/ Toll-free: 866-504-9552. Phone: 301-402-7469. TTY: 301-451-5939.
eRA Commons - https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/index.jsp Registered PD/PIs can check assignment/contact information, review outcome, and other important information.
eRA Commons Help Desk:Hours: Mon-Fri, 7AM-8PM EDT/EST Web: http://era.nih.gov/help/ Toll-free: 866-504-9552. Phone: 301-402-7469. TTY: 301-451-5939.
Applying Electronically - For additional information on the electronic submission process, including self-help resources, training material and answers to frequently asked questions, see: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/index.htm
Applying Electronically - For additional information on the electronic submission process, including self-help resources, training material and answers to frequently asked questions, see: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/index.htm
General Information about Applying – the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has an “All About Grants’ page that includes samples and examples of application components as well as numerous tips for applicants: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/aag.aspx
General Information about Applying – the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has an “All About Grants’ page that includes samples and examples of application components as well as numerous tips for applicants: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/aag.aspx
Applicant Resources from the Center for Scientific Review - http://public.csr.nih.gov/ApplicantResources/Pages/default.aspxApplicant Resources from the Center for Scientific Review - http://public.csr.nih.gov/ApplicantResources/Pages/default.aspx
