Transcript Superfund Research Program Funding Opportunity Web Seminar: Biogeochemical Interactions Affecting Bioavailability for in situ Remediation of Hazardous Substances (R01) Introduction: William A.

Superfund Research Program
Funding Opportunity Web Seminar:
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.
September 5, 2013
1
NIH Research Mission
Fundamental
Knowledge
Health
Outcomes
…of living
systems
National Institutes of Health
(NIH)
…with
environmental
exposures
National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS)
…caused by
hazardous
substances
Superfund Research Program
(SRP)
…relevant to
Superfund
stakeholders
…including health
effects, risk
assessment,
detection and
remediation
…reduced illness
& disability
SRP Funding Mechanisms
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
Conference Grants (R13)
Provides funding for conferences related to
SRP mandates. Ongoing Funding Opportunity
Multi-Project Centers (P42)
Designed for integration across
disciplines: Biomedical and NonBiomedical Research; Community
Engagement, Research Translation, and
Training. Basic and application-oriented.
Request for Applications. Annual RFA.
Occupational Training (R25)
Emerging issues in EHS training. Closed.
Funding Opportunities: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/dert/cris/programs/srp/funding/index.cfm 3
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
R01 Biogeochemical Interactions
• 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
Hazardous Substances
• 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
– CERCLA Priority List: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cercla
• 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)
6
Innovation
• 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 transdisciplinary 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.
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
8
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*).
* 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.
9
Review
NIEHS SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
SALLY ECKERT-TILOTTA, PHD
Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
10
Letter of Intent (LOI)
• Due October 1, 2013
• Not required, but requested to assist in planning the review
• Descriptive title of project; can include summary if desired,
but not required
• Names, contact info, affiliations of principal investigator, coinvestigators, performance sites
• LOI commits you to nothing
• Email to [email protected]
NIH Application Process
Applications
come from
Grants.gov to
NIH/Commons
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.
Some Granularity…
• Reviewers evaluate and score assigned applications at
preliminary stage.
• All formats involve discussions of some kind, either face-toface, 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 Range
Score
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 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 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.
Budget
NIEHS GRANTS MANAGEMENT
LISA EDWARDS, MA
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)
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
* Keep In Mind – Please do
not circumvent the $150K
ceiling through third party
expenditures. NIEHS has
finite funds for this entire
FOA.
– Must follow same guidelines as above; budget pages required
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?
Summary
Important Dates, Resources, Contacts
29
Important Dates
Applications Details
Letters of Intent: October 1, 2013
Due Date: November 1, 2013
Direct Cost/Duration Limits: $150K per year / up to 4 years
Scientific Review
Special Emphasis Panel: expertise according to applications submitted
Peer Review Dates: Spring 2014
Review Criteria in RFA
Awards Start Date: Summer 2014 (earliest)
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 ID
May take up to 4 weeks
30
Resources
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: 866-5049552. Phone: 301-402-7469. TTY: 301-451-5939.
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
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
Applicant Resources from the Center for Scientific Review http://public.csr.nih.gov/ApplicantResources/Pages/default.aspx
NIEHS Contacts!!!
Program:
Heather Henry
[email protected]
(919) 541-5330
Scientific Review:
Sally Eckert Tilotta
[email protected],
(919) 541-1446
Grants Management:
Lisa Edwards
[email protected]
(919) 541-0751
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Research Triangle Park, NC
Thank You!
QUESTIONS??
SRP Team
Bill Suk, Director
Heather Henry
Beth Anderson
Danielle Carlin
Michelle Heacock
Rosemary Moody
NIEHS Staff
Sally Eckert-Tilotta
Lisa Archer Edwards
Webinar Gurus
Jean Balent, EPA TIFSD
Justin Crane, MDB, Inc.