The Application form for the NIH MONEY:
NIH Grants Policy Statement (03/01)
Part I: NIH Grants-General Information--Part 2 of 2
Application and Review Processes
This subsection provides an overview of the types of grants NIH funds; the ways in which potential applicants can learn
about funding opportunities; distinctions among types of applications; application requirements, restrictions, and deadlines;
how applications are reviewed and by whom; how results are communicated; and applicant rights. It also lists publications
and NIH Web sites that can be accessed for additional information concerning the NIH grants process and programs.
NIH ICs make grant awards under multiple programs and subprogram initiatives and use a variety of support mechanisms. NIH
grants may be distinguished by purpose, type of recipient, amount, or other characteristics. One method NIH uses to differentiate
the various support mechanisms is activity coding that indicates the category and specific form of support (e.g., R01, F32).
The applicability of requirements may vary for different activity codes. Therefore, applicants should consult one or more
of the information sources described at the end of this section to become knowledgeable about the variety of NIH grant support
available and specific application requirements. Some of these distinctions also significant for purposes of applying Part
II of this policy statement.
In general, NIH grants may be awarded to organizations that are domestic or foreign, public or private, or non-profit or
for-profit. Eligible organizations include governments, institutions of higher education, hospitals, individuals and Federal
institutions. Any special criteria for applicant eligibility or requirements concerning the qualifications of the principal
investigator or other staff will be specified in the program solicitation, program guidelines, or other publicly available
documents. Part II includes information on trainee and fellow eligibility.
Types of Applications
The following describes the most frequently used types of applications in the NIH grants process and the prefixes NIH uses
to distinguish them. With the exception of the "noncompeting continuation application," all of the application types listed
here are considered "competing" since they must compete through the peer review process for available funding with other applications
submitted. The process and requirements for noncompeting applications are specified in Part II.
- New Application (Type 1): A request for financial assistance for a project or activity that is not currently receiving
NIH support and must compete for support.
- Competing Continuation Application (Type 2): A request for funding to renew, by one or more additional budget periods,
a project period that would otherwise expire.
- Competing Supplemental Application (Type 3): A request for an increase in support in a current budget period for expansion
of the project's approved scope or research protocol. The request may specify budgetary changes required for the remainder
of the project period as well as for the current budget period.
- Revised (Amended) Application: An unfunded application that the applicant has modified following initial review and
resubmitted for consideration. NIH allows a maximum of two revised applications in the 2-year period dating from submission
of the original, unamended application.
- Noncompeting Continuation Application (Type 5): A request for funding for the second or subsequent budget period within
an approved project period.
The preponderance of applications submitted to NIH under the categories of research and research training (including fellowships)
are for investigator-initiated research and are considered "unsolicited" applications. NIH reviews such applications in three
review cycles per year. The schedules for submission, review, and award of competing unsolicited applications are included in the application
kit and on the NIH Home Page. Applicants are encouraged to contact the IC from which they plan to seek funding. See Part III for a list of the IC contact points.
Preliminary contact with the IC is required if an applicant anticipates submitting a single unsolicited (investigator-initiated)
application, whether a new, competing continuation, competing supplemental, or revised (amended) grant application, under
any NIH support mechanism with a proposed direct cost budget of $500,000 or more for any one year. This requirement also applies
to a group of applications, such as those for clinical trial networks, meeting that threshold in the aggregate even if no
single application in the group requests that much. This contact should occur as early in the application development
process as possible. Applicants that are uncertain about which IC to contact should contact the Division of Receipt and Referral,
CSR (see Part III). CSR will accept such applications for review only if an IC has agreed to accept the application for consideration and the
applicant submits with its application a letter to that effect with the name of the authorizing IC official (see "The Peer Review Process"). An application subject to this policy that does not include the required information in the cover letter accompanying
the application will be returned to the applicant without review. This policy does not apply to applications submitted
in response to Requests for Applications (RFAs) but such applications must be responsive to any budgetary limits stated in
the relevant RFA or NIH will return them to applicants without review.
NIH may develop areas of high priority or special research interest and use a special solicitation to stimulate submission
of applications in those areas. These solicitations are published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts and take
one of two forms. NIH uses "program announcements" (PAs) to describe new, continuing, or expanded program interests of an
IC or to announce the availability of a new mechanism of support. PAs may be used for any support mechanism described above
other than construction awards. Unless otherwise specified in the PA, new applications (and associated competing continuation
and competing supplemental applications) submitted in response to PAs are treated as "unsolicited," are subject to the common
receipt date(s), compete for funding with all other unsolicited applications, and are subject to the standard peer review
process. PAs also are used for soliciting applications for programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, which issue announcements annually. Those applications must be received
by the date(s) specified in the PAs.
A more targeted solicitation is the Request for Applications (RFA), which may be used to solicit:
- Grant applications in a well-defined scientific area;
- Research grant applications for a one-time competition;
- Construction grant applications; or
- Applications for cooperative agreements.
RFAs are stand-alone solicitations, and each will provide sufficient information to allow prospective applicants to determine
whether to apply, including the amount of funding available, the number of awards anticipated, the deadline date for receipt
of applications, and other information describing the nature of the effort desired and the obligations of recipients. For
cooperative agreements, the RFA will describe the responsibilities and obligations of NIH and awardees as well as joint responsibilities
To be considered for support, an applicant must be an eligible entity and must submit a complete application in accordance
with established receipt (deadline) dates. Information to be submitted typically includes a project description, budget and
budget justification, biographical sketches of key personnel, and other information specified in the application kit, in the
solicitation, and/or in program guidelines, if any. Applicants should consult the cost principles and general administrative
requirements for grants pertaining to their organizational type in order to prepare the budget and complete other parts of
the application. Applicants may be required to provide proof of organizational eligibility (such as proof of non-profit status),
trainee or fellow eligibility and citizenship, or other eligibility information. Applications also must demonstrate compliance
(or intent to comply), through certification or other means, with a number of public policy requirements. The more significant
of the public policy requirements for the purpose of peer review are those concerning research involving human subjects; inclusion
of both genders, members of minority groups, and children in clinical research; and research involving live vertebrate animals.
Public policy requirements and cost and administrative policies are detailed in Part II.
The required application forms vary by support mechanism and by the type of funding requested. The forms for competing
applications are specified in Table I-1. The application requirements for noncompeting awards are discussed in Part II.
These forms, other than those for the SBIR/STTR programs, are included in application kits maintained by an organization's
office of sponsored research or business office. Application kits also are available from Division of Extramural Outreach
and Information Resources, Office of Extramural Research, NIH by telephone at (301) 435-0714, by e-mail at GrantsInfo@nih.gov, or by mail at the address listed in Part III. Certain forms (rather than a complete application kit) are available electronically on the NIH Home Page (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm).
The SBIR/STTR applications are included in the SBIR and STTR Phase I grant solicitations, which are available electronically
on NIH's "Small Business Funding Opportunities" site on the NIH Home Page at http://www.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm. A limited number of hard copies of the SBIR/STTR solicitations is produced. Subject to availability, they may be obtained
from the PHS SBIR/STTR Solicitation Office, 13687 Baltimore Avenue, Laurel, MD 20707-5096, telephone: (301) 206-9385, fax:
(301) 206-9722, or e-mail: email@example.com. Each SBIR and STTR Phase I grantee (small business concern) is automatically sent a Phase II application package.
TABLE I-1 REQUIRED FORMS FOR COMPLETING APPLICATIONS
Application for a Public Health Service Grant
New, revised, competing continuation, and competing supplemental research project grants and cooperative agreements (other
than those under the SBIR and STTR programs), program projects, centers, career development awards, Institutional National
Research Service Awards (training grants), and conference grants
Application for Public Health Service Individual National Research Service Award
Competing applications for fellowships
Public Health Service Grant Application for Use by: State and Local Government Applicants and Nongovernmental Applicants
for Health Services Projects
PHS-5161-1, including Standard Form (SF) 424, with budget and assurances applicable to non-construction (424-A and 424-B)
or construction (424-C and 424-D)
State, local, and Indian tribal government applicants for all types of grants, and nongovernmental applicants for construction
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Grant Applications
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program Grant Applications
Application Receipt Points and Deadlines
All competing applications, whether solicited or unsolicited, are required to be sent or delivered, in the number of copies
specified in the application kit or solicitation, to the central NIH receipt point. The address for that office is:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, MSC-7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710
Preaddressed mailing labels are included in application kits.
If express mail or courier service is used, the zip code should be changed to 20817.
Applicants responding to RFAs should submit copies of their application concurrently to CSR and the soliciting IC.
An unsolicited application will be considered to be on time for a particular review cycle if it is received by or mailed
on or before the published receipt date for that cycle and a proof of mailing is provided. If the receipt date falls on a
weekend or a holiday, the date for receipt/mailing is extended to the next business day.
Under an RFA or a PA, if a solicitation-specific deadline date is included, an application received after the deadline
date may be accepted only if it carries a legible proof-of-mailing date assigned by the carrier and that date is no later
than 1 week prior to the deadline date.
The established receipt or deadline date will be waived only in extenuating circumstances. A request for a waiver must
accompany the application and must explain the basis for requesting a waiver. A waiver will not be considered prior to receipt
of the application. Only CSR has the authority to waive an established receipt date.
Legal Implication of Application
The signature of an authorized organizational official on the application certifies that the organization will comply with
all applicable assurances and certifications referenced in the application. The applicant organization is responsible for
verifying the accuracy, validity, and conformity with the most current organizational guidelines of all the administrative,
fiscal, and scientific information in the application, including the facilities and administrative cost (indirect cost) rate.
The authorized organizational official's signature further certifies that the applicant organization will be accountable for
the appropriate use of any funds awarded and for the performance of the grant-supported project or activities resulting from
Applicants for and recipients of NIH grant funds, whether such funds are received directly from NIH, indirectly under a
contract or consortium agreement, or as student assistance under a training grant, are responsible for and must adhere to
all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and policies, including income tax regulations. Questions concerning the applicability
of income tax regulations to grant funds should be directed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The applicant also is expected
to be in compliance with applicable State and local laws and ordinances.
The HHS OIG maintains a post office box and a toll-free hotline for receiving information from individuals concerning fraud,
waste, or abuse under HHS grants and cooperative agreements. This information is kept confidential, and callers are not required
to give their names. The address and telephone number of the OIG and the OIG Hot Line are included in Part III. Anyone who becomes aware of the existence (or apparent existence) of fraud, waste, or abuse related to NIH grants or grant
funds is encouraged to report this information to the OIG in writing or to the OIG Hot Line. Examples of fraud, waste, and
abuse that should be reported include, but are not limited to, embezzlement, misuse, or theft of grant funds or property,
or making false statements, whether by organizations or individuals. This includes theft of grant funds for personal use;
use of funds for non-grant-related purposes; theft of Government-owned property or property acquired or leased under a grant;
charging the Government for the services of "ghost" individuals; charging of inflated building rental fees for a building
owned by the grantee; submission of false financial reports; and submission of false financial data in bids submitted to the
grantee (for eventual payment under the grant).
Part II of this policy statement includes administrative and other remedies the Government may use in the event that a
grantee deliberately withholds information or submits fraudulent information or does not comply with applicable requirements.
Even if a grant is not awarded, the applicant may be subject to penalties if the information contained in or submitted as
part of an application, including its assurances, is found to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent. The Government may pursue
civil or criminal action under a variety of statutes and regulations.
The Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3801, provides for the administrative
imposition by HHS of civil penalties and assessments against persons who knowingly make false, fictitious, or misleading claims
to the Federal Government for money, including money representing grants, loans, or benefits. A civil penalty of not more
than $5,000 may be assessed for each such claim. If a grant is awarded and payment is made on a false or fraudulent claim,
an assessment of not more than twice the amount of the claim may be made in lieu of damages, up to $150,000. Regulations at
45 CFR Part 79 specify the process for imposing civil penalties and assessments, including hearing and appeal rights.
The Criminal False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. 287 and 1001, provides for criminal prosecution of a person who knowingly makes
or presents any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or claims against the United States. Such person
may be subject to imprisonment of not more than 5 years and a fine.
The Civil False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 2739, provides for imposition of penalties and damages by the United States, through
civil litigation, against any person who knowingly makes a false or fraudulent claim for payment, makes or uses a false record
or false statement to get a false claim paid or approved, or conspires to defraud the Government to get a false claim paid.
A "false claim" is any request or demand for money or property made to the United States or to a contractor, grantee, or other
recipient, if the Government provides or will reimburse any portion of the funds claimed. Civil penalties of $5,000 to $10,000
may be imposed for each false claim, plus damages of up to three times the amount of the false claim.
NIH also may administratively recover misspent grant funds pursuant to the authorities contained in 45 CFR Parts 74 and
Confidentiality of Information (Proprietary Information)
Applicants are discouraged from submitting information considered proprietary unless it is deemed essential for proper
evaluation of the application. However, if the application contains information that the applicant organization considers
to be trade secrets or information that is commercial or financial, or information that is privileged or confidential, the
pages containing that information should be identified as specified in the instructions provided in the PHS-398 application
When such information is included in the application, it is furnished to the Government in confidence, with the understanding
that the information will be used or disclosed only for evaluation of the application. The information contained in an application
will be protected by NIH from unauthorized disclosure, consistent with the need for peer review of the application and the
requirements of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, which are discussed in "Public Policy Requirements and Objectives" in Part II. However, if a grant is awarded as a result of or in connection with an application, the Government shall have
the right to use or disclose the information to the extent authorized by law. This restriction does not limit the Government's
right to use the information if it is obtained without restriction from another source.
The Peer Review Process
Competing applications for NIH grants and cooperative agreements, including those for competing continuations and competing
supplements, are subject to peer review as required by sections 406 and 492 of the PHS Act or by NIH policy. The peer review
system used by NIH, often referred to as the "dual review system," is based on two sequential levels of review for each application,
initial review and National Advisory Council/Board review. The NIH peer review process has evolved over the years to accommodate
changes in workload, resource constraints, and recommendations of various groups that have studied it. However, the underlying
basis for the system—to provide a fair and objective review process in the overall interest of science—has not
changed. Information concerning NIH's peer review process may be found at the following Web sites: http://www.csr.nih.gov and http://www.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer.htm. Information also is available by e-mail at DDER@nih.gov or GrantsInfo@nih.gov, or by calling, writing, or faxing a request to CSR (see Part III).
The Center for Scientific Review is the receipt point for all competing grant applications submitted to NIH, whether the
peer review will be conducted by CSR or by an IC. The primary determining factors in whether CSR or an IC will be responsible
for the peer review are the solicitation type, the support mechanism, and/or the program. In general, CSR is responsible for
the initial review of research project grant applications (including Academic Research and Enhancement Award (AREA) applications),
National Research Service Award (NRSA) fellowship applications, and SBIR/STTR applications, while the ICs handle the initial
review of conference grant applications, applications resulting from RFAs, and program project grant applications.
CSR also may review other types of applications at IC request. When the IC is responsible for the initial review, CSR reviews
the application for completeness, and the scientific review office of the soliciting IC reviews the application for responsiveness
to the RFA, coordinates the initial technical review, and prepares the summary statements.
CSR Referral Officers, who are senior health science administrators with both research and scientific review experience,
assign each application to an IC(s) for potential funding and to a scientific review group for initial review of the scientific
merit of the application. These determinations are made on the basis of the application's contents, the Referral Guidelines,
and any written request by the applicant organization (accompanying the application) for a specific study section/IC assignment.
Scientific review groups, including CSR study sections, are organized by scientific discipline or current research areas
and are managed by health scientist administrators functioning as Scientific Review Administrators. Generally, study sections
are chartered groups composed of formally appointed members serving multi-year terms, to which the SRA often adds temporary
members or other additional reviewers. Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) are formed on an ad hoc basis to review applications
that cannot be reviewed by a standing review group or study section because they require special expertise or involve other
The individuals serving on a scientific review group, whether a study section or SEP, are primarily scientists actively
engaged in research. NIH's conflict-of-interest and confidentiality of information policies for reviewers are intended to
ensure an unbiased review process by minimizing even the appearance of a conflict of interest and by restricting the use of
privileged application information.
Within 6 to 8 weeks following the established application receipt date, applicants are notified that the application has
been received and are advised of the SRA, scientific review group, and IC assignments. At this time, applicants may request
reconsideration of the review group and IC assignment. Once the assignment process is completed, the SRA is the contact for
all communication with the applicant until the conclusion of the review group meeting. An applicant may withdraw an application
from consideration at any time during the review process. A request to withdraw an application must be signed by the PI and
an authorized organizational official. If an application is withdrawn before it enters the review process, CSR will return
the application to the applicant. Applications withdrawn by the applicant after the beginning of the formal review may be
destroyed by NIH or returned to the applicant at NIH's discretion.
In preparation for the initial review, SRAs review applications to determine whether they are complete, conform to administrative
requirements, and contain the information necessary for a detailed review. For each application, they then assign (from among
the standing and temporary members) reviewers to write a critique of the application and readers to be prepared to discuss
the application in detail.
NIH uses "just-in-time" procedures for certain programs and award mechanisms. These procedures call for limited budget
information to be submitted with the application (e.g., a budget justification and a modified biographical sketch) and allow
for a possible NIH request for additional information, including information concerning other support, when the application
is under consideration for funding. "Just-in-time" procedures also allow an applicant to defer certification of Institutional
Review Board (IRB) approval of the project's proposed use of human subjects until after completion of the peer review and
just prior to funding. (Applications in response to RFAs also may be subject to these procedures. The RFA will specify the
timing and nature of required submissions.)
For modular applications, the applicant is not required to submit detailed budget information with the application. In
lieu of the standard budget forms, the applicant requests total direct costs for each year of support requested. The request
must be accompanied by budget narrative for all personnel (by position, title, and level of effort), including consultants
and "to be appointed" positions, and, when applicable, for consortium/contractual costs. NIH will request additional budget
information in exceptional circumstances only. "Other support" information will be requested only for modular applications
likely to result in an award. (See Part II for more detailed coverage of modular applications and awards.)
The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance the understanding of biological systems, improve the control of disease,
and enhance health. Reviewers are asked to address, in their written comments, the following aspects of the application in
order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each
of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them, as appropriate, for each
application. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact
and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out work that, by its nature, is
not innovative but is essential to move a field forward.
- Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific
knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?
- Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate
to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
- Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or method? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the
project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?
- Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate
to the experience level of the PI and other researchers (if any)?
- Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?
Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative
arrangements? Is there evidence of organizational support?
While the review criteria are intended for use primarily with unsolicited research project grant applications (e.g., R01s
and P01s), including those in response to PAs, to the extent reasonable, they also will form the basis of the review of solicited
applications and non-research activities. However, for some activities (e.g., construction grants), the use of these criteria,
as stated, may not be feasible. Applications also may be reviewed against specific criteria as stated in RFAs or PAs.
In addition to the above criteria, in accordance with NIH policy, all applications will be reviewed with respect to the
- The adequacy of plans to include both genders, members of minority groups, children, and their subgroups, as appropriate
for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects also will be evaluated.
- The reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the proposed research.
- The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals, or the environment to the extent they may be adversely affected
by the project proposed in the application.
Following the initial review, the SRA prepares a summary statement for each application reviewed. The summary statement
includes the reviewers' written comments, and, for scored applications, a summary of strengths and weaknesses, other summary
highlights of the discussion, and a priority score. Summary statements are then provided to the IC's program staff and the
National Advisory Council or Board Review
For those applications recommended for further consideration, the summary statements are presented to the assigned IC National
Advisory Council or Board (hereafter "Council") for use in the second level of review. Council members include both senior
scientists with broad experience and members of the public with general knowledge of, and interest in, the IC's mission. The
Council reviews applications not only for scientific and technical merit but also for relevance to the IC's programs and priorities.
The Council may concur with the initial review group's recommendation, may decide not to recommend an application on the basis
of program or policy considerations, or may recommend deferral of an application and refer it back to the initial review group
for re-review. With very limited exception, an application may not be considered for funding unless it has received a favorable
recommendation by both the initial review group and the Council.
Appeals of Initial Scientific Review
To preserve and underscore the fairness of the NIH peer review process, NIH has established a peer review appeal system
to provide applicants the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the initial review results if, after review of the summary
statement, they believe the review process was procedurally flawed (NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, Vol. 26, No.
38, November 21, 1997). This appeal process is not intended to deal with differences of scientific opinion between
or among investigators and reviewers.
If the applicant has concerns about the conduct of the review, whether the initial review was conducted by CSR or by the
IC, the applicant should discuss them with the program official responsible for the application, who will attempt to resolve
the applicant's concerns. If, after discussion with the program administrator, the investigator still has concerns, he or
she may submit a formal letter of appeal to the program official, who will handle it in accordance with specific appeal procedures.
The program official will consult with the SRA or staff of the IC scientific review office. This consultation may result
in a decision to re-review the application. A re-review consists of a review of the same application, not a revised version,
by the same or another review group without access to the summary statement of the disputed review. If NIH staff and the investigator
cannot agree on a course of action, the appeal will be reviewed by the designated IC Appeals Officer. That official will make
the appeal letter available to the Council along with the IC recommendation on the appeal and any written comments from the
SRA or review group. The Council may either reject the appeal and let the initial review stand or recommend that the application
be re-reviewed. The Council's decision may not be further appealed.
Disposition of Applications
All incomplete applications, non-compliant modular applications, and those applications determined to be non-responsive
to solicitation requirements will be returned to the applicant by CSR or by the IC referral office without further action.
For unsolicited applications that are returned, the applicant may resubmit a changed or complete version of the application
for consideration in the next review cycle.
Following the initial review, the PI will receive a copy of the summary statement and will be advised by letter from the
responsible IC whether the application has been recommended for further consideration by the Council.
The IC Director or designee is the official that has the authority to make final award decisions from among those applications
receiving a favorable initial review and Council recommendation. If an application has been recommended for further consideration
but is not expected to be funded in the current cycle, the application may be held by NIH for an additional cycle(s) and will
compete with other applications submitted for that cycle. If an application is unsuccessful, the applicant may subsequently
submit up to two revised versions of the application for review in a future cycle(s), but NIH will not accept a revised application
submitted more than 2 years from the receipt of the original application.
Successful applicants will be notified of additional information that may be required or other actions leading to an award.
The process leading to an award, including the business management review performed by the GMO, is described in Part II. The
decision not to award a grant, or to award a grant at a particular funding level, is discretionary and is not subject to appeals
to any NIH or HHS official or board.
Sources of Information about NIH's Grants Process and Programs
As described below, NIH maintains a number of information resources about its grant programs and activities that can be
accessed through the Home Page maintained by the Office of Extramural Research. Some are descriptive materials that allow
interested parties to learn about NIH grant initiatives, funding opportunities, and proposed and actual policy changes. Others
provide historical data. These documents are updated annually or as needed. The NIH Web site address for these materials and
other grant-related materials is http://www.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm (a more specific address may be provided below). In addition, these materials may be requested using e-mail through
GrantsInfo@nih.gov, by telephone at (301) 435-0714, or by writing to the Division of Extramural Outreach and Information Resources (at the address
shown in Part III).
These information resources include:
NIH Extramural Programs: a compendium of the scientific programs of the NIH components that award grants,
cooperative agreements, and contracts. It indicates current areas of research emphasis, highlights special interests of each
IC, and identifies specific NIH offices to be contacted for further information about particular programs, policies, and procedures.
The Web site address is http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm.
NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: announces new programs and policies, including program announcements,
Requests for Applications, and Requests for Proposals. The Web site address for the NIH Guide is http://www.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm. The NIH Guide also is available on a subscription basis. For subscription instructions, see http://www.nih.gov/grants/guide/listserv.htm.
Research Grants and Contracts: annual listing of extramural awards, previously known as "the brown book."
The Web site address is http://www.nih.gov/grants/award/award.htm.
Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP): an on-line system (https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/), updated quarterly, that provides a brief description of and administrative data on each NIH-funded research project.
Program Guidelines: detailed policy and procedural information applicable to specific programs/activities.
NIH-wide program guidelines are published initially in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts (see above) and
also are accessible by title at http://www.nih.gov/grants/documentindex.htm. IC Home Pages also should be consulted for IC-specific guidelines (see Part III).
Other documents providing information about or general descriptions of NIH programs also may be requested. These include
Helpful Hints on Preparing a Research Grant Application to the NIH, Helpful Hints on Preparing a Fellowship Application
to the NIH, Research Training and Career Development Programs, and NIH Minority Programs. These documents contain
useful information but are not currently available on-line and may not provide as up-to-date or complete information as those
documents linked to the NIH OER Home Page.
Each IC also maintains its own Home Page accessible through the NIH Home Page submenu entitled "Institutes and Offices"
(see Part III for current Web site addresses).
Footnotes for Part I1 These include the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality (AHRQ), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF), the Administration on Aging (AoA), and the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA).
2 Although the government-wide requirements do not cover grants to for-profit organizations, HHS has included them in the coverage
of 45 CFR Part 74.
3 The Office of Naval Research is the cognizant agency for negotiation of F&A costs for some NIH grantees
4 Some ICs review applications for Institutional National Research Service Awards (T32s) only once per year. See Appendix II-1 in Part II of this policy statement.
5 At the present time, NIH is developing and piloting alternative means of electronic submission of applications.