www.union.edu/Resources/Academic/Grants/
Note: Additional information about the AREA program can be found in Program Announcement PA-06-042, published in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts on 10/6/2005, and the AREA grants web site. Excerpts are reproduced below.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is continuing to make a special effort to stimulate research in educational institutions that provide baccalaureate or advanced degrees for a significant number of the Nation's research scientists, but that have not been major recipients of NIH support. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 1985, Congressional appropriations for the NIH have included funds for this initiative, which NIH has implemented through the Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) program. Based on the expectation that funds will continue to be available each year, the NIH invites applications for AREA grants (R15) through a standing, ongoing Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
The AREA program is a research grant program and not a training or fellowship program. Active involvement of undergraduate and graduate students in the proposed research is encouraged, and reviewers will consider whether the proposed project will expose undergraduate (preferably, if available) and graduate students to meritorious research. However, the application should not focus on training objectives and training plans should not be provided).
Applicants may request a maximum of $150,000 total direct costs plus applicable Facilities & Administrative (F&A)/indirect costs for the entire project period of up to three years.
Union College is registered at both:
PD/PIs should work with their institutional/organizational officials to make sure that they are registered in the NIH Commons.
In addition to the information requested on the Form, under "Other," provide the following information:
CRITIQUE: Include as little descriptive information in this section as possible. Please address, in five individual sections, each criterion listed below. In addition: for competing continuation (renewal) applications, include an evaluation of progress over the past project period; for amended applications, address progress, changes, and responses to the critiques in the summary statement from the previous review, indicating whether the application is improved, the same as, or worse than the previous submission. These comments on progress and response to the previous review should be provided in a separate paragraph and/or under the appropriate criteria.
Review Criteria: The goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following criteria 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. Note that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important 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 or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Approach: Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? For applications designating multiple Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD/PI)s, is the leadership approach, including the designated roles and responsibilities, governance and organizational structure consistent with and justified by the aims of the project and the expertise of each of the PD/PIs?
Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?
Investigators: Are the PD/PI(s) and other key personnel appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the PD/PI(s) and other researchers? Do the PD/PI(s) and the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?
Environment: Do(es) the scientific environment(s) in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment(s), or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
Overall Evaluation: Summarize the major factors from the five review criteria above that contribute to or detract from scientific merit. In addition, evaluate whether the proposed project addresses the objectives of the AREA grant program which are to (1) provide support for meritorious research, (2) strengthen the research environment of schools that have not been major recipients of NIH support, and (3) expose available undergraduate and graduate students in such environments to meritorious research.