banner USF Home College of Arts & Sciences OASIS myUSF USF A-Z Index

USF Home > College of Arts and Sciences > Department of Cell Biology, Microbiology and Molecular Biology

Research Faculty Resources

Research Faculty Resources > NIH Resources

CMMB Faculty Resources NIH

NIH Resources

 

R01 Sample Applications and Summary Statements

Applications for an R01 award are not limited in dollars but need to reflect the actual needs of the project. Modular budgets are most prevalent with modules of $25,000 up to $250,000 per year. Applicants requesting more than $250,000 in direct costs per year must submit a detailed budget. Applications are generally awarded for 1-5 years. R01’s should include preliminary data. R01’s should support a discrete, specified, circumscribed project to be performed by the PI in an area representing their specific interest and competencies and should be based upon the mission of NIH. Research Strategy is 12 pages unless the FOA states otherwise.

PI and Grantee Institution Application Resources

Colin Parrish, Ph.D., of Cornell University
"Structural controls of functional receptor and antibody binding to viral capsids"

Summary Statement
Research Plan 
Full Application

Adam Ratner, M.D., M.P.H., of Columbia University
"Gardnerella vaginalis: toxin production and pathogenesis"

Summary Statement
Research Plan 
Full Application

Boris Striepen, Ph.D., of the University of Georgia
"Biology of the apicomplexan plastid"

Summary Statement
Research Plan 
Full Application

Carolina Wählby, Ph.D., of the Broad Institute
"Image analysis for high-throughput C. elegans infection and metabolism assays"

Summary Statement
Research Plan 
Full Application

 

R03 Sample Applications and Summary Statements

Applications for R03’s should be projects that are of limited cost or scope that use widely accepted approaches and methods. The project period is up to two years with $50,000 modules per year. No preliminary data is required but it may be included. The Research Strategy may not exceed 6 pages.

PI and Grantee Institution Application Resources
Martin Karplus, Ph.D., of Harvard University
"Modeling atomic structure of the EmrE multidrug pump to design inhibitor peptides"
Full Application

Chad A. Rappleye, Ph.D., of Ohio State University
"Forward genetics-based discovery of Histoplasma virulence genes"

Summary Statement
Full Application

 

R21 Sample Applications and Summary Statements

The R21 grant mechanism is intended to encourage exploratory/developmental research by providing support for the early and conceptual stages of project development. Preliminary data may be included but is not required. Modular budgets are most prevalent with modules of $25,000 for a budget period of two years. The total direct cost budget may not exceed $275,000 (we typically request $125,000 in year 1 and $150,000 in year 2 or vice versa). The Research Strategy may not exceed 6 pages.

PI and Grantee Institution Application Resources

Steven W. Dow, DVM, Ph.D., of Colorado State University, Fort Collins
"Mechanisms of enteric Burkholderia psuedomallei infection"

Summary Statement
Full Application

Joseph M. McCune, MD, Ph.D., of the University of California, San Francisco
"Human immune system layering and the neonatal response to vaccines"

Summary Statement
Full Application

Peter John Myler, Ph.D., and Marilyn Parsons, Ph.D., of the Seattle Biomedical Research Institute
"Ribosome profiling of Trypanosoma brucei"

Summary Statement
Full Application

Howard T. Petrie, of Scripps Florida
"Lymphoid signals for stromal growth and organization in the thymus."

Summary Statement
Full Application

Michael N. Starnbach, Ph.D., of Harvard University Medical School
"Alteration of host protein stability by Legionella"

Summary Statement
Full Application

Access grants.gov

NEW Bio sketch

Application Quick Guide


Fast Formatting Tips:

  • Use an Arial, Helvetica, Palatino Linotype, or Georgia typeface, a black font color, and a font size of 11 points or higher
  • Type Density, including characters and spaces, must be no more than 15 characters per inch. Type may be no more than six lines per inch. Use standard paper size (8 ½ X 11). Use at least one-half inch margins (top, bottom, left, and right) for all pages. No information should appear in the margins.
  • Use of columns for text is strongly discouraged by NIH.
  • All attachments must be in PDF format and use file names that do not include any hyphens, dashes, slashes, spaces or periods between letters. No special characters.

NIH Peer Review Criteria

  1. Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
     
  2. Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
     
  3. Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
     
  4. Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
     
  5. Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

NIH Scoring System

Common Proposal Pitfalls:


Significance: Not significant, exciting or novel, lack of compelling rationale, incremental and/or low impact research
Specific Aims: Too ambitious or overly complicated, unfocused aims and/or unclear goals, limited aims and uncertain implications
Experimental Approach: Inappropriate level of experimental detail, lack of feasibility, lack of appropriate controls, failure to directly test hypotheses, no discussion of potential pitfalls, correlative or descriptive data, no discussion or alternative models or hypotheses, no description of how data will be interpreted
Research Team: No expertise or publications related to research plan or approach, low productivity and/or few recent papers, no collaborators or lack of support from partners