Research Advocate

NSF Publishes New Grants.gov Guide

2009-11-19T10:24:00.000-08:00

The National Science Foundation has issued a new Grants.gov Application Guide, dated December 1, 2009.

NSF provides a summary of significant changes in the Guide, listed below.

The section on post-submission to Grants.gov has been updated to reflect the availability of Research.gov to track the status of grant applications to NSF (Chapter III, Section 6).
The NSF Grants.gov Application Cover Page has been updated to include the Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) mechanisms (Chapter VI, Section 1).
The NSF Application Checklist is no longer a form required to be submitted with each application. Rather, it has been converted to a Checklist for use by the organization in conducting an administrative review, prior to electronic submission, to ensure that an application complies with all application preparation instructions, in the format specified. The NSF Application Checklist now appears in Chapter VII.

SPO Implements New Proposal Review Form

2009-11-16T17:18:00.000-08:00

On November 16, 2009, the Sponsored Projects Office implemented a new improved format for its Proposal Review Form (PRF). The new form can be found on the SPO web site on the UC Berkeley Forms page. Please delete any previous versions of the form that you may have saved on your computer, and start using the new form immediately. If you have already prepared a PRF for a new proposal, and it is not possible to get new signatures in time to meet the 5 day deadline to SPO, you may include the old form with your proposal. However, the old form does not include several required fields, and if you use this form you will be required to provide additional information. After January 1, 2010, SPO will not approve any proposal submitted with the old PRF form.

What is different?

New Format – Although much of the information has remained the same we have changed the way that the form is organized to be more intuitive, and to communicate information in a more meaningful way. To do this, we have expanded the form to two pages in order to accommodate a more readable font size. Also, fields that relate to each other have been grouped together so that administrators and investigators new to proposal submission at UC Berkeley can more easily understand what information we are asking for.

Tool Tips – We have added tool tips (or mouse overs) to fields that are commonly misinterpreted, or fields where administrators and investigators may want a quick reminder while filling out the form.

Drop Down Menus – In several areas we have replaced the check boxes with drop down menus. This allows us to provide more categories that may more accurately reflect the nature of the proposed project, while at the same time keeping the form uncluttered and easily readable.

Note Fields – It is not possible to create a form that incorporates all possible situations, while keeping it useful for everyday department purposes. To help compensate for this, we have included fields specifically for the PI and the department to communicate additional information as need to SPO and each other.

Key Personnel – This is a new mandatory field for the PRF and has been added to enable the department and SPO to review the effort commitments of Key Personnel at the time of proposal. As with many fields on the PRF, this is a necessary first step we take to comply with Federal requirements. This does represent a new area of compliance for the University, so we have incorporated this information into the PRF in order to minimize the additional administrative burden on the department. Please note that we only need this information for people listed as Key Personnel, and not all personnel on the project.

Addenda – We have created the Expanded Personnel Form to accommodate large projects with more than five Key Personnel. We have also created an Expanded Signature Page for interdepartmental projects, and projects with multiple Co-PIs.

We have also updated the Instructions, and added a Frequently Asked Questions page in order to provide additional resources for both Berkeley researchers and their administrative support.

RAC Offices to Close During the Annual Campus Winter Break

2009-11-06T15:12:00.000-08:00

The Animal Care and Use Committee Office, the Office for the Protection of Human Subjects, the Sponsored Projects Office, and the Research Administration and Compliance Office will be closed during the campus energy curtailment beginning Wednesday, December 23, 2009 through Wednesday, January 6, 2010. Offices will reopen on Thursday, January 7, 2010.

SPO Proposal Submission

SPO will process proposals due in December and January according to the VCR’s five-day proposal submission policy with the following exceptions:

For proposals with deadlines that fall between December 23 and January 8th, the due date to SPO will be no later than Friday, December 18, 2009.
For proposals due January 11th-13th, the due date to SPO will be no later than noon on Monday, December 21, 2009.
SPO will not accept proposals after noon on Monday, December 21, 2009.

To assist Berkeley faculty and staff members who need to submit proposals before and/or after the holiday/furlough period SPO will extend its drop box hours from 7 am to 6 pm from December 9th to the 18th. SPO will collect proposals from the drop box each day at 6 pm. These proposals then will be logged in on this date. A SPO Research Analyst also will be available to answer general proposal questions from 7 to 8 am and 5 to 6 pm each day during this same time period. Persons needing assistance from 7 to 8 am and 5 to 6 pm should call the main SPO number: 642-0120.

PIs also are encouraged to inform their SPO Research Analyst if they will be submitting a proposal with a due date just prior to, during, or just after the curtailment period. This will give SPO and the PI an opportunity to discuss the best way to handle the proposal to make sure it is submitted in a timely manner.

ACUC Protocol Submission

Please note that all protocols and protocol revisions must be submitted via email to: ACUC@berkeley.edu by 5 pm on the deadline date.
If you wish to make changes to an approved protocol, you must first contact the ACUC office to obtain a copy of the current approved version of your protocol. Failure to do so may result in your protocol being returned to you.
The deadline for protocol submission for the January 20, 2010 meeting is Monday, November 16, 2009.
The deadline for protocol submission for the February 17, 2010 meeting is January 5, 2010. No exceptions to this deadline will be granted as ACUC staff must process all protocols for the February meeting by end of business on January 6, 2010.

CPHS Protocol Submission

The deadline for protocol submission for the December 4, 2009 CPHS-I meeting is Monday, November 9, 2009.
The deadline for protocol submission for the December 18, 2009 CPHS-II meeting is Monday, November 23, 2009.
There is no CPHS-I meeting in January 2010; the deadline for protocol submission for the February 5, 2010 CPHS-I meeting is Monday, January 11, 2010. Please note that any new protocol to be reviewed at this meeting must be submitted via eProtocol.
The deadline for protocol submission for the January 22, 2010 CPHS-II meeting is Friday, December 18, 2009. (Please note this is an earlier deadline than usual).
Important: if your study is “greater than minimal risk” needing full board review and the approval will expire before January 22, 2010, you must submit your renewal application in time for review at a December 2009 CPHS meeting.
No deliveries will be accepted after noon on December 22, 2009; any documents left in the drop box over the break will not be retrieved and logged until January 7, 2010.
eProtocol Announcement: OPHS anticipates that as of December 18, 2009 investigators will be required to submit ALL NEW PROTOCOLS via eProtocol, therefore no paper-based submissions for new protocols will be accepted after NOON on Friday, December 18, 2009. Please check the CPHS website for updates or changes to this deadline.

In addition, for protocols determined to be exempt prior to July 1, 2009 if an investigator wants to make a modification or revision to his/her protocol then s/he must re-submit the exempt protocol via eProtocol as a “new” project and incorporate the amendment into the protocol application. Please include a reference in the narrative to the original exempt determination CPHS# and append the “old” determination of exemption approval letter to the submission. See the CPHS web site for more detail about eProtocol submissions.

NIH Non-Competing Grant Awards under the FY 2010 Continuing Resolution

2009-11-06T08:58:00.000-08:00

The National Institutes of Health, as in previous years, has issued a notice regarding awards during the continuing resolution that continues funding to the agency while Congress works to finish the fiscal year 2010 budget appropriations.

The November 5 NIH Guide notice states:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) continues to operate on a continuing resolution (CR), Public Law 111-88 signed on October 30, 2009 making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies, including NIH, and for other purposes for FY 2010, which currently extends through December 18, 2009. The current CR applies the terms of the FY 2009 appropriations for the period covered by the CR.

Until the final FY 2010 appropriation is enacted, NIH will issue non-competing research grant awards at a level below that indicated on the most recent Notice of Award (generally up to 90% of the previously committed level). This is consistent with our practice during the CRs of FY 2006 - 2009. NIH will consider upward adjustments to these levels after the final appropriation is enacted, but expects institutions to monitor their expenditures carefully during this period.

The NIH Extramural Financial Operations page has additional information on the NIH budget.

Questions regarding adjustments applied to individual UC Berkeley grant awards may be directed to your SPO research administrator.

NIFA Replaces CSREES at USDA

2009-10-07T17:09:00.000-07:00

On October 1, 2009, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) agency at the U.S. Department of Agriculture was replaced by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Congress created NIFA through the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. All CSREES authorities, duties, and obligations are transferred to NIFA as stated in the 2008 Farm Bill.

NIFA’s mission is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and well-being, and communities by supporting research, education, and extension programs in the Land-Grant University System and other partner organizations.

President Obama has appointed Dr. Roger Beachy, founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, to serve as the first director of the new agency.

SPO Provides Guidance for Furlough Exchange Program (FEP) Charges to Grants and Contracts

2009-10-05T15:01:00.000-07:00

The Sponsored Projects Office has provided guidance for the Berkeley campus on Furlough Exchange Program (FEP) charges to grants and contracts.

Full-time faculty in a Professorial or Lecturer Security of Employment title series who are Principal Investigators and are subject to the Furlough/Salary Reduction Program may choose to participate in the FEP. Under the FEP, a PI may charge one or more externally funded projects for time and effort equivalent to the percent of their furloughed time if this will contribute to the success of the project/s.

See the the SPO guidance for detailed information, links to UCOP memoranda and the UCOP Q&A for contract and grant officers, and additional clarification from NSF.

UC Santa Cruz Hosts NSF Day on November 20

2009-10-05T13:51:00.000-07:00

The National Science Foundation and UC Santa Cruz will be holding a one-day “NSF Day” workshop on Friday, November 20, 2009, on the UCSC campus.

The workshop is primarily designed for researchers and educators less experienced in proposing to the NSF; however, more experienced proposers and NSF grantees may find the workshop useful and informative.

The workshop will provide an overview of NSF, its mission, priorities, and budget. It will cover the NSF proposal and merit review process and NSF programs that cut across disciplines. Additionally, representatives from the seven NSF directorates and the Office of International Science and Engineering will make presentations on their programs and will also be available informally and in breakout sessions for discussions of potential research proposals.

The agenda, registration form, and directions are provided by NSF. NSF is not charging a registration fee for the workshop; however, preregistration is required. Submit the registration form to NSF by Friday, November 13, 2009.

NSF Revises Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Effective January 4

2009-10-05T13:13:00.000-07:00

The National Science Foundation has published a revised version of the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPP), NSF 10-1, which will become effective for proposals submitted on or after January 4, 2010. The guidelines in NSF 09-29 remain effective through January 3, 2010.

Significant changes made to the PAPP include:

Addition of a completely new proposal certification by the Authorized Organizational Representative that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF, to address the responsible conduct of research requirement of the America COMPETES Act; and
An entirely new requirement for PIs to provide a project outcomes report, submitted electronically via Research.gov, for the general public within 90 days following the expiration of the grant, to comply with the America COMPETES Act.

NSF provides a by-Chapter summary of significant changes at the beginning of the Grant Proposal Guide and the Award and Administration Guide.

New Shorter NIH Application Forms Required for January Deadlines

2009-09-23T15:20:00.000-07:00

The National Institutes of Health has announced that new, restructured versions of the paper PHS 398 and electronic SF 424 (R&R) application packages and instructions will be available by December 2009.

All new or resubmission applications targeting due dates on or after January 25, 2010 (for fiscal year 2011 funding) must use the new application forms and instructions, even if the initial submission followed the current application forms and instructions.

NIH will issue an NIH Guide Notice when the new forms and instructions are available. Applicants must return to the Funding Opportunity Announcement or reissued parent announcement to download the new forms and instructions.

Changes include significantly shorter page limits and restructured application packages. These changes will affect all competing applications submitted to NIH.

Key changes include:

Shortened Page Limits. The page limit for the new Research Strategy section will be 6 or 12 pages. One additional page will be allowed for Specific Aims.

Alignment of the Application with Peer Review Criteria:

Research Plan. Three sections of the current Research Plan (Background and Significance, Preliminary Studies/Progress Report, and Research Design and Methods) will be consolidated into a new single section within the Research Plan entitled Research Strategy. The new Research Strategy section will be sub-divided into three parts: Significance, Innovation, and Approach.
Resources. The Facilities and Other Resources section will be changed to require a description of how the scientific environment will contribute to the probability of success of the project, unique features of the environment, and for Early Stage Investigators, the institutional investment in the success of the investigator.
Biographical Sketch. A new Personal Statement will be incorporated as Part A, changing the parts formerly called A, B, and C to Parts B, C, and D. Applicants should limit the list of selected peer-reviewed publications to no more than 15.

For more information, see:

Guidance for Campus: Preparation for ARRA Reports

2009-09-18T11:16:00.000-07:00

September 18, 2009
From: Lori Cripps, Director, Extramural Funds Accounting
To: Department Research Administrators
Subject: Preparation for ARRA Reports - due October 10, 2009

This message is for all department managers and administrators with awards funded by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

A critical component of ARRA requires awardees to submit quarterly reports for all awards received. Completed reports are due no later than 10 calendar days after each calendar quarter in which the recipient receives the award. Reports for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 must be submitted to the federal government by October 10.

Berkeley is working to develop a web-based portal to facilitate the compilation and submission of these quarterly reports. Most of the required information used to populate the portal will be pulled directly from existing campus systems -- COEUS and BAIRS. However, currently there are six data fields that will require input from the department. The six fields are: 1) award description; 2) quarterly activities; 3) project completion status; 4) number of jobs created and jobs retained; 5) description of the jobs created and retained; and 6) description of the product/service for vendor payments over $25K. Additional information and guidance on the specific requirements of these fields will be provided soon on the EFA website http://controller.berkeley.edu/efa/arra/index.htm.

The timeframe to submit this information will be very short, and we anticipate that the web portal will be available no sooner than October 1. To ease the reporting requirements, we recommend you begin gathering the required information now so that you will be able to respond quickly to the call for submission of information.

During the next few weeks we will be providing ARRA updates on the status of the portal project, as well as plans for training and roll-out of the reporting tool. Please subscribe to the ARRA listserve to be certain you receive all future ARRA communications. To subscribe, please go to https://calmail.berkeley.edu/manage/list/listinfo/arra@lists.berkeley.edu.

If you have any questions about ARRA reporting requirements, please contact me at l_cripps@berkeley.edu, or (510) 642-1371.

NOTE: Departments will be responsible for reporting ARRA jobs created and jobs retained for sub-recipients receiving funding from ARRA awards made to UCB. The Sponsored Projects Office will be issuing guidance for departments on how to report this information shortly.

NIH Issues Revised PHS 2590, Implements Policy Changes

2009-08-31T14:17:00.000-07:00

The National Institutes of Health has revised “Continuation Progress Report for a DHHS Public Health Service Grant” (PHS 2590, rev. 06/09). The newly revised instructions and forms are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm. The revised PHS 2590 form will will be accepted immediately for all progress reports and will be required for all annual progress reports due on or after October 1, 2009.

NIH will release corresponding changes to the eSNAP Commons Module on October 9, 2009. For eSNAPs due October 15th, NIH encourages grantees to delay submitting eSNAP reports until after the October 9th enhancements are in production in order to implement use of the revisions for all progress reports submitted for FY 2010 funding. For eSNAPs due by October 15th, NIH encourages grantees to submit them on time; however, an additional grace period to November 1, 2009 is permitted to accommodate these changes.

This revision of the PHS 2590 implements a number of important policy changes, including:

New All Personnel Report: Replacement of the Senior/Key Personnel Report with an All Personnel Report (Form Page 7) that collects information on all personnel who participate in the project for at least one person month or more. The All Personnel Report also implements a new NIH requirement that all individuals with a postdoctoral role with one person month of more of measurable effort must have an eRA Commons user ID (see NIH Guide Notice OD-09-140, New Requirement for eRA Commons User IDs for Individuals in a Postdoctoral Project Role with Measurable Effort on an NIH Annual Progress Report (PHS2590), for details and background on this new requirement).
New Assurance for Institutions Receiving Awards for Training of Graduate Students for Doctoral Degrees: For institutions receiving NIH awards for graduate training through certain Institutional training grants, a new Graduate Student Assurance, required by the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-482) is now included. In addition, for annual progress reports for Institutional training grants Table 12A is modified to collect data related to the Graduate Student Assurance. More details on this new institutional assurance are described in NIH Guide Notice OD-09-141 , New Reporting and Assurance Requirements for Institutions Receiving Awards for Training of Graduate Students for Doctoral Degrees.
Inclusion of Changes to Innovative Potential: As part of the NIH Enhancing Peer Review Initiative, PD/PIs are asked, if applicable, to address any changes to the innovative potential of the project. This information is now part of the Progress Report Summary, Section B. Studies and Results.
Changes to the Biographical Sketch: Another change associated with the peer review initiative is the addition of a Personal Statement to the biographical sketch. The statement is for the senior/key personnel to address why their experience and qualifications make them particularly well-suited for their role on the project. Instructions for the biographical sketch also encourage applicants to limit the list of publications to no more than 15. Reminder: A new biosketch is only required as part of the progress report for new senior/key personnel since the previous submission.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs): A new item is added to the Progress Report Summary, under D. Plans, as Item E. Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line(s) Used, for grantees to note if proposed research involving hESCs is different from that proposed in the previous submission, including use of a different cell line (Form Page 5).

DOE Requests Input on Future ARPA-E Funding Opportunities

2009-08-31T14:00:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Department of Energy has issued a Request for Information requesting public input on potential programmatic areas and opportunities to overcome technological roadblocks to the development of transformational technologies relevant to the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) mission. Information collected will assist ARPA-E in developing new programs and funding opportunities.

ARPA-E was authorized by the America COMPETES Act (PL 110-69) and charged with the mission to fund projects that will develop transformational technologies that reduce America’s dependence on foreign energy imports; reduce U.S. energy related emissions, including greenhouse gases; improve energy efficiency across all sectors of the U.S. economy; and ensure that the U.S. maintains its leadership in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.

Responses are due by September 25, 2009.

NSB Issues Report with Recommendations on NSF Cost-Sharing Policies

2009-08-31T12:28:00.000-07:00

In October 2007, the National Science Board established the Task Force on Cost Sharing to examine issues related to National Science Foundation cost-sharing policy. In February 2009, NSB sought public comment on a draft report. On August 27, 2009, NSB issued the final report, NSB-09-20, Investing in the Future: NSF Cost Sharing Policies for a Robust Federal Research Enterprise.

From the Executive Summary of the report:

In this report, the National Science Board (Board) prescribes a set of recommendations with two primary objectives:

(1) to allow, but narrowly circumscribe, the application of mandatory cost sharing requirements in NSF programs in which cost sharing is foundational to achieving programmatic goals, and

(2) to prohibit voluntary committed cost sharing in NSF proposals and thus eliminate post-award tracking and reporting requirements associated with such cost sharing.

These recommendations are intended to improve consistency and clarity of NSF cost sharing practices and policy and to maximize the effectiveness of institutional dollars invested in research. The Board firmly believes that prohibiting voluntary committed cost sharing, and permitting mandatory cost sharing requirements only in limited and appropriate circumstances, will not reduce institutional commitment and financial contributions to NSF-sponsored projects or negatively impact institutional stewardship of Federal resources. Instead, it likely will enhance the ability of institutions to strategically and flexibly plan, invest in, and conduct research projects and programs, and will promote equity among grantee institutions in NSF funding competitions.

Selected Recommendations:

NSF should reinstate mandatory cost sharing for the following programs for which cost sharing is foundational to strategic programmatic goals: the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (ESPCoR), and the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC) program. In the case of EPSCoR, mandatory cost sharing requirements may be met in aggregate by contributions across all institutions and/or organizations in the jurisdiction. In accordance with the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), mandatory cost sharing is also implemented in the Major Research Instrumentation Program and the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program.

NSF should prohibit voluntary committed cost sharing in all components of both solicited and unsolicited proposals. To ensure that reviewers, NSF program officers, and grantee officials have sufficient information regarding investigator capabilities and institutional resources, NSF should broaden the intent and usage of the existing Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources (FER) section of proposals. Specifically, the FER section should contain a comprehensive description of all resources necessary for and available to a project, without reference to cost, date of acquisition, and whether the resources are currently available or would be provided upon receipt of the grant. The prohibition of voluntary committed cost sharing will eliminate tracking and reporting requirements, imposed externally on institutions, previously associated with such resources. In recognition of the culture shift in the research community necessitated by this change, NSF should clearly and regularly communicate this new policy to program officers, external reviewers, and the proposer community.

The full report is available at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsb0920.

February 3 Research Advocate article: NSB Requests Comments on NSF Cost-Sharing Policy

NIH Stem Cell Guidelines to Apply to All Federal Agencies

2009-08-06T14:18:00.000-07:00

In a July 30 memorandum to the heads of federal agencies, President Obama directed agencies to adopt the new NIH guidelines governing federally funded research on human stem cells, including human embryonic stem cells.

The memo states:

In order to ensure that all federally funded human stem cell research is conducted according to these same principles and to promote a uniform Federal policy across the executive branch, I hereby direct the heads of executive departments and agencies that support and conduct stem cell research to adopt these Guidelines, to the fullest extent practicable in light of legal authorities and obligations. I also direct those departments and agencies to submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), within 90 days, proposed additions or revisions to any other guidance, policies, or procedures related to human stem cell research, consistent with Executive Order 13505 and this memorandum.

July 6 Research Advocate article: Final NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research

NIH Updates Conflict of Interest FAQ and Web-based Tutorial

2009-08-06T12:16:00.000-07:00

The National Institutes of Health has updated two resources provided on the NIH Office of Extramural Research Conflict of Interest web page: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/index.htm:

Frequently Asked Questions - Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) Requirements for NIH-Supported Institutions, and
Web-based Tutorial on Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) Requirements for NIH-Supported Institutions (also available in PDF). The tutorial now includes the mandatory use of the eRA Commons FCOI Module for grantees submitting FCOI reports beginning July 1, 2009.

August 22, 2008 Research Advocate article: NIH Publishes Web-based Tutorial on Financial Conflict of Interest Requirements

SPO Subrecipient Commitment Form Now Available

2009-08-04T13:44:00.000-07:00

Since the fall semester of 2008, the Sponsored Projects Office (SPO) has been conducting a pilot test of Berkeley's Subrecipient Commitment Form in several departments across campus. The purpose of this form is to expedite the process of setting up subawards after Berkeley receives a grant so that work on the sponsored project can be initiated as soon as possible. The form also is designed to help subrecipients understand at the proposal stage what will be required of them by Berkeley should an award be made. This includes compliance with federal regulations such as those governing research with human or animal subjects, conflict of interest disclosures, and OMB Circular A-133.

The pilot test of the form has been completed and user evaluations have been used to improve and finalize the form for general campus use. The Subrecipient Commitment Form and directions for completing the form are now available on the SPO website: http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Procedures/subawards.html.

The Subrecipient Commitment Form for each subawardee should now be provided to SPO at the proposal stage with other proposal documents. To ensure that the information provided on the form is accurate and up-to-date, the form must be signed by an authorized institutional representative of the subawardee. Subawardees included in previously submitted Berkeley proposals that did not have an opportunity to submit a signed Subrecipient Commitment Form will be asked to do so prior to the establishment of a subaward between the subawardee and Berkeley.

Questions about the form at proposal stage should be directed to SPO research administrators (http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/staff.aspx); questions about the use of the form at the award stage should be directed to the SPO subaward coordinator, Jennifer Nadeau (jancal01@berkeley.edu).

NASA Requiring Organizational Relationship Confirmation in NSPIRES

2009-07-28T17:01:00.000-07:00

Beginning August 8, 2009, NASA will require that all proposal team members confirm an organizational relationship in the NSPIRES system before a proposal can be submitted using the system. NASA is making this change to improve the process by which potential conflicts of interest are determined.

For a proposal to be submitted with NSPIRES after August 7, 2009, all proposal team members must confirm an organizational relationship, i.e., identify the organization through which they are participating in a given proposal. A proposal cannot submitted if an organizational relationship is missing for any team member, regardless of role on the proposal (e.g., Co-I, collaborator).

NASA has provided explanatory procedures to guide both existing and prospective team members through this process. The NSPIRES Help Desk can answer questions and provide assistance: (202) 479-9376 or NSPIRES-Help@nasaprs.com.

Final NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research

2009-07-06T12:26:00.000-07:00

On March 9, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO)13505 Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. The EO states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Director of the National Institues of Health, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, to the extent permitted by law.

On July 6, the NIH published final NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research, along with the public comments on the draft Guidelines. The Guidelines will be effective on July 7, 2009.

From the July 6 NIH Guide Notice:

The Guidelines will ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law. Internal NIH policies and procedures, consistent with the EO and these Guidelines, will govern the conduct of intramural NIH stem cell research.

The Guidelines prescribe the assurances and supporting documentation that must accompany requests for NIH funding for research using hESCs, and describe research that is not eligible for NIH funding. NIH will provide additional guidance concerning the implementation of the Guidelines and the status of pending applications in future Guide Notices.

Ongoing NIH-supported research involving previously approved hESC lines may continue. No new uses of hESC may be initiated in ongoing funded studies unless reviewed and approved by the NIH.

Update: A July 15 NIH Guide Notice, Status of Applications and Awards under the New NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research, “provides information about new applications proposing to use hESCs, ongoing NIH research using previously approved hESC lines, and the status of applications previously submitted to NIH proposing to use hESCs, including those that received initial peer review prior to April 17, 2009 when NIH announced that applications that had not already been reviewed would be held pending issuance of the final Guidelines. ”

April 23 Research Advocate article: NIH Issues Implementation Notice and Draft Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research

Berkeley eProtocol for Human Subjects Research: Required for All Exempt Protocols on July 1

2009-06-11T11:25:00.000-07:00

Berkeley eProtocol is a user-friendly, online system for submitting, tracking, reviewing, and approving CPHS human subject research protocols. After a successful pilot testing phase CPHS and OPHS are ready to fully implement this paperless submission process for all exempt level protocol submissions beginning July 1, 2009!

To submit an exempt protocol via Berkeley eProtocol go to: http://cphs.berkeley.edu/content/eprotocolpilot.htm.

Paper-based (hard copy) submissions of exempt applications received on or after July 1, 2009 will be returned to the investigator. OPHS encourages investigators who may be submitting their exempt applications in late June 2009 to use eProtocol instead of paper.

What is Exempt Research?
For information about what it means to qualify as exempt, categories, and examples of exempt research, see the CPHS Guidelines in Exempt Research at: http://cphs.berkeley.edu/content/exempt.htm.

Question and Comments
If you have any questions or comments about the new Berkeley eProtocol system, please contact OPHS Director Rebecca Armstrong at rda@berkeley.edu or OPHS eProtocol project manager Maria Savage at mcsavage@berkeley.edu.

March 20 Research Advocate article: Berkeley eProtocol for Human Subjects Research Goes Live!

Alert: Many State-Funded Projects may be Cut

2009-06-08T17:13:00.000-07:00

The Governor of the State of California has issued Executive Order S-09-09 effective as of this date, June 8, 2009. This order directs all state funds encumbered on or after March 1, 2009, for contracts entered into for which goods or services have not been provided or for contracts proposed to be entered into during the 2008-2009 fiscal year by State agencies and departments, regardless of funding source, to be disencumbered. These funds are to revert to their original funding source with no legal liability to be incurred by the State.

This order does not include projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It also appears to exclude projects funded by bonds and other state-supported projects meeting certain funding criteria, but the full scope and application of the Governor’s order are unclear at this time. The Sponsored Projects Office therefore encourages all campus units with state-supported sponsored projects to immediately cease encumbering funds and to inform all subcontractors to do the same.

SPO is seeking additional guidance from the UC Office of the President and will provide the campus community with additional information as it becomes available.

Direct Charging Administrative Support Costs on ARRA Projects

2009-06-01T10:28:00.000-07:00

UCOP has issued C&G Guidance Memo 09-02 indicating that the OMB has told the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) that administrative support charges on ARRA proposal budgets will not be allowed strictly on the basis that the project is ARRA funded. UCOP is in the process of updating our C&G Guidance Memo web site to reflect this outcome.

COGR’s PRELIMINARY understanding is that for NIH applications that included a direct charge for ARRA Specialist salaries, each IC will have discretion in determining if the amount awarded needs to be reduced. For example, in the case of NIH Challenge Grants that are limited to total costs of $500,000 per year, the presumption is that if ARRA Specialist salary costs had not been requested, then other costs could have been justified. Therefore, awarding the full $500,000 would be appropriate, with re-budgeting of the ARRA Specialist salary costs to other allowable direct costs. Submission of a revised budget would not be necessary.

April 10 Research Advocate article: Direct Charging Departmental Administrative Support Costs to ARRA Projects

New NIH Business Process for Documenting Changes in Scope for Proposed Research Projects

2009-05-06T14:23:00.000-07:00

The National Institutes of Health has announced a new process for submitting revised Project Summary/Abstracts, Specific Aims, and/or Public Health Relevance Statements when changing the scope of proposed research projects. For example, NIH grant applications may require reductions in scope in order to be accomplished in the two years or less required by the Recovery Act.

Procedure

When requested by NIH, principal investigators and applicant organization officials should discuss potential changes in scope with NIH program officials, then revise sections of the application as appropriate. Applicants should email the final version of the revised sections to a designated email address as a single attached Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF file. (NIH reminds applicants that all revised application information submitted to the NIH must be approved by an Authorized Organizational Representative.)

The Word or PDF document must include three headings, listed below, even if a particular section had no changes from the previous submission. If there are no changes for a section, the header should be included in the document but the text area should be left blank. This will ensure appropriate processing by electronic systems at NIH. The May 5 NIH Guide Notice includes links to Word and PDF templates that include these headings.

Document Headings

1. Modified Project Summary/Abstract Section
Provide a summary of the proposed activity suitable for dissemination to the public. It should be a self-contained description of the project and should contain a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and insofar as possible understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. This abstract must not include any proprietary or confidential information. This section must be no longer than 30 lines of text.

2. Modified Specific Aims Section
List the broad, long-term objectives and the goal of the specific research proposed, for example, to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology. One page is recommended.

3. Modified Public Health Relevance Section
Using no more than two or three sentences, describe the relevance of this research to public health. In this section, be succinct and use plain language that can be understood by a general, lay audience.

NIH Issues Implementation Notice and Draft Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research

2009-04-23T10:00:00.000-07:00

On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, to support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.

The April 17 NIH Guide includes a Notice on Implementation of Executive Order on Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.

This NIH Guide Notice links to Draft National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research. The draft guidelines were published in the April 23 Federal Register; comments must be received by NIH on or before May 26, 2009. NIH plans to issue final Guidelines within the 120 day limit set by the President.

The Notice provides the following implementation guidance:

Ongoing NIH-supported research: Pending issuance of new Guidelines, all ongoing NIH-funded research involving approved uses for human stem cells, including human embryonic stem cells, may continue. However, until the Guidelines are issued in final, no new uses of human embryonic stem cells may be initiated in NIH funded studies unless previously reviewed and approved by the NIH for the ongoing supported research projects. Further, NIH will not consider requests for either administrative supplements or revisions to any grants that include costs for, or involve the study of, human embryonic stem cells until the Guidelines are finalized.
Peer reviewed competing applications: Pending issuance of new Guidelines, any applications previously submitted to the NIH and already reviewed, which propose to use human embryonic stem cells, will be held for funding decisions until the final Guidelines are issued. At that time, highly ranked applications can be modified, as necessary, to comply with the Guidelines, to receive full consideration for funding.
Competing applications pending submission and/or peer review: NIH will accept applications for research proposing to use human embryonic stem cells during the period of Guidelines development, but the review and funding of these applications will be deferred until NIH issues final Guidelines. Such applications should identify illustrative cells for the purposes of the research plan. Once the Guidelines have been issued in final, applicants will have the opportunity to revise their application as necessary to comply with the Guidelines, including utilization of eligible cells. These modified applications will then be peer reviewed and considered for funding.

Direct Charging Departmental Administrative Support Costs to ARRA Projects

2009-04-10T17:05:00.000-07:00

Due to the extensive reporting requirements for ARRA-funded projects the UCOP Manager, Costing Policy and Analysis and the Research Administration Office has recommended that ARRA projects be considered “Major Projects” and that departmental administrative support costs be charged to sponsored projects supported by Recovery Act funds (Memo Operating Guidance No. 09-02 dated April 8, 2009).

The COGR Board also has issued a statement that it is reasonable for institutions to include direct salary charges for administrative and clerical salaries in ARRA grant applications. According to COGR the inclusion of such costs as a direct charge will not jeopardize the application from being selected for funding.

In response, SPO recommends the following if you are planning to charge departmental administrative/clerical salaries to your ARRA funded project:

1. The project budget should include salary support for specific administrative and/or clerical personnel needed to comply with ARRA requirements.

2. The amount budgeted for administrative and/or clerical personnel salaries should be based on an estimate of the percentage of time each of these staff members will directly devote to ARRA responsibilities. COGR is recommending a 5% to 10% level of effort.

3. The proposal budget justification should include a rationale for requesting departmental administrative support costs in the form of administrative and/or clerical salaries. Here is sample language recommended by COGR:

Due to the extraordinary administrative oversight and reporting activities associated with awards made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this proposal includes (insert appropriate percentage of effort) salary support for the additional administrative services required by the Act should an award be issued. Regulatory support for this request is located at OMB Circular A-21 F.6. a. (2.), which states: “Direct charging of salaries of administrative and clerical staff costs may be appropriate where administrative or clerical services required by the project are significantly greater than the routine level of such services provided by academic departments.”

4. Here is an alternative version:

Due to the extraordinary administrative oversight and reporting activities associated with awards made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this proposal includes a request for ___ positions @ ___% time or ___ FTE to support the data collection and reporting requirements specified by the terms of the Recovery Act. The administrative responsibilities and clerical duties of these personnel will support the collection, organization, interpretation and/or reporting of the required ARRA data elements including funding received and expended, completion status of project, jobs created or retained, infrastructure investment impact, and information on subrecipients and subrecipient funding.

UCRP Benefit Charge

2009-04-07T16:24:00.000-07:00

In their September 2008 Meeting, the UC Regents approved resumption of employer contributions to the UC Retirement Plan, effective July 1, 2009. During their February 2009 meeting, the UC Regents voted to delay the resumption of contributions to mid-April 2010 because of the difficult budget situation. However, UCB Human Resources is now recommending that this expense begin to be considered when preparing contract and grant budget proposals for upcoming projects. The initial recommended amount to budget is 4% of eligible employee salary. As more information about the employer contribution rate becomes available, this information will be updated. It is expected that over time the 4% employer contribution amount will increase. This information is provided for planning purposes and is subject to change. In general, this applies to:

Career staff employees (appointment of 50% or greater)
Academic appointees (appointment of 50% or greater)

It does not apply to:

Visiting academic appointees
Staff on limited appointment (less than 1,000 hours in a 12-month period)
Appointees whose primary purpose is education or training (GSRs, post-docs, fellows)

For more specific information on eligibility for membership in UCRP, refer to the UCRP Summary Plan Description available at: http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/forms_pubs/spd/ucrpspdwss.pdf

To maintain consistency with university accounting practices this cost should be added to the existing benefit rate for the appropriate personnel classification. In addition, a sentence (sample below) should be included in the budget justification.

Sample: These rates include an estimated increase of 4% for restarting the employer paid contribution to the University of California Retirement Program (UCRP), effective July 1, 2009, for eligible employees and is applicable to all university fund sources.