Who has the responsibility for verifying and ensuring “other
support disclosures” in applications to the sponsor is accurate? If you answered-the institution applying for
and receiving the funds, you are correct.
“Other support” is not to be confused with the “research
support” section within the bio-sketch. Refer
to this link https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/othersupport.htm
for guidance as to what info the PI is required to provide in an Other Support
as well as samples. Administrators should
work in tandem with the PI to ensure all of the active and pending funding sources
are accurately referenced as Sponsors use the “Other Support” to make sure
there is no budgetary, scientific or commitment overlap. Note there can be serious ramifications for
inaccurately reporting other support information, especially when the sponsor
is federal, since it involves the use of U.S. taxpayer funds. The severity and length of time for noncompliance
determines the type of sanctions received, such as termination of the award. The link for the NIH Extramural Nexus has
been included for further reading on the subject (https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2019/07/11/clarifying-long-standing-nih-policies-on-disclosing-other-support/)
usage of the mathematical inequality symbols; <, >, ≥, ≤ , within NIH
application text fields.
- In early 2015 NIH released a notice informing the grant seeking community of the support for the full Unicode Character Set, in the free-text form fields. http://unicode.org/charts/
According to the above notice and guidelines the mathematical inequality symbols are included within the acceptable/supported Unicode Character Set. However, it has come to our attention that usage of these particular symbols may delay if not prevent the successful submission of an NIH application. While the use of these symbols will not result in error notices within the University’s Cayuse system, the problem is encountered when the application is routed from Grants.gov to eRA Commons.
when entering text where these symbols may be used it is suggested that their
meaning be written in longhand, i.e.
< ( Less than), ≤ (Less than or equal to), etc.
A Research Performance Project Report (RPPR) is required at least annually as part of the NIH non-competing renewal (type 5) award process and it must be submitted via the eRA Commons.
NIH has recently published a new resource “RPPRs: Who Can Do What?” which provides a quick look at the Annual, Interim and Final RPPRs. Only the PI or their delegate may initiate an RPPR in the eRA Commons. The RPPR must be received and approved by the Institute’s Program and grants management staff prior to funding for each subsequent budget period within a previously approved competing project period.
To find out which progress reports are due over the next 4 months, click on this NIH link to Pending Progress Reports to obtain a list of progress reports for a selected grantee institution. For Wayne State University, use 9110501. Note any project that shows a “Yes” to SNAP is actually due on the 15th of the month instead of the 1st as shown in the query results. This query will not include progress reports for Multi-Year Funded (MYF) awards which are always due on or before the anniversary of the budget/project period start date of the award and are uploaded as a PDF through the eRA Commons (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/myf.htm for instructions).
If you have questions or you’ve been told something different, you can reach out to RAS@med.wayne.edu.
To bring you up to speed, the use of OnCore is School of Medicine policy on all studies with human subjects. It’s canon. We need to see that you’ve accounted for this in your submissions. The use of OnCore is mandated to help track human subjects populations here at Wayne State and, until recently, OnCore fees were to be budgeted into all studies with human subjects. While a good portion of budgets still need to reflect this, the mandate has been altered slightly.
Going forward, investigators applying for funding from non-corporate (i.e., federal and foundation) sources no longer need to include OnCore fees in their budget. They DO, however, need to ensure that their protocol and human subjects populations are registered in the OnCore database at time of award. Please note that proposals and contracts with corporate entities (i.e. pharmaceuticals, biomarkers, and devices) that exceed $50,000 in total direct costs WILL still need to include OnCore fees in their budgets. For all funded studies (corporate and non-corporate) that wish to use OnCore as their Clinical Research Management tool, respective OnCore fees will apply.
This should bring some relief to federal and foundational proposal budgets that are often subject to caps. To reiterate, however: your human subjects populations must still be registered with OnCore (this includes non-clinical trial populations). Please be sure to contact the Clinical Research Services Center (CRSC) for assistance in registering your population, or for questions regarding study management capabilities.
May your June submissions be fruitful!
We’re all clear that Forms-D are being retired in favor of the new, improved Forms-E, right? Right. Forms-E must be used for due dates on or after January 25, 2018. We’re all on the same page here. This is old news.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE! As of December 31, 2017, downloadable Forms packages will no longer be available. You read that correctly: downloadable application packages are no longer a thing (don’t say we didn’t warn you). Your only options for submission after December 31, 2017 are: system-to-system submissions (our Evisions, for example), ASSIST (your life will be easier if you just do Evisions, but OK), or Workspace (just… don’t).
Do yourself a favor: if you haven’t transitioned Evisions yet, do it now and get used to it for your upcoming (likely October) deadlines. If you need help, we at RAS are happy to walk you through your application (and Tim Foley in SPA offers training on Evisions as well, if you don’t have a specific application yet).
As of last Thursday, No Cost Extensions requiring a prior approval and requests to change a PD/PI are available to your GCO through the Prior Approval section in eRA Commons. The electronic option through eRACommons is just that: optional. You and your GCO can still make your requests the old-fashioned way if computers make you nervous (heck, even NIH says you should contact your awarding institute/center [IC] to determine the best method for making these requests). How simple is this? Once you sign in, here’s what you see:
And takes you here:
Not sure if you are eligible for a no cost extension (NCE) through prior approval? Do a quick double-check:
- You ARE eligible for a NCE through Prior Approval:
- When an NCE under expanded authority has already been used and the grant is within 90 days of the project end date.
- When the grantee is not under expanded authority and the grant is within 90 days of the project end date.
- When the project end date has expired and has not been closed or has not entered unilateral closeout, whichever comes first.
- You are NOT eligible for a NCE through Prior Approval:
- When an NCE under expanded authority has never been requested and the grant is within 90 days of the project end date. In this case, the NCE will be processed normally through the Extension link in Status.
- When the grant is closed.
- When the grant is a fellowship grant.
- What information will you need to provide to your GCO?
- The NCE request form includes:
- Request Detail – Here you will be asked such things as the number of months you wish to extend the project end date; the amount of unobligated money still available, etc.
- Three PDF upload fields: Progress Report, Budget Document, Justification Document
RAS is here to help with interpretation if you have any questions!
We all love hearing about changes to the federal register, amirite? Well celebrate, one and all: last week, a new final version of the “Common Rule” for the protection of human subjects was published by fifteen federal agencies (including DHHS and NSF) in effort to strengthen the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. The intent is to both enhance protections and reduce administrative burden(!), and here’s what it means to you:
- Consent forms are required a better understanding to provide potential research subjects of a project’s scope, including its risks and benefits, so they can make a more fully informed decision about whether to participate.
- A single institutional review board (IRB) for multi-institutional research studies is required in many cases. (There is substantial flexibility in now allowing broad groups of studies, instead of just specific studies, to be removed from this requirement; this provision is delayed until 2020.)
- Studies on stored identifiable data or identifiable biospecimens allow researchers will have the option of relying on broad consent obtained for future research as an alternative to seeking IRB approval to waive the consent requirement. As under the current rule, researchers will still not have to obtain consent for studies on non-identified stored data or biospecimens. Aside: if you’ve been following along, you’ll note that this is a change of course from earlier intent to apply the principles of informed consent to all biospecimens.
- New exempt categories of research are established based on the level of risk posed to participants. (For example, there is a new exemption for secondary research involving identifiable private information as regulated by and participants protected under HIPAA; the intent is to reduce regulatory burden to allow IRBs to focus their attention on higher risk studies.)
- Continuing review of ongoing research studies is no longer required in instances where such review does little to protect subjects.
- Consent forms for certain federally funded clinical trials are required to be posted on a public website.
The general effective/compliance date of the final rule is January 19, 2018; all studies without initial IRB review as of 1/20/18 will be subject to the new requirements. Any ongoing research at that time (i.e. studies with IRBs approved under the current version of the Common Rule) will continue to be subject to the current, pre-2018 version of the rule unless the university chooses to mandate compliance with the final version. For more on the transition provisions, check out the final rule preamble, as well as Section 101(l) of the regulatory text.
Stay tuned for further guidance; HHS intends to issue direction on specific provisions of the rule changes in the near future.