text:
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (http://www.nih.gov/)
Components of Participating Organizations
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/)
Title: Immune Defense Mechanisms at the Mucosa Cooperative Study Group (U01)
Announcement Type
This is a
reissue with modifications of RFA-AI-08-020.
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
Key Dates
Release Date: April 23, 2010
Letters of Intent Receipt Date(s): September 22, 2010
Application Receipt
Dates(s): October
22, 2010
Peer Review Date(s): February, 2011
Council Review Date(s): May, 2011
Earliest Anticipated Start
Date: July,
Additional Information To Be Available Date
(Url Activation Date): http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/qa/revniaid.htm
Date: October
23, 2010
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable.
Overview Content
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
I Overview Information
II Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Research Objectives
II. Award Information
Mechanism(s) of Support
Funds Available
III. Eligibility Information
Eligible Applicants
Eligible Institutions
Eligible Individuals
Sharing or Matching
Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
IV. Application and Submission Information
Address to Request Application Information
Content and Form of Application Submission
Submission Dates and Times
Receipt, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
Sending an Application to the NIH
Application Processing
D. Application Assignment
Intergovernmental Review
Funding Restrictions
Other Submission Requirements
V. Application Review Information
Review and Selection Process
Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
VI. Award Administration Information
Award Notices
Administrative and National Policy Requirements
A. Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
1. Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities
2. NIH Responsibilities
3. Collaborative Responsibilities
4. Dispute Resolution Process
VII. Agency Contact(s)
Scientific/Research Contact(s)
Peer Review Contact(s)
Financial/ Grants Management Contact(s)
VIII. Other Information - Required Federal Citations
II - Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) invites cooperative agreement grant applications from institutions proposing studies to break new ground in understanding of immune defense mechanisms and immune regulation at the mucosal surfaces. The purpose of this program is to discover and define novel basic immune mechanisms, cells, mediators, and pathways that provide a more sophisticated understanding of mucosal immune defense mechanisms; to explore innovative hypotheses; and to address difficult unsolved questions in mucosal immunity. The ultimate goal is to develop the knowledge base needed to facilitate future development of vaccines and immunotherapies to protect mucosal surfaces from infection and immune-mediated pathology. This program is not intended to support evaluation of mucosal vaccines or therapies, or research primarily focused on pathogens.
The mucosal epithelium, with a combined surface area more than 100 times larger than skin, is both an initial barrier to pathogen entry and the primary site of entry for many pathogens (e.g. influenza virus, human immunodeficiency virus, herpes simplex virus, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae). Since most pathogens first contact the host through the mucosal surface, and efficient person-to person transmission of many pathogens results from an initial mucosal infection, development of vaccines and therapies that target and protect mucosal surfaces would be a significant achievement. Despite several successes in mucosal vaccination (e.g. oral polio vaccine, FluMist, RotaRix, oral cholera vaccine), and substantial research devoted to mucosal vaccine development, the critical elements required for protective mucosal immunity are not well understood.
The mucosal immune system must satisfy a range of diverse requirements from maintaining sterility in the lungs and upper reproductive tract to coexisting with up to 1014 bacteria in the colon. An imbalanced mucosal immune response to food, to the normal microbial flora, or even to pathogens can lead to chronic inflammation and possibly death, so responses at the mucosa require tight controls. Recent studies have provided new clues about the strategies and cellular and molecular components used at different mucosal surfaces to detect and respond to pathogens without causing chronic inflammation, but much remains unknown.
In January 2008, the NIAID sponsored a workshop to discuss recent research advances in mucosal immune defense mechanisms. The workshop participants concluded that multiple gaps exist in the understanding of the basic immune mechanisms responsible for induction of broad systemic and mucosal immunity, priming, protection, and tolerance. These gaps hamper progress in developing therapeutic and vaccination strategies to provide mucosal and systemic protection from mucosal pathogens and inflammatory diseases.
Research Objectives and Scope
This FOA will support a cooperative study group focused on research to define fundamental aspects of immunity at mucosal surfaces. This FOA is intended to stimulate new basic and applied research that will contribute toward understanding broadly applicable host mechanisms of mucosal immune defense. If infectious organisms/vaccines/adjuvants are used for the proposed studies, they must be as model agents to probe host mucosal immune responses to discover new information about mechanisms of immunity.
Areas of interest and examples of research studies responsive to this FOA include, but are not limited to those listed below. Many of the following areas of investigation are not new, but advances in the past few years now suggest that these areas have matured to a level where directed research efforts can have impact. These and other research areas may be addressed in this FOA in the context of defining new mechanisms relevant to immune responses at the mucosa.
Mucosal Epithelium. Mucosal surfaces are separated from the external environment by tightly joined epithelial cells that provide both a physical barrier between the body and the microbial flora and also a first line of immune defense against microbial invasion. Mucosal epithelial cells secrete a wide array of substances such as mucins, defensins, trefoil peptides, cathelecidins, lysozyme and nitric oxide, which non-specifically shield the mucosa from microbial damage. Epithelial innate immune receptors such as TLRs and Nod molecules recognize more defined microbial motifs to signal production of cytokines and chemokines that activate and mobilize immune cells. Epithelial adhesion molecules participate in cell trafficking and localization of mucosal lymphocytes; polymeric Ig receptors and neonatal Fc receptors transport antimicrobial antibodies across the epithelium; and specialized follicle associated epithelial cells play a role in antigen sampling. Although the myriad of active roles mucosal epithelial cells play in host defense have begun to be recognized, many questions remain including the importance of each role in maintaining homeostasis with the host flora versus protection against pathogen invasion. How epithelial cells interact with and respond to commensals and pathogens, and the resultant elaboration of factors involved in immune cell recruitment and function are examples of research areas that still need to be addressed. Examples of potential research studies in this area include, but are not limited to:
Mucosal IgA and Mucosal B Cell Responses. IgA isotype antibodies dominate the mucosal surface and are considered a first line of defense against microbial invasion through the mucosa. Despite the abundance of IgA, and discoveries that have provided a framework for understanding induction of IgA B cells and transport of IgA across the epithelial barrier, much still remains unknown about the source and function of IgA. For example, mouse models of deficiencies in IgA or components of IgA transport or secretion provide conflicting evidence for the requirement of IgA for protective responses to mucosal pathogens. Recent evidence supports new roles for IgA in maintaining homeostasis with the normal flora and prevention of inflammation triggered by the normal flora and harmless antigens. Also, there is now evidence to suggest that IgA switch recombination may occur at non-traditional sites such as the lamina propria and that epithelial cell cytokines can influence this recombination. To facilitate mucosal vaccine development, more information is needed to understand where and how local IgA is produced, and to identify the precise role for IgA in protection from infectious pathogens and maintaining a balance with commensal microbes. Examples of research studies in this area include, but are not limited to:
Mucosal Antigen Sampling and Presentation. The mucosal immune system requires specialized mechanisms to access inhaled or ingested antigens which are separated from the submucosal immune tissues by a tight epithelial cell barrier. A specialized follicle-associated epithelium (FAE) contains gateway epithelial cells, the microfold or M cells, which overlay Peyer's patches in the gut and the nasopharynx-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT) of the respiratory tract. M cells transport antigens to intraepithelial dendritic cells (DC) in the pockets below the M cells to initiate antigen specific immune responses. More recent studies support the presence of lamina propria DCs that express tight junction proteins and directly sample the luminal compartment by extending dendrites between epithelial cells. In addition, new studies have revealed that the mucosal DC population is comprised of several subpopulations with distinct phenotypes and functions, and these populations vary depending on their precise location within the gut, airway, reproductive tract or other mucosal site. Different mucosal DC subsets have been shown to promote differentiation of B cells into IgA secreting cells, induction of regulatory T cells, or induction of Th17 cells. These new findings imply that mucosal DCs play a key role in orchestrating the balance of effector responses to mucosal pathogens and homeostasis with the microbial flora. The mechanisms, cells, and pathways governing presentation and detection of mucosal antigens in promoting either a protective or tolerogenic host response are important areas for further study. Examples of research studies in this area include, but are not limited to:
Mucosal Immunity and Inflammation. The mucosal immune system is challenged to respond to harmful organisms while regulating the resultant influx of immune cells to prevent inflammatory tissue destruction. In the gut, several lines of evidence support the idea that the commensal flora exert an anti-inflammatory influence on the mucosa. Alterations in the normal homeostasis with the microbial flora may lead to inappropriate responses in which commensal microbes serve as surrogate pathogens and thus stimulate a chronic inflammatory response. In the relatively sterile surfaces of the respiratory airways, failure to tightly control immune responses to invasive pathogens can also lead to chronic inflammation and tissue destruction. To limit inflammatory responses, the airways, gut and other mucosal surfaces employ a range of complex physical, innate, and adaptive immune defenses to prevent infection. Alterations of any of these defenses could promote an intemperate inflammatory response that while limiting infection may cause tissue injury. The complex mucosal systems to prevent responses to harmless antigens and limit inflammatory responses to pathogens are not well understood and are an important area for further study.
Examples of research studies in this area include, but are not limited to:
The Immune Defense Mechanisms at the Mucosa Cooperative Study Group program is intended to support studies that break new ground in the understanding of mucosal defense and mucosal immunoregulation. Proposed studies may include mucosal microbes/pathogens/vaccines/adjuvants/infections as probes to gain new insights into mucosal immune defense mechanisms.
Examples of research areas NOT supported by this FOA are listed below. Applications containing research in these areas will be considered non-responsive and will not be reviewed.
New investigators and established investigators working in fields not traditionally directed toward mucosal immunity, as well as new and established investigators already working in the field, are encouraged to apply as PIs or as part of a multidisciplinary teams that open up new collaborations in novel directions. Investigators new to any research field can introduce new ideas, approaches and technologies that address the difficult questions remaining in immune defense mechanisms at the mucosa.
Additional Information and Requirements
Steering Committee. A Steering Committee composed at a minimum of the Principal Investigators of each of the awarded grants and an NIH Project Scientist serving as representative of the NIH will be established to direct the overall efforts of the Cooperative Study Group. The Cooperative Study Group refers to the collective research group of all investigators involved in each of the U01 projects awarded through this FOA. The Steering Committee will be responsible for development and implementation of the Study Group Plan (see below), and will make recommendations for continuation or redirection of ongoing projects, incorporation of additional expertise or resources needed for accomplishing project or program goals, and extensions and modifications to the Study Group Plan. The Steering Committee will be responsible for developing the plan to solicit, receive, and review projects to be supported by the Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund. All major scientific and budgetary decisions on the use of the Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund (see below) will be made by majority vote of the Steering Committee members.
Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund. An Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund (IOF) will be made available after award to create a shared research infrastructure and to support a range of innovative, collaborative, and pilot/feasibility projects consistent with the goals of this Program and the Study Group Plan. These projects may be submitted by members of the Cooperative Study Group or by outside investigators.
Study Group Plan. After award and formation of the Steering Committee, the Steering Committee will be responsible for development of the Study Group Plan, which will articulate the goals, specify the approaches, and define milestones for the research activities of the Cooperative Study Group. The purpose of the Study Group Plan is to set an overall agenda for the Cooperative Study Group s activities designed to produce maximum progress in the field of mucosal immune defense.
Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund Management Plan
All applications must include an IOF Management Plan. Applications that do not include an IOF management plan will be considered non-responsive and will not be reviewed. The institution chosen by NIAID to manage the IOF must agree to take responsibility for managing the funds, including the disbursement, administration, and reporting on the use of the IOF as approved by the Steering Committee.
See Section IV.6 for additional information on FOA-specific application requirements, including the IOF Management Plan. Applicants are encouraged to discuss any questions with the Scientific/Research Contact listed in Section VII.1 below.
See Section VIII, Other
Information - Required Federal Citations, for policies related to this announcement.
II. Award Information
1. Mechanism of Support
This funding opportunity will use the cooperative agreement (U01) award mechanism(s). The Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This FOA uses Just-in-Time information
concepts. It also uses non-modular budget formats described in the PHS 398
application instructions (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html).
This funding opportunity
will use a
cooperative agreement award mechanism. In the cooperative agreement mechanism,
the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) retains the primary
responsibility and dominant role for planning, directing, and executing the
proposed project, with NIH staff being substantially involved as a partner with
the Principal Investigator, as described under the Section
VI. 2. Administrative Requirements, "Cooperative
Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award". At this time, the NIAID has not
determined whether or how this solicitation will be continued beyond the
present FOA.
2. Funds Available
The estimated amount of funds available for support of 7-9 projects awarded as a result of this announcement is $4.0 million for fiscal year 2011. Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations. A portion of the available funds will be used for an Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund (IOF) to support additional projects and activities as determined by the Cooperative Study Group. For more information on the IOF, please see Section IV.6 Other Submission Requirements and Section VI.2.A.3. Collaborative Responsibilities.
Requested annual direct cost amounts for individual awards are expected to range between $200K and $250K. The total project period for an application submitted in response to this funding opportunity may not exceed 5 years.
the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to
application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will
also vary. Although the financial plans of the IC(s) provide support for this
program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the
availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious
and administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included
in the direct cost limitation, see NOT-OD-05-004.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
1.A. Eligible Institutions
following organizations/institutions are eligible to apply:
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the PD/PI is invited to work with his/her institution to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH programs.
More than one PD/PI, or multiple PDs/PIs, may be designated on the application for projects that require a team science approach and therefore clearly do not fit the single-PD/PI model. Additional information on the implementation plans, policies and procedures to formally allow more than one PD/PI on individual research projects is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi. All PDs/PIs must be registered in the NIH eRA Commons prior to the submission of the application (see http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm for instructions).
The decision of whether to apply for a grant with a single PD/PI or multiple PDs/PIs is the responsibility of the investigators and applicant organizations, and should be determined by the scientific goals of the project. Applications for grants with multiple PDs/PIs will require additional information, as outlined in the instructions below. When considering multiple PDs/PIs, please be aware that the structure and governance of the PD/PI leadership team as well as the knowledge, skills and experience of the individual PDs/PIs will be factored into the assessment of the overall scientific merit of the application. Multiple PDs/PIs on a project share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically. Each PD/PI is responsible and accountable to the grantee organization, or, as appropriate, to a collaborating organization, for the proper conduct of the project or program, including the submission of required reports. For further information on multiple PDs/PIs, please see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
This program does not require cost sharing
as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Number of Applications. Applicants may submit more than one application, provided they are scientifically distinct.
Resubmissions. Resubmission applications are not permitted in response to this FOA.
Renewals. Renewal applications are not permitted in response to this FOA.
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application
current PHS 398 application instructions are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of
the PHS 398. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301)
710-0267, Email: email@example.com.
for the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
all applications using the PHS 398 application forms and in accordance with the
PHS 398 Application Guide (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html).
Applications must have a D&B Data
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as the universal identifier when
applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements. The D&B number can
be obtained by calling (866) 705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/.
The D&B number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398
title and number of this funding opportunity must be typed in item (box) 2 only
of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be checked.
Foreign Organizations (Non-domestic
(non-U.S.) Entity)
NIH policies concerning grants to foreign (non-U.S.) organizations can be found in the NIH Grants Policy Statement at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part12.htm#_Toc54600260.
Applications from foreign organizations must:
In addition, for applications from foreign organizations:
Proposed research should provide special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the United States or that augment existing U.S. resources.
Applications with Multiple PDs/PIs
When multiple PD/PIs are proposed, use the Face Page-Continued page to provide items 3a 3h for all PD/PIs. NIH requires one PD/PI be designated as the contact PD/PI for all communications between the PD/PIs and the agency. The contact PD/PI must meet all eligibility requirements for PD/PI status in the same way as other PD/PIs, but has no special roles or responsibilities within the project team beyond those mentioned above. The contact PD/PI may be changed during the project period. The contact PD/PI should be listed in block 3 of Form Page 1 (the Face Page), with all additional PD/PIs listed on Form Page 1-Continued. When inserting the name of the PD/PI in the header of each application page, use the name of the Contact PD/PI, et. al. The contact PD/PI must be from the applicant organization if PD/PIs are from more than one institution.
All individuals designated as PD/PI must be registered in the eRA Commons and must be assigned the PD/PI role in that system (other roles such as SO or IAR will not give the PD/PI the appropriate access to the application records). Each PD/PI must include their respective eRA Commons ID in the eRA Commons User Name field.
Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan: For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, the section of the Research Plan entitled Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan must be included. A rationale for choosing a multiple PD/PI approach should be described. The governance and organizational structure of the leadership team and the research project should be described, and should include communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, and procedures for resolving conflicts. The roles and administrative, technical, and scientific responsibilities for the project or program should be delineated for the PDs/PIs and other collaborators.
If budget allocation is planned, the distribution of resources to specific components of the project or the individual PDs/PIs should be delineated in the Leadership Plan. In the event of an award, the requested allocations may be reflected in a footnote on the Notice of Award.
Additional information is available in the PHS 398 grant application instructions.
3. Submission Dates and Times
must be received on or before the receipt date described below (Section
IV.3.A). Submission times N/A.
3.A. Receipt, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
Letters of Intent Receipt Date(s): September
22, 2010
Application Receipt
Dates(s): October 22, 2010
Peer Review Date(s): February, 2011
Council Review Date(s): May, 2011
Earliest Anticipated Start
Date: July, 2011
Letter of Intent
applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following
a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the
review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC
staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed in Section
The letter of intent should be sent to:
B. Duane
Price, Ph.D.
Division of
Extramural Activities
National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases
6700B Rockledge Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892-7616
(For Express Mail: 20817-1821)
(301) 451-2592
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3.B. Sending an Application to the NIH
must be prepared using the forms found in the PHS 398 instructions for
preparing a research grant application. Submit a signed, typewritten original
of the application, including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
for Scientific Review
Institutes of Health
Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Personal deliveries of applications are no
longer permitted (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-040.html).
the time of submission, two additional copies of the application and all copies
of the appendix material must be sent to:
B. Duane Price, Ph.D.
Division of
Extramural Activities
National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases
6700B Rockledge Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892-7616
(For Express Mail: 20817-1821)
(301) 451-2592
Email: email@example.com
3.C. Application
must be received on or before the application receipt date described
above (Section IV.3.A.).
If an application is received after that date, the application may be delayed
in the review process or not reviewed. Upon receipt, applications will be
evaluated for completeness by the CSR and for responsiveness by the reviewing
Institute. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application, originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an Introduction describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the application.
Information on the status of an application should be checked by the Principal Investigator in the eRA Commons at: https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/.
4. Intergovernmental Review
This initiative is
not subject to intergovernmental
5. Funding Restrictions
NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other
considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The Grants Policy Statement can be found at NIH Grants Policy
Pre-award costs are
allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur
obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning
date of the initial budget period of a new award if such costs: 1) are
necessary to conduct the project, and 2) would be allowable under the grant, if
awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures would otherwise
require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring
the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than
90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new award.
incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing
award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount
of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated
and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred. NIH expects the
grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against
future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to
accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way
adversely affect the conduct of the project (see NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part6.htm.)
When clinical studies are a component of the proposed research, awards will be subject to the NIAID Clinical Terms of Award (information available at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/sop/ctoa.htm).
Expenditure of any Infrastructure and Opportunities
Funds allocated to the Cooperative Study Group under this RFA will be
restricted to projects approved by the Steering Committee as meritorious and
consistent with the goals of this program and the guidelines of the Study Group
Plan (see Section VI.2.A.3). Any Infrastructure and
Opportunities Funds will be restricted until the Infrastructure and
Opportunities Fund expenditure report is submitted and accepted by NIAID staff.
6. Other Submission Requirements
Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund Management Plan
Each application must include a plan for the administration of the Cooperative Study Group's Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund (IOF). It is anticipated that the IOF management award will be made to one awardee, with subsequent funding decisions determined by the Steering Committee. See Section VI.2.A.3 for more information on IOF management. This Plan must address, at a minimum:
Additional Budget and Justification Requests
In the budget section of the application and in addition to the costs associated with the proposed research, applicants must include a budget and budget justifications to support:
PHS398 Research Plan Sections
All application instructions outlined in the PHS398 Application Instructions are to be followed, with the following additional requirements:
This FOA uses non-modular budget formats described in the PHS 398 application instructions (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html).
All foreign applicants must complete and submit budget requests using the Research & Related Budget component found in the application package for this FOA. See NOT-OD-06-096.
Appendix Materials
All paper PHS 398 applications submitted must provide appendix material on CDs only. Include five identical CDs in the same package with the application. See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-031.html.
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations. An application that does not observe the required page limitations may be delayed in the review process.
Resource Sharing Plan(s)
NIH considers the sharing of unique research resources developed through NIH-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value of, and advance research. When resources have been developed with NIH funds and the associated research findings published or provided to NIH, it is important that they be made readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community. If the final data/resources are not amenable to sharing, this must be explained in Resource Sharing section of the application. See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm.
(a) Data Sharing Plan: Regardless of the amount requested, investigators are expected to include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss data-sharing plans with their NIH program contact. See Data-Sharing Policy or http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html.
(b) Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated are expected to include a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organisms and related resources, or state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible. See Sharing Model Organisms Policy, and NIH Guide NOT-OD-04-042.
(c) Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): Regardless of the amount requested, applicants seeking funding for a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. A genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight) or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. For further information see Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088, and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.
As part of the Terms and Conditions of this award:
It is expected that all animal models developed with funds from this FOA will be made available to the research community in a timely manner. Applicants may request funds in their application to cover costs related to deposition of these models into existing public repositories (shipping, re-derivation, etc), such as:
Specific Instructions for Foreign Applications
All foreign applicants must complete and submit budget requests using the Research & Related Budget component found in the application package for this FOA. See NOT-OD-06-096, August 23, 2006.
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications that are complete and responsive to the FOA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by NIAID and in accordance with NIH peer review procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/), using the review criteria stated below.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will:
The mission of the NIH is to support science in pursuit of knowledge about the biology and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. As part of this mission, applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Overall Impact
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five scored review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Scored Review Criteria
Reviewers will consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
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? Will the proposed studies provide a more sophisticated understanding of mucosal immune defense mechanism, explore novel hypotheses, or address difficult unsolved questions in mucosal immunity?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Additional Review Criteria
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children. When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children.
Vertebrate Animals. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/VASchecklist.pdf.
Biohazards. Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Resubmission Applications. Resubmission applications are not applicable to this FOA.
Renewal Applications. Renewal applications are not applicable to this FOA.
Revision Applications. Revision applications are not applicable to this FOA.
Additional Review Considerations
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will address each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund Management Plan. Reviewers will consider whether this plan describes an adequate administrative structure, adequate procedures to support the Steering Committee, satisfactory reporting procedures, and sufficient institutional commitment for administration of the Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund.
Applications from Foreign Organizations. Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Select Agents Research. Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans. Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan (http://grants.nih/gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm); 2) Sharing Model Organisms (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-042.html); and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html).
Budget and Period Support. Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Selection Process
The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award
Not Applicable
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to
access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request
"just-in-time" information from the applicant. For details,
applicants may refer to the NIH Grants Policy
Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General.
A formal notification in the form of a
Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The
NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document. Once
all administrative and programmatic issues have been resolved, the NoA will be
generated via email notification from the awarding component to the grantee
business official.
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award
costs. See Also Section IV.5.
Funding Restrictions.
2. Administrative and
National Policy Requirements
NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part4.htm)
and Part II Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and
Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part9.htm).
The following Terms and Conditions will be incorporated into the award statement and will be provided to the Principal Investigator as well as to the appropriate institutional official, at the time of award.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of,
otherwise applicable OMB administrative guidelines, HHS grant administration
regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is applicable when State and
local Governments are eligible to apply), and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant
administration policies.
administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the
cooperative agreement an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an
"acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic
involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the
activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and
stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working
jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume
direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities.
Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides
with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and
activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.
2. A.1. Principal Investigator Rights and
The Principal Investigator(s) will have the primary responsibility for: all aspects of the proposed studies. All investigators funded under this FOA, including recipients of Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund awards, are required to accept and implement policies and activities approved by the Steering Committee. All PIs funded under this FOA including those supported by Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund awards are required to participate in an annual meeting. Publications and oral presentations of work performed under this agreement will require appropriate acknowledgment of support by the Immune Defense Mechanisms at the Mucosa Cooperative Study Group and the NIAID. Timely publication of major findings is expected, and investigators are to submit manuscripts to the NIAID Program Officer promptly upon acceptance for publication. Publication of findings linked to clinical trials (for example, mechanistic studies that utilize samples from a clinical trial) must adhere to the policies enacted by the governing body of the clinical trial and the sponsor of the trial.
Awardees will retain custody of and have
primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject
to Government rights of access consistent with current HHS, PHS, and NIH
2. A.2. NIH Responsibilities
NIH Project Scientist will have substantial programmatic involvement that is
above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below.
staff assistance will be provided by a Program Official from the Clinical
Immunology Branch, Division of Allergy,
Immunology and Transplantation, NIAID, and/or an appointed designee, who will
serve as the NIAID Project Scientist. During the performance of this award, the
NIAID Project Scientist, with assistance from other scientific staff who are
designated based on the research topic and their relevant expertise, may
provide assistance, advice, and guidance by: participating in the design of the
activities of the Cooperative Study Group; advising in the selection of sources
or resources; advising in project management and technical performance; serving
as liaison to other mucosal immunity-related NIH programs; recruiting external
advisors to the Cooperative Study Group from the international mucosal immunity
research community and soliciting their advice and attendance at Cooperative
Study Group meetings; and participating in the preparation of publications for
collaborative projects, as appropriate. However, the role of the NIAID Project
Scientist will be to facilitate, and not to direct, the activities of the
Cooperative Study Group. It is anticipated that decisions in all activities
will be reached by consensus and that funding agency staff will be given the
opportunity to offer and/or solicit ideas and opinions during this process. The
manner of reaching consensus and the final decision-making authority will rest
with the Cooperative Study Group Steering Committee.
an agency program official or IC program director will be responsible for the
normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named
in the award notice.
2.A.3. Collaborative Responsibilities
Steering Committee
A Steering Committee will serve as the governing body of the Cooperative Study Group and will be responsible for development and implementation of the Study Group Plan (see below). At a minimum, voting members of the Steering Committee will be composed of the Principal Investigators of each of the awarded grants, and the NIH Program Official serving as a representative of the funding ICs and agencies. The Steering Committee and/or the NIH may identify and appoint other non-voting members, as appropriate. A Chairperson will be selected by the Steering Committee from among the non-federal Committee members. Subcommittees of the Steering Committee may be established as necessary. The Steering Committee will meet face-to-face at least twice in the first year and at least annually thereafter. The NIAID Project Scientist will schedule the meetings of the Steering Committee and actively assist the Chairperson in developing the meeting agendas. Each Steering Committee member will be expected to participate in all meetings and other Steering Committee activities, such as conference calls and subcommittee meetings, as may be necessary to accomplish the work of the Cooperative Study Group. Each full member will have one vote.
The Steering Committee will also be responsible for ensuring that the activities of all Cooperative Study Group members are coordinated, productive, collaborative when appropriate, and directed toward the goals expressed in the Study Group Plan and the overall goal of breaking new ground in the understanding of basic mucosal immune defense mechanisms that would facilitate future development of vaccines and immunotherapies to protect mucosal surfaces from infection and infection-induced immunopathology. The Steering Committee will convene investigator meetings to which PIs and appropriate Cooperative Study Group investigators are invited to facilitate review of the progress of all projects on an annual basis. The NIAID may also invite external experts in the field of mucosal immunity to attend these meetings for the purpose of providing additional advice to NIAID. The Steering Committee will make recommendations for continuation or redirection of ongoing projects, incorporation of additional expertise or resources needed for accomplishing project or program goals, and extensions and modifications to the Study Group Plan.
An Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund will be available to the Steering Committee to support:
1) Cooperative Study Group activities and collaborative projects consistent with the goals of this program and the Study Group Plan
2) innovative pilot and feasibility projects
3) development of reagents and resources, including cooperative resources, required to accomplish the goals expressed in the Study Group Plan
The Steering Committee's responsibility to conduct and oversee these activities is intended to encourage those cooperative and collaborative efforts, among Cooperative Study Group members and the research community at large, that are best suited to achieve the goals of the program and to advance the understanding of immune defense mechanisms at the mucosa. As part of this effort, the Steering Committee will devise and implement means to make the immunology research community aware of the Cooperative Study Group s Infrastructure and Opportunities Fund program and to ensure appropriate participation by researchers outside the Cooperative Study Group.
Study Group Plan
After award and formation of the Steering Committee, the Steering Committee will be responsible for development of the Study Group Plan, which will articulate the goals, specify the approaches, and define milestones for the activities of the Cooperative Study Group. The purpose of the Study Group Plan is to set an overall agenda for the Cooperative Study Group's activities designed to produce maximum progress in the field of mucosal immune defense. It is anticipated that development of an optimal plan will involve consultation with experts from the international mucosal immunity research community, as facilitated by the NIAID Project Scientist. The initial Study Group Plan will outline critical areas to be addressed through collaborative, coordinated, and/or pilot projects as described above. As part of the Steering Committee's annual review of all Cooperative Study Group projects and activities, the Study Group Plan will also be reviewed and modified as necessary to address new opportunities and problems in the field.
2.A.4. Dispute
Resolution Process
disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the
scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to
Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will
be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee
chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with
expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of
individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual
awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's
right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with
PHS regulations 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and HHS regulations 45 CFR Part 16.
3. Reporting
Awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The awardee will submit an annual report, in paper and/or electronic format, to the NIAID Program Officer containing at a minimum the following information:
This report will be due each year on the same date as the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) for the Cooperative Study Group awards.
A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated.
We encourage your inquiries concerning this
funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from
potential applicants. Inquiries may fall into three areas: scientific/research,
peer review, and financial or grants management issues:
1. Scientific/Research Contacts:
Annette L. Rothermel,
Ph. D.
Division of Allergy,
Immunology and Transplantation
National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases
6610 Rockledge Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892-6601
Telephone: (301)
Email: email@example.com
2. Peer Review Contacts:
B. Duane Price, Ph.D.
Division of
Extramural Activities
National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases
6700B Rockledge Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892-7616
(For Express Mail: 20817-1821)
(301) 451-2592
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3. Financial or Grants Management Contacts:
Laura Amidon
Division of Extramural Activities
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
6700B Rockledge Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892-7614
Telephone: (301) 451-2687
Email: email@example.com
Section VIII. Other Information
Required Federal Citations
Use of Animals in Research:
of PHS support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply
with PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf)
as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm),
and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm)
as applicable.
Human Subjects Protection:
regulations (45CFR46) require that applications and proposals involving human
subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the
adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research
to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be
gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and Safety Monitoring Plan:
and safety monitoring is required for all types of clinical trials, including
physiologic toxicity and dose-finding studies (phase I); efficacy studies
(Phase II); efficacy, effectiveness and comparative trials (Phase III).
Monitoring should be commensurate with risk. The establishment of data and
safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) is required for multi-site clinical trials
involving interventions that entail potential risks to the participants (NIH
Policy for Data and Safety Monitoring, NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
Sharing Research Data:
submitting an NIH application seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any
single year are expected to include a plan for data sharing or state why this
is not possible (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing).
should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to
institutional policies and local IRB rules, as well as local, State and Federal
laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule.
Policy for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS):
NIH is interested in
advancing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify common genetic
factors that influence health and disease through a centralized GWAS data
repository. For the purposes of this policy, a genome-wide association study is
defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire human genome that
is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as
blood pressure or weight), or the presence or absence of a disease or
condition. All applications, regardless of the amount requested, proposing a
genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of
GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate
explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. Data repository
management (submission and access) is governed by the Policy for Sharing of
Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088.
For additional information, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.
Access to Research Data through the Freedom
of Information Act:
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to
provide access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is
supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and
officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and
effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is
important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH
has provided guidance at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.
Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a
public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the
distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should
include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include
information about this in the budget justification section of the application.
In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent
statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider
use of data collected under this award.
Sharing of Model Organisms:
is committed to support efforts that encourage sharing of important research
resources including the sharing of model organisms for biomedical research (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm).
At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to
elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding
pursuant to the Bayh Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm).
All investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal, beginning
with the October 1, 2004 receipt date, are expected to include in the
application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and
distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH
funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will
permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public
funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a
cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications
where the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Inclusion of Women And Minorities in Clinical Research:
is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their
sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research
projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating
that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or
the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization
Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing
clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women
and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html);
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical
research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB
standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical
trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and
responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all
applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans
to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender
and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b)
investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses,
as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of Children as Participants in Clinical
NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21)
must be included in all clinical research, conducted or supported by the NIH,
unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the
"NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as participants
in research involving human subjects (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject
policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for
all investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human
subjects and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available
at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC):
for federal funding of research on hESCs can be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-116.html.
Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic
Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov).
It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide in the project description
and elsewhere in the application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s)
for the hESC line(s) to be used in the proposed research.
NIH Public Access Policy Requirement:
In accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html) investigators must submit or have submitted for them
their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts that arise from NIH funds and are
accepted for publication as of April 7, 2008 to PubMed Central (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/), to be made publicly available no later than 12 months
after publication. As of May 27, 2008, investigators must include the PubMed
Central reference number when citing an article in NIH applications, proposals,
and progress reports that fall under the policy, and was authored or
co-authored by the investigator or arose from the investigator's NIH award.
For more information, see the Public Access webpage at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
Standards for Privacy of Individually
Identifiable Health Information:
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued final modification to the
"Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health
Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002. The
Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually
identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the DHHS
Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
about applicability and implementation of the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher
and his/her institution. The OCR website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/)
provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text
and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information
on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review,
funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and
research contracts can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within
specified page limitations. For publications listed in the appendix and/or
Progress report, internet addresses (URLs) must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal articles. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide
any other information necessary for the review because reviewers are
under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution
reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an
Internet site.
Healthy People 2010:
Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and
disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led
national activity for setting priority areas. This FOA is related to one or
more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of
"Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and Regulations:
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the
intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372. Awards are made
under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service
Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and
45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions,
cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The NIH Grants Policy Statement can be
found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace
and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law
103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities
(or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine
education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development
services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to
protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Loan Repayment Programs:
encourages applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals
who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical,
pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas.
The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the
next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research
career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is
not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications
are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing
the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP
awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week
based on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further
information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
| ||||||
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |


text:
Find Our Latest Video Reviews on YouTube!
If you want to stay on top of all of our video reviews of the latest tech, be sure to check out and subscribe to the Gear Live YouTube channel, hosted by Andru Edwards! It's free!
Thursday May 20, 2010 6:34 pm
What is Google TV? Straight from Google
Earlier this morning at the Google I/O event, a major portion was dedicated to the announcement of Google TV. Google TV is basically a software layer that lets you find content to watch on your television. It's build on Android, Chrome, and Flash, and lets you control things like live TV, as well as giving you the full power of the Internet. You can throw TV into a picture-in-picture box to fire up a web browser, search YouTube, pull up Hulu, or really just about anything else that you can do in a browser. Google Search sits on top of everything, and can be pulled up at any time. When you do a search, it will pull results from the web, as well as from TV listings, giving you the ability to find whatever you want to watch. If you like a show, channel, or search, you can save that as a bookmark for easy access later.
The interesting thing here is the integration with Android. Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are mandatory in the Google TV hardware, which will be built by partners. That means that you can use an Android handheld device, pull up a website, and just beam it right over to Google TV. You can also perform a voice search on the device, and have that search carried out on the TV. Eliminating the frustrating tap-typing that we are all so tired of when it comes to searching on a big screen like a television? That is fairly awesome. Oh, and since Google TV runs Android, that also means that it runs apps as well. You get complete access to the Android market.
Take a look at the video above for a simple explanation of what Google TV is all about. You can expect to see devices shipping, like a Logitech set-top box, that will give you Google TV capabilities, later this year in the fall.
Read More | Google TV
Latest Gear Live Videos
© Gear Live Inc. {year} – User-posted content, unless source is quoted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Public Domain License. Gear Live graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, videos, articles, blogs, forums, scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Gear Live Inc.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
How to Have a Spring Break 'Staycation'
No cash — or energy — for a vacation this year? Skip the jet-setting and have a getaway without going far. Here's how:
Plan for it
A week off can quickly turn your staycation into a week of mindless snacking parked in front of a television…which is hardly a getaway. So make sure you plan your staycation like you would a real vacation, complete with a list of things to see and things to do—or not do!
Get unplugged
Just because you're not heading anywhere where your phone or internet access is spotty doesn't mean you need to stay on call. Make sure you set up an email auto-response that lets colleagues and clients know you're on vacation and won't be available to handle time-sensitive requests.
Get away…kind of
You don't have to stay within a three-block radius of your home to have a staycation. Plan day trips to local towns. Living in a city? Drive an hour or so to the nearest suburb. Already in the 'burbs? Enjoy a day of shopping and meals at the closest city center.
Tackle a bucket list item
Make your staycation memorable by trying something new—whatever that means to you. Go skydiving with your significant other, take the family on a hot air balloon ride, take a dance class—or try anything else that's been sitting on your list of things you want to try "one day".
You're saving money on airfare, so pamper yourself with splurges that will make your staycation week special: hire a cleaning service in lieu of hotel maid service, schedule a massage, or make reservations at the trendiest restaurant in your neighborhood.
- Contributed by Diana Vilibert


text:
This event is now being rescheduled for a few months time!
I'll be speaking at a seminar at University of Essex next month, giving a paper clumsily titled 'Varieties of Rescue Mission: Financial Crisis and Conventions of Neo-Classical Failure'. This is a developed version of what I initially presented at the CRESC financial crisis conference in April, and now exists as a paper (which I'm happy to share if anyone is interested).
The paper borrows an approach from the French convention school of Boltanski, Thevenot et al, to consider different ways in which experts have set about trying to save core fundaments of neo-classical economics from the apparent catastrophe of the financial crisis. These are defined as rival normative ways in which the same technical apparatus is defended as justified, and rest on rival claims to authority on the parts of the economists concerned. As I argue, if the crisis can be effectively contained and explained within the neo-classical project, broadly understood, then it will be prevented from disrupting it or causing any significant paradigm shift (as, for instance, stagflation led to the demise of Keynesianism).
The first derives from English welfare economics, and suggests that the crisis was a 'market failure', that is, it occurred due to inadequate third party or government intervention. This seeks to bestow regulatory authority upon the economist. The second derives from Chicago neo-liberal economics, and suggests that the crisis was a problem of incentives and arguably too much regulation, or at least insufficient attention to the agency problems within regulation and credit-rating. This seeks to bestow critical authority upon the economist. And the third derives from behavioural economics, and suggests that the crisis was a problem of excessive complexity and systemic risk, ultimately caused by the inadequate calculative capacity of the human mind. This seeks to bestow therapeutic authority upon the economist.
I wouldn't pretend that this is an exhaustive list. What's interesting about these three traditions is that they are all seeking to prop up the same core claims about human rationality and economic value, but in very different ways and for very different reasons. And they have all had to go into overdrive in order to rescue their discipline over the last three years. If you want to hear more, come to the seminar!


text:
Because Lena and Warren had settled down in their college town, moments from the past would occasionally flash out at them, much as artifacts surface from the earth after a hard rain. Debating with Warren over a used trike at a yard sale one day, Lena suddenly realized that she was standing before the very house she had flopped in one distant summer with a tribe of youths. Behind that bland stucco exterior she had widely shared her toothbrush, embroidered a pillow with the face of Chairman Mao, and spent a week in her room with an energetic Algerian who turned out to be a cocaine dealer.
"What's wrong?" Warren asked. "Too old and crummy?"
"This tricycle."
"No, it's okay."
"What are you staring at?"
"Oh, nothing," she said, turning away.
Another time, Lena happened to spot a hunched figure on a corner waiting for a traffic light, and once again a lost memory began to emerge. No way! Inevitably aged, with glasses and half as much hair, but otherwise no mistaking him. Little Miller! She rolled past slowly, confirmed the sighting, and that evening after dinner, when she and Warren fell into their nightly routine of kitchen clean up, said, "Today I saw a weird guy I used to know. Did I ever tell you about Little Miller?"
Warren, a man who liked to eat large drifts of peanut butter on toast and drive around listening to tapes he'd made with his brother when they were fifteen and had a band called "Mr. Peabody" said, "You've hardly told me anything. Who was he?"
The children screamed and fought. But she didn't have to run to them immediately, did she? Better if they worked it out themselves, and so she began to explain.
The house with fruit trees and flowers had started as hers and Tom's (her only boyfriend before Warren). They found it together, amazed by their luck. They were juniors, but having a life together off campus was all they cared about. They bought a set of china at the Goodwill and became known for their lavish dinner parties, until their budget gave out. No choice but to rent out the back bedroom they'd been using as a dumping ground. After dozens of calls came in, they settled on Yori, a Grateful Dead-loving free spirit with a Smith Barney account.
Soon Yori was joining them for meals, and before long, Yori's friend Miller was hanging around most of the time, too.
Miller was a cipher. He was as small as a child, but looked old like a troll if you peered into his eyes. He wasn't affiliated with the University. Yori said he'd met him downtown at a free concert. He said Miller was down on his luck and that he wanted to help him out for awhile. Miller clearly didn't mind, happily playing the sidekick, laughing at Yori's jokes, wearing his cast offs and accompanying him around town in the hand-me-down Volvo from Yori's parents. Lena both felt sorry for Little Miller and disliked him. It was annoying he was always there waiting for his next meal, and his only possession was a dirty little backpack filled with crummy little things.
Even worse, he had started sleeping in the corner of the living room every night, emitting a slightly fungal smell. The house that she and Tom had loved so much had been invaded. Finally the day came when Lena and Tom asked Yori if he'd stop bringing Little Miller around so much, and to their surprise, Yori didn't mind at all, as if looking for an excuse to get rid of him. That evening, while Lena and Tom were at a poetry reading at the bookstore, Yori delivered the blow. And when they returned home, Little Miller was finally out of their lives.
But so was Lena's jewelry! And other things as well. Lots of things. Her stereo. Her clock. Some books. Even a small framed watercolor of an emu.
Furious that he'd been kicked out of the house, Little Miller had clearly gone on a rampage, looting and pillaging. They pounded on Yori's bedroom door, and found him hanging upside down on the anti-gravity table he'd gotten from his parents for his birthday, listening to the Dead on headphones.
"What the hell happened?" Tom said.
"Did the deed," Yori replied. "He was cool about it."
"Are you sure he was cool?" Lena cried. "A lot of our stuff is gone."
"He ripped us off!" Tom said.
Yori loosened his ankle straps and did a flip off the table. "Miller wouldn't do that. Miller?"
Lena didn't like to be accusing her housemate's friend of stealing, but it wasn't hard to imagine the little troll swiping a few things for revenge. He could sell the stuff at the flea market, make ends meet for a few days more.
"Why did we ever get a housemate anyway," Lena cried that night. All her favorite necklaces, rings, and bracelets were gone, things she'd been given by friends and family over the years.
Next morning, as they sipped their first cups of coffee, there came a knock at the back door. To their amazement, Little Miller stood on the stoop. The nerve!
"Hey, I came by to get my sweater," he said.
"Did you take our stuff?" Lena accused.
"What stuff?"
"You know! All the stuff, everything!"
"I didn't take anybody's stuff. I just want my sweater."
Tom appeared behind her. "Get the hell out of here."
"Hey man, my sweater!"
By now Little Miller had worked his way into their living room, but Tom was blocking him. "Give us back our stuff or get out."
Little Miller tried to dart past him, but Tom was much bigger and he pushed Little Miller roughly.
"This is uncool!" Little Miller yelled.
"I said get out." Tom shoved Miller so hard, Miller fell backwards. Then Tom lunged at him, and tore off Miller's little knapsack.
Tom yelled, "Open it! See if anything's in there!"
Lena didn't like seeing Little Miller struggling on the ground and didn't want to paw through his backpack, either. When she failed to respond, Tom grabbed the grimy pouch and shook it out onto the floor. A few t-shirts, an orange, some pens, some underwear, and a bag of potato chips fell out.
"You jerk!" Miller gathered up his belongings and tried to stuff them back in. "I hate you guys!" He looked as if he might cry. But to Lena's surprise, Tom still had no mercy. He began to kick Miller. He kicked his arm. He kicked him in the side. And when Miller stood up to put on his pack, Tom pushed him back out the door, sending him flat on the ground.
"You're going to be sorry!" cried Miller.
"God! Did you have to be so mean to him?" she said.
"He stole our stuff!"
"So what!" Lena said.
"What do you mean, so what?"
Though they had been together almost three years, Lena and Tom didn't last long after that episode. Lena was haunted by the way Tom had behaved. When they broke up, she even told him it was partly because of Little Miller.
Funny thing, because a year later, Lena ran into Tom at a Chinese restaurant downtown. He was with his new girlfriend, but he swaggered over to say hello anyway. He said, "Hey, by the way, remember that TA we used to have over for dinner sometimes, Richard, from Philosophy? Remember his spacey girlfriend Sunshine? Remember how we thought she was just using him? Turns out, Sunshine is the one who stole our stuff. She and some other guy. Richard found your emu picture in a box of junk in his garage, so you can get it from him sometime. What do you think about that?"
Lena gasped, "Poor Little Miller!"
The children were quiet now, and Lena was decidedly more relaxed. "So anyway," she said, "I always felt like the whole thing happened for a reason. That Little Miller was a good luck figure for me."
"Good god, why?" Warren said.
"Well, because if I hadn't seen Tom attack him like that, I might not have realized how violent Tom was before it was too late."
"Oh, so that's the only reason you didn't spend your life with Tom?"
"I doubt it, but who knows."
"But," Warren said, "maybe if there hadn't been a Little Miller, Tom would never have reacted that way to anything."
Lena shook her head. "No. It was just a matter of time."
Warren said, quite irritably, "Who knows. If Little Miller was hanging around here, I'd probably attack him too."
"You'd talk to him, you'd tell him to leave. Sure. But you wouldn't go crazy like that. I know you wouldn't."
"Don't be so sure," Warren hissed.
"Evie needs a bath," he sighed.
After that, a peculiar thing began to occur. Lena began to see Little Miller all over the place. Morning, noon, and night, in all different parts of town, she spotted him shuffling down the street with his backpack. Uncanny. It was as if a whole army of them had been unleashed, pacing the boundaries of her world.
There wasn't much to complain about in Lena's California town. The weather was clement year round. A little foggy sometimes in summer, and in the fall an occasional wind whipped in from the sea. Storms in winter. Nothing exceptional. Nothing except earthquakes rattling china cabinets and knocking down a chimney here and there. Nothing was perfect. How could she complain about a season of Little Millers?
"It's weird, I keep seeing that Little Miller guy," she told Warren one evening during their kitchen routine.
"I thought he was your good luck charm," Warren said.
"Now I'm starting to feel like he's some kind of curse."
"Should I go beat him up?" Warren said, scouring a frying pan.
Warren was a good husband. She couldn't complain about him, either. He did his own laundry and the children adored him. Nothing was wrong. Yet sometimes, Lena thought back to the days when she'd left this town and worked on the east coast at a distinguished magazine. It was the time of her life—she knew it even then. Sometimes she'd even think, "This is the time of my life." Staff editor by age 24, bringing home manuscripts in her backpack every night on the T, discussing them the next day with the brilliant editor who was her boss and considered one of the great minds of his time. Lena had her own office at the magazine. It had high ceilings and beautiful moldings and a view from the old brownstone to the swan boats in the Public Garden. By now she would have risen up the masthead and would be spending summers out on Nantucket or the Cape. Her mind would be firing on all cylinders like a Mercedes-Benz engine purring over the Simplon. Full steam ahead.
Meanwhile, Warren often spent an hour driving home from the supermarket, circling around the neighborhood, just to listen to his old tapes. He always claimed the lines in the store were long, but Lena knew what he was really doing. She'd seen him once, barreling down the road, howling his head off with the windows up. Why did he have to listen to Mr. Peabody secretly? Looking back was a guilty pleasure, it seemed.
"It seems fairly certain you had lots of adventures before you decided on me," Warren grunted, drying his hands.
"We've had lots of adventures too," Lena said.
"Have we?"
"Of course!"
"Name one," Warren said.
"What about having children and living in this house?"
"I suppose picking out grout and tiles and carpet squares is pretty adventurous," he said.
She'd met him freshman year. Back then she thought of him as too straight-laced for her. The rest of her friends were sitting around listening to loud music and wearing hippie clothes. Warren wore plaid shirts with pens in the pocket.
Whenever he saw her standing at the bus stop, he'd pull over and offer her a ride into town. He had an old Datsun with ripped seats and a rattling dashboard. Wires hung from beneath it and tickled her legs. The heater was on all the time. If you let go of the wheel it took a nosedive off the road.
One Friday night she knocked on his door, her pupils wide and black as tiddlywinks.
"It's Friday, Warren!" She could see he was studying with a hot gooseneck lamp on his desk.
"I have a mid-term Monday," he shrugged. "How about you?"
"Well, there's a party downtown if you feel like going."
"Hmm. Okay," he said, as if agreeing to a journey he would not complete for some time. "I could use a break."
They lurched down the hill from the college. The air was so warm they had the windows down, and the sky was bright with stars and a moon nearly full, and when they reached the party people were putting eggs in the microwave and watching them explode. There was an apparatus in the living room you could hang upside down on to stretch your spine, and people were trying that, while others were dancing, and yet others were giving foot massages and smoking loosely rolled cigarettes of marijuana in the hall. Tom had invited her, and introduced her to his friends. After awhile she noticed Warren standing outside, his back to the party, perfectly still. Warren was strange, she thought. He didn't care if he seemed like an oddball. He didn't care if she saw him outside, standing alone.
In a while she came out to check on him.
"Shhh," Warren said.
On the moonlit lawn sat an opossum with brindled fur and a harlequin-shaped face, and it hissed at them, showing its pointy teeth.
"Wow," Lena said.
The opossum hissed again.
"It's stuffy inside," Warren said.
"And it smells like rotten eggs," she added.
"Do you want to stay?" He pulled his keys from his pocket. She assumed he wanted to get back to study, so she let him go. And it was the night she and Tom got together. But Warren had made a sound investment, and they stayed in touch over the next few years. One thing led to another. When he visited her in Boston, no longer did Warren seem square. He had become a nice looking man. He called it the opossum party—I didn't want to go home and study, he told her. Didn't you know? She hadn't seen that at all.
One night, scrubbing chocolate out of a baking dish, Lena said, "So want to hear the latest chapter of the Little Miller story?"
"Okay, if I must."
Yes, she had spotted Little Miller again, tiptoeing down the sidewalk like a mouse. This time, she pulled over and jumped out of her car and stood waiting as he approached.
"Hello there!"
He stopped in his tracks and peeled off his dark glasses.
"You're Miller, aren't you?"
"Who wants to know?"
"My name is Lena. We knew each other a long time ago. Remember Yori?"
"Yori," said Little Miller. "The clown?"
"Yori was a clown?"
"Yori the clown was a clown," Little Miller said.
Lena said, "I was thinking of the Yori who lived in the house over on Cayuga Street. Who liked the Grateful Dead. I was his housemate. Remember? We used to eat together a lot?"
He squinted. "I meet a lot of people."
"Remember when I accused you of stealing my stuff?"
Little Miller pursed his lips. "Don't think I want to do business with you, ma'am."
"Remember my boyfriend Tom, grabbing your backpack and shaking it out?"
Little Miller began to move on. "You're stuck in the dismal past, lady."
"We found out later you didn't do it," Lena called after him. "See, I'm trying to tell you I'm really sorry!"
He kept walking. How could she make him understand how much she'd thought about it all this time?
"You know, I was so mad at Tom for the way he treated you, we broke up," Lena cried.
"Truth is," Little Miller turned, "some bad things happened to me and I got mixed up with some really bad people, which is regretful, but people took advantage of me. Lots of them! Then I decided to draw the line. Now life is peaceful. Very serene. Beautiful. I'm blessed. God bless you."
"Yeah, okay," said Lena. "Anyway, I made you some brownies. Here." She uncovered the plate she was holding. Wrapped in Saran, it was heaped with thick, chocolaty squares.
"What's in 'em, rat poison?"
"Mostly just butter and cocoa," Lena replied.
She took a few steps his way. He took a few towards her.
"Here," she said, and bit into one herself. "Yum."
With unexpected speed he advanced and latched onto the plate. He peeled open the Saran and neatly stuffed an entire brownie into his mouth. "Excellent," he said, choking it down. "Bliss to you."
"You did that?" Warren nearly shrieked. "Today?"
"Yep," Lena said.
"You should have told me first. I probably would have said no. He's obviously a mental case!"
"Warren," Lena said, "if you said no, I would have done it anyway."
"You would have? Don't my feelings count?"
"What's with you? I can't believe you're saying this."
"I can't believe you approached some borderline personality on the street with a delicious dessert. He'll probably start stalking you."
"God, Warren. You're so sterile!"
Warren did the pots and pans for a while in silence, his elbows jerking wildly.
"He might have attacked you," he said, after awhile.
"Warren, I'm the one who attacked him, remember?"
The children were watching a documentary about gorillas, gentle ones. There was static in the air, and Warren dried his hands.
"Then does this lift the curse? Are we free of Little Miller?"
"I think we are," she said.
"You know, I've had a few adventures in this town." He lifted the garbage pail towards the door.
"I'm sure you have."
"Once I stole a birdbath. From the chancellor's house."
"A birdbath?" Most mischievous, most unlike him. "Why?"
The past flickered in his smile. "Someone wanted it. I had my reasons."
"Tell me!" she cried.
"Never assume you have a man pegged," he admonished, tripping out into the night.
Become a Saturday Evening Post member and enjoy unlimited access. Subscribe now


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Following a string of exciting new development announcements, Garland has approved a deal with Revolving Kitchen to develop a large-scale commissary kitchen facility in the 500 block of Shepherd Drive. Over $2 million will be invested in the 60-year-old industrial site and, upon completion early next year, Revolving Kitchen will offer 25 private, commercially-outfitted kitchens for use by any number of local food entrepreneurs in the existing 34,000 square foot building.
The developer of Garland's Revolving Kitchen includes as key operational advantages the company's proximity to multiple major food hubs, convenient freeway access, new mechanical, electrical and plumbing infrastructure and state-of-the-art commercial cooking equipment. Nearly 17,000 square feet of the renovated facility's large basement will be dedicated to freezer, cooler and dry storage space along with other amenities such as shared office space and a sizeable conference room.
Most commissary kitchen facilities offer shared kitchen space and tenants normally pay for individual preparation tables, not for use of the actual kitchen. In this more traditional operating environment, tenants have to share major elements including cooking equipment and refrigeration units with other tenants. Garland's Revolving Kitchen will offer the exclusive use of an entire commercial kitchen to each of its users for a dedicated period of time.
In order to service the 25 distinct kitchens specified by the project, new electrical rooftop AC units, supply and exhaust vents and an enormous 8,000 gallon grease trap will be installed as part of the building renovations. Dedicated electrical and plumbing infrastructure will be connected to each of the kitchens in order to accommodate more users in a safer and more efficient manner.
Currently, there are 2,500 catering companies, i.e. caters, food trucks, bakeries/cafes, bars, prepped-meal providers and private chefs, within a 10 mile radius of the Revolving Kitchen project site. The entire DFW region currently has fewer than 10 commissary kitchens in operation. With this exciting new addition, three of these will soon be fully operational in Garland.
"We see a great opportunity to open one of the largest commissary kitchens in the area to accommodate the growing number of local food entrepreneurs. More and more food businesses -- from caterers to food trucks -- are looking for space to cook. We're here to help them drive costs down and scale business up," said Tyler Shin, Managing Director at Revolving Kitchen.
Commissary kitchens are operationally much more efficient and convenient due to their ability to accommodate more room for equipment, food preparation and actual cooking. Most food trucks are narrow and crowded which makes it especially difficult to do preparation with multiple culinary staff working in the same tight space. Local food entrepreneurs looking to kick start or expand their business can more quickly enjoy access to enhanced food service infrastructure at a much lower cost threshold by using time-apportioned commissary kitchen facilities and services.
"The Revolving Kitchen is renovating an aging commercial building and providing much needed cooking infrastructure and storage services for area food trucks, bakeries and caterers. With this exciting new project, local food entrepreneurs will continue to view Garland as one of the best choices in growing operations and turning their innovative ideas into business reality," said David Gwin, Garland's Director of Economic Development.