Learn more about applying for and managing a Pioneer Award. This guide contains information on:
- Eligibility
- Application Process
- Pre-Application Steps
- Application
- Letters of Reference
- Application Submission
- Sample Applications
- After Submission
- Post-Submission Materials
- Review Process
- Pre-Award Activities
- Award Management
More questions? Contact us at PioneerAwards@mail.nih.gov .
SF424 (R&R) Application Guide
The SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provides comprehensive guidance on how to submit applications to NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Use the SF424 (R&R) version outlined in the funding opportunity, and follow the Research Instructions (R).
The funding opportunity provides all the information needed to successfully assemble your application and will tell you when to refer to the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for more detailed instructions. It will also tell you when to deviate from the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Instructions in the funding opportunity supersede instructions from the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Failure to comply with the instructions and requirements outlined in the funding opportunity may result in your application being administratively withdrawn for non-compliance.
Eligibility
The Pioneer Award supports individual scientists of exceptional creativity who propose bold and highly innovative research projects with the potential to produce a major impact on broad, important areas relevant to the mission of NIH. The proposed research must be pioneering and reflect substantially different scientific directions from those already being pursued in the investigator’s research program or elsewhere.
Applications in any area within the biomedical sciences are welcome; topics may involve basic, translational, or clinical research. The primary requirements are that the research be highly innovative and have the potential for unusually broad impact.
Steps to Determine Your Eligibility
- Fit NIH Mission and Goals
NIH seeks fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. The Pioneer Award welcomes any area within the biomedical sciences; topics may involve basic, translational, or clinical research. The primary requirements are that the research be highly innovative and have the potential for unusually broad impact. - Fit the Purpose of the Pioneer Award
The Pioneer Award supports individual scientists of exceptional creativity who propose pioneering, highly innovative, and broadly impactful research towards the ultimate goal of enhancing human health. The emphases are on the qualities of the investigator, the innovativeness, and potential impact of the proposed research. Preliminary data and detailed experimental plans are not requested. The award seeks pioneering research that is a significant departure from what is currently being pursued in the investigator’s research program or elsewhere. The Pioneer Award is not intended to expand a current research program into the area of the proposed project. While the research direction may rely on the applicant’s prior work and expertise as its foundation, it cannot be an obvious extension or scale-up of a current research enterprise. Rather, the proposed project must reflect a fundamental new insight which may involve exceptionally innovative approaches and/or radically unconventional hypotheses. Meet the Eligibility Requirements
Any eligible individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) is invited to work with his/her institution to develop an application.Only single PD/PI applications are allowed.
Pioneering Approach
The proposed Pioneer Award research must take on a new research direction that is substantially different from the ideas currently being pursued by the investigator or others. Successful Pioneer Award applicants are expected to propose highly innovative (and inherently risky) approaches to address or solve exceptionally important problems of relevance to NIH. While a new research direction may have as its foundation the applicant’s prior work and expertise, it cannot be an obvious extension or scaling up of a research enterprise. The new research direction must reflect a fundamental new insight into the solution of a problem, which may derive from the development of exceptionally innovative approaches and/or from the posing of radically unconventional hypotheses.
Applications for projects that are straightforward extensions of ongoing research should not be submitted.
Research Effort
Pioneer award recipients are required to commit the major portion of their research effort (more than 6 person-months or at least 51%) to the Pioneer Award project in the first 3 years of the project period. Effort expended toward teaching, administrative, or clinical duties are not included in this calculation. Award recipients may reduce effort towards the Pioneer Award project to a minimum of 4 person-months (33%) in the fourth year and a minimum of 3 person-months (25%) in the fifth year. The effort reduction is to provide time for the transition to other sources of support since Pioneer Awards cannot be renewed.
Applicants with current research commitments equal to 6 person-months or more must adjust their effort on existing grants during the award period in order to devote the required minimum effort to the Pioneer Award project. Investigators who are not able to meet the effort requirement should not submit applications.
- Get Additional Questions Answered
If you still have questions about your eligibility, check out the Frequently Asked Questions section and past Q&A webinar posted on the website. You can also contact NIH staff at PioneerAwards@mail.nih.gov .
Application Process
This section provides steps and information needed to prepare a Pioneer Award application for submission and includes samples of past Pioneer Award applications. The guidance found here is not detailed, but it is specific to the Pioneer Award. For more detailed guidance on each step, go to the NIH Grants & Funding Application Guide website.
The application process includes:
Before you can submit an application, you need to make sure you have all the necessary registrations and accounts. Work closely with your institution's business office to get registered and to determine its internal procedure for submitting an application to NIH.
Step 1: Ensure Applicant Institution Is Registered
Applicant institutions must complete and maintain the following registrations to apply and receive awards. Registration can take six weeks or more, so institutions should begin the registration process as soon as possible.
- System for Award Management (SAM) – Institutions must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires an annual renewal that may take as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code. A Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
- eRA Commons – Institutions must have an active DUNS number to register. To submit an application, a Signing Official (SO) and Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account must be designated.
- Grants.gov – Institutions must have an active SAM registration to complete registration.
Step 2: Ensure Applicant Is Registered
The PD/PI must have an eRA Commons account. The PD/PI should work with his/her institutional officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant institution in eRA Commons. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to two weeks.
Step 3: Request an Application Package
The application forms package must be accessed through one of the following systems:
- Application Submission System & Interface for Submission Tracking (ASSIST) – ASSIST is used to prepare and submit applications electronically to NIH and other Public Health Service agencies.
- Grants.gov Workspace – Workspace is the standard way for organizations or individuals to apply for federal grants in Grants.gov.
- Institutional System-to-System – See your institution’s administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
Step 4 (Optional): Contact NIH Institute or Center for Instructions on Clinical Trials
The Pioneer Award welcomes any project relevant to the NIH mission, including clinical trials. Though technical and conceptual risks are expected in highly innovative projects, clinical research must also contend with potential risks to human subjects. Because awards are administered by the most topic-relevant NIH Institute or Center (IC), applicants proposing NIH-defined clinical trials should contact program staff at the appropriate IC to ensure their applications conform to NIH and IC-specific policies for clinical trials.
For a list of IC contacts for clinical trials research, see our page on NIH Clinical Trials Contacts .
Follow the Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the Research Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide except where instructed in the funding opportunity to do otherwise. When the funding opportunity provides instructions that differ from the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, the instructions given in the funding opportunity take precedence and should be followed.
All attachments should be formatted according to NIH format standards.
Adherence to the application requirements is mandatory and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may not be accepted for review.
Required Forms
Refer to the funding opportunity and SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for complete instructions.
1. SF424 (R&R) Form
Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Agency Routing Identifier
Enter Science Area Designations in the Agency Routing Identifier. Designate two scientific areas (a primary and secondary) from the list below. For each area, enter the one-digit code and abbreviation (e.g., 1 BSS).
1 CB - Chemical Biology
2 CTR - Clinical and Translational Research
3 IDI - Infectious Diseases and Immunology
4 IE - Instrumentation and Engineering
5 MCB - Molecular and Cellular Biology
6 NS - Neuroscience
7 HIB - High-Throughput and Integrative Biology
8 BCB - Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
For each area, enter the one-digit code and abbreviation (e.g., 1 BSS). List the primary area first followed by a semicolon, then add the secondary area (e.g., 1 BSS; 7 NS).
The areas of science listed above are very broad and frequently overlap. Choose the primary (and optional secondary) science area that is most appropriate for your proposed project. The scientific areas are used solely as an aid to assign panel reviewers, who are chosen for their breadth of knowledge and expertise and will be able to review a broad range of applications. Science area designations do not affect an application’s funding potential, and application requirements and instructions are identical for all science areas. All applications are reviewed in the same time period, with the same review criteria, and compete for a single source of dedicated funds.
Note: The science area designations (two one-digit codes with abbreviations) must also be included at the beginning of the Research Strategy essay.
Type of Application
Must be "New."
Proposed Project
The start date should be September 30 of the funding year, and the end date should be 5 years later on July 31. See the funding opportunity for exact dates.
Estimated Project Funding
Estimated Project Funding (Field 15)
- Total Federal Funds Requested (15a): $3,500,000
- Total Non-Federal Funds (15b): $0.
- Total Federal & Non-Federal Funds (Field 15c): .$3,500,000
- Estimated Program Income (Field 15d) : $0.
Note: The total direct costs for the 5-year project period of the award is $3,500,000 and is entered in the "Total Federal Funds Requested" and "Total Federal & Non-Federal Funds" fields (as described above). Applicable Facilities and Administrative costs (F&A) will be determined at the time of award and should not be included in the budget request. A detailed budget and other budget forms are not required and will not be accepted. Though the information is not requested in the application, funds may be used for personnel (including collaborators), supplies, equipment, subcontracts, data management and sharing costs, and other allowable costs.
Cover Letter Attachment
Use the Cover Letter Attachment if relevant information needs to be conveyed as outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. The cover letter is for internal NIH use only and will not be shared with peer reviewers. Note, applicants are NOT required to have agency approval documentation for budget requests of $500,000 or more because the funding opportunity expressly states that large budgets are welcome.
2. PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement Form
Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
3. R&R Other Project Information Form
Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with additional instructions for the sections outlined in the funding opportunity below.
Project Summary/Abstract
There is a limit of 30 lines of text.
Project Narrative
There is a limit of three sentences.
Bibliography & References Cited
Do not use this section. Reference citations are not required. Citations considered essential may be included in the essay and must be included in the page limit.
Facilities & Other Resources
Upload a brief statement (one page maximum) of the facilities to be used for the conduct of the research.
Equipment
Do not use.
Other Attachments
Only attach Foreign Justification, if applicable.
Other Tips
- For more help on human subjects, visit the NIH Grants & Funding website.
- Foreign components are defined as the performance of any significant scientific element or segment of a project outside of the United States, either by the recipient or by a researcher employed by a foreign organization, whether or not grant funds are expended. It is crucial that you disclose all foreign components, which include foreign collaborations that will result in co-authorship. See the definition of Foreign Components for more details.
4. Project/Performance Site Location(s)
Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
5. R&R Senior/Key Person Profile Form
Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, but only the PD/PI’s biosketch is allowed. Inclusion of other personnel or collaborator biosketches anywhere in the application will result in your application being administratively withdrawn.
Profile Project Director/Principal Investigator
Attach a list of Current and Pending Support from all sources, including current year direct costs and effort in person months devoted to each project.
Profile - Senior/Key Person
Do not use. Submit information for the PD/PI only. Information on collaborators and other key personnel is not required but may be included in the Research Strategy essay.
Additional Senior/Key Person Profile(s)
Do not use. Only the PD/PI may submit a Biographical Sketch. Inclusion of other personnel or collaborator biosketches anywhere in the application will result in your application being administratively withdrawn.
6. R&R Budget of Modular Budget Form
Do not use. A detailed budget is not requested and will not be accepted.
7. R&R Subaward Budget
Do not use. A detailed budget is not requested and will not be accepted.
8. PHS 398 Research Plan Form
Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide with additional instructions in the funding opportunity.
Specific Aims
Do not use.
Research Strategy
The Research Strategy essay is the major component of the application. The Research Strategy essay should contain the information below and be saved as a pdf titled "Essay.pdf."
Your essay should describe:
- Your innovative vision for addressing a major challenge or pursuing an outstanding opportunity of relevance to NIH.
- The importance of this challenge or opportunity.
- Your qualifications to engage in groundbreaking research.
No detailed scientific plan should be provided since the research plan is expected to evolve during the tenure of the grant. The essay should include the following sections in the order given with the headings as shown below:
- Scientific Areas: Provide 1-digit code and abbreviation for primary and secondary science areas at the beginning of essay. See "Agency Routing Identifier" information above for codes and format.
- Project Title: The project title must be descriptive of the proposed project.
- Project Description: Prominently indicate that neither a detailed experimental plan nor extensive preliminary data are being provided per the instructions in the funding opportunity. However, the reviewers must still have a clear sense of the overall research to be pursued and must be convinced that the research will be pursued in a robust and rigorous manner. The writing should be at a level that conveys the significance and impact of the application to broadly knowledgeable scientists with different expertise domains.
- What is the scientific challenge or opportunity that will be addressed, and why is this important?
- What are the pioneering, highly innovative approaches that, if successful, would lead to groundbreaking or paradigm-shifting results?
- Evidence of PD's/PI's Innovativeness: What concrete evidence can you provide for your claim of innovativeness? For example, qualities common to many highly innovative people include the ability to integrate diverse sources of information; an inclination to question paradigms; a willingness to work with intellectual uncertainties; persistence in the face of failure; an ability to work collaboratively with researchers from diverse disciplines; and the energy and concentration necessary to plan and execute effective strategies for accomplishing goals.
- How the Planned Research Differs from the PD's/PI's Past or Current Work: How does the proposed project represent a new and distinct direction for your research? While a new research direction may have the PDF/PI's prior work and expertise as its foundation, it cannot be an obvious extension or scale-up of a current research enterprise which could be appropriate for a more conventional NIH funding mechanism, such as a new or renewal R01. Rather, a new research direction must reflect a fundamental new insight and which may involve the development of exceptionally innovative approaches and/or the posing of radically unconventional hypotheses. Applications for projects that are extensions of ongoing research should not be submitted.
- Suitability for Pioneer Award Program: Why is the planned research uniquely suited to the stated goal of the Pioneer Award rather than a more “traditional” grant mechanism?
- Statement of Research Effort Commitment: A statement must be included that, if chosen to receive an award, the PD/PI will commit more than 6 person-months (at least 51%) of their research effort to the project supported by the Pioneer Award in the first three years of the award and at least 4 months (33%) research effort and at least 3 months (25%) in years four and five, respectively. Applicants with current research commitments of 6 person-months or more must provide a compelling explanation describing how their effort on existing grants will be adjusted to permit them to devote the required minimum effort to the Pioneer Award project
Applicants considering research involving clinical trials are strongly advised to discuss their research ideas with IC staff at the scientifically most relevant NIH Institutes or Centers (ICs) to ensure that such research would conform to the clinical trial research policies of those ICs. Funding of applications involving clinical trials is contingent upon conformance to the policies of the IC administering the award.
Note: References are not required but if included must fit within the page limit. Figures and illustrations may be included but must also fit within the page limit. Letters of collaboration will not be accepted. Information on collaborators may be included in the Essay and their names and affiliations should be listed in the PHS Assignment Request Form, so NIH staff know to include them as reviewers (see below).
Progress Report Publication List
Do not use.
Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan
Do not use.
Consortium/Contractual Arrangements
Do not use.
Letters of Support
Do not use.
Resource Sharing Plan
You are expected to comply with instructions for Resource Sharing Plans in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide , but the plans will be asked for as Just in Time information if an award is being considered.
Appendix
Only limited Appendix materials are allowed as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. No publications or other material, with the exception of blank questionnaires or blank surveys, may be included in the Appendix.
9. PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
Follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. But if you answered "Yes" to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Informationform or Delayed Onset Study record.
Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
Follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Delayed Onset Study
Follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Note: Delayed onset does not apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).
10. PHS Assignment Request Form
Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, but do not request an assignment to a particular review panel (integrated review group) or awarding component (NIH Institute or Center). All applications are automatically received as "Office of the Director" applications and reviewed by a single Special Emphasis Panel convened by the Center for Scientific Review.
Provide the names of collaborators and reference letter writers and their institutional affiliations so the Scientific Review Officer can avoid conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers. Also, if you wish to exclude individuals from reviewing your application, list their names, institutional affiliations, and the reasons why they should not serve as reviewers. NIH will consider your request but is not obligated to accept it.
Letters of reference are an important element of the Pioneer Award application. Applicants must arrange to have three (and only three) letters of reference submitted on their behalf.
Applications that are missing letters of reference will be considered incomplete and will not be reviewed. Late letters will not be accepted. Applicants are responsible for monitoring the submission of letters to ensure that three letters have been submitted prior to the submission deadline. Applicants are encouraged to check the status of their letters in their eRA Commons account. Letters of reference are submitted to NIH directly by the referee and are never seen by the PD/PI.
Letters of Reference Vs. Letters of Support
Letters of reference differ from letters of support. Letters of reference are typically from scientists or others who know the applicant well and are qualified to evaluate the merit of the project proposal and the applicant’s qualifications to fulfill the proposed project. Letters of reference are submitted to NIH directly by the referee and are never seen by the PD/PI.
Letters of support typically come from outside individuals or organizations whose cooperation, assistance, or guidance is needed to successfully complete a project. The letter of support affirms the person or entity’s commitment to assist in the project. Letters of support are not permitted for the Pioneer Award application.
Referee Selection
It is best to select referees who can speak to your scientific expertise, leadership experience, and management skills and address how you are qualified to conduct successful independent research. It may not be best to choose referees based primarily on their official position, such as your departmental chair or institutional dean. It may not be best to choose referees who could be seen to benefit from an award (collaborators on the project).
Instructions
For Applicants
- Arrange to have three (and only three) letters.
- Letters must be submitted by 5:00 P.M. (local time of referee) on the application due date (late letters will not be accepted).
- Letters must be submitted electronically through eRA Commons (paper copies will not be accepted). Note: The referee does not need an eRA Commons account to submit a reference letter for an applicant, but the applicant must have a valid eRA Commons account.
- Provide the referee with the following information:
- Your eRA Commons user ID
- Your last name as listed in eRA Commons
- Funding opportunity number (e.g., RFA-RM-25-001)
- URL to eRA Commons: https://public.era.nih.gov/commonsplus/public/reference/submitReferenceLetter.era (click on the "Submit a Reference Letter" link on the page)
- URL to eRA help on submitting reference letters: https://www.era.nih.gov/erahelp/commons/Commons/Ref_Ltr.htm
- The applicant will not have access to the letters.
- An email confirmation will be sent to you when a letter is submitted.
- Check the status of your letters on eRA Commons periodically, and remind referees to submit their letters on time.
For Referees
For more help, see the eRA page on submitting reference letters .
- Letter must be submitted by 5:00 P.M. (local time of referee) on the application due date (late letters will not be accepted).
- Letter must be submitted electronically through eRA Commons (paper copies will not be accepted). Note: The referee does not need an eRA Commons account to submit a reference letter for an applicant, but the applicant for whom the referee is writing must have a valid eRA Commons account.
- Letter must include the following information:
- PD/PI's name on top of letter
- Signature block with your full name, title, institution, and contact information
- 1-2 page description of the applicant's qualities relating to scientific expertise, leadership experience, and management skills necessary to conduct successful independent research (provide specific examples when possible)
- Submit letter through eRA Commons (you do not need to be registered or logged on to eRA Commons to submit a letter).
- Provide your first and last name, email address, institution/affiliation, and department.
- You will need the applicant's eRA Commons user ID, applicant's last name, funding opportunity number (e.g., RFA-RM-25-001) and confirmation number (if submitting a revised Letter).
- An email confirmation will be sent to you when the letter is submitted.
NIH expects that applications be submitted on time, which means the application is submitted error free no later than 5:00 PM local (applicant institution) time on the application due date. There is no deadline extension to correct for errors in the application, so all errors must be corrected by the submission deadline.
Institutions often have their own internal deadlines, so be sure to check when your institution needs your application.
About Submitting
Electronic submission of your application is required. Your institution may submit using the NIH Application Submission System and Interface for Submission Tracking (ASSIST) , Grants.gov Workspace , or an institutional system-to-system. If your institution uses a proprietary application system, keep in mind that the system may have its own forms, layouts, or special fields.
Regardless of the application method, all applications pass through Grants.gov for a timestamp and validation checks. To be on time, Grants.gov must successfully timestamp your application by 5:00 PM of your institution's local time on the receipt date listed in the funding opportunity.
Submitting your application may not be straightforward, so be sure to learn more about the process and work with your institution’s business office. If you encounter any problems, contact the NIH Service Desk immediately. They will document the date and time you contacted them, which is helpful in case there are delays in resolving the issue and there are downstream effects.
For technical support and information, use the following links:
- Avoiding Common Errors
- Annotated SF424 Grant Application Forms for field-by-field tips on avoiding common application mistakes
- eRA Training
- NIH Service Desk
- Grants.gov Support
Late Applications
As stated in the funding opportunity, late applications will not be accepted.
Sample Applications
Always follow the funding opportunity and SF424 Application Guide's instructions for application format. Time has passed since these award recipients applied, and the samples may not reflect the latest format or rules.
The text of these applications is copyrighted. You may use it only for nonprofit educational purposes provided the document remains unchanged and the PI, the recipient organization, and NIH are credited.
Note on Section 508 Conformance and Accessibility: We have reformatted these samples to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and users of assistive technology. If you have trouble accessing the content, please contact NIH staff at PioneerAwards@mail.nih.gov .
| Competition Year | PI Name | Institution Name | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | HIGLEY, MICHAEL JAMES | YALE UNIVERSITY | Bridging cellular and systems neuroscience: synaptic dynamics underlying behavior |
| 2020 | COLLINS, KATHLEEN | UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY | Human genetic supplementation without donor DNA or a DNA break |
| 2015 | SCHIFF, STEVEN J. | PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY | Control of the Neonatal Septisome and Hydrocephalus in Sub-Saharan Africa |
Thank you to the PIs and their institutions for allowing us to post their Pioneer Award applications. We appreciate their assistance and willingness to share.
After Submission
There's still more to do after you push the submit button. Learn more about what happens after your application is submitted, including information on:
1. POST-SUBMISSION MATERIALS
Only documents to inform of unforeseen events, such as natural disasters, that substantially affect the ability to execute the proposed research will be accepted. No publication updates will be allowed as post-submission material. See NOT-OD-19-083 for more details.
NIH seeks the highest level of ethical standards for peer review. NIH policy is intended to promote a bias-free process that evaluates grant applications in a fair, equitable, and timely manner. Peer review is conducted at two levels as mandated by statute and federal regulation. All review criteria and considerations are specified in the funding opportunity.
The first level of review for the Pioneer Award is conducted in two phases in a Special Emphasis Panel that will review all Pioneer Award applications. All applications are automatically sent to the Special Emphasis Panel, and reviewers change from year to year. The process is overseen by a Scientific Review Officer (SRO) from the Center for Scientific Review (CSR).
The second level of review is performed by the NIH Office of the Director’s national advisory council called the Council of Councils . The council is composed of both scientific and public representatives chosen for their expertise, interest, or activity in matters related to health and disease. Applications must receive approval at both levels of review to be eligible for funding.
Below is a diagram of the Pioneer Award review process. Each aspect is discussed in more detail below.
Role of the Scientific Review Officer
The Scientific Review Officer (SRO) is responsible for ensuring that each application receives an objective and fair initial peer review, and that all applicable laws, regulations, and policies are followed. The duties of the SRO include:
- Analyzing the content of each application and checking for completeness
- Documenting and managing conflicts of interest
- Recruiting qualified reviewers based on scientific and technical qualifications and other considerations, including
- Authority in their scientific field
- Dedication to high quality, fair, and objective reviews
- Ability to work collegially in a group setting
- Experience in research grant review
- Balanced representation
- Assigning applications to reviewers for critique preparation and assignment of individual criterion scores
- Attending and overseeing administrative and regulatory aspects of peer review meetings
- Preparing summary statements for all applications reviewed
The SRO is the point of contact for all review-related questions and issues.
First Level of Review
The Pioneer Award differs from traditional NIH reviews in that the first level of review occurs in two phases by two separate groups of reviewers with different perspectives. Applications are reviewed by science area experts ("mail" reviewers) in Phase I and by a broad thinking editorial panel in Phase II.
The Pioneer Award supports individual scientists of exceptional creativity who propose pioneering -- and possibly transformative -- research that, if successful, will have a major impact on a broad area of relevance to the NIH. Pioneer Award applications do not require preliminary data, specific aims, or a detailed research plan. Accordingly, reviewers will emphasize the following:
- The significance and innovation of the proposed project.
- The investigator's evidence for past innovation and the ability to commit effort that is sufficient for the proposed project.
- A change in research direction that is not a logical extension or scale-up of ongoing efforts. The change should be motivated by a fundamental new insight that prompts a new line of research or a substantial departure from an existing line of research.
Phase I
Phase I is conducted by science area experts ("mail" reviewers), who submit their independent assessments electronically and do not discuss the applications with other reviewers. Two of the "mail" reviewers are assigned based on the broad science areas chosen for the application by the applicant (and designated in the "Agency Routing Identifier"). The third "mail" reviewer has expertise outside the area. Each "mail" reviewer will provide scores and comments, which are used in Phase II.
Phase II
Phase II is conducted by an "editorial panel" composed of scientists from an array of scientific backgrounds. The composition of the panel attempts to capture a wide breadth of scientific expertise, experiences, and perspectives. Each application is assigned to three panel members and is not matched by area of expertise. Panel members are tasked with reviewing the applications from a broad viewpoint with the aid of the comments from the "mail" reviewers and identifying a subset of ~25 of the most "pioneering" applicants. The subset of applicants is invited for an in-person or virtual interview with the editorial panel.
Before the interview, the assigned reviewers for each application provide a preliminary overall impact score and brief description of the application. The investigator is then invited to give a brief presentation followed by Q&A with panel members. The interview focuses on the qualifications and track record of the investigator, the broad impact potential of the proposed project, and the suitability of the proposal for the Pioneer Award. Following the interview, the panel discusses the application and provides final scores. The panel discussion is captured by the SRO and is summarized in the summary statement.
Scoring & Summary Statement
Each panel member privately scores each discussed application. A raw score of 1 is the best, while 9 is the worst. The SRO collects and averages all the panel scores and multiplies the resulting number by 10 to yield an overall impact score. A discussed application can have an overall impact score of 10 (best) to 90 (worst). The panel has access to the full range of scores to provide discrimination among applications within this select subset. These scores should not be compared to a regular R01 study section review.
After the meeting, all discussed applications will receive an overall impact score within three business days through the PD/PI's eRA Commons account. The overall impact score indicates the reviewers' judgment of the qualifications of the investigator, the importance of the scientific problem, and the innovativeness of the approach. There is a correlation between a strong impact score and funding. However, there is no strict cutoff or pay line for funding. And because applications are responding to a Request for Applications (RFA), the scores are not percentiled, which makes their interpretation difficult. NIH staff cannot disclose where an impact score falls relative to other application scores.
A summary Statement prepared by the SRO will be available within 30 days of the review through the PD/PI's eRA Commons account. The summary Statement of discussed applications includes critiques from the assigned editorial reviewers and a brief summary of the panel discussion. Applications that were not selected for the panel interview are considered "not discussed" and are given a summary statement with critiques from the mail reviewers but no comments from the editorial panel. The information provided in the summary Statement is valuable and provides critical feedback. However, it is not intended to be an exhaustive critique and will not contain every point reviewers found to be problematic.
After Receiving the Summary Statement
If you have any questions about your summary statement, you should contact the scientific contact for the Pioneer Award (listed as the scientific contact in the funding opportunity). The scientific contact attends the review and may be able to provide more insight into the panel discussion and help clarify some of the comments. You can also ask about the probability of funding and get advice on what to do if your application is outside of the likely pay range. Contacting NIH staff to “sell” your application or to express differences in scientific opinion related to the reviewers’ comments will not affect the likelihood of funding.
It is best to contact NIH staff by email to schedule a time for a meeting. That gives staff time to read your summary statement and review any notes. And be patient. They receive numerous inquiries and may not be able to respond to yours immediately.
PD/PIs of discussed applications are given an opportunity to submit an optional two-page response to their summary statement. The response may be used to address issues and concerns brought up by reviewers and reinforce the strengths of the application. The response will not be seen by reviewers and is not a part of the review. The response remains an internal NIH document used only by NIH staff during funding deliberations. The scientific contact will reach out to eligible applicants directly with more information on the response and the deadline.
Second Level of Review
The Council of Councils performs the second level of review for the Pioneer Award and assesses the first level of review for fairness and uniformity in the application of review criteria. It is meant to ensure the initial review was conducted with the appropriate expertise, procedures, and without conflicts of interest. The Council of Councils is not tasked with reviewing the applications for scientific or technical merit and is not asked to provide recommendations on which applications should be funded. The Council of Councils votes en bloc for concurrence with the first level review recommendations. Applications must receive approval from the council to be eligible for funding.
Roles & Responsibilities
Timely and effective communication between the award recipient and NIH staff is critical throughout pre-award, award, and post award processes. At this stage the following people will work closely together:
NIH Staff
- Grants Management Officer (GMO): The GMO signs the Notice of Award (NoA) and is the NIH official responsible for the business management and other non-programmatic aspects of the award. GMOs ensure that laws, regulations, and administrative policies are followed.
- Grants Management Specialist (GMS): The GMS works with the GMO on the day-to-day management of the grant. The name and contact information of the GMS assigned to a particular grant appears on the NoA.
- Program Official (PO): The PO is responsible for the programmatic, scientific, and/or technical aspects of assigned applications and grants. The PO coordinates with grants management on post-award administration.
Recipient Organization Participants
- Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR): The AOR, also known as Signing Official (SO) in the eRA Commons, is the designated representative of the recipient organization in matters related to the award and its administration. Their signature certifies that the applicant organization will comply and is accountable for all assurances and certifications referenced in the application. This individual's signature further certifies that the applicant organization will be accountable both for the appropriate use of funds awarded and for the performance of the grant-supported project or activities resulting from the application.
- Program Director/ Principal Investigator (PD/PI): The PD/PI is the individual designated by the applicant organization to have the appropriate level of authority and responsibility to direct the project or program supported by the award. The PI is responsible and accountable to the recipient organization for the proper conduct of the project or program, including the submission of all required reports.
The PD/PI is the core member of the recipient team responsible for ensuring compliance with the financial and administrative aspects of the award. The PD/PI work closely within the recipient organization to develop and maintain necessary documentation, such as technical and administrative reports, preparing justifications, appropriately acknowledging federal support of research findings in publications, announcements, news programs, and other media, and ensuring compliance with other federal and organizational requirements.
NIH encourages the PD/PI to maintain contact with the NIH Program Officer with respect to the scientific aspects of the project and the grants management officer concerning the business and administrative aspects of the award.
Just-in-Time Request
Some important time-sensitive information isn’t included in your application. Instead, you prepare it separately and send it in before awarding in a process called Just-in-Time (JIT) .
After initial peer review, NIH sends an automatic email requesting JIT information for applications within a competitive funding range. The notification is NOT a Notice of Award, nor should it be construed as an indicator of possible award.
Requested JIT information includes:
- Other support
- Certification of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
- Certification of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval
- Human subjects training certification for all key personnel
JIT information must be submitted for NIH review and evaluation prior to making an award. This information may be submitted via the Just-In-Time function within eRA Commons . If you have questions about the JIT process, contact the Grants Management Specialist assigned to your grant.
Funding Deliberations
Following review of all applicable information, the NIH Office of the Director and the High-Risk, High-Reward Research program working group (composed of NIH staff from other NIH institutes and centers) will determine whether an award will be made.
The score given to an application during the initial peer review process is an important factor and best indicator of likely funding but is not the sole factor used in making funding decisions. The following are considered in making funding decisions:
- Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review with consideration of the PD/PI’s optional summary statement response
- Availability of funds
- Conformance to clinical trial research policies of the administering NIH institute or center
- Relevance of programmatic priorities, including
- The potential for the investigator to lead groundbreaking and broadly impactful research, despite its inherent risks
- Unusually cross-cutting science
- Scientific balance in the portfolio of Pioneer Award-supported research
- Potential to invigorate exceptionally innovative and impactful science broadly across the nation
The NIH Office of the Director funds the majority of awards. However, other NIH Institutes and Centers are invited to fund Pioneer Award applications that they deem meritorious and that fit within their mission and priorities. The NIH Office of the Director does not play a role in the funding deliberations of the Institutes and Centers, but the process is managed by the Institute/Center’s member of the High-Risk, High-Reward Research program working group.
Pre-Award Negotiation
The pre-award process involves significant communication between the NIH and the applicant organization and includes negotiation if significant adjustments are required prior to award. Some of the issues NIH staff will be considering during award negotiations include:
- Initial peer review recommendations: Peer reviewers may recommend changes to the specific aims. These recommendations are provided in the summary statement. Under these circumstances, NIH staff will include these recommendations in consideration of a potential award.
- Overlap: Program and grants management staff will review the other support information to ensure there is no overlap with already funded projects (e.g., support, commitment, or budgetary).
- Level of effort: Program and grants management staff will ensure sufficient levels of effort are committed to support the approved project.
- Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs: Grants management staff will utilize the negotiated F&A costs (also known as indirect costs) for each grant. More information on the reimbursement of F&A costs can be found in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .
Notice of Award
You may receive communications from NIH staff regarding the intent to make an award, but nothing is official until you receive the Notice of Award (NoA).
The NoA is the legal document issued to notify the recipient that an award has been made and that funds are now available for the project. The NoA includes the terms and conditions of the award, your project's start and end dates, and how much money you will receive for current and future years. It also provides contact information for the assigned Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist. It is important that you read and understand your NoA.
NoAs are issued annually for each budget period and are contingent upon annual assessment of research progress and the availability of funds.
Award Management
Learn what to expect after your application is selected for funding.
The Office of the Director (OD) receives all Pioneer Award applications and funds the majority of awards. However, applications that are selected for funding are transferred to the most scientifically relevant NIH Institute or Center (as determined by the High-Risk, High-Reward Research program (HRHR) working group) for award administration. The administering NIH Institute or Center will assign program and grants staff to manage the award, but Dr. Patricia Labosky (program leader for HRHR) oversees all Pioneer Awards and will remain an important contact for award recipients.
The Notice of Award (NoA) provides information on the project's start and end dates, terms and conditions of award, and how much money will be received for current and future years. A NoA is issued for every budget period of the award.
You can find the NoA in eRA Commons using the Status module or Notice of Award query. Note that grants management staff may issue a revised NoA to reflect any of the following changes:
- Increase or decrease of funds
- Lifting of a restriction
- Change in budget period
- Carryover or offset
NIH requires award recipients to submit annual Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPR) through eRA Commons as part of the non-competing continuation award process. The progress report must be approved by NIH to fund each budget period. Late, incorrect, or incomplete progress reports will delay awards until all reporting elements are complete.
The RPPR asks award recipients about accomplishments towards the goal of the project, plans for the next year of the project, manuscripts and publications produced, personnel who have worked on the project, changes to level of effort of key personnel on the project, actual or planned challenges or delays in the projects and plans for resolving them, significant changes regarding human or animal subjects, inclusion enrollment reports for clinical studies, and more.
The Program Officer reviews each progress report to determine whether funding for the project will continue, and the Grants Management Specialist evaluates the grant's administrative and fiscal status. Both must approve a progress report before an award can be issued.
There may be times when adjustments are needed to your project or budget. Some of the adjustments can be made by the award recipient without NIH approval due to “expanded authorities” laws, which gives greater autonomy and flexibility to award recipients.
Without NIH approval, you can:
- Carry over unobligated balances from one budget period to the next.
- Transfer work to a third party through a consortium agreement, contract, or other means, as long as you retain a substantive role in the research.
- Make cost-related changes, including rebudgeting of funds, as long as the scope of the research remains the same.
- Spend money up to 90 days before the grant's start date with your institution's permission.
Actions that require NIH preapproval include:
- Taking an action that changes the scope of the approved research.
- Reducing PD/PI effort by 25 percent or more.
- Changing the recipient organization.
- Taking a no-cost extension of a final budget period.
- Changing the award terms and conditions, or undertaking any activities disapproved or restricted as a term of award.
- Adding, removing, or transferring a foreign subaward or foreign site.
The request must be endorsed by your Authorized Organization Representative and sent to the Grants Management Specialist at least 30 days before your proposed change. Contact your Grants Management Specialist with questions on preapprovals.
There may be times when your research plans need adjustment because of a new research path or a dead end. Talk with your Program Officer about whether it makes sense to modify your research. You will need approval from your Grants Management Specialist to change the scope of your research.
Actions that may change the scope of your research include:
- Changing the Specific Aims
- Shifting the research emphasis from one disease area to another
- Changing any aspects of research involving animals or human subjects
- Using a new technology
- Purchasing equipment that costs more than $25,000
- Rebudgeting funds in or out of a budget category by more than 25 percent of the total costs of the award
For a list of all actions that constitute a change in scope, see Section 8 of the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If you wish to change institutions, you must ask the awarded institution to relinquish the award to your new one. The new institution must be a U.S. domestic institution capable of supporting the research and must fulfill all the requirements in the funding opportunity.
Your new institution must submit a new application in response to the Change of Grantee Organization (Type 7 Parent) announcement. NIH staff will review the application to ensure all the requirements in the funding opportunity are met.
For more information, see:
- NIH Change of Institutions/Relinquishing Statements FAQs
- Section 8 of the NIH Grants Policy Statement
If your institution does not agree to transfer your grant or the new institution cannot meet all the requirements in the funding opportunity, the grant must be terminated.
The High-Risk, High-Reward Research Symposium is held annually in Bethesda, MD. The symposium brings together recipients of the NIH Director's Pioneer, New Innovator, Transformative Research, and Early Independence Awards to share their groundbreaking research and discoveries. The symposium is free and open to the public. Symposium attendees enjoy:
- Scientific talks and posters from High-Risk, High-Reward Research program award recipients
- Networking with some of the most creative scientists in the U.S.
- Scheduled one-on-one meetings with NIH staff during "Office Hours"
High-Risk, High-Reward Research award recipients are strongly encouraged to attend the symposium annually. Award recipient lab members, NIH staff and fellows, and members of the general public are also welcome to attend. NIH does not pay for or make travel arrangements for symposium attendees and presenters.