Each NIH institute approaches the challenge of optimally leveraging its expertise and resources differently. NIAID, in particular, must respond to emerging infectious diseases, which necessitates funding research on many diseases in case an outbreak occurs.
If the applications we receive to study a particular disease land just beyond our payline, we can use selective pay to guard against scientific gaps forming in our research portfolio. Further, we actively manage our research portfolio to maintain balance between basic and translational research, encourage innovative projects where needed, meet spending targets, and respond to public health emergencies.
At the same time, we are eager to fund the most meritorious research as determined by scientific peer review panels.
What does this look like in practice? Below, you’ll find a histogram of the investigator-initiated R01 applications we received in fiscal year (FY) 2023 sorted by percentile score. Blue shaded bars represent the applications that were awarded, red bars represent the applications that were scored but not funded, and yellow bars represent R56-Bridge Awards. These groups are roughly separated by a solid green line representing NIAID’s established investigator payline at the 12th percentile. As the chart shows, all applications that scored within the payline were funded except for those that were held due to issues like concerns over human subjects or principal investigator (PI) retirement.
Note that the chart above includes Method to Extend Research in Time (MERIT) Awards (R37), which provide 5 years of funding to outstanding R01 recipients. We make approximately 15 MERIT awards each year. See MERIT Awards and Extensions SOP to learn more.
The chart does not show “not discussed” applications. An application is “not discussed” and does not receive an overall impact score if reviewers assess it to have a relatively low level of competitiveness for the available funding. This practice allows NIH to focus the discussion on the most meritorious applications.
New PIs and Selective Pay
A small share of applications that fell outside the payline were awarded still. Some of these applications were submitted by New Investigators, who benefit from an R01 payline set higher for new PIs, represented by a second green line at the 16th percentile. This practice allows us to meet the NIH-wide goal of keeping the R01 success rate for new PIs near that of established PIs. Approximately one third of the R01 grants awarded in the 13th through 16th percentiles went to new investigators.
The other awarded R01 applications that fell outside the published payline are recipients of selective pay. Basically, our staff nominate applications that score outside the payline for R01-equivalent funding if they believe the application is especially promising or critical for maintaining portfolio balance. NIAID’s Advisory Council then reviews and recommends nominations for funding. PIs cannot apply for selective pay funding.
Program officers look for applications with the potential to be paradigm-changing. Such applications generally have a respectable score, where the nature of the review panel's criticism centers on riskiness or a lack of preliminary data for an innovative idea with clear potential benefits. In other instances, outcomes driven by a difference of scientific opinion can prompt a decision for selective pay.
R56-Bridge Awards
Another discretionary option staff use to direct our research portfolio is the R56-Bridge Award, depicted in yellow in the chart above, following the process laid out in our NIAID R56-Bridge Award SOP. In short, NIAID chooses promising R01 applications that scored outside the payline to fund for 1 year; during that time, awardees are encouraged to improve and resubmit their R01 application. To be clear, you as an applicant cannot prompt an R56-Bridge Award by request or appeal.
As you can see, we are more likely to select top-scoring applications for R56-Bridge Award funding; however, we will fund an application from any scoring percentile if the project advances our scientific research objectives. These are projects for which 1 year of funding—to gather preliminary data or develop a missing component (e.g., a knockout mouse) or complete proof-of-principle research—will suffice for the investigator to reapply and receive a much-improved score.
Again, NIAID has several goals that accompany our mission to fund the best scoring applications; we want to ensure balance across disciplines, support new PIs, and pursue innovative and high-risk projects with the potential to make a big impact. The R56-Bridge Award lets us do so, and we make about 60 of them each year.
Requests for Applications
It’s worth noting that the chart does not include applications sent in response to requests for applications (RFAs). Solicited applications are usually grouped within an ad hoc peer review panel organized by NIAID’s Scientific Review Program and funded in overall impact/priority score order, rather than distributed across percentiles to account for multiple review panels. We do this because the pool of applications is smaller and varies by RFA, as explained in NIAID’s Funding Decisions and Your Next Steps and Understand Paylines and Percentiles.
For this reason, arranging those applications into percentiles is rarely possible.
In Conclusion
NIAID covers a wide range of scientific topics that range from basic science to clinical research, handles a large volume of applications, and relies on published paylines to guide award decisions. New spending requirements and evolving research priorities may also arise, so we rely on selective pay and bridge awards to maintain an optimal research portfolio. We strive to always fund those applications that score best in peer review, but we also discern which applications outside the payline can help guard against scientific gaps emerging in NIAID’s research portfolio.