I thought the most interesting line in this long overdue change in policy was:

"...investigators who receive initial funding for an amended application have a lower success rate in obtaining support for a follow-on [up?] competing application."

I can accept the basic idea that the best scientists (or grantwriters) will generally do better throughout their career, and understand that the above conclusion is a statistical result. Nevertheless, does this constitute an underlying reality that should probably never be mentioned in any upbeat grantsmanship workshop?  Is it simply that some people (in some fields?) will simply need to submit a lot more proposals over their career to stay funded?

I'd love to see this original data.

Charlie

At 10:29 AM 5/8/03 -0500, you wrote:
>The NIH announced yesterday that revised applications would not longer have an "expiration date."  See second paragraph.  Robert Aull @ Indiana University
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>REVISED NIH POLICY ON SUBMISSION OF A REVISED (AMENDED) APPLICATION
>
>RELEASE DATE:  May 7, 2003
>
>NOTICE:  NOT-OD-03-041
>
>National Institutes of Health (NIH)
>
>On June 27, 1997 the NIH issued a notice in the NIH Guide for Grants
>and Contracts (see
><http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not97-011.html>)
>that limited the number of revised or amended
>applications permitted as well as the time window during which those
>amended applications would be received.  This announcement reiterates
>the NIH policy on the number of amended applications permitted but
>eliminates the two-year restriction on the receipt of those
>applications.
>
>Accordingly, the NIH will not consider any A3 or higher amendment to an
>application for extramural support.  But, beginning on the date of this
>announcement, there is no longer a time limit for the submission of the
>first and second revisions (A1 and A2).  This policy applies to all NIH
>extramural funding mechanisms.
>
>In submitting a revised application, it is worth noting that, a lengthy
>hiatus after the initial submission may be marked by significant
>advances in the scientific field and the comments of the reviewers may
>no longer be relevant.  Principal investigators and their institutions
>need to exercise their best judgment in determining the advisability of
>submitting a revised application after several years have elapsed.
>
>The policy limiting the number of revisions was established following
>analysis of data indicating that investigators who receive initial
>funding for an amended application have a lower success rate in
>obtaining support for a follow-on competing application.  The
>likelihood of subsequent success decreased with an increasing number of
>amendments.  After three reviews, it was felt that it was time for
>investigators to take a fresh approach to their research proposals.
>
>Investigators who have submitted three versions of an application and
>have not been successful often ask NIH staff how different the next
>application submitted has to be to be considered a new application.  It
>is recognized that investigators are trained in a particular field of
>science and are not likely to make drastic changes in their research
>interests, however, a new application following three reviews is
>expected to be substantially different in content and scope with more
>significant differences than are normally encountered in a revised
>application.  Simply rewording the title and Specific Aims or
>incorporating minor changes in response to comments in the previous
>Summary Statement does not constitute a substantial change in scope or
>content.  Changes to the Research Plan should produce a significant
>change in direction and approach for the research project.  Thus, a new
>application would include substantial changes in all sections of the
>Research Plan, particularly the Specific Aims and the Research Design
>and Methods sections.
>
>In the referral process, NIH staff look at all aspects of the
>application, not just the title and abstract.  Requesting review by a
>different review committee does not affect the implementation of this
>policy.  When necessary, previous applications are analyzed for
>similarities to the present one.  Thus, identical applications or those
>with only minor changes will not be accepted for review.
>
>Inquiries:
>
>Office of Extramural Programs
>Office of the Director
>Phone 301-435-2768
>
>Division of Receipt and Referral
>Center for Scientific Review
>Phone 301-435-0715
>
>
>======================================================================
> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
> via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
>======================================================================
>
>
**************************************
Charles B. Hathaway, Ph.D., Director
Office of Grant Support
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1300 Morris Park Avenue
Bronx, NY 10461-1975
Phone: 718 430-3642     Fax: 718 430-8822
email: xxxxxx@aecom.yu.edu
http://www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================