Summary of Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) for New and Early Stage Investigators (R35) Webinar

June 30, 2015

Due to technical problems, there is no videocast archive of the webinar. Edited text of the questions received via the webinar chat function and answers are given below. The introductory comments by Jon Lorsch and Peter Preusch were similar to those included in the webinar for established investigators that was held on February 19, 2015. The June 30, 2015, webinar included slides specific to new and early stage investigators.

What about an associate professor who has not received a significant NIH research grant such as an R01/R21—is he/she eligible?

Please see the slide on eligibility or the flowchart on eligibility [PDF]. An early stage investigator (ESI) is someone within 10 years of the Ph.D. who has not yet received R01 funding and is eligible regardless of his or her rank as long as the home institution allows him or her to apply for an NIH grant. A new investigator (NI) is someone who has not yet received an R01. For this funding opportunity announcement (FOA), he or she must also not have been promoted beyond the assistant professor or equivalent rank.

Section IV of the FOA states: “PDs/PIs of Mentored Career Development (K) awards will be permitted to receive salary from a MIRA only during the last two years of the K award period. Research expenses provided through the K award will be relinquished and replaced by research support through the MIRA.” Is this true for all K awards, even those from other NIH institutes and centers (ICs)? Also, does this include R00 recipients?

Researchers with K awards from NIGMS are permitted to receive salary from a MIRA if certain requirements are met. If they remain in a mentored status, K recipients in the final two years of their support period are permitted to reduce the level of effort required for the K award when they have competed successfully for a MIRA. The MIRA budget should request appropriate amounts for the salary and associated costs for the K recipient’s effort. At the time the MIRA is awarded, the effort required on the K award may be reduced to no less than six person-months (50 percent full-time professional effort at the recipient organization) and replaced by effort and corresponding salary from the MIRA, so that the total level of research commitment remains at nine person-months (75 percent full-time professional effort) or more for the duration of the mentored K award. This policy applies to the following mentored career development award activity codes: K01, K07 (developmental), K08, K22, K23 and K25, as well as to individuals mentored through institutional K12 or KL2 awards. For more information, see Revision of NIH Policy Concerning Concurrent Support from Mentored Career Development (K) Award and a Research Grant.

K awards from other ICs present a special problem, since NIGMS does not control the funding of these awards. The fact that one has K award support from another IC may suggest that the work of the lab is in the mission of that IC, not in the mission of NIGMS, although there may be areas of overlap. With respect to K99/R00 awards, applicants in the K99 phase are not eligible to apply, since by definition they have not transitioned to an independent research position. Those in the R00 phase are eligible to apply. Their R00 funding will be transitioned to MIRA funding in the most expedient and orderly manner possible.

How will you define if the test of the program is successful?

The slide on program evaluation lists many of the metrics of interest. NIGMS is collecting baseline data on these metrics for our current grant program for comparison with future outcomes of both the R01 and the MIRA grant programs. Perhaps the most obvious will be how many new and early stage investigators choose to apply for MIRA rather than R01 support. A second major question will be feedback from reviewers and applicants on whether the review process works well or not.

Where is a specific mission statement for NIGMS available? I found one at but it is not clearly labeled "Mission."

The first paragraph on the About NIGMS page serves effectively as a mission statement for the Institute. Additional elaboration can be found under the links to the strategic plan [PDF, 702KB] and the program portfolio descriptions on the NIGMS website. You can also take a look at the NIGMS research funding page or look up grants using the NIH RePORTER to get some further ideas. The best advice is to contact the NIGMS program director responsible for grants closest to your area of interest.

If I am an ESI but a staff scientist with “P” status (I already have a R03). Am I eligible?

Yes. See the eligibility section of the FAQs.

If a faculty member has a nine-month appointment, does 1.6 person-months of summer effort meet the 51 percent research effort?

It depends. The MIRA requires 51 percent of your research effort. Research effort excludes teaching, administrative and/or clinical duties. If the institution defines your nine-month academic appointment as zero percent research effort and your summer as 100 percent research effort, then 1.6 summer months would be >51 percent of three summer months’ effort. However, if your nine-month academic appointment includes an expectation that you will conduct research during the academic year, then 51 percent of the research effort during that nine-month academic period should also be committed to MIRA, regardless of whether or not you draw salary from the MIRA. It would be wise to document your circumstances and commitment clearly in the application and letters of support. This may be valuable not only during review and award negotiations, but also later when you are managing your research, teaching and service responsibilities.

The MIRA award is a single-PI grant, but a lot of our NIGMS projects are collaborative, often spanning across multiple institutions. How should we approach writing in the collaborative projects?

First of all, do not think of the MIRA as supporting a project. Think of the MIRA award as supporting your laboratory. Your laboratory then contributes its expertise and resources to a collaboration with other laboratories, which it is hoped will have their own sources of support to contribute to the collaboration. The work to be done by collaborators that is related to the work proposed by the MIRA should be described briefly in the body of the application. The collaborator should provide you a letter of support that indicates a willingness to collaborate and what specifically the collaborator will be doing. If the collaborator cannot afford to do this work without financial support from your research grant, then he or she must explain that very clearly and you must justify the consortium agreement very thoroughly in your budget narrative.

Can one submit an R01 or R21 to other NIH institutes while the MIRA is under review?

Yes. NIH will accept an application that does not overlap scientifically with the MIRA application and is in the mission of one of the other institutes of NIH at the same time a MIRA application is under review.

Could you please elaborate upon the research topics that would typically be funded via MIRA awards? For instance: mechanistic studies? translational studies? Would an exercise rehabilitation program for cancer survivors meet the requirements for the MIRA award? This research was funded via an IDeA COBRE award, through NIGMS.

Any topics that are within the NIGMS mission can be supported through the MIRA mechanism. These certainly include mechanistic, translational and even clinical studies that are typical of the research supported by NIGMS in general. In most cases, work on exercise rehabilitation for cancer survivors would clearly be in the mission of the National Cancer Institute or one of the other ICs. Some work supported by NIGMS through the IDeA program is an exception and is not necessarily otherwise in the mission of NIGMS. NIGMS runs the IDeA program for the benefit of the entire NIH. When the work advances to the point where it can be funded independently, it should migrate to the appropriate institute.

Can you speak to how someone with an R15 will be dealt with? Would it be similar to the R00 or K awards in that the MIRA would be phased in over time?

AREA (R15) grants present a special case since all of the funds are awarded to the institution in the first year. It is not easy to recover those funds. In this case, the R15 would remain in place until the end of the current project period. The MIRA award could begin any time before that date, but the funding level during the initial year or two would be reduced to reflect the remaining R15 support.

What about funding from an R21?

Since the R21 is an award of short duration, it may be more efficient to let it run its course and adjust the initial level of the MIRA award rather than requiring relinquishing paperwork and closeout of the R21 when the MIRA is issued. These details will need to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis by the NIGMS grants management staff.

Could you tell us how many letters of intent have been received so far?

Letters of intent are not due until August 9, so no, we can’t say. However, so far we have received hundreds of emails and phone calls.

Established investigators have a track record for evaluation by reviewers of a MIRA application. How will ESI/NIs be evaluated—primarily on publication record as a postdoc/young PI, or also based on the size and reputation of the institution?

There are two issues here: evaluation of the principal investigator (PI) and evaluation of his or her potential to succeed. The record of the PI will include publications and other contributions during the training period as documented in the biosketch. Preliminary results since becoming an independent investigator will also be taken into account. The size and reputation of the institution say less about the investigator. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the institutional environment and how likely it is to support the success of the applicant’s research program. You should use the facilities and other resources section of the application and letters of support to help demonstrate how the environment at your institution is supportive of your research lab, regardless of institutional size or perceived prestige.

Is this award appropriate for someone currently in a non-tenure track research assistant professor position at a university that considers the person to be “independent” and eligible to apply for funding but who currently works for another PI?

Yes. But you may have to convince the reviewers that if an award is made, you will truly be able to establish your own independent research program. This could take the form of a letter indicating space, equipment, start-up and other commitments that the institution is willing to make.

Given that no specific aims/experiments will be part of this application, can you provide further guidance on how we should structure budget requests?

The maximum budget for RFA-GM-16-003 is $250,000 direct costs. The budget items need not be specifically tied to any particular aims or experiments, but should indicate personnel, their level of effort, and their areas of expertise and general involvement in the research of your laboratory, requested equipment, travel, reagents and consumable costs, and other expenses. If the roles of personnel are similar, you should explain why the number of personnel involved is justified.

Will there be a limit for salary support on the MIRA program? Could an investigator pay 100 percent of his or her salary on it?

There is no limit on salary support. However, it is generally not reasonable to pay 100 percent of the PI’s salary from NIH research grant awards, because the PI almost always has at least some other institutional responsibilities. It is also important to consider how much money is needed for personnel, supplies and other expenses to ensure adequate progress and how much will be available if a very high percentage of the PI’s salary is charged to the grant award.

I applied for my first R01 at the February deadline and I recently received a 17th percentile score. However, I would like to apply for the R35. Do I qualify, or will my recent R01 application affect my eligibility?

Since you have received the score and will receive the summary statement for your R01 by the receipt date, you are eligible to apply for the R35. The fact that you have received a good score for your R01 should not affect the review of your R35. However, the receipt of an R01 award will affect your eligibility to actually receive an R35 award in response to this RFA. A goal of this RFA is to make awards to NewPI/ESI investigators. Since you will no longer be a NewPI/ESI no award can be made. If your R01 is received before the review of your R35 takes place, then review of the R35 would be moot, and the R35 application will be withdrawn prior to review. [Revised Answer posted on 03/14/2016. NIGMS apologizes for incorrect information previously posted in response to this question.]

Will existing funding for one of my projects from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (R01 size) impact my chances of getting a MIRA?

NIGMS staff will analyze all support information and adjust the level of MIRA support, taking into account other grants, including those from NSF. NIGMS always assesses grants for scientific and budgetary overlap. Assuming no overlap, an award from NSF should not affect the chances of getting an award by very much, unless your score is in the gray zone for MIRA funding.

The MIRA announcement includes language about diversity, including the participation of individuals from groups that are underrepresented in science. Could you please elaborate on how this will implemented?

NIGMS will carefully monitor the application, review and funding process for potential biases that may disadvantage individuals from underrepresented groups and any other groups or individual scientists. Reviewers will receive implicit bias training as part of their orientation. We plan to evaluate the program and compare the outcomes with the R01 grant program, including the distribution of funded investigators according to race, ethnicity, age, gender, disability and other factors. The NIGMS strategic plan indicates that enhancing scientific diversity is one of its programmatic priorities in making funding decisions.

Did you say that 5 percent of NIH PIs earn 20 percent of the agency’s research funding and that another 20 percent of PIs capture 50 percent of the agency’s research funding?

Close—5 percent receive a quarter of the funding and 20 percent receive half of it. See data presented by Lorsch in his January 12, 2015 More on My Shared Responsibility Post in the NIGMS Feedback Loop blog.

What is considered a competitive citation rate for this competition?

NIGMS is not inclined to use metrics such as this in evaluating grant applications or to say what might be considered competitive. NIGMS questions the validity of using any single measure of research outcomes, especially when applied to individual scientists. Publication and citation metrics can be useful as one of several indicators of how large groups of scientists are performing over time or under different circumstances when compared to similar groups, but are prone to many uncertainties and caveats when applied to individuals. The MIRA reviews will be holistic, and reviewers will use their expertise to take many factors into consideration when making assessments.

Considering that many PIs need to obtain two R01s once they are a bit further along in their careers, what is the plan for increasing MIRA funding over time (e.g., after this initial five-year grant)? We wouldn’t be allowed more NIGMS grants, but we would almost certainly need more money as the lab/projects grow.

MIRA awards are intended to be renewable after five years. NIGMS anticipates that investigators will ask for the same or an increased level of funding at that time. Awards will be the same, increased or decreased depending on the productivity of the previous five-year period and potential for the next five years as assessed by the reviewers, advisory council and staff, subject of course to the availability of funds in the NIGMS budget.

I would like to get my proposal evaluated by someone at the NIGMS to determine alignment. To whom may I send my abstract?

You can send me an abstract and I will reply and/or forward it to the most relevant NIGMS program director for a second opinion.

Can one request a later start date of the five-year support so that there is no overlap in R00 funding period?

Yes. But we may be able to arrive at other solutions.

I have an INBRE career development award. Would I be eligible for a MIRA, and if awarded, would I have to relinquish the INBRE award remaining?

Yes. You would be eligible to apply if you otherwise meet the eligibility criteria. But see the above question about support from an IDeA COBRE award. If the work is in the mission of NIGMS, then there is no problem. If your current INBRE award is related to work that is in the mission of another institute, then it becomes more complicated. As with other K awards and other NIGMS support in general, transition to MIRA funding will be negotiated.

How many awards will be provided in the pilot?

The FOA specifies up to 70 awards. However, this is a rather arbitrary number. The actual number will depend on the number of applications from NIs and ESIs and the number of R01 applications from the same group and their relative merit.

How will the study sections be chosen? Will there be multiple study sections specializing in certain areas, or one panel for all ESIs?

Reviews will be by special emphasis panels assembled expressly to review the applications in response to RFA-GM-16-003. The applications will be divided among several panels (exact number to be determined by the workload) according to fairly broad scientific areas of research. Reviewers will be recruited specifically to provide the expertise needed to review the applications assigned to each panel. There will likely be at least 3-4 panels.

How far back will a publication matter? Only since PI start? Postdoc work? Ph.D. work?

You choose the work to describe in your biosketch. I would recommend including any work that you feel is significant and that demonstrates your potential as a researcher. It may be wise, if your record supports it, to include at least one major contribution from each stage of your career and explain your role in the scientific advance.

Is it possible to have collaborators (i.e., co-PI)?

Yes. However, one needs to be clear on the distinction between a collaborator and a co-investigator. A collaborator is one who works with you on research of mutual interest. A collaborator may be a co-investigator, may be a subcontractor or may be an investigator with his or her own support who receives no funds from your grant but participates in the joint research effort. Co-investigators and subcontractors generally receive financial support from your grant.

Will the study sections be the same as for R01s or will there be a separate study section for MIRAs only?

The study sections will not be the same as those that review R01s. Separate study sections will only review MIRA applications from NIs and ESIs in response to RFA-GM-16-003. These study sections will be set up and run by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR).

What types of mentoring activities would be appropriate for the MIRA? Do they need to be as extensive as those for K awards?

The MIRA application does not call for a career development section as do K awards. Mentoring of the investigator might be mentioned as part of the facilities and other resources section, could be part of the biosketch, and should be included in the letter of support from the department chair or dean.

If a publication is accepted after submission of the proposal but prior to scientific review, will it be possible to update to submit this information as supplementary material?

The usual NIH policies will apply to updating applications prior to review. This includes informing the reviewers that a submitted publication has been accepted. You should contact the scientific review officer (SRO) at CSR once you know who has been assigned to your application.

I was included in a multi-PI R01 submitted in June 2015. Can I still apply but exclude that particular project? Or do I have to withdraw the R01? At what time?

Assuming the multi-PI R01 was assigned to NIGMS, then by definition, it overlaps with any R35 application that you may submit. You will not likely receive the summary statement for that application before September 9, therefore you would not be able to submit an R35 unless you withdrew the R01 first.

Do we need to declare 51 percent effort on the grant? If so, then can we expand the budget to include funds for a postdoc and a student?

Not necessarily. By “declare 51 percent effort on the grant,” we assume you mean charge PI salary to the grant award at 51 percent effort. This depends on the policies of your institution. NIGMS requires that the PI devote 51 percent of his or her research effort, not including effort devoted to teaching, administrative and clinical duties. This is not the same as total effort, nor percent of salary. There is no NIH-mandated relationship between the effort devoted to the grant and the amount of salary charged to the grant account as long as you do not charge the grant for more salary than effort committed. The budget maximum is $250,000 direct costs. Whatever is spent on PI salary means that much less for other personnel. It’s up to you to decide how best to justify the budget and to utilize the funds.

Would (re)submission of an R01 on July 6th exclude the PI from applying for a MIRA award in September?

Yes, if the R01 application is assigned to NIGMS.

For the research strategy, how much space would you recommend be devoted to background/recent progress/program overview?

NIGMS intentionally did not provide any specific page limits. We would recommend 1-2 pages of background, 1-2 pages of progress and 2-4 pages of program overview. However, it is entirely up to you. Although there is no specific aims section, we would recommend that the initial paragraph give an overview of what your research is about before you delve into the background.

How should the research proposal be structured? Should it have the same sections as a standard R01 proposal, but just shorter and with less emphasis on the details of the approach?

No. The application should not have all of the same sections as a standard R01 proposal. See the FOA for application instructions.

How far in advance of an award will the amount be communicated to the investigator?

A definite direct cost award amount can only be communicated informally once an application is on a signed paylist, typically a month or two before the notice of award is issued, which is the only official commitment of government funds.

If I receive a multi-PI R01 and then a MIRA, my portion will be zeroed, but will my co-PI's?

This depends on what the co-PI does. If the co-PI also applies for his or her own MIRA at the same time and is successful, then both investigators would wind up with MIRA awards and the multi-PI R01 would come to an end. If you receive a MIRA and your effort is removed from the multi-PI R01, the R01 could be converted to a single-PI R01 in the co-PI’s name alone as long as it can be justified as a stand-alone project. In either event, you would be expected to collaborate with your co-PI as long as it is mutually satisfactory to do so.

Regarding the review criteria, can you clarify if applicants will be judged just on the sections that say “For this FOA” or will the “boilerplate” criteria AND the specific FOA criteria be used?

The reviewers will be instructed to consider both the “boilerplate” standard review criteria language and the “For this FOA” language in thinking about MIRA applications. The boilerplate language is required for NIH research grants and cannot be substantially changed.

What’s the anticipated funding rate?

The success rate is to be determined. It will depend on the number of applications and the availability of funds. The FOA indicates NIGMS’ intention to commit at least $26 million to fund up to 70 awards. However, the actual amount will depend on the application pressure and quality as discussed above. NIGMS anticipates the success rate to be similar to that for new and early stage investigator applications for R01 funding.

Can a PI apply for a DP2 while a MIRA application is in review?

Yes. The DP2 is a Common Fund award program and therefore does not automatically overlap with a MIRA grant application. However, if the subject matter scientifically overlaps with that of the MIRA, then NIH may decline the DP2 application. This determination would be made by the Receipt and Referral Office of CSR, not by NIGMS.

How will the panels determine whether the applicants’ work is solely credited to the MIRA versus “double-dipping” from other grants?

This question really applies to future evaluations of the outcome of a MIRA award and to renewals five years from now. A diligent reviewer could look at the publications and see which grants are acknowledged. A thorough applicant could explain in the renewal application exactly what role the MIRA award played in each scientific advance. One outcome of the MIRA program will be to minimize “double dipping,” since each investigator will receive only one NIGMS award.

Is there a plan for MIRA for new and early stage investigators next year as well?

This is still to be determined. Assuming that the MIRA FOA experiments launched this year are successful, then NIGMS will very likely issue additional MIRA FOAs for FY 2017.

Do you expect there to be multiple rounds of MIRA submission? Or is this a one-shot thing?

See above. The current FOA is only the beginning. Assuming that the program is successful, we expect there to be further FOAs and that eventually, MIRA will be offered as an ongoing research opportunity for the indefinite future.

How are “Innovative” and “Ambitious” defined should a MIRA application be compared to a DP2 application? And how much preliminary data is required?

MIRA does not especially focus on innovation for its own sake. NIGMS expects all researchers to show such innovation as is necessary in order to answer the research questions that are posed. The review criteria do emphasize flexibility, adaptability, and willingness to change direction and approaches. The MIRA review criteria do ask whether the program is “Ambitious” in the sense that the grant is to support a program of research, not a single project. Does the application convey the vision of the PI with regard to where a field of science stands and his or her ability to make a unique contribution to advance the field? Are the questions the PI proposes to answer important ones?

Would the investigator require a lab in the traditional sense? For example, the PI may not have a physical laboratory of his or her own, as opposed to access to shared facilities and experimental subjects as part of some larger-scale program.

The PI need not have a traditional (“wet”) laboratory or even a dedicated research space and equipment, although this will be more typical of NIGMS researchers than not. The real definition of the laboratory is the PI and those personnel who report directly to the PI, whose experimental work is guided by the PI, and who are financially supported in part through the grant support of the PI. It may also include physical space and instrumentation that is dedicated to the use of the PI by the institution. But the key space is the intellectual space that is created by the investigator.

Will there be different MIRA study sections from DP2 study sections?


Will detailed summary statements be provided at the conclusion of the review process?


Do we need to suggest a study section for our applications or will they be automatically assigned to a MIRA-specific section?

You cannot suggest a study section because applications will be assigned to MIRA-specific study sections that do not yet exist.

What if we already have a strong faculty mentor who has been more important than the chair—can a letter be included from the mentor? If so, would it replace the chair’s letter or be in addition to the chair’s letter?

It depends what the mentor and the chair have to say and what resources they have to back it up. The role of this letter is not to have someone say how great you are. It is to say that the institution is committed to helping you succeed and how it will do that. Mentoring is important. So are other commitments, for example, start-up packages; space; flexible tenure timetables; research, teaching and administrative loads; release time commitments; shared instrumentation access; computer time allocations, etc. Only one letter should be included in this section, so if the mentor cannot speak on behalf of the institution to address these issues, the letter should come from the chair or dean but could mention the support of the mentor. Alternatively, the mentor could co-write a letter with the chair or dean.

Do you really need a detailed budget if we can request a maximum of $250,000 direct costs? That’s a modular budget for R01s . . . just wondering!

Yes. Because the R35 grant mechanism was initially developed to use the full SF424 (R&R) application for grants that would exceed the modular budget limit, there are certain checks, warnings and errors that are now built into the electronic submission process for all R35 applications.

DP2 awards will not be announced until August, according to the website, which is very close to the MIRA deadline. Should we prepare the MIRA application while waiting for the DP2 result?

It’s up to you how you spend your time given what you know about the probable DP2 result. As discussed above, if you have received the summary statement for your DP2, you are eligible to apply for a MIRA. If you receive the DP2 award in August, you will no longer be eligible to apply in response to RFA-GM-16-003.

Will you be expanding the MIRA to include more dates for submission? Right now the only dates available are in September.

Right now there is only one receipt date, September 9, 2015. Watch the NIGMS Feedback Loop blog and NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts for further information.

Will any consideration be given to the explicit training of students/postdocs, or should we focus purely on the research?

NIGMS suggests discussing your role in mentoring students and postdocs as part of your biosketch. The six pages of research should focus on the research. You may also be able to say something about the role of students and postdocs as part of the budget justification and facilities and resource sections, but be wary of adding too much verbiage.

Could you please clarify again about when I may or may not apply for other NIGMS mechanisms (e.g., R01), given that I have applied for a MIRA in September? May I submit a revised R01 in October?

No. If you submit a MIRA application in September, you may not submit another R01 application assigned to NIGMS until you receive the MIRA summary statement, which will likely not happen until March. You would not be able to submit a new application in October or an amended application in November, and you very likely would not able to submit a new application in February 2016 or an amended application in March 2016. You may or may not have a score before the March 2016 receipt date, and based on that you may choose to withdraw your MIRA in favor of submitting an amended R01. However, most likely you will need to wait until the June/July 2016 receipt dates to submit any further R01s within the NIGMS mission.

So is the best MIRA research strategy to be safe and solid (likely to work, I already know it has worked, or it’s already published)?

No. Be bold. Be visionary. Ask important questions that will advance significant areas of science. Explain what you want to do, why you want to do it, why it is important and why you are the best person in the world to do it. Create a sense of excitement about your work.

If you have already done the work, why would you need the money? If you have already published it, then it belongs in the biosketch or the reference section, not in the preliminary results or the proposed research section.

Thank you all for your interest in the MIRA program, and we look forward to your applications.

Peter Preusch and Jon Lorsch