How to Win Transformative Research Award for the INCLUDE (Investigation of Co-occurring Conditions across the Lifespan to Understand Down syndrome) Project (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed) (RFA-OD-22-009)

Section V. Application Review Information 1. Criteria Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Sharing Plan and Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) as part of the Resource Sharing Plan will not be evaluated at time of review. Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system. For this particular announcement, note the following: The NIH Director's Transformative Research Award is designed to support exceptionally innovative research projects with the potential to have a profound effect on an area of research relevant to the broad mission of NIH. The innovation may be technical, conceptual, or (often) a combination of both. Given the high level of innovation expected, conventionally detailed experimental plans and extensive preliminary data are not required. Accordingly, reviewers will emphasize the strength of the conceptual framework, the level of innovation, and the potential to significantly advance our understanding or capability in Down syndrome-related research. Overall Impact Overall Impact Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed). Scored Review Criteria Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field. Significance Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? Specific to this FOA: To what extent does the study have clear transformative potential? Is the proposed research likely to be exceptional in terms of its consequences for the field and size of the community affected? Is the paradigm being challenged or proposed fundamental to the field? Investigator(s) Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? Specific to this FOA: Do the PD(s)/PI(s) commit sufficient effort to make the proposed research a priority? Innovation Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? Approach Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects? If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? Specific to this FOA: Is the logic of the approach compelling despite the lack of experimental details and substantial preliminary data? Is there evidence that the investigators will pursue the project, despite its inherent risks, in a robust, reproducible, and rigorous manner? Does the information in the timeline inspire confidence that the PD(s)/PI(s) will be able to assess progress in each year of the award and either complete the project or demonstrate conclusively that it cannot be completed, despite good-faith efforts, during the term of the award? For this particular announcement, reviewers will also comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan includes a plan to provide data, tools, workflows, and/or pipelines that will be used or created as part of this opportunity to NIH designated resources for sharing with the wider scientific community, in a manner that would enable other researchers to replicate and build on the analyses for future research efforts. Reviewers will comment on whether the applicant has provided a Data and Resource Sharing Plan that adequately describes the timeline, formats, and methods of sharing these data and products. For applications that aim to analyze raw datasets that are currently accessible through an NIH-approved repository (e.g., dbGaP) or some other public controlled access database, reviewers will comment on whether the applicant has described the database through which the proposed data are accessible to the research community and the details of the dataset including any data use limitations based on the associated consent form. For applications that aim to analyze raw data that are not currently accessible through an NIH-approved repository (e.g., dbGaP) or some other public controlled access database, reviewers will comment on whether applicants have described a plan to submit these data to an NIH-approved repository (e.g., dbGaP). Environment Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Additional Review Criteria As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items. Study Timeline Protections for Human Subjects For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials. For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects. Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research. Vertebrate Animals The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section. Biohazards Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed. Resubmissions For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project. Renewals For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period. Revisions For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident. Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity Peer reviewers will separately evaluate the recruitment plan (when applicable) to enhance diversity after the overall score has been determined. Reviewers will examine the strategies to be used to recruit a diverse pool of potential candidates that includes individuals from underrepresented groups. The overall plan will be rated as ACCEPTABLE only if the recruitment strategies for all of the relevant groups identified in the Notice of NIH's Interest in Diversity are viewed by the review panel as acceptable, otherwise the plan will be rated as UNACCEPTABLE. The consensus of the review committee will be included in an administrative note in the summary statement. Additional Review Considerations Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Sharing Plan and Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) as part of the Resource Sharing Plan will not be evaluated at time of review. As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score. Applications from Foreign Organizations Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources. Select Agent Research Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s). Resource Sharing Plans Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS). Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources. Budget and Period of Support Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research. 2. Review and Selection Process Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the Center for Scientific Review, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons. As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique. Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score. Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA. Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions: Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review. Availability of funds. Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities, including: Despite inherent scientific and technical risks, the potential for the research to result in scientific breakthroughs of broad impact. Unusually cross-cutting science. Scientific balance in the portfolio of INCLUDE Project-supported research. Potential to invigorate exceptionally innovative and impactful science broadly across the nation. 3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date. Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.