Well, good evening, and welcome to the AUG's Early Career Research Leadership Program. I'm Dr. Carolyn Swenson, moderator for today's webinar, which is entitled Navigating NIDDK Funding, and we are so honored to have with us Dr. Julie Barthold, who is the program director at NIDDK. Before we get started, I just want to review some housekeeping items. This webinar is being recorded and live-streamed. We will have a Q&A session at the end, so if you have any questions, please put them in the Q&A box using that feature on Zoom, and I will ask those questions to Dr. Barthold. If you have any tech issues, just use the chat feature because we have an AUG staff member who is monitoring that and can help you, and without further ado, I will turn it over to Dr. Barthold. Thank you so much, Dr. Swenson, and thanks to all who are joining this evening. I'm very happy to be able to talk to you about funding and review through NIDDK today, and I'm going to also talk a bit about training opportunities as well. Okay, I'm trying to move it forward, and it's not, there we go, okay, so I have no disclosures. Okay, so everybody knows that NIH is really quite a large agency, and this is just an overview of the current institutes, centers, and offices of NIH, and as you can see in the red, this is NIDDK, which is Diabetes, Indigestive, and Kidney Diseases, and it has three divisions, and I am part of the Kidney Urology and Hematology Division, and so as you can see here are the three divisions, Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Disease, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, and then KUH, and as part of KUH, you can see the list here of the types of disorders and diseases that are under our purview. As far as urology and urogynecology are concerned, the ones that include reflux in children and adults, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections, benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatitis, and interstitial cystitis and bladder pain syndrome, and these are all benign Urology, diseases, and disorders, we do not have any portfolios that include cancer at all. So, when grants come in, they can be on a particular topic, but could go to more than one institute or center, so for example, prostate disease could go, typically goes to the National Cancer Institute, but prostate enlargement could go either to NIDDK or the National Institute of Aging, and in the same way, urinary incontinence can go to multiple different institutes, which include complementary and the Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, Nursing Research, and NIA or NICHD, which is Child Health and Human Development. And again, for bladder infection, the applications that are focused on UTIs can go to a number of different institutes, depending on what the focus is of the application, so it's good to know by going to websites exactly what the range of research that is overseen by these different institutes before you are considering submitting an application, and also talking to a program director at one of the institutes that you might be interested in. So, as I mentioned, we oversee benign urology, which includes stones, prostate disease, incontinence, UTIs, pelvic pain, either due, in females, primarily to interstitial cystitis or to prostatitis, and then abnormal development of the genitourinary tract and urologic complications of diabetes and male transmission of HIV. And just, I think you would find it very helpful to learn more about NIDDK to review the latest five-year strategic plan, which will be coming out soon. So, I'm going to just review the general mechanisms through which you can apply for grant support through NIDDK. The first here is a PAS, which is a set-aside initiative or mechanism, which means that money has been set aside every year to support applications coming through that particular initiative. And I'll talk more about SUTR in a later slide. These are other R01 type of mechanisms that you can submit. I'll point to the last one here, which is fairly new. It's a small R01, which means it's three years at a limited budget. But the purpose of this, and it's also, as you can see, it's a set-aside, but the purpose of this is to allow individuals who want to gather feasibility and preliminary data on to inform a full-fledged clinical trial. And again, all of these FOAs, all you need to do is go to the website and find these particular numbers. And when you look at the FOA, it will tell you who the contact person is for each of them. And to find out more, the next thing to do would be to email the contact person. NIDDK does not provide funding under the typical parent R21. And R21s are pilot and feasibility grants. They are two years for a total of $250,000 in direct cost. And they're really meant to be high-risk, high-reward type of applications. And the ones that we do support are tool and technology development, and also for people from underrepresented minorities, we do provide an R21 that is meant to promote diversity in health-related research. There are other potential initiatives and mechanisms that you can apply for, depending on what your background is. The first three here are K and F awards. K awards are mentored training grants. K01s are for PhDs primarily. And the K08s and K23s are for clinical folks, particularly those with an MD or MD-PhD. And they can range really from anyone, someone who's had a research experience or background to those who've had very little. And the difference is that the K08 is a clinical investigator award, while the K23 is a patient-oriented type of research award. Again, there are, just going to the NIDDK website and looking at the award mechanisms will take you to a page that describes these in much more detail. F99 and K00 awards are for graduate students who are transitioning from a postdoc to an independent investigator. The UTC and TL1s have taken the place for us, have taken the place of the T32 mechanism, and it's an institutional training grant. And this is something that, again, is worth looking at for folks who have trainees that, and are at institutions where they can support kidney urology and hematology research for trainees. K awardees can then go on to apply for an R03, which is a small research grant that can help them get the supplemental funds that they need to then get preliminary data to submit an R01. I mentioned the diversity R21, and then there are two other urology-focused K mechanisms that are institutional mentoring awards. And you can see that currently the CURE awards are at Wisconsin and Duke, and there's an epidemiology, urologic epidemiology mechanism currently at UCSF in Michigan. So this is a special kind of R01 for early-stage investigators looking for an innovative project, but it has to be a change in the research direction for an early-stage investigator. So you need to show that you're moving in a new direction. It does not allow any preliminary data and no clinical trials. And the next due date is coming up early next year. And again, most of these are available for submission on the regular due dates in May, in January or February. And then again in September, October, and, or I'm sorry, June and July and September or October. So all of the information for these is in the actual FOA, which means Funding Opportunity Announcement that you can easily find online. So the SUTR program has been ongoing for the last several years, and it is actually, as I mentioned before, it's a set-aside annual budget that we use to support R01 applications in specific areas. Currently, the area that we're supporting is urinary incontinence. It does change on a regular basis. So you would want to get regular emails from the NIH Guide and look for any changes in this program. The goal of this is to try to increase the number of funded investigators in neurology. And so this is a mechanism that helps to support people that don't make the payline, don't quite make the payline, but have good ideas and have good reviews and that we can provide support for. There's also a way of getting application, submitting applications that are ancillary to ongoing clinical networks that we have in neurology. The Multidisciplinary Pelvic Pain Network, the Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Network, LEARN, Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, and the U.S. Stone Network are the ones that you see here. And many of these already have data and samples in the NIDDK repository that you can use to propose an ancillary secondary data analysis, if you wish, or a study that's ancillary to the ongoing clinical studies themselves. There is also a way to get pilot funding. And this one option here is through the Opportunity Pool Programs that exist at the O'Brien Neurology Centers. Currently, there are three of them, as you see here. And there's an Interactions Core that coordinates the receipt of these applications. These are typically $100,000 in direct costs per year for two years. And the purpose is to establish collaborations with outside investigators and the investigators at these centers, and then to allow gathering preliminary data for a, hopefully, another application to the NIDDK. The person who runs the Interaction Core is Dr. Penniston. You can see it's called the Caribou, collaborating for the Interdisciplinary Research in Benign Neurology. And there's a website with all the information you would need if you're interested in this. I'm not getting the response here. Okay, there we go. And then I wanted to mention this very new Innovative Science Accelerator Program. This is really for very high risk and high reward research that's in areas of our interest. It's not really like R21s, but it is really supposed to be for paradigm shifting ideas. And these are smaller applications. And I encourage you, if you have a really great idea that you want to push forward, then you take a look at the website or ISAC. And this is an overview of the training programs. I mentioned many of these already. For individuals, they can be loan repayment programs, which we do not see here, but that is an option. There are also the F awards, the K awards that I mentioned. And then finally, hopefully, moving on, once you have gotten your mentorship and your preliminary data to a subsequent submission of R01. And then there are also these institutional mentoring awards as well that I mentioned. So it's important to know who to contact if you have a question and you're interested in applying for funding at NIH. And so early on, when you're deciding how you want to proceed, whether or not your idea fits in with a certain institute, you would contact an appropriate program officer. Typically, you tell them what you're interested in, you hopefully give them your background, provide a draft specific aims page, and talk about what your interests are. Once you've submitted the application, the point of contact is the scientific review officer for the study section that will be reviewing your application. And once the summary statement comes out, you contact the program officer on the summary statement to talk about what the next steps are, either a resubmission of the application or what else is needed if it looks like the application may be funded. And at that point with funding, there's a grants management specialist that organizes the budget and the actual notice of award. When you are writing a grant, it's really important to remember some key tips that will help you be successful. You're really telling a story and you want your reviewers to be really pulled into what you are describing to look at what you've written and feel excited about your application and the project that you are proposing. It's very helpful to have people both in and outside your field review your ideas ahead of time and proofread, of course. And so that means you need to start early so that there's enough time for them to take a look and give you the feedback that will help you. You will want to know when your receipt date is going to be and really get going three to six months, preferably beforehand. When you're actually submitting, it's best if you can submit before the due date if at all possible, but certainly early in the day of the due date, just in case there are any problems with the submission. One thing that I think a lot of people don't realize is how important it is that when you're submitting to a particular funding opportunity announcement, whether it be something special or whether it is just the parent R01 FOA, you should go through it very, very carefully and read it several times and look at the review criteria. Read exactly what is going to be taken into account when reviewers look at your application. Make sure that you are not stretching yourself too far, that you are proposing more work than can be done based on the budget and the timeline that you're proposing. And then it's always good to talk to program staff beforehand even before you start writing. And we're always willing and available to talk to you. So, and it's also important to do a project that you're really excited about much more so than what the NIH is interested in specifically but of course we're interested in a broad range of things. And again, you're telling a story. Early on, it's important to, again, have maybe more than one subject matter mentor, a professional development mentor, as many mentors as you can find to help you make the right decisions. And then of course, when you're writing, you should be ready to do a lot of revising as you go. So these are the three cycles. It's always good to look back at this. And as you can see on the website, you can find all the information about due dates. It takes quite a while between the time you submit the application and it goes to review. And then secondary review occurs at council where council members decide whether or not to truly fund applications. And then even after council, it takes a bit of time before an award is made because of the administrative details that need to be overseen. There have been COVID flexibilities in place. It'd be a good idea if you're planning to submit in the near future to go to the websites relevant to NIH COVID and just update yourself on what the situation is. They do update that regularly. So what we're here for is to help you decide whether or not your idea is within the scope of what we would fund and making sure that you're aware of all the mechanisms that might fit the type of application that you're proposing. We help you go through the process and certainly after review, I think it's very helpful to talk to your program officer about the summary statement, particularly if it doesn't look like your application is gonna be funded and see what you can respond to and think about how best to move forward at that point. So, and as again, when you're reaching out to us, it's always good to send us an email and send a draft specific aims page so we understand where you're going with your work. And then if you don't hear from us right away, get back again, sometimes emails fall through the cracks. So don't be afraid to reach out to us again to make sure we can connect with you typically by phone call or Zoom. In order to find a program officer, potentially NIDDK or elsewhere, there is a very helpful tool in NIH Reporter. As you can see here, there's a matchmaker tab and you can put in text that represents your idea, your areas of research. And then you will get a list of program officers whose portfolios include those types of research. I already mentioned this. So again, it's always important to remember that it takes a while for an application to go through review. And you really don't know until after council and after the application has gotten on a pay plan. And in reality, you don't know until you actually get a notice of award that you are going to be funded. Although you can get a sense of the possibilities based on what the pay lines are for every institute. And this is just a little primer on the application numbers once you submit an application. One is new, two is a renewal and five is a non-competing continuation of the grant. You'll see the other items here including this support year is 01. And if it's a resubmission, it is A1. And you're only allowed one resubmission. And then you can always resubmit the grant with edits changes based on prior reviews. But if you submitted the same type of grant or with the same basic specific aims, if your resubmission wasn't funded, you have to then submit it as a new grant or an 01. One thing that's very helpful when you're submitting an application is to use this assignment request form. So you can actually do your homework and decide what institute you think your grant would best go to. And then you can list your preferences in terms of NIDDK, NICHD would be the two most likely for OGS folks, but it could be aging, NIA. And then you can ask at the bottom here, it gives you choices for study sections as well. Now, you're not always going to get what you asked for, but it certainly is a good idea, I think, to make these types of requests. Again, if you feel that there's someone who's very biased about your work, and this is typically more of established investigators that may feel that there's some specific bias with an individual and they don't want them to review their application, they can list that individual and should be prepared to provide information, additional information to the scientific review officer who will likely contact you to discuss it. You can also list, as you can see here, the specific expertise, either general or specific expertise that you believe is needed for the review of your grant to make sure that you get a complete review. And again, as I mentioned, there is a process for submission and it can take a bit, a while, so you clearly do not want to submit very close to the deadline on the day, you know, five o'clock of the day of the submission, because if it doesn't go through right away, you may actually miss that due date. So you want to get started early. And sometimes there's a lot of traffic and so it can be delayed. When you see an error that that's a rejection, you have to fix the error before you can submit the application. So if you miss the due date, unless you can prove that there was some issue with the actual website and document, that you won't be able to extend the deadline at all. Once you've submitted your application, you can go into eRA Commons and watch it go through the process. See, you'll get a notification of what study section it's been assigned to and what institute. And you'll see the meeting date. And typically a month before the meeting date, you can look up the members of the study section for your application. It'll be online. So each reviewer for the study section will be reviewing your application. There'll be three reviewers for each application, at least three. And they will provide a general overall impact score and criterion scores, as well as a written critique. Once the study section meeting starts, the applications are clustered into R1s, R21s, or specific FOAs that are, in some cases, that would be reviewed on their own or separately in a separate cluster. And each cluster is divided into those that, in the upper half, typically, of those that will be discussed at the meeting and those that are not likely to be discussed. Once they're clustered, they are then reviewed and discussed in random order. Importantly, new investigators, people who've never had an R1 before and early-stage investigators who are, well, I'll talk about that a little bit later, but these applications, these R1 applications are all reviewed in their own cluster. So again, if your application is not discussed by the study section, you'll still get a summary statement with all the reviews in detail that will help you with a resubmission. These are the review criteria, and each gets a written review and a score, and then there's an overall impact score. And what reviewers are advised to do is to provide a score based on the likelihood of whether your application is likely to have a powerful influence on the field. Is it very innovative? If it's not very innovative, is it really significant? Could it change clinical care? Could it change paradigms that have existed? Is the approach feasible, and is it well-reasoned and well-described? And do you have the resources and the support and the collaborators that you need? The scoring is from one to nine. One is essentially almost no weaknesses at all and rare, and nine is very unlikely to be funded. And an average score is a five. So I listed this here. This is a good thing to go back to when you're writing to make sure that all the elements that the reviewers are looking for are there. And importantly, there's been an emphasis on applications really showing what the rigor of the prior research has been, whether published work has left gaps in the field that you are specifically filling or not been rigorous, but you are proposing new rigorous experiments or the rigor of preliminary data that you were using to support the application and including in the research strategy. And so this rigor of prior research is very important. It does affect the score and it does impact specifically significance and approach. And then the rigor of the approach is also very important so that you are providing all the information that the reviewers need to know that you have your technologies well in hand, that your experimental design is sound, that you are going to analyze your data in an unbiased way. And then importantly also is to provide justification for whether or not you were considering sex as a biological variable. Are you only looking at women or are you looking at both sexes? Or if you're doing animal studies, are you looking at males and females? And if not, justify why not? And then the authentication plan is also important, but it is not scorable. So this is really important. I think high impact applications are likely to be funded. And so this is important when you're thinking about what you're writing and whether or not you feel that it is, is fitting into these categories. And I think, and this is what the reviewers look at when they are actually scoring. So when you get the summary statement, you'll see my name or a program officer's name up at the top with an email and phone number. There, it provides all the other details about the study section. And then under SRG action, there'll either be an asterisk that says, and says your application was not discussed or there'll be a score. And for R01s, there'll be a percentile. And then there'll be indications at the bottom about your ESI eligibility. There may be comments about budget or other issues that came up in the review that are noted at the bottom. I mentioned that a new investigator can be someone of any age who, or any stage who has never yet competed successfully for an independent research award. But an ESI is someone who is not only a new investigator, but is, as you can see here, within 10 years of completing the internal degree or medical residency. So ESIs, with review of ESI applications, as I said, it occurs separately. The applications are considered somewhat differently in the sense that there is not quite as high expectation for preliminary data as there would be for an established investigator. And ultimately, although the application is otherwise reviewed in the same way, the score and the percentile may be higher, and yet the application may still be funded. So there's a broader range of fundable applications. And the payline is higher typically. If you were interested in NIH funding at any point, it is extremely helpful to serve as a reviewer. And there's an early career reviewer program on the, it's at the Center for Scientific Review website, CSR. And the requirements to be an ECR are listed here. So you have to be a faculty member and be publishing, have an independent program, although have not yet been funded with an R01 specific. And in order to, as an ECR, as I mentioned before, it's not a heavy load of review, but you do get training by the scientific review officer. You were asked to write full critiques as a third reviewer, and you're there for the entire meeting. And then you can actually apply, and the application includes your areas of interest and expertise, and you'll be matched to a study section that fits what you are doing yourself. So I think it can be extremely valuable. So, as I mentioned, if you submit a new application that is not funded, and then you submit another, the A1 application allows you to write a introduction page, which is basically your description of how your resubmission was changed in order to respond to the reviewer critiques. So that's a very important page, the introduction. If that A1 application is not funded, you can then submit the same idea as another new application, but you have to wait until after your summary statement has come out. And again, as most people realize, you cannot submit two applications that are overlapping at the same time, so you can only, one set of specific aims per round. And I am now open for questions. I oversee at NIDDK, I see pediatric and women's urology, and in general, clinical and translational urology and urologic genetics and genomics. But there is quite a bit of overlap at NIDDK, and again, I encourage you to contact me or one of my colleagues with any questions you might have about your ideas, and do the same with program officers at any other relevant institutes that may fit with the scope of what you're planning to do. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much, Dr. Berthold, that was a fantastic presentation. We do have a couple of questions here. The first question is regarding what email list to sign up for in order to stay informed about NIDDK funding opportunities, and as you mentioned, they were gonna release their funding priorities, so how should they sign up and where can they find that email address? I would certainly, any institute that you're interested in, I would just, on a regular basis, go to the website and look for updates in terms of something like a strategic plan. Regarding the, it's really important to actually sign up for the listserv for the NIH guide. And all you do is Google NIH guide, and on that website, it'll give you instructions about how you set up. So once a week, you will get a list of all the new funding opportunities. You just read through them, and then you'll have links to go to them and read the FOAs and see if it's something that you might be interested in. And then on the FOA, they'll have a contact for each of the, if it's more than one institution, I'm sorry, more than one institute, they will have a contact person for each of the institutes that you could speak to about that particular FOA. Great, thank you. Can you talk a little bit about, so this is, our webinar series is focused on early career researchers, so a lot of those early stage investigators, but many may not have ever submitted a grant application to the NIH or NIDDK. Do you have any advice or recommendations about the best grant mechanism to start out with for those participants who are looking to submit their first NIDDK proposal? Well, oftentimes people will either get, if they may, if their institution has training mechanism like a K and they can actually get funded through that, that is one option that they do not, it does not require their own independent application, but for independent applications, really the best mechanisms are the K awards because they, and if you can get your institution to support you, they require 75% protected time, although for surgeons, it can be 50% protected time. And if you can find a mentor or mentors at your institution or at a local institution or elsewhere that can provide, that can act as a mentor for the application, and these are really great because you can get three to five years of support. It's enough for you to get training. Sometimes people will get MPH degrees during that period of time. They'll have opportunities for education, other types of opportunities. So many people will apply for K awards and then jump from there to an R01 if they have enough preliminary data and they've published. So that would be a good start. The R21s are good if you want, if you have an idea that fits with the high risk, high reward concept. R21s do not require preliminary data, but if you do, and many people do include preliminary data, it will be reviewed for rigor and whether or not it supports the premise of your work. But that's another option. We don't have as many R21 opportunities potentially as other institutes at NIDDK, but that is another option. And I think it's important that if you, that you find collaborators that are complimentary to the work that you're doing, who hopefully have had their own funding and independent productivity. If you're planning to submit an application with someone, it's always good to have done work with them before to show that you have an established relationship, publish something together, that kind of thing. I think it increases the confidence of the reviewers that the relationship will be productive. And I just wanted to clarify one thing about the R21, because you had mentioned earlier that NIDDK does not participate in the, what'd you call it? The traditional R21 mechanism? Yes, the parent. The parent, okay. Because I actually think I emailed you a couple of months ago about that, because I was wanting to submit an R21, but NIDDK did not, was not participating. So thank you for that information. Unless you're doing tools and technology or you're an underrepresented minority at Diversitas R21. Yeah, that's right now, the answer is no. Yeah, and this is, I think, somewhat related, but can you give us an idea of how competitive these grant mechanisms are? So do you have any idea of how likely they are to be funded if somebody were to apply to a specific K award or? There are data on the, that you can look at in terms of payline. It's different for every, so it'll tell you what percentile was used as the payline for the last, for NIDDK, it was 16th percentile last year. We don't know what it is now, because there's no budget, but that is helpful for ESIs. It's higher than that. It's in the 20s. So I think that just can tell you what's the likelihood of being funded if it was a given percentile. With R21s, there aren't percentile, so we don't know. It doesn't, if, you know, it's not a, sometimes, occasionally applications with percentiles below the payline may not get funded and others above may, and so it really is depending on council. And so it's not a hard and fast thing at all. Yeah. Are those numbers released on an annual basis? Typically, yeah, but not all institutes release them. Okay. And so, and there are data online, and in fact, there is one, there is a newsletter that comes out. I will get you that link, and I'll send it to Carolyn. Okay, that'd be great. Thank you. Does NIDDK ever fund prolapse research? Typically, so what happens is your application comes in and it goes to the receipt and referral at CSR, and they use criteria that do change periodically to decide where it should go. Sometimes there'll be a discussion between leadership at one institute with leadership of the other. Prolapse alone in the absence of incontinence, I would say no, not typically. Like pelvic floor disorders as the prime focus may not go to NIDDK, they may go to NICHD. But there are, if it's related to incontinence, it could go to either one. So it's impossible to know without actually looking at the application, however, or the specific aims. However, people can go into Reporter and they can look and see what, they can look at specific program officers or specific institutes and use text words and see and look at the applications and their abstracts, the funded applications, and see what kind of work has gone to one institute versus another. And that can help you decide. And the other thing that I don't, oh, you know, I may not have, I think at the end, and I may not have gotten that far, I'm sorry. The last three slides that you'll have access to have all sorts of links to, thank you. I don't know if I have, okay, now I can go. Okay, so these are all the different sites. Some of them, many of them that I talked about during the talk today. This assisted referral tool down here under review information is a really good site where you can go and put the title of your proposed application and an abstract, which can just be something that you quickly draft that says what your aims are, what your goals and objectives of the work are. And then it'll tell you what best matching study sections are for your application. And that I think is very helpful. Then these are the general grant writing pages, all sorts of ideas and help in terms of how to write and how to submit. They're all different sections. And then for NIDDK, you can go in and look at the specific areas that we support. And then also for clinical studies, if you are planning a clinical study, what kind of studies are supported by NIDDK? And then all sorts of human subjects information about filling out the form, deciding whether or not your idea is a clinical trial. And there's a walkthrough at the end here of this top one on YouTube about how to fill out the forms and then more information about vertebrate animals if you're doing that kind of work. And I think that was it for slides. That is extremely helpful. And we will have those slides, I believe. Is that true? Okay, so we can all have access to those links. Thank you for including those. Sure. I did have one last question about the Early Career Reviewer Program, because that seems like a fantastic opportunity to get experience on the other side, which I think could teach you a lot about what you need to put in your proposal to be successful. And I just wanted to clarify, is that specifically for NIDDK or is that for all NIH institutes? All NIH. Okay. And you apply, put your interest in, can get funneled to any of the institutes that are relevant? Right, but the reviews are done through CSR. There are other types of reviews that are done at each institute. So this is for CSR study sections. So again, when you go to the CSR website and apply for the ECR opportunity, you can look up all the study sections and their descriptions of everyone and what they review in great detail. So there's a wealth of information that helps you decide how to proceed and which type of, which study section you would like to be in ESR. Yeah, that sounds like a fantastic opportunity. Well- ECR, I'm sorry. ECR? ECR, I keep saying ESR. Okay, all right. Well, I don't see any additional questions in the Q&A. So if there are no other questions here, I just want to thank you sincerely for joining us tonight, Dr. Barthold. This was really a wonderful session. And I would like to thank all of our webinar participants. I want to remind everyone that we have our next webinar, January 31st of next year, and that will be with Dr. Donna Maslundus from NICHD. You can register at the website pfdresearch.org if you would like to join us, which we hope you can. And thank you again, Dr. Barthold, and I wish everyone a good night. Thanks so much. Thank you.

webinar

NIDDK Funding

Early Career Research

Julie Barthold

NIDDK

grant mechanisms

funding opportunities

researchers

grant application process