science program Statement of Policies and Procedures for Research Grant Applications and Awards

Announcement of Grants Competition
The annual research grants competition will be announced via the IPWR website. Scientists interested in applying for research support should regularly monitor the website for information updates on the research support program.

Receipt Dates
Receipt dates for submission of applications will be presented in the Program Announcement or other grant solicitation materials. It is the responsibility of the investigator to ensure that the application is received on or before the published deadline. Applications arriving after the published receipt date will not be accepted and will be immediately returned to the applicant. There will be no exceptions.

Applicant Eligibility
All faculty (full or part-time, permanent, or adjunct), graduate students and post-doctoral fellows are eligible to apply for a research grant, depending upon restrictions within their university or organization. In general, public, private, domestic and foreign research laboratories, medical centers and hospitals, and universities are eligible to apply. Applications will be accepted from, and awards made to, foreign institutions to the extent allowed by U.S. law. Federal government appropriated laboratories are prohibited from serving as the applicant organization, although federal government scientists can serve as scientific staff on an application submitted from an eligible institution. Investigators who have a current active research grant award from the IPWR are ineligible to apply for new funding until a final scientific and fiscal report is submitted and accepted. Members of the Health and Scientific Advisory Board (HSAB) are ineligible to apply during the tenure of their service.

Application Kit
All applications must be submitted electronically using the KWIK Review System. The KWIK Review application kit provides a tightly structured format, imposing limits on the type and amount of information exchanged between the applicant, funding organization and reviewers. The objective is to (1) reduce the burden of both preparation and review of applications and (2) focus on the minimal necessary information to support the scientific and technical appraisal of the research hypotheses and plans.

Letter of Intent
Potential applicants must submit a letter of intent by email detailing the scientific questions of importance, and outlining the design and methods to be used (see Submit Letter of Intent). The letter of intent is not to exceed 500 words. Upon acceptance of the letter of intent, the potential applicant will be notified by email message and provided with the electronic application kit.

First Tier Review for Scientific and Technical Merit
Rationale: One of the fundamental, inviolate tenets of successful, research support operations is an independent two-tiered scientific review. The accepted standard is that each research proposal undergoes an initial review, by a small number of scientists who are expert in the area of the proposal. The reviewers must not be affiliated in any way with the applicant investigators so that there is no appearance, or reality, of conflict-of-interest. Simply, ‘the playing field must be level’ so that the proposal receives a fair, unbiased consideration based solely on its scientific and technical strengths, or the lack thereof.

The purpose of the initial review is to determine the overall quality or scientific merit of the proposal, including consideration of questions such as: Is the question under investigation important and meaningful? Is the question novel? Is the structure of the proposal (design and methods) appropriate to answer the scientific question? Are the resources (people, facilities and equipment) to support the project in place? Are the investigator, and his/her team, sufficiently skilled and experienced to suggest a high probability that the project will be successfully implemented? Is the budget adequate and appropriate to support the work proposed?

Process: In the KWIK Review System, the traditional study section meetings are eliminated. There are no long-term committees under this procedure, except for the HSAB and the Board of Directors. The initial review functions of the standing study section approach have been replaced by a procedure of custom tailored review of each proposal drawing upon a large group of ad hoc reviewers, also known as the "Initial Review Board" of the HSAB.

The role of reviewers is to provide an evaluation of the scientific and technical merit of the application. The goal of this procedure is to make it as objective as possible by establishing an independent process for merit evaluation, with funding decisions rendered in a separate forum. The initial step in the peer review process of the KWIK Review System is designed to generate totally independent evaluations from a minimum of three independent, expert and qualified reviewers. The system is similar to that in use by journals for the publication of scholarly articles. The review process of the KWIK Review System relies on the composite judgment of individual independent evaluators instead of the homogenized outcome of a group evaluation process, either an ad hoc or standing committee.

Each reviewer conducts his/her evaluation in a structured format and provides specific, brief information necessary to support the scientific and technical appraisal of the application. The KWIK Review System Merit Evaluation Process is organized to generate independent judgments on the strengths and weaknesses of five domains in a grant application:

1. The Significance of the Question
2. Applicant Information
3. Quality of the Work Plan
4. Quality and Adequacy of the Resources
5. Extrinsic Merit of the Project
6. Overall Rating Score

The initial reviewer uses a ten point scale to evaluate each of the first five domains of the application listed above, with a score of 1=the poorest rating and a score of 10=outstanding rating. The reviewer may also write a brief rationale for the rating and a short but specific message to the applicant on recommendations for improving the application. The reviewers finally provide an Overall Rating Score reflecting their summary appraisal of the application, which is not usually an arithmetic sum of the five domains. All the data on each application (scores in each of the domains and overall rating score) from each reviewer are tabulated and presented to the HSAB for consideration.

Second Tier Review by Health and Scientific Advisory Board
The Health and Scientific Advisory Board serves as a resource to the IPWR on all scientific, health and technical matters. The HSAB consists of a small group of senior, well-established investigators. One important activity of the HSAB is to serve as the second tier review for all grant applications submitted to the IPWR.

The HSAB makes funding recommendations, not decisions, on research grant applications for the IPWR. Funding recommendations must take into account a number of factors including the initial scientific and technical review, program priorities of the IPWR, program balance, the innovativeness of the application, and the total pool of funds available for research grant awards. The HSAB also serves as the appeals and rebuttal board for investigators who have concerns about the fairness or integrity of the initial scientific and technical review.

Final funding decisions are made by the Executive Board of Directors, the IPWR, and their decisions are informed by the recommendations of the HSAB. Final funding decisions may not be appealed.

Notification of Applicants
All applicants (i.e., principal investigators) will be notified by U.S. mail of the outcome of the initial review and the final funding decision. Copies of the reviews will be provided. (Although, applicants must be aware that in many cases the information provided by reviewers will be brief.)

For successful applicants, the letter will inform the investigator when the application will be awarded. Any expenditure of funds by the investigator prior to the receipt of payment is the responsibility of the university or sponsoring organization, and those funds may not be reimbursed by the IPWR.

Ownership of Awarded Project
The institution submitting the proposal "owns" the grant. Grants do not belong to the individual principal investigator who authored the proposal, but rather to the institution from which the business official counter signature is provided. The institution has the authority to replace or substitute the principal investigator with approval by IPWR Executive Director (see Replacement of Principal Investigator).

Appeal and Rebuttal of Review
Applicants who feel that their application was unfairly judged or that the initial scientific review process was flawed in a serious fashion may appeal and request a re-review of the application. To appeal a review, the applicant must send a letter, countersigned by the responsible institutional business official, stating the grounds for appeal. Scientific disagreements or differences in interpretation are not grounds for appeal. The reasons for appeal must be specific and relate to failures in the integrity and fairness of the review process.

Send letters of appeal to:
Institute for Public Health and Water Research
School of Public Health
University of Illinois at Chicago
1603 W. Taylor, Room 1178B
MC#923
Chicago, IL 60612-4394

Pending Applications
Applications not funded in a fiscal year will remain "active" and available for funding, and will be carried forward for one additional fiscal year. If adequate funds become available and the applications are sufficiently high quality as assessed against the more recently received proposals, the Board of Directors may fund them. At the end of the year, the application will be inactivated.

For example, an application is received and reviewed in the fall-winter of 2005-06. It is a high quality proposal but there are inadequate funds to provide an award prior to the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2006. The application will be placed on the "pending list" and will be carried forward into the next fiscal year (2006-07). If the application is not awarded before June 30, 2007, it will then be inactivated.

Human Research Subjects Protections
The IPWR requires that investigators who recruit human subjects adhere to the guidelines of the Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. The guidelines (Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects) can be accessed through the Office of Human Research Protection, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, PHS, DHHS, (www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm). The institution that receives the award from IPWR is responsible for ensuring that the guidelines and regulations for the protection of human subjects engaged in research are followed. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is not required at the time of submission of application, but must be received in advance of payment for the grant.

If there are questions or concerns about the adequacy of the human subject protections, the HSAB, IPWR, may be consulted.

Animal Welfare Assurance
The IPWR requires that investigators who use laboratory animals in research adhere to the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Applicants and grantees may contact the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, PHS, DHHS, for information or review the website (grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htm). It is the awardee institution’s responsibility to ensure that the policies for humane care of laboratory animals are implemented. Animal welfare assurances are not required at the time of submission. Documentation of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) review and approval are required at the time of the payment of an award.

If there are questions about the adequacy of the procedures for humane care of laboratory animals, the HSAB, IPWR, may be consulted.

Allowable Costs and Ownership of Equipment
Allowable costs include:

• purchase and care of laboratory animals.
• laboratory and clinical research equipment and supplies necessary for support of the study to be funded.
• principal investigator salary.
• scientific and technical staff salary, including post-doctoral fellows and graduate students. Tuition for post-doctoral, graduate or undergraduate students will not be reimbursed.
• special use computer hardware and software will be considered on a case-by-case basis and must be well-justified.

In general, equipment and supply costs should not exceed 10% of the annual direct costs requested. Title to equipment purchased with the IPWR's funds belongs to the awardee institution. Extensive upgrading of computer hardware and software will not be supported.

The IPWR will not support travel to scientific meetings usually attended by the principal investigator or senior scientific staff unless a major paper reporting findings from the IPWR-funded study will be presented. No funds may be used for construction costs. Purchase of office furniture or general office equipment is disallowed.

Interim and Non-competing Scientific and Financial Reports
Investigators are required to submit annual scientific and financial reports on all research grants funded by the IPWR. The annual reports must be received and approved prior to awarding non-competing funds for the continuation year. Therefore, it is advisable to submit interim scientific and financial reports at least 30 days before the end of the awarding period. All scientific and financial reports must be countersigned by the official responsible for the business of the university or organization. Forms for interim reports will be provided to investigators.

Final Scientific and Financial Reports
All scientific and financial reports must be countersigned by the official responsible for the business of the university or organization. Final scientific and technical reports must be submitted within 60 days of the end of the grant. Forms for final reports will be provided to investigators.

Unexpended funds in excess of $500 at the end of the granting period must be returned to the IPWR. No investigator may submit a new research grant application to the IPWR until all final scientific and financial reports from the current grant have been received and approved and unexpended funds (in excess of $500) have been returned to the IPWR.

Acknowledgement of Funding Source
All publications and oral reports must recognize the financial support of the IPWR with a statement such as: "This research was supported by a research grant (specify which mechanism) from the Institute for Public Health and Water Research, 2006 to 2008 (dates of granting period).

If human subjects are included in the project, their participation is to be noted, for example: "The investigator and research team, university or organization X, wish to acknowledge the participation of the residents of Small Town, USA."

Notification of Publication
It is the responsibility of the principal investigator to provide two copies of all published papers and reports originating from research funded by the IPWR to the Executive Director. The IPWR will provide assistance with publicity and interaction with print and television journalists prior to the release of findings through scientific journals or at major meeting presentations. When a manuscript is accepted for publication or notification of acceptance of a paper for oral presentation at a scientific meeting is received, please contact Julie Kay so that the appropriate media activities can be coordinated.

Requests for Administrative Actions
Requests for administrative actions require a letter signed by both the principal investigator and responsible business official. Decisions on administrative requests will be made by the Executive Director, IPWR, are final and not subject to appeal. In special circumstances, the HSAB may be consulted for advice on the administrative request. Investigators will be notified by U.S. mail of the decision on the administrative request.

Send requests for administrative actions to:
Institute for Public Health and Water Research
School of Public Health
University of Illinois at Chicago
1603 W. Taylor, Room 1178B
MC#923
Chicago, IL 60612-4394

Carryover of Unexpended Funds
Except in very unusual situation, funds remaining at the end of an award period will not be carried forward, but will be used to off-set the award for the next non-competing year, or will be returned to the IPWR if the grant is ending. Contact the Executive Director to discuss any potential request for carryover of unexpended funds prior to submitting a request.

Replacement of Principal Investigator
Grants belong to the institution from which they were submitted. Therefore, it is the institution’s responsibility to ensure that the named principal investigator is conducting the research appropriately. The recipient organization may request to replace the principal investigator in the event of death or incapacitation, poor performance or a move to a different institution. The request must come from the responsible business official and the appropriate faculty member (Department Chair or Dean) of the organization providing a justification for (1) the change of principal investigator, and (2) appointment of a new principal investigator. It must be clear that the replacement principal investigator has the scientific expertise and time to properly execute and complete the funded investigation. The curriculum vita of the replacement principal investigator is required. The IPWR has the authority to approve the replacement principal investigator or to terminate the award if the replacement principal investigator is not acceptable and or does not have the scientific expertise to complete the research.

Transfer of Institution
If the recipient institution agrees, the IPWR will consider the transfer of a funded grant to a new institution when the principal investigator moves. The key factors in authorizing a transfer of a funded grant to a new institution are (1) the agreement of the organization to which the grant was awarded, (2) the agreement of the new institution to receive the grant, (3) the adequacy of the facilities to support the research at the new institution, and (4) the availability of scientific and technical staff at the new institution to complete the research project.

To transfer an award to a new institution requires:

1. a letter from the principal investigator, countersigned by the business official, requesting the transfer from the awarded institution to the new institution.
2. a letter signed by the responsible business official and academic official (Department Chair or Dean) from the new institution accepting the transfer of the award and detailing the laboratory, space and other resources available to ensure successful execution of the project.
3. an interim scientific and financial report with appropriate signatures. Estimated balances are not acceptable for transfer. Final financial data are required.

Requests to transfer institutions must be submitted at least 90 days in advance of the anticipated move date. No additional funds will be provided to facilitate transfer of a grant.

Overlap with Other Funded or Pending Applications
"Overlap" occurs when two or more or awards share one or more specific aims. The IPWR will not support overlapping research. It is incumbent upon applicants and principal investigators to inform the IPWR in writing of overlap in grants. This will occur when an investigator is notified that he/she is to receive payment for a grant that shares one or more specific aims with an application already awarded.

Extension of Award
The duration of a granting period may be extended upon receipt of an explanatory letter signed by both the principal investigator and the responsible business official. In general, additional funds ("extensions with cost") will not be approved. No-cost extensions will be approved with justification. Extensions may not exceed one year and must be confined to completion of the work originally proposed.

Administrative Supplemental Awards
Administrative supplemental awards are requests for funds to complete work detailed in the grant application. In general, the IPWR will not support administrative supplemental awards. In the case of emergency or very unusual circumstances (i.e., the laboratory is destroyed by fire or vandalized), the principal investigator must contact the Executive Director, IPWR, to discuss the potential request and to receive approval to submit the administrative supplemental request.

Poor advance planning is not an adequate justification for an administrative supplemental request. The IPWR reserves the right to refer administrative supplemental requests to the Health and Scientific Advisory Board, but is not bound to do so. Denial of a request to submit an administrative supplement may not be appealed. Denial of a submitted request for an administrative supplement may not be appealed either.

Change of Names and Addresses
If an investigator moves or the business official is replaced, the organization submitting the grant must inform the IPWR. Prompt notification of changes of names, titles, addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, etc. will help to avoid delays in processing any actions or requests.

Other Administrative Actions
There may be other administrative matters for which the principal investigator wishes guidance. For these matters, send a letter from the principal investigator with a countersignature by the responsible business official of the organization to the Executive Director, IPWR, detailing the issue.

Patent and Royalty Policy
All intellectual property, patents, patentable inventions or ideas developed through grant support from the Institute for Public Health and Water Research ("IPWR") remain the property of the organization and/or investigators that received the grant support from IPWR, and IPWR does not obtain or claim rights therein based on grant support provided by IPWR. However, IPWR does request and expect that investigators acknowledge funding from IPWR in any oral presentations or any written publications of research data and/or findings that are generated or made with grant support from IPWR.

Release of Information on Applications and Grants
The IPWR does not release information on applications submitted for review or pending funding consideration to anyone other than the named principal investigator or the responsible institutional business official. Any member of the research team desiring information about an application must ask the principal investigator to contact the IPWR staff for the information.

During the process of initial scientific and technical review, the name of the principal investigator, the institution submitting the application and the abstract of the application are provided to prospective reviewers.

After a grant is awarded, information (including the name of the principal investigator, sponsoring organization or institution, and abstract) will be posted on the IPWR website. Major papers, meeting presentations and other scientific and technical material originating from a study funded by the IPWR may be made public via the website or other media routes chosen by the IPWR.

Standards of Conduct

1. Statement of Principle and Purpose
The IPWR requires high ethical standards in all scientific activities. The IPWR funds scientific activities and research, and it has the responsibility to ensure that all funds granted and all activities supported conform to the highest, currently acceptable ethical standards. The following statements reflect the IPWR’s position and procedures, and are issued to help guide members of the scientific community in their interactions with one another and with IPWR staff.

The nature of scientific work and funding of scientific research requires that investigators operate from a position of trust and confidentiality, and they expect that their colleagues will do likewise. The IPWR supports this philosophy and position and desires to ensure its continuation. Therefore, apparent or alleged breaches of generally accepted scientific conduct will be considered as extremely serious. In general, alleged or apparent breaches of appropriate scientific conduct will be reported to the responsible official at the scientist’s institution for investigation and disposition.

There are a number of scientific activities carried out under the auspices of the IPWR, and each is addressed in turn

2. Submission of Research Grant Applications
The IPWR expects that all research grants submitted for funding consideration consist of the original work and ideas of the principal investigator and his/her research colleagues. It is expected that material from other sources, i.e., published articles, abstracts or papers in press, will be cited and recognized according to the prevailing standards in the scientific community. It is expected that all persons listed as collaborators or investigators on an application have been involved in the construction of the application, and informed of its submission and its content, in accordance with the prevailing norms in the scientific community.

The institution which submits or receives a grant from the IPWR is accountable and has the primary responsibility for protecting the rights and welfare of individual human subjects who consent to participate in investigations supported by IPWR funds. Investigators may consult the Public Health Service Grants Policy Statement, or Section 474(a) of the Public Health Service Act, implemented by 45 CFR Part 46 or The Office of Human Research Protection, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 for additional guidance on the necessary safeguards for human research subjects.

The IPWR uses the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals by Awardee Institutions. As stated in the PHS Grants Policy Statement, it . . ."requires that applicant organizations establish and maintain appropriate policies and procedures to ensure the humane care and use of live vertebrate animals involved in research activities. . . ." It is the responsibility of institutions applying for a grant to ensure that the policies for the humane care and use of vertebrate animals are appropriately implemented. Investigators may contact The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, for further information

3. Review of Research Grant Applications
Investigators who submit research grant proposals for review expect that the material will be held in confidence by the IPWR and by the scientists asked to review the application for the IPWR. Scientists who accept the request to review a research grant application have several responsibilities. First, they are required to provide an unbiased appraisal of the quality and significance of the science according to the guidelines and procedures provided by the IPWR. If a reviewer identifies a real or apparent conflict of interest when beginning the review of an application, he/she should contact the staff immediately and report the concerns. Second, reviewers agree to hold the material in the grant application in absolute confidence and to not benefit from it in any fashion. Put simply, the ideas and material in the grant application are the property of the applicant investigator and institution. Reviewers should not discuss or reveal the contents of the application(s) with anyone else without the express permission of the IPWR. Third, reviewers agree to destroy the grant application material or return it to the IPWR so that it does not inadvertently fall into the hands of third parties.

In a situation where the policies of the IPWR do not adequately address a rare or unusual situation, reviewers are to be guided by the principles of protecting the confidentiality of the application and the applicant and to seek advice from IPWR staff as soon as feasible.

4. Funded Research Grants
The IPWR views its fiduciary oversight as of the utmost importance. Alleged improprieties in the scientific or fiscal management of a funded research grant will be immediately reported to the appropriate official at the recipient institution for investigation and disposition. The IPWR may elect to discontinue funding until the institution has completed its investigation and provided a report.

5. Health and Scientific Advisory Board Participation and Review
The Health and Scientific Advisory Board (HSAB) was created by the IPWR. The primary function of the HSAB is to act as a resource for the IPWR in health and scientific matters. The HSAB provides advice and recommendations to the IPWR Board of Directors on health and scientific matters and the research grant program pertaining to drinking water and human health. The HSAB provides the second level review of research grants and makes funding recommendations to the Executive Board of Directors.

In general, the members of the HSAB are to be guided by the principle that service to the IPWR, through the advance knowledge of proposed Program Announcements or funding plans, may not be used to benefit their own research programs. During tenure on the HSAB, members are prohibited from applying for research grants from the IPWR. HSAB members are ethically bound to not discuss the scientific content of upcoming initiatives or any other aspects, including the timing of the announcement, with colleagues to avoid providing advance information which might appear to confer advantage in the resulting competition. HSAB members are required, as are the scientists providing the initial scientific and technical review of the research grant applications, to maintain the confidentiality of the applicant investigator and the contents of the proposals. This includes the discussion and ranking of applications presented during meetings or telephone conference calls of the HSAB. HSAB members are exempted from review and discussion of and voting on any application if, for any reason, a potential conflict of interest is identified. Each member of the HSAB provides to the IPWR information on their professional affiliations, consultant relationships and relevant financial holdings on an annual basis.

6. Participation in a IPWR Work Group
One of the major activities of the IPWR is to convene Work Groups. The overriding goals of the Work Group effort are to provide advice and guidance on questions of importance in research in drinking water and human health. The Work Groups are comprised of experts from the world’s scientific community and are organized around a discrete scientific or policy issue relevant to the advancement drinking water and human health research. One of the very important features of the Work Groups is the effort to bring new advisors and a diversity of opinions into the IPWR. Some of the Work Groups will be international orglobal in their content and membership while others will be local or national in orientation. All scientists who participate in Work Groups are required to adhere to the highest standards of scientific conduct.

Papers submitted for consideration by the IPWR in developing a position through a Work Group are expected to represent the ideas of the listed authors. Where material from other scientists has been included or used in some manner, the prevailing standards for recognition and attribution are to be followed. If a member of a Work Group is concerned about a potential or apparent conflict of interest, he/she should report the issue to the IPWR staff as soon as possible and seek advice on the procedures for disclosure and continued participation.

7. Service as an Informal Advisory to the IPWR
The IPWR regularly seeks advice from the scientific community, including requesting advice on the significance of published papers, the appropriate response to proposed legislation, and interactions with industry-sponsored activities in water and health research. A scientist or clinician requested to provide advice to the IPWR should disclose any potential or apparent conflict of interest or bias to the IPWR staff making the request for information, prior to providing his/her recommendations on the issue. The purpose is not to prohibit participation, rather to ensure disclosure and discussion in advance.

IPWR Funding
The IPWR was launched with an unrestricted research and educational grant from The Brita Products Company for the purposes of advancing our understanding of the relationship between water and health..