• Maleda Belilgne, Assistant Professor, Africana Studies and English, presented on James Baldwin's Speculative Imagery with her paper, "Nobody Escapes Anything: Proleptic Sound in Sonny’s Blue."
• Lindsay DiCuirci, Assistant Professor, English, presented on Nathaniel Hawthorne with her paper, "A Is for Archive: (Un)Dead Things in Hawthorne’s ‘Custom-House.”
• Jessica Berman, Professor and Director of the Dresher Center, presided over a session sponsored by the MLA’s Publication Committee on the creation, preservation, digitization, and critique of archives.

• Kate Brown, Professor, History, was the featured speaker at the AHA Modern European History Section Luncheon. Her lecture was titled, "The Great Chernobyl Acceleration: How Writing European History has Changed in the Age of the Anthropocene."
• Christy Ford Chapin, Associate Professor, History, participated in the round table, "Late Breaking: Revolt against Regulation in the Time of Trump: Historical Perspectives.”
• Meredith Oyen, Associate Professor, chaired the round table, "After War: Recognizing, Representing, and Remembering Veterans in American Society, 1945-2016.”
• Scott Casper, Dean of the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences and Professor of History, chaired the "Teaching with Material Culture and Historic Site" roundtable.
  

Reminder: Changes for January 25, 2018 Application Due Dates

Two major changes impact applications submitted for due dates on or after January 25, 2018.

• Applicants are required to use FORMS-E. Wondering what this means for late applications or reviewers submitting under the continuous submission policies? See NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-17-062 to learn more.
• Applications that include one or more clinical trials must be submitted in response to funding opportunity announcements that allow for clinical trials. See NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-18-106 to learn more.

New Electronic Submission Requirement for Diversity Supplements

The funds provided in response to Diversity Supplement requests are used to improve the diversity of the biomedical research workforce by recruiting and supporting students, postdoctorates, and eligible investigators from groups that have been shown to be underrepresented in health-related research. Currently, NIH does not require that diversity supplements be submitted electronically, which poses a challenge to NIH staff when trying to identify and track diversity supplement awardees and their subsequent research careers.

Effective January 25, 2018, all single and multi-project diversity supplement requests MUST be submitted electronically (NOT-OD-18-111).

Our diversity supplement funding opportunity announcement will be reissued with FORMS-E application forms and instructions on January 25, 2018 (NOT-OD-17-062). Until then, requests can be prepared using our current FORMS-D diversity supplement FOA. This FOA will expire on February 25, 2018 and all subsequent requests must use the new FORMS-E FOA.

Since the ability to submit diversity supplement requests to multi-project awards is new, an application forms package was added to the FORMS-D diversity supplement FOA to facilitate those submissions. A similar package will be added to the FORMS-E FOA when posted. Although the new package is used in conjunction with multi-project awards, the diversity supplement request itself is structured as a single-project application to the parent award.

Use our “Research Instructions” found on the How to Apply – Application Guide page when preparing all diversity supplement requests.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced on January 17, 2018 an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that delays by six months the effective date and general compliance date of the revisions of the  Common Rule. This means the effective compliance date to comply with the the revisions is now July 19, 2018.

Please stay tuned to the ORPC group page, as well as the IRB website, for more information and educational outreach.

Please contact the ORPC staff with any questions.

We have added three updated processes to the Guidelines and Procedures section of the OCGA website.

• Sponsored Award Deficit Monitoring and Resolution Process
• Guidance for Charging of Costs to a Sponsored Award
• Cost Principles Reference Grid
  

Why Project Outcomes Matter in your Interim and Final RPPR

The next time you are filling out your interim or final Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) for your NIH grant, pay special attention to writing the project Outcomes section (Section I). That’s because any project outcomes submitted on or after Oct. 1, 2017 will be made available to the general public via NIH’s Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORTER).

You may wonder why the scientific community needs to report on outcomes and why we are making the outcomes available to the public. Reviewing reported outcomes is part of our stewardship of the public’s investment in research. Publicly posting grant outcomes provides transparency and lets the taxpayer understand what they have paid for (We informed you that outcomes would be made public in Guide Notices NOT-OD-17-085, NOT-OD-17-037 and NOT-OD-17-022). Therefore, it is important for grantees to write the outcomes for the public appropriately. Keep the description of outcomes concise and crisp, written for the layman in clear and comprehensible language. Do not include any proprietary or confidential information or trade secrets. Aim for Grade 10, so that even a 15 to 16-year-old will be able to understand the results of your research (see our pointers on using plain language to communicate the value of your research).

To help the research community understand what is an acceptable report, I wrote up a specific example from my time at the Cleveland Clinic on the outcome of a R01 funded study from 2001-2004 on ‘Heart Rate Recovery and Mortality.’ It wasn’t easy to break it down into non-scientific speak. I ran my first attempt through a readability checker and it reflected a Grade 12 understanding. I tried again and eventually succeeded in getting it down to a Grade 10 level.

Note that NIH will publish outcomes exactly as they are submitted by the grantee. So, it is critical that this item in the report is written for the lay person. While NIH program officials (POs) will review this item in the Final RPPR or Interim RPPR for elements such as relevancy (i.e. it is a description of project outcome and not unrelated comments that the grantee would not want to see on the Internet), they will not edit the text submitted.  POs may contact PIs to submit revised project outcomes, using the capability in eRA Commons to submit additional materials for interim and final RPPRs (see Guide Notice NOT-OD-18-103). But it is imperative that the PI provide the text (in the web form, not as an attachment) exactly as the PI would like it to appear to the general public on RePORTER. What you write in that web form is what the public will see!