Program Rationale
NCATS (NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences) requires all Clinical and Translational Science Centers, including Harvard Catalyst, to use translational science methodologies to identify and mitigate roadblocks impeding health-related research at their local institutions. Through multiple outreach formats across Harvard University schools and affiliated hospitals, Harvard Catalyst identified multiple roadblocks that faculty and other employees felt limited the breadth and impact of research on human health. These formed the basis for initiatives proposed in Harvard Catalyst’s current NCATS award and several are addressed by this pilot opportunity.
Description
In accord with the above mandate, this RFA seeks studies that explore or demonstrate how a range of processes, assessments, models, or modifications can inform clinical translational research more generally, rather than asking for proposals focused on a specific aspect of a highly-defined clinical question or setting.
General guidance from NCATS includes:
- Development of new research methodology and/or new technologies/tools/resources that will advance clinical translational science (CTS) and thus increase the efficiency and effectiveness of translation.
- Early-stage development of a new therapy/technology with generalizable application to an identified translational roadblock.
- Demonstration in a particular use case(s) that a new methodology or technology advances translational science by making one or more steps of the translational process more effective or efficient.
- Dissemination of effective tools, methods, processes, and training paradigms.
- Feasibility/proof of concept studies to support future CTS projects.
- Secondary analysis of existing data (e.g., projects using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) Data Enclave).
The Translational Roadblocks
Innovative pilot proposals should address one of the roadblocks below. Under each roadblock, you will find examples of responsive topics. These are only examples and are not intended to limit the range of applications.
Research and clinical data need to be connected, and their access democratized
- Pilot approaches to new ways of consolidating or integrating available public databases for research purposes – e.g., publicly available clinical trials data (YODA website), Federal or institutional data and other potential sources of more closely held organizational, corporate, or statewide data.
- Projects integrating EPIC-based data with external data source(s).
- Approaches to data reutilization.
- Novel integrations of clinical data from wearables, e.g., with geographic or other data streams.
- Novel uses of data from ClinicalTrials.gov or NIH data streams/datasets such as the COVID Collaborative NC3 Data Enclave referred to above.
The clinical translational research (CTR) workforce is not sufficiently diverse and must be grown in all domains
- Multidisciplinary pilots that integrate non-health services researchers into design or analysis of translational research questions (e.g., climate scientists, commercial advertising experts, public school educators or curriculum developers).
- Development or assessment of new (e.g., certificate, degree or industry-based) training programs or existing opportunities (e.g. academic or other employer programs) preparing healthcare allied or adjacent colleagues for clinical research opportunities.
- Novel evaluation tools that leaders can use to assess and address the competencies and weaknesses of individuals and potential teams (e.g., experience, training, problem-solving and communication skills).
Insufficient mechanisms exist to support implementation of CTR evidence into practice
- The proposed addition of a generalizable translational science component to an existing clinical trial (e.g., studying why patients cancel/miss required study appointments or characterizing physical or socioeconomic aspects of participation that are challenging or limiting).
- Studies that validate or pilot deployment of existing or novel aids, interventions or other supports for those with physical or socioeconomic constraints on research participation, with the goal of increasing. the capacity to access, consider, consent, and participate in clinical trials.
- Studies of novel approaches that address participation in clinical trials or the validation of trial results in special populations, e.g., prisoners, pregnant women, those suffering from neurocognitive disease.
- Pilot studies examining the role of inclusion and exclusion criteria, for common conditions and their therapies, on pharmacokinetics, trial outcomes, results communication and adoption.
- Pilot studies or models for incorporating life-choice (religious beliefs, dietary practices, exercise) and common existing physiologic variables (e.g., menopause or menstrual cycle, HgbA1c levels) on treatment tolerance, study adherence and completion and clinical outcomes.
Translational Science
The term “translational science” and its relation to “translational research” may be new or unclear to many potential applicants. These differences are defined by NIH/NCATS as “translational research is the endeavor to traverse a particular step of the translational process for a particular target or disease. Translational science is the field of investigation focused on understanding the scientific and operational principles underlying each step of the translational process. Whereas translational research focuses on the specific challenges associated with a particular target or disease, translational science is focused on the general hurdles applicable to any target or disease. A key tenet of translational science is to understand common causes of inefficiency and failure in translational research projects (e.g., incorrect predictions of the toxicity or efficacy of new drugs, lack of data interoperability, ineffective clinical trial recruitment).” A more extensive statement and an example of the difference between translational research and translational science is provided in the Application Guide below.
Key Dates
Launch: October 31, 2024
Applications Due: January 15, 2025
Funding Decisions Announced: Late February 2025
Funding Start Date: May 1, 2025
Eligibility
This is an open call for proposals. Any investigator with an innovative idea related to the purpose of this RFA is welcome to apply. We welcome pre-submission discussions regarding your ideas for a proposal and their responsiveness to the RFA. For questions regarding eligibility or a pre-submission discussion, contact the Harvard Catalyst Pilot Program at grants@catalyst.harvard.edu as early as possible.
Principal Investigator (PI) Eligibility
Faculty holding Harvard University titles of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor are eligible to apply without endorsement. However, while this RFA encourages applications from junior or mid-level investigators and from multidisciplinary teams, the PI must have independent space or resources (e.g. personnel), needed to accomplish the proposed goals. If you do not, you must produce a letter from your department/division chief or equivalent verifying your appointment title, status at Harvard and departmental/divisional support of the application. Those with other titles or at other stages of training should reach out to discuss eligibility or whether they are more appropriately served by Co-Investigator status or by linkage to an existing program. Please note Multiple PIs are not allowed, but you can have any number of Co-Investigators.
Co-Investigator (Co-I) Eligibility
A Co-I is a substantial contributor who helps conceive of the experimental idea, contributes to the intellectual development of the project, and/or designs the study or part thereof (e.g., scientific or technical details), and will be involved in the study throughout the funding year. Co-Is can be from any institution; however, if you are working with a Co-I from a non-Harvard affiliated institution, please provide justification for how their external expertise adds to the project.
Trainees (e.g., students, clinical trainees and fellows, postdoctoral fellows), visiting and adjunct faculty, and those with pending faculty appointments at the time of submission may serve as Co-Is if their contribution to the project is substantial.
A Co-I is not required, nor is there a limit to the number of Co-Is listed on an application. While researchers may submit only one application as PI, with sufficient justification they may appear as a Co-I on multiple applications.
Application Process
Please use this naming convention: PIFirstName_PILastName_Admin_Docs
For each institution that will receive funds (in case of Co-Investigators at other institutions), the following forms must be completed:
- Documented institutional approval: PHS 398 Face Page, or Statement of Intent to be signed by institutional official. One face page/SOI per site requesting funds. Prime PI: Lee Nadler, Prime Site: HMS.
- Statement of Work: A brief statement describing the work to be performed at each institution (required for the subaward process).
- Detailed budget for one year: PHS 398 Form Page 4, or other similar form.
- Narrative Budget Justification from each site requesting funds.
Please remember that each site requesting funds will receive a separate award agreement to provide the funding; pass-through subawards are not allowed.
Proposals that incorporate a more condensed timeline with intensified effort or activity are also welcome and should be detailed as such in the detailed budget. The $25,000-50,000 budget range over no more than one year is intended to provide opportunities for funding highly focused pilots requiring greater effort over a shorter time frame as well as proposals of more limited scope. If more than one site will share the budget, the combined total should not exceed $50,000 and each site is required to submit a separate budget page
- An NIH style biosketch is preferred, but any professional style CV is acceptable. Biosketches/CV should be provided for the PI, Co-Is and significant collaborators. An eRA Commons ID is requested for all PIs and Co-Is.
- Lay Abstract (200 words or less): In the text box provided in the application form, please enter a clear, jargon-free summary that non-academic specialists can understand. Please note that this lay summary will not be shared with reviewers.
Harvard Catalyst Pilot awards are funded by an NIH/NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Award and therefore we are required to submit Human Subjects documentation (IRB approval or exemption determination) to NCATS for each pilot project that involves human subjects research, human subjects protected data prior, to funding.
Harvard Catalyst is supported by a Clinical and Translational Science Award Program and is therefore required to submit documentation of IRB approval or exemption to the funder, NIH/NCATS, for each pilot project that involves human subjects or protected data prior to funding.
Some pilot translational science research will fall into the category of Quality Assessment or Quality Improvement (which is exempt) or meet other exemption criteria. These still need to be submitted to NCATS. We advise applicants to discuss the requirement for IRB approval or provision of a letter of exemption from this requirement with their institutional IRB staff during the application process.
NCATS requires all related IRB documentation at least 30 days before the project start date. To accommodate this timeline, we strongly encourage IRB submission as soon as possible.
Please use this naming convention: PIFirstName_PILastName_Scientific
Scientific Proposal (to be uploaded as a separate PDF): Text length, with exception of the Project Overview/ Abstract, is not specified by section. The total proposal should not exceed 5 pages, not including an additional page for references. Use Arial, black font color, and a font size of 11 point only. Applications should be single-spaced, with 0.5-inch margins. All figures and tables must be included in the body of the application and count towards page limits. Appendix material will not be accepted.
The scientific proposal should include the following subsection titles:
- Project Overview/Abstract: (200 words maximum): State the problem your project aims to address, and how it aligns with the objectives of this funding opportunity?
- Rationale/Background: This section should highlight the gaps in current knowledge and how the project will address them. Provide sufficient background to give context for reviewers, including a brief review of the current status of the field and how the pilot proposal will contribute to advancing knowledge. Describe the need for this research, identifying what could be gained and the potential benefits. Explain how the project addresses a significant problem or overcomes a critical barrier in translational science. The reader should be able to clearly understand how this work qualifies as translational science (refer to the NIH/NCATS definition in the Application Guide below). Additionally, describe how the project’s processes, assessments, models, or modifications could contribute to the advancement of clinical translational research.
- Research Strategy and Feasibility: Provide specific, detailed information about your proposed project. Explain the evidence that supports the feasibility of your approach and identify any potential challenges you anticipate.If your research involves human subjects, describe their involvement, briefly outline participant recruitment plans, and clarify whether IRB review is required. Include details about the infrastructure, such as databases or cores to be used, their availability, and readiness for use. Outline the methods for data evaluation and conclusions, along with any other resource requirements. Additionally, provide a timeline for the various project phases and overall completion, ensuring the feasibility of finishing within the grant period. Note that this award is limited to one year by NIH/NCATS, with no extensions allowed. Funding will not commence until all IRB reviews, including NIH/NCATS approval, are finalized.
- Innovation: Briefly describe what makes your project innovative or unique in its approach and how it will advance the boundaries of current research or practice.
- Impact: Briefly explain how your project contributes to advancements in your field or leads to improved outcomes. Additionally, describe how it aligns with NCATS’ mission to advance translational science.
- Implementation Plan: Briefly describe how you anticipate the results of the study may translate into an intervention/tool to improve a process or outcome. Describe any established frameworks, such as those from implementation science, that you are using to systematically identify factors and barriers.
- Future Plans. This is a one-time pilot grant award. While additional funding through this mechanism is not available, briefly state projected next steps beyond the scope of this one-year pilot grant if the project is successful and additional resources were obtained.
- Dissemination Plans. One of the core components of Harvard Catalyst’s commitment to community engagement is to have our awardees consider how they would disseminate the results of their study beyond peer-reviewed journals. As everyone is potentially a clinical research participant, briefly state how study findings would be communicated to and for the benefit of expert, peer and lay audiences.
- References (limit to one additional page).
All pilot awards will carry full indirect costs/F&A in addition to their $25-$50K direct cost budgets.
Please see these websites for more information:
Completed applications submitted by January 15, 2025, with all required documents, will undergo administrative review. All proposals that are complete and responsive to this RFA will be reviewed by Harvard faculty with both broad and topic specific expertise. Questions that may be considered include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Does the proposed project address the goals of the RFA?
- Is the project technically feasible and achievable in a one-year funding period?
- Do the investigators have the requisite skills and resources to carry out the project successfully?
- Does the project have the potential to define a problem so that future work can address it innovatively or does it, in and of itself, answer a need?
Administrative FAQs
No. However, if funded, having an IRB approval significantly expedites the project start date. All studies designated as human subjects research, will require NCATS prior approval, which can take 30+ days. Having an IRB approval (or an exemption) and the required backup documents, will streamline and expedite the overall award process.
There is no specific template required for the SOW, it is a high level and brief (no more than a paragraph or several bullet points) administrative description of the work you propose.
Multiple PIs are not allowed, but you can have any number of Co-Investigators.
1% effort is fine for a PI.
Sites usually require a minimal effort from a PI to be able to accept/set-up awards. To that effect, we advise that the PI should budget for at least 1% effort. However, that decision is ultimately up to you and must comply with your site’s requirements.
As a post-doc you are eligible to submit a proposal as PI. We would need a letter from your Department Chair that supports your application and confirms that you will be promoted to Instructor later this year.
Significant contributors are permitted, and a letter of support will be required. If it aligns better with your application, you may list them as Co-Investigators.
Consultant costs are allowed.
Indirect costs are allowed and will be based on your site’s federal negotiated rate.
A PHS 398 form or Statement of Intent needs to be submitted at the time of submission and signed by an institutional official. Please let us know ASAP if you cannot get the PHS 398 form signed in time by emailing us. With prior approval by us you may be able to submit an unsigned form and then email us the signed version, as soon as possible afterwards.
The PR site will most likely have their own negotiated IDC rate as they are a US territory. The University of PR has a negotiated rate, but to be sure check with the co-investigator’s home institution – if not the University of PR.
Application Guide
This RFA seeks translational science proposals
As the concept of translational science and its connection to the more commonly known translational research may be unfamiliar to some applicants, NIH/NCATS offers these definitions:
Translational research is defined by NIH/NCATS as “the endeavor to traverse a particular step of the translational process for a particular target or disease. Whereas translational science is the field that generates innovations that overcome longstanding challenges along the translational research pipeline. These include scientific, operational, financial, and administrative innovations that transform the way that research is done, making it faster, more efficient, and more impactful.”
- Translational science aims to understand the common factors contributing to inefficiencies and setbacks in translational research endeavors. Examples of these setbacks include inaccurate predictions of drug toxicity or efficacy, issues with data compatibility, and suboptimal clinical trial recruitment.
- Many of these challenges transcend specific targets, diseases, and therapeutic areas. Therefore, advancements in translational science hold the promise of elevating the efficiency and efficacy of translational research.
- The ultimate goal is to improve overall health, extend life expectancy, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. Much like any scientific discipline, translational science aims to elucidate universal operating principles, to transform translation from an empirical and phenomenological process into a predictive science.
The following is an example provided by NIH/NCATS:
An example of a traditional translational research project would be an investigator aiming to assess the efficacy of a specific drug in improving outcomes for diabetes by recruiting a sufficient number of participants using established recruitment methods to evaluate the drug’s effectiveness and its potential benefits for the diabetes community.
In contrast, an investigator exploring the barriers to recruitment in clinical research while simultaneously assessing the efficacy of a specific drug in improving outcomes for diabetes will incorporate a strategy to improve the recruitment of an underserved population. In this case, the translational science investigator and translational research researcher, are both testing the efficacy of a diabetes drug.
However, the key difference is that the translational science investigator could be collaborating or only be focusing on addressing challenges in the recruitment processes and optimizing their outcomes.
Additionally, NCATS has a website explaining the translational science principles. For more information on translational science and scientific and operational
principles of translational science, please see
You can take advantage of the free biostatistics consultation offered by Harvard Catalyst. This service can provide valuable guidance as you develop your research proposal, ensuring that your study design and statistical methods are robust and aligned with your objectives.
If you’re looking for assistance with AI, management science, data investigation, or other quantitative social scientists, we can likely facilitate consultations with our collaborators at the D3 Institute at Harvard Business School, if that would be useful in developing your proposal.