Population Dynamics Research CentersPopulation Dynamics Research Centers

Home > Archives for Mark Mather

Mark Mather

New Application Structure for NIH-Funded International Collaborations

Notice Number: NOT-OD-25-155

Release Date: September 12, 2025

Related Announcements

  • May 1, 2025 – Updated NIH Policy on Foreign Subawards. See NOT-OD-25-104.

Issued by NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH)

Background

NIH defines a foreign component as the performance of any significant scientific element or segment of a project outside of the United States, either by the recipient or by a researcher employed by a foreign organization, whether or not grant funds are expended.

As described in NOT-OD-25-104, NIH has recognized that current application and award structures for subawards have failed to meet federal reporting and oversight needs. This has raised concerns for national security, especially as it pertains to tracking the expenditure of federal funds at foreign components. To address these needs, NIH announced that it will no longer be accepting new applications that request funds for foreign components using the traditional grant subaward/consortium structure. The purpose of this Notice is to announce a new application and award structure for applications that request funding for foreign component organizations.

Policy

For grants requesting NIH funding for one or more foreign components, NIH will require that competing applications submit applications to a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that supports the new PF5 Activity Code for grants, new UF5 Activity Code for cooperative agreements, or another complex mechanism activity code that supports the International Project component type.

NIH continues to support international collaborations. Of note, foreign components other than those previously supported by subawards or consortia agreements (e.g., foreign consultants, international travel) may continue to be supported through other activity codes unless otherwise indicated in the NOFO. 

Implications for Applications

The new structure will leverage NIH’s multi-component or complex application package. At a minimum, PF5/UF5 applicants will be expected to provide an Overall Component that addresses the project’s overall objectives as a collaboration, a Research Project component that addresses the scientific and technical directions of the project, and an International Project component that addresses the foreign collaborator’s role on the project. Each funded foreign component should have a unique International Project component; therefore, an application with multiple foreign collaborators at different institutions would submit an application with multiple International Project components. NIH intends to issue a Parent NOFO for the PF5/UF5 activity codes with this basic structure that will provide specific guidance on the application components required for the Overall, Research Project, and International Project component types. Moving forward, NIH may also use the PF5/UF5 activity codes when issuing funding opportunities for specialized purposes that include other types of components (e.g., Cores) in combination with the International Project component type.

The primary applicant organization must be domestic (located in the U.S.). The leadership structure for the PF5 must include at least one PD/PI from the primary applicant organization, and at least one individual from each of the International Projects, who will serve as the PD/PI of the disaggregated Linked International Research Project award (see Implications for Awards section below).

 Implications for Review

The technical merit review will be conducted consistent with the process for other multi-component application reviews. Reviewers will provide an Overall Impact score for the project as a whole and be asked to comment on the specific review criteria for each of the individual components. For the International Project components, the Evaluation Criteria in NIHGPS 16.3 will be applied, i.e., reviewers will be asked to evaluate:

  • Whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the United States or that augment existing U.S. resources.
  • Whether the proposed project has specific relevance to the mission and objectives of the IC and has the potential for significantly advancing the health sciences in the United States.

All International Collaboration (PF5/UF5) applications will be brought to the relevant National Advisory Council or Board for review, consistent with current procedures for reviewing applications from foreign (non-U.S.) organizations.

 Implications for Awards

Following merit review, PF5/UF5 applications identified by an NIH Institute or Center for funding consideration will be disaggregated. The International Project components will be pulled from the PF5/UF5, and each will be provided a distinct grant number with an RF2 or UL2 activity code. The foreign organization will be considered the applicant/recipient of the Linked International Research Project Grant (RF2) or Linked International Cooperative Agreement (UL2).

Just-in-Time Information (e.g., IRB Approvals, IACUC Approvals, Current and Pending (Other) Support for key personnel), will be requested from both the PF5/UF5 and RF2/UL2 organizations independently. At this point in the process, if not already completed, the RF2/UL2 applicant must verify registration in SAM.gov, grants.gov, and eRA Commons, to ensure accurate awarding information moving forward.

Should a project be selected for funding, NIH will issue a PF5 or UF5 award to the domestic organization and an RF2 or UL2 award to the foreign organizations. Each organization will be responsible for ensuring the terms and conditions of their Notices of Award are met.

Note that the system disaggregation of a PF5 or UF5 application should not be considered a commitment to funding. The NIH has the ability to fund all, none, or some of the components of the PF5/UF5 application, based on the assessment of the technical merit, materials submitted through the JIT process, and agency priorities.

 Implications for Reporting

For performance reporting, NIH recognizes the importance of coordination of all partners in international collaboration projects, and is currently reviewing progress reporting mechanisms (e.g., RPPR) that will allow all funded collaborators to demonstrate their progress towards meeting the scientific aims of the overall project, while reducing the administrative burden of duplicative reporting. Additional details, including updated progress reporting instructions that will be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the Notice of Award, will be forthcoming.

Each recipient organization will be responsible for their own financial reporting (NIHGPS 8.4.1) moving forward.

 Resources Coming Soon

NIH will be developing and posting resources, including FAQs, as well as planning training on the new activity codes and application structure. More details will be forthcoming.

Inquiries

Please direct all inquiries to:

NIH Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration

OPERAleadership@mail.nih.gov

Forecasted Opportunity: Data Sharing for Demographic Research Infrastructure Program

RFA-HD-27-005
Data Sharing for Demographic Research Infrastructure Program
Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health

This initiative will continue supporting a repository for datasets produced through support from the Population Dynamics Branch (PDB) and other components of NICHD’s Division of Extramural Research.

DSDR is widely used by NICHD grantees; complies with NIH data sharing requirements; is listed in the NLM Open Domain-Specific Data Sharing Repositories; and holds more than 3,000 datasets containing over 1.5 million variables. It provides archiving, curation, and dissemination services that are not available through other repositories used by NICHD-funded researchers, such as the NICHD Data and Specimen Hub (DASH), and offers data archiving and dissemination services beyond the those required by NIH data sharing policy. This repository houses unique data from qualitative studies, unstructured data sources, and studies of sensitive topics.

The grantee will be expected to provide resources to researchers on best practices for archiving data, including information about sharing qualitative and other sensitive data. Annually, DSDR will be required to process 20-40 new and updated datasets; disseminate 135 datasets and their documentation; review and oversee 30 data use agreements; facilitate 700,000or more downloads of data, documentation, and other resources; maintain a guide to NICHD PDB archived data including data archived elsewhere; and provide technical assistance to 1,500-2,000 users.

Read more: https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/360582 

Ask PRB: How Do I Talk to Journalists About My Research?

You send us your thorniest research communications questions and we answer them.

Dear PRB,

I want to talk to reporters about my findings, but I’m worried they’ll twist my words, make clickbait headlines, or completely misunderstand my complex research. How can I work with the media without losing my mind (or my reputation)?

Signed,

Anxious Academic

_______________

Dear Anxious Academic,

Your anxiety about engaging with journalists is completely understandable; many scientists share these concerns, especially when dealing with complex demographic data that can easily be misinterpreted or sensationalized.

The good news is that with some preparation and the right approach, you can build productive relationships with reporters while protecting the integrity of your research.

Here are some tips:

Build relationships BEFORE you need them. Don’t wait until you have a new study to contact reporters. Find journalists who cover your field well and invite them for coffee. (Science journalists at reputable publications tend to be better equipped to handle nuanced research findings.) Get to know their style and help them understand your work. When deadline pressure hits, you’ll have trusted allies.

Are you about to release a new study with policy-relevant findings? Consider reaching out to journalists proactively, rather than waiting for reporters to find you. A brief, jargon-free email explaining why your research matters to the public can open doors. University press offices can also help connect you with appropriate media contacts.

Build your media presence gradually

  • Start with institutional newsletters or blogs.
  • Use social media to communicate research to the public.
  • Follow journalists you like on social media and comment on their posts.
  • Consider writing op-eds on topics you’re passionate about.

Be strategic about who you talk to. You don’t have to say yes to every request. Research the reporter and outlet first. Do they cover your topic fairly? Do they seem genuinely interested in accuracy, or are they fishing for predetermined conclusions? It’s okay to decline if you smell clickbait.

Prepare your “greatest hits.”

  • Develop 2-3 key messages you want to convey, regardless of what you’re asked.
  • Avoid academic jargon and practice explaining your findings in everyday language. (Think of a curious neighbor as your audience.)
  • Prepare sound bites—punchy, accurate ways to describe your research that won’t get mangled.
  • Consider doing a mock interview with colleagues to get comfortable with the format.
  • Use active voice and concrete numbers (“1 in 4 people” vs “25% of the population”).
  • Have simple explanations ready for your methodology without getting into the weeds.
  • Have real-world examples or analogies ready to illustrate abstract concepts.
  • Have some supporting materials on hand, like simple charts or tables that reporters can reference to minimize errors.
  • Prepare for the “So what?” question: Why should people care about your research?

Protect against misquotes and potential misunderstandings up front. Preparation is your best defense. Before any interview, distill your findings into two or three key takeaways that you can articulate clearly in everyday language. If there’s an obvious way your research could be misinterpreted, say so directly: “A common misconception might be X, but what this actually means is Y.”

Keep your responses concise, especially for broadcast media. The shorter and clearer your statements, the less likely they are to be taken out of context.

Embrace uncertainty as a strength. Good reporters appreciate it when you acknowledge the limitations of your knowledge or research. Never say “no comment.” Instead, explain briefly why you can’t answer certain questions. For instance, “That’s outside my area of expertise,” is much better than stonewalling.

You can also redirect the conversation: “I can’t speak to that, but what I can tell you is…”

Don’t disappear once the interview ends. If you realize you misspoke or forgot important context, call back promptly with corrections or additional information.

When stories are published, provide positive feedback to reporters who do a good job—they rarely hear praise and will remember you favorably for future stories. If errors appear, contact the reporter immediately; corrections are often possible and prevent misinformation from being repeated.

Remember: getting quality information to the public is worth the risk!

This article was written by Mark Mather, Associate Vice President of Programs at PRB.

Ask PRB: Navigating the Social Media Storm

You send us your thorniest research communications questions and we answer them.

Dear PRB,

Social media used to be a fun way to stay informed about the latest research, but lately it feels kind of hostile to science. And it feels like my colleagues and friends are all leaving. Should I stay on X (formerly Twitter) and Meta to help fill the information gaps? Should I move to a more science-friendly platform? Should I quit entirely and go back to sending handwritten letters?

Signed,

Lonely Researcher

_______________

Dear Lonely Researcher,

We believe it is incumbent upon researchers to share their knowledge with the world.

So, on the question of “Should I quit entirely?” we are a solid no.

Your research should be known by the public. And since most of the public won’t ever read a journal article, we each need to find other ways to communicate. Unless you’re planning to write op-eds on a regular basis (and place them in outlets with no paywall), social media remains the most efficient, open way to share research and expertise with the world.

But on the question of where to engage? That requires a bit more nuance.

I’ve heard some convincing arguments for continuing to post fact-based information on hostile platforms. (If all scientists leave, only rumor and conspiracy remain.) While I applaud the goal of trying to fill an information vacuum, I’m increasingly skeptical that strategy works on all platforms.

In addition to concerns about scientific and ethnical integrity, there’s mounting evidence that important content is being downranked or censored on some platforms. In January 2025 content related to medication abortion was censored on two popular platforms. While much was later restored, it’s unclear why the content was censored, and some of the information is still missing. While this example is specific to one company, academics on other major social media sites have reported similar issues of difficulty being heard amidst the noise.

Continuing to share scientifically accurate information remains critically important. But it feels a bit like a koan: if it’s posted and no one sees it, is it actually shared?

So, our best advice right now? Diversity.

Many researchers and scholars are finding their communities on BlueSky. Others may find their niche on LinkedIn. Some may still be finding traction on legacy platforms. But sharing across multiple platforms—even simply by cross-posting the same content—seems wise right now.

This article was written by Beth Jarosz, Senior Program Director in U.S. Programs at PRB.

Request for Information: NICHD Strategic Plan 2025

The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is updating its current (2020-2024) strategic plan (https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/strategicplan).  The updated plan for 2025-2029 will help guide the research NICHD will support over the next five years.

NICHD is soliciting feedback on the scientific goals and opportunities under consideration for the refreshed NICHD strategic plan.

To ensure consideration, responses should be submitted no later than Friday, September 27, 2024.

To learn more: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-HD-24-028.html  

 

Ask PRB: Commenting on Federal Register Documents

You send us your thorniest research communications questions and we answer them.

Dear PRB, 

I’ve heard colleagues mention that they’ve submitted comments on federal policies and programs, but I don’t know where to start. And why should I bother—does anyone even read the comments that come in? 

Signed, 

Chatty Cathy 

_______________

Dear Chatty Cathy,

We’re so delighted that you’re interested in sharing your expertise! While there are many ways to engage in federal decisions on topics ranging from survey methodology to funding programs, the Federal Register is often the place to start.

What is the Federal Register, you ask? GovInfo describes the Federal Register as “the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.” Many hearings and meetings are also announced in the Federal Register. For our purposes, think of it as the place where calls for public comment get posted.

Because it covers all of the federal government, a single issue of the Federal Register may be several hundred pages. Thankfully, you can sign up for notifications on topics that interest you, so you don’t need to scan hundreds of pages each day to stay informed. Professional associations may also send out action alerts when there’s a topic of interest.

Federal comment opportunities fall into a couple of categories:

Each Federal Register Notice (FRN) will include information about the topic or proposed change along with information about how to respond (often by sending communication to an email address by a given due date).

As for what to write, tone and content are a personal style choice. But a few strategies to consider when responding to an FRN are the following:

  • Be as concrete as possible about the costs/benefits of what you’re suggesting. For example:
    • Will the change improve survey response rates?
    • Will it better identify characteristics of a population of interest?
    • Will it better align with international standards or better reflect local community concerns?
    • Will the proposed change be harmful to a community, and thus should be reconsidered?
  • Citations aren’t strictly necessary but can be helpful. At a minimum, your comment should include information that establishes your research expertise.
  • In a 60-day comment period for data collection, suggestions for survey question wording and methodological changes are not just ok, they’re encouraged.

One very important note: Anything you submit in response to a FRN is part of the public record. That means your comments are searchable and readable by anyone. So keep that in mind as you type.

And to address your final question: Why bother?

While the federal government may seem like a bureaucratic morass to anyone outside of Washington, D.C., the truth is that federal agency staff are eager for public input. Comments can and do result in changes to federal programs and policies. For example, in response to public feedback, the U.S. Census Bureau recently changed their plans on revising disability questions in the American Community Survey.

Agency staff also use comments to identify key stakeholders and experts to include in future efforts such as workshops and convenings, special studies, and more.

In short, even though not every comment will be incorporated into the final plan or product, many do. Comments matter.

Happy commenting!

Sincerely,

Ask PRB

P.S.

For a video walk-through of the process, you can watch Responding to Federal Requests for Comment.

This article was written by Beth Jarosz, Senior Program Director in U.S. Programs at PRB.

Explore the Research Centers

Search All Centers

Conduct a custom search across the Population Dynamics Research Centers. Up to 100 results.