At its September 2017 meeting, our Advisory Council endorsed the concept of a MIDAS Coordination Center.
MIDAS, or the Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study program, is a collaborative network of research groups that focus on developing bioinformatics tools and computational models to understand the interactions between infectious agents and their hosts, disease spread, prediction systems, and response strategies.
Initially the MIDAS network consisted of research centers (U54s), research projects (U01s), and an information service group (U24). These activities will expire in 2019, and NIGMS is shifting the focus of this program to an investigator-initiated research portfolio consisting of R01s, R35 MIRA grants, and fellowships and mentored career development awards (Fs, Ks).
However, modeling of infectious disease agents continues to be an active area where a coordinated effort is needed. NIGMS Council members supported the concept of a MIDAS Coordination Center. We envision the MIDAS Coordination Center to serve as a focal point for collaboration and training as well as testing and dissemination of MIDAS research products. The center will also act as the point of contact between the MIDAS network and public health organizations.
We expect to issue a funding opportunity announcement in early 2018, and we encourage the community to watch the presentation at our Council meeting to learn more about this program. We welcome your input and feedback on these plans. You can email your comments to me or post them here.
For some time now, NIH has offered the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) Award, also known as the MPI award, as an option for investigators seeking support for research projects. At NIGMS, we’ve been thinking about collaborative research, and we want to share some of our observations so you can choose the grant mechanism that best fits your research goals.
An MPI application is a commitment by two or more investigators. Both/all have the authority to direct the research project, should agree on how they are going to accomplish this, and will describe their project leadership plan in the grant application. If awarded, both/all have the shared responsibility to direct the research and ensure that it remains on track both intellectually and logistically. Some examples of these shared tasks include experimental design, resource allocation, supervision of staff, financial management, data sharing, and submission of publications. The responsibilities can be rotated over time. If both/all investigators are not full and equal partners in the award, it isn’t really an MPI project.
The MPI award was developed to share credit among equals on research teams. In contrast, some applicants want to use MPI awards to accomplish unintended goals, for example, to elevate a junior scientist, to entice a luminary colleague who might not otherwise get involved, to add a new technical approach to the research, or to support a collaborator at another institution. However, there can be costs associated with such strategies:
Other types of awards, including a single PD/PI regular research grant (R01), may be better alternatives to an MPI award for supporting collaborative research. Here are a few points that investigators should consider:
The MPI award fills an important niche. But the mechanism can be misunderstood and may even be misused to the detriment of one or more of the PD/PIs. Always look carefully at the continuum of opportunities to support multidisciplinary research programs and collaborative research.
Starting this fall, NIGMS anticipates offering a new award called the Collaborative Program Grant for Multidisciplinary Teams (RM1), which is designed to support highly integrated teams of researchers working to achieve a shared objective. Watch the Feedback Loop posts and talk to your NIGMS program director to learn more.
Does your research involve human specimens or data? If so, there are new questions you’ll need to address next time you apply for an NIH grant. Here’s what you need to know about that and other changes to NIH grant application procedures.
Effective for application due dates on or after January 25, 2018, all applicants will have to use the new FORMS-E application package. A major goal of the FORMS-E application package is to consolidate information about human subjects research and clinical trials into one place—the new PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form. This form will use a variety of form fields to collect information on eligibility criteria, age limits, study timeline and design, and many other aspects of the proposed human subjects research/clinical trial. Comprehensive information is available at Clinical Trial Requirements for NIH Grants and Contracts.
Even if you indicate on the Research & Related Other Project Information form that human subjects are not involved in your project, you will need to address an additional question on the new PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form:If No to Human Subjects, Does the proposed research involve human specimens and/or data?
Another change beginning with the January 25 application due date is that all applications involving one or more clinical trials must be submitted through a funding opportunity announcement (FOA) specifically designed for clinical trials. Accordingly, all new FOAs and all parent announcements will specify the allowability of clinical trials in the FOA title. Please see Clinical Trial-Specific Funding Opportunities for more information about the changes to FOAs.
It is a good idea to discuss the new Human Subjects and Clinical Trial form with your grants administrators and institutional business officials and to allow extra preparation time for your first FORMS-E grant submission. Your NIGMS program director will be able to help you identify the correct FOA for your proposed research. If you have any questions about human subjects policy or NIGMS’ support of clinical trials, please contact me.
If you are a new investigator (NI) or an early stage investigator (ESI) who received a Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) in 2016 or 2017, you may be wondering how having a MIRA affects your ability to initiate collaborations or apply for other grants. Or, you may be curious how much flexibility you really have to deviate from your original research plans. You may also be thinking a few years ahead about a competing renewal application. Because MIRA is a new grant mechanism, NIGMS will host a webinar designed specifically to address these and other topics of interest to NI/ESI MIRA principal investigators (PIs). NIGMS program, grants management and review staff will be on hand to provide information and answer your questions. We invite NI/ESI MIRA PIs and their business officials to participate.
The webinar will be held on Tuesday, September 26, from 2:00 to 3:45 p.m. EDT. The site is compatible with mobile devices. Participants will be able to submit questions through the chat function. For an audio-only presentation, call 1-866-815-0443 and enter passcode 3268089. We will post the archived webinar and slides on the MIRA webpage after the event.NIGMS Staff Participating in the September 26 Webinar
Vernon Anderson, Program Director
Oleg Barski, Program Director
Lisa Dunbar, Scientific Review Officer
Judith Greenberg, Deputy Director
Lisa Moeller, Grants Management Officer
Peter Preusch, Acting Director, Division of Cell Biology and Biophysics
Kristine Willis, Program Director
When I joined NIGMS about four years ago, I was struck by the number of press releases from journals and grantee institutions that came across my desk each day. Many of them focused on a recently published paper and failed to explain how the work fit into the broader field. Others overstated the research results to make them sound more exciting and closer to clinical application.I moderated one of the panel discussions.
Around the same time, science communicators started writing articles and conducting studies about the effects of hyped research findings (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2012; Yavchitz et al., 2012 , Sumner et al., 2014 ; Vox, 2017 ). While these discussions focused on clinically oriented research, we at NIGMS began thinking deeply about how the issue relates to basic biomedical science. On the heels of our work with the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) on enhancing rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research, we started talking to them about this topic as well. Two years later, we were pleased to host their Workshop on Responsible Communication of Basic Biomedical Research: Enhancing Awareness and Avoiding Hype .
The June 22 meeting brought together a diverse group of science communicators [PDF, 22KB] who included early and established investigators, researchers who study science communication, academic and corporate communication officers, policy advisors and journalists. Each panelist represented a stakeholder group with a role in what panelists later called the “hype cycle” and shared his or her perspectives on the problems of hype, the incentives that cause it and recommendations for avoiding it. The meeting focused on basic biomedical research, but the discussions were also relevant to other areas of science.
In her keynote address , veteran science journalist Erika Check Hayden defined hype as “exaggerating the outcomes of research, for whatever motives people have, leading to potential negative effects due to inaccurate portrayal of research.” She credited this definition to Judith Greenberg, our deputy director.The keynote address by Erika Check Hayden focused on new directions in science communication.
The subsequent discussions highlighted the shared responsibility among all the stakeholder groups for improving science communication and changing the incentives for it. Panelists acknowledged that scientists sometimes oversell the conclusions of studies hoping to get their work published in “better” journals or to improve their chances for obtaining funding; journals may decide on manuscripts to publish based on which ones they think will be cited the most or get press attention; communication officers and journalists are often judged by how many hits their stories get; and universities and research institutes may consider the fundraising potential of scientific news stories.
Here are some of the topics discussed during the workshop that really resonated with me.
The science of science communication.Panel 1: How does science communication affect the biomedical research landscape?
This is an active field of study, with researchers using evidence-based approaches to investigate the effects of communication on both the scientific enterprise and public trust. There is a lot we can glean from this type of research to inform and improve science communication efforts. One suggestion from panelist and science communication researcher Anthony Dudo, which is based on his survey results on scientists’ public engagement , is for all science communicators to think strategically about their communication objectives. Anthony suggested approaching communication like a scientific research project: Develop and follow a logic model to outline both long-term and short-term goals, and then establish the best tactics. Finding ways to measure outcomes is also important in developing effective communication practices.
Telling stories at the local level.Panel 2: How does science communication affect public perception of science?
A number of panelists, including scientists, university public information officers and journalists, talked about the value of sharing stories about scientific research with family, friends, acquaintances and others in their social networks. They said these conversations can go a long way in helping the public understand and appreciate the process of discovery. Similarly, they said that coverage in local and niche publications, which is much more attainable than coverage in national and mainstream outlets, also goes a long way toward building scientific awareness in the relevant communities. In fact, a 2015 Pew Research Center study that looked at the news habits of residents in three disparate U.S. metro areas (Denver, Colorado; Macon, Georgia; Sioux City, Iowa) found that residents follow local news more closely than national news, with nearly 65 percent of the cities’ residents talking about local news in person on a weekly basis and about 20 percent commenting on local news blogs.
Diminishing the role of the press release.Panel 3: What are the goals and incentives of science communication?
All the panelists agreed that press releases are overused and aren’t always needed to share information with the intended audience. Panelist Matt Shipman, who leads research communication efforts at his institution and evaluates press releases for Health News Review , thinks that only 35 to 40 percent of press releases garner media attention, with just 5 percent generating coverage in mainstream outlets. Sara Reardon and Jocelyn Kaiser, who represented the journalists on the panel, noted that they receive far too many press releases and that they generally do not use them in developing stories. They said the most useful ones explain how the new study moves the field forward, how far the finding is from the clinic and what the limitations are. Including the caveats in the press release is strongly associated with a higher likelihood of any resulting news pieces also including them, according to another recent study .Panel 4: Better practices: Re-examining decision-making on communicating scientific results
NIGMS has already changed how we communicate about the research we support. For example, instead of focusing on a single paper or finding, our research stories for the public now regularly feature the overall arc of a field—including complexities and uncertainties—or follow a scientist’s career. We’re also working to increase our scrutiny and that of reviewers on how scientists communicate their conclusions in grant applications and what the lasting influence of their work has been on their fields. And communication is among the student skills that we hope to see developed by graduate programs supported through our new T32 funding opportunity announcement to be published this fall.
The workshop was a first step toward catalyzing a broader discussion on this topic, and we welcome your input on how the conversation could be advanced. You can read more about the workshop and the panelists’ recommendations in the meeting summary [PDF, 164KB]. You can also watch the entire meeting on the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting site.
NIGMS has a longstanding commitment to training the next generation of biomedical scientists and supports training of students from underrepresented (UR) groups through a variety of institutional training and student development programs including Bridges to the Baccalaureate, Bridges to the Doctorate, Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement, Maximizing Access to Research Careers Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research, Initiative for Maximizing Student Development, and the Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program. The goal of these programs is to increase the number of students from UR groups who matriculate in and complete Ph.D. degree programs in the biomedical sciences and become leaders in the U.S. research enterprise.
We are seeking input from the biomedical research community, including students, undergraduate faculty, graduate faculty, scientific societies, and academic institutions, as well as from the public, through a Request for Information (RFI) on the organization and administration of NIGMS undergraduate and predoctoral diversity programs.
Specific topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following areas:
Responses can be submitted via an online form and can be anonymous. The due date for providing input is October 31, 2017.
We’re hosting a webinar on CareerTrac, the system used to track student outcomes on Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE), Bridges to the Baccalaureate and Bridges to the Doctorate grants. The webinar, for principal investigators/program directors of these grants, will be on Thursday, September 28, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT. A CareerTrac representative will be on hand to provide an orientation about the use of the system and to answer your questions. You may send questions before the webinar to Luis Cubano or post them in the chat box during the event.
To access the webinar, visit the WebEx Meeting page and enter the meeting number 620 731 655 and the password “nigms.” If you are unable to attend online, you can join by phone by calling 1-650-479-3208 from anywhere in the United States or Canada and entering the meeting number above. Slides will be available on the RISE, Bridges to the Baccalaureate and Bridges to the Doctorate websites following the event.
We look forward to talking with you about CareerTrac.Staff Participating in the September 28 Webinar
NIGMS Division of Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity:
Patrick H. Brown, Bridges to the Doctorate Program Director
Luis A. Cubano, RISE Program Director
Mercedes Rubio, Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program Director
Jacob Prichard, Project Manager
The 2017 Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity (TWD) Program Directors’ Meeting , organized through a grant to the Federation of Associations for Experimental Biology, took place June 18-21 in Baltimore. This biennial meeting brought together the community of faculty, staff and administrators who manage TWD undergraduate and predoctoral training programs across the nation to network, share best practices for program improvement and connect with NIGMS staff. This year, participants presented more than 100 posters. Plenary sessions and keynote talks described innovative approaches for training and evaluation, efforts to enhance diversity in the biomedical workforce and more.
To view more of the presentations and to access abstracts for the poster sessions, please visit the 2017 TWD Program Directors’ Meeting resources page .
It is with a heavy heart that I share with you the passing of Catherine D. Lewis, former director of the NIGMS Division of Cell Biology and Biophysics. As previously posted, Cathy retired in January after more than 30 years of service at NIH. Although already on the horizon, her plans for retirement were accelerated by a diagnosis of cancer and the need to focus her energies on trying to beat it. Unfortunately, she died just six months later, on July 12.
As noted already, Cathy made many contributions to the scientific community and over a lifetime made many friends. She regularly participated in meetings of the American Society for Cell Biology and the Biophysical Society, but also in more intimate gatherings of scientists such as FASEB and Gordon Research Conferences. She was always interested to hear about research advances and willing to provide guidance about NIH processes. She was equally comfortable engaging non-scientific audiences about the research supported by her division.
Cathy personally managed a robust grant portfolio of cutting-edge research in the fields of nanoscience and single molecule methods. Earlier in her NIGMS career, she managed grants in genetics and developmental biology, as well as grants in structural biology that led to the first crystal structures of the ribosome. She also helped oversee the Institute’s initiatives aimed at advancing structural genomics, improving methods for cellular imaging, creating a library of cell images and, most recently, supporting resources for cryo-EM and cryo-EM tomography.
Within NIH, Cathy was known for her work ethic and her ability to make people feel at ease. She managed a division responsible for more than 1,300 grants, and did so with grace, patience and a sunny smile.
The application package for submitting all types of grant applications is about to change. Effective for receipt dates on or after January 25, 2018, applicants will have to use FORMS-E application packages. NIGMS is urging applicants to direct their attention to NOT-OD-17-062 and be ready for the change.
The change will apply to all funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) and all application types (new, resubmission, renewal, revision). Applications submitted using the wrong forms will automatically be withdrawn by the Division of Receipt and Referral within the NIH Center for Scientific Review and will not be reviewed. Application guides for FORMS-E application packages will be posted on the How to Apply – Application Guide page no later than October 25, 2017.
One of the best resources to help applicants stay on top of new and upcoming changes for grants and contracts at NIH is the Notices of NIH Policy Changes located on the Office of Extramural Research website. Please check this page frequently and, as always, contact NIGMS program and review staff with any questions.
Are you preparing an institutional Bridges to the Baccalaureate grant or Bridges to the Doctorate grant application? If so, you may have questions about the funding opportunity announcements, data tables and FORMS-D application package [PDF, 1.95MB] required for the upcoming September 25 application due date.
We’re offering a webinar to discuss these topics on Thursday, August 10, from 2:00-3:30 p.m. EDT. You may send questions to us (Mercedes Rubio or Patrick H. Brown) before the webinar or post them live in the chat box during the event. If you’re away from your computer, you can access the webinar from a mobile device or listen to a voice-only option by dialing 1-888-469-1681 from anywhere in the United States or Canada and entering the participant passcode 4928788. Slides will be posted on the Bridges to the Baccalaureate website and Bridges to the Doctorate website following the event.
We look forward to talking to you about the Bridges programs.NIGMS Staff Participating in August 10 Webinar
Division of Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity:
Mercedes Rubio, Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program Director
Patrick H. Brown, Bridges to the Doctorate Program Director
Office of Scientific Review:
Tracy Koretsky, Scientific Review Officer
Division of Extramural Activities:
Justin Rosenzweig, Grants Management Specialist
Our Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) program is still relatively new, so it’s not surprising that NIGMS staff frequently hear misconceptions about it. This post dispels five common MIRA myths.
Myth 1: Once an investigator is awarded a MIRA, the budget will never increase.
MIRA budgets may increase. At the time of the competing renewal application, a principal investigator (PI) may request an increase in funding. MIRAs with modest budgets that have been very productive and score very well could receive budget increases. Study sections will be asked to look at budget requests, and NIGMS staff will make determinations based on the reviewers’ recommendations and available funds.
Myth 2: Early stage investigators will receive more funding for their labs if they get an R01 than if they get a MIRA.
A MIRA PI who is an early stage investigator (ESI) has a higher probability of receiving more NIGMS funding than a non-MIRA ESI. Most ESI MIRA investigators receive $250,000 in direct costs per year. A recent analysis found that the vast majority of ESIs who have received an NIGMS R01 are initially awarded $200,000 or less, and most do not go on to receive a second NIGMS R01 during the first five years of their initial award. Thus, the total NIGMS funding for most relatively new investigators is higher with a MIRA.
Myth 3: MIRA discourages collaborative research.
NIGMS strongly endorses collaborative research, and this extends to the MIRA program. However, the MIRA concept is based on the idea that NIGMS will provide support to individual investigators’ research programs. Collaborators are expected to work together because of their mutual interest in a problem. The collaborator, in most cases, will support his or her efforts with independent funding, not through a subcontract from the MIRA. In cases where a collaborator’s efforts are well-justified, essential to the research program of the MIRA and cannot be supported by the collaborator, a consortium agreement can be included in the competing application.
NIGMS also encourages scientifically productive international collaborative research efforts. However, NIGMS will only provide funding for a foreign consortium arrangement when the collaboration is essential to the PI’s research program, represents a unique scientific opportunity and cannot be supported by the collaborator.
Myth 4: MIRA PIs cannot apply for administrative supplements.
MIRA PIs are eligible for Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research and may be eligible for other types of administrative supplements, such as equipment supplements offered by NIGMS through notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. In rare situations, NIGMS may provide a supplement for a piece of equipment that could not have been anticipated at the time the application was submitted.
Myth 5: MIRA PIs cannot apply for NIGMS training grants or conference grants.
MIRA PIs are eligible to apply for grants that support research resources, training, workforce development or diversity building, clinical trials, selected cooperative agreements, SBIR/STTRs, conference grants and the portion of a center grant or a P01 that is strictly a core. In addition, a MIRA PI may receive grants from other NIH institutes or centers, although when making funding decisions NIGMS always considers an investigator’s other support, as described on our Funding Policies page.
More information, including answers to frequently asked questions, is on the MIRA page.
I would like to call your attention to two program announcements recently published in the NIH Guide:
These announcements provide updated instructions for both pre-applications and full applications for Biomedical Technology Research Resource (BTRR) grants. The BTRR program supports development and dissemination of advanced technologies that enable biomedical research The BTRR centers create a wide range of technologies and work with thousands of NIH-supported investigators each year.
The X02 pre-application is strongly recommended. The pre-application provides an opportunity for prospective applicants to receive feedback from both peer reviewers and NIGMS program staff as they formulate their plans for a complex, lengthy proposal for a P41 grant.
Following an evaluation in 2016, we have revised the BTRR program, while preserving the fundamental mission of developing and providing access to advanced technologies. Susan Gregurick, director of our Biomedical Technology, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology Division, presented on the evaluation and proposed program changes at the September 2016 NIGMS Advisory Council meeting.
Revisions to the program have changed the structure of a BTRR to give the investigators who run the centers more flexibility in how technologies are shared with the community. A new feature, “Technology Development Partnerships,” will enable centers to rapidly adopt and incorporate emerging technologies developed elsewhere that advance a BTRR’s overall mission, rather than focus entirely on technologies developed “in-house.”
The program also will provide investigators with greater flexibility to tailor a center’s approach to technology innovation, user access and training, and dissemination according to the specific technologies being developed and communities being served. At the same time, the program will place a greater emphasis on actively moving technologies out of the BTRR and into the wider community as quickly as possible. We anticipate that most BTRR centers will not be funded beyond three cycles (15 years), and we will require investigators involved with this program to formulate a sustainability plan for their research resources.
The submission date for the first round of X02 pre-applications is August 15, 2017. Future submission dates will follow a regular schedule, occurring twice per year in March and July. That timing allows nine months from submission of the X02 until the anticipated submission of a resulting full application in January or May, respectively.
The next submission date for full applications for a P41 BTRR is September 25, 2017. This is the only submission date for funding in Fiscal Year 2018. In future years, applications will be accepted twice per year, in January and May, with no September submission. To improve consistency in the review of competing applications, the NIH Center for Scientific Review will convene a special study section to review all NIGMS P41 BTRR applications together. There will be no site visits.
NIGMS also supports technology development through several other programs. To help investigators determine which technology development program is right for their project, we’ve posted a decision tree on the NIGMS website. It includes descriptions of the programs designed to support specific stages of technology development.
I welcome questions or comments about these FOAs or our technology development programs in general.
NIGMS supports research in specific clinical areas that affect multiple organ systems. We recently reissued the funding opportunity announcement for clinical trial planning grants of high relevance to the NIGMS mission. We strongly encourage investigators to apply for a planning grant before submitting an application for a full clinical trial in one of the clinical areas that NIGMS supports. The next application deadline is August 7, with optional letters of intent due by July 7.
If you’re interested in applying for a clinical trial planning grant, we recommend that you consult with the appropriate NIGMS program staff before you apply to determine whether the goal of the proposed trial aligns with the NIGMS mission and scientific priorities.
For more information, see our Clinical Studies and Trials webpage, which includes links to other useful resources like the NIGMS Guidelines for Data and Safety Monitoring in Clinical Trials. In addition, please note that last year NIH announced a suite of policy changes known as Clinical Trial Stewardship Reforms that are designed to improve the clinical trial application and award process as well as the sharing of clinical trial data and results with other researchers and the public.
If you have any questions about NIGMS’ support of clinical trials, please contact me.
NIGMS recently reissued the funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for the Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) program for Early Stage Investigators. The first application due date is October 3, 2017. As in previous years, the purpose of this MIRA mechanism is to provide support for the program of research in the laboratory of an early stage investigator (ESI) that falls within the mission of NIGMS. Here are some important points to know if you’re considering applying to this FOA:
These and many other topics related to the MIRA ESI FOA are covered in detail in a newly-released set of frequently asked questions.
We’ll also be hosting a webinar to discuss the FOA and answer your specific questions about the program on Monday, July 10, from 1:30-2:30 p.m. EDT. The site is compatible with mobile devices. For an audio-only presentation, call 1-888-989-5313 and enter passcode 8866047. We plan to post the archived webinar and slides on the MIRA webpage after the event.
NIH Staff Participating in July 10 Webinar
Jon Lorsch, Institute Director
Kristine Willis, Program Director
Brian Pike, Scientific Review Officer
Lisa Moeller, Grants Management Officer
NIGMS has a longstanding commitment to developing the next generation of biomedical scientists through a variety of programs, including the M.D.-Ph.D. dual degree Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP). This program provides Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional Predoctoral Training Grant (T32) awards to medical institutions that are responsible for training physician scientists. The Physician-Scientist Workforce Working Group Report [PDF, 6.2 MB] of NIH’s Advisory Committee to the Director highlighted the decline of physician scientists as a percentage of overall NIH principal investigators. NIH data presented at the 50th Anniversary Medical Scientist Training Program Symposium showed that while earlier cohorts of MSTP trainees were highly successful in achieving independent research careers and NIH grant support, more recent graduates have been less successful. Many factors may contribute to this difference, including lengthening of the post-M.D.-Ph.D. training period before achieving independence and increased competition of investigators for limited research funds and positions.
We are seeking input from the biomedical research community and other interested groups through a Request for Information (RFI) on strategies and ideas for the modernization of physician-scientist training that can be addressed through the MSTP.
More specific topics are included in the RFI, but examples of broad areas of interest are:
Responses can be submitted via an online form and can be anonymous. The due date for providing input is August 9, 2017.