Funding Opportunity Announcement Research Articles

How do the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Technology Transfer Centers Decide What Evidence-Based Practices to Disseminate and Determine How to Do So? A Cross-Sectional Study of a National Network.

It is important to use evidence-based programs and practices (EBPs) to address major public health issues. However, those who use EBPs in real-world settings often require support in bridging the research-to-practice gap. In the US, one of the largest systems that provides such support is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network. As part of a large external evaluation of the Network, this study examined how TTCs determine which EBPs to promote and how to promote them. Using semi-structured interviews and pre-testing, we developed a "Determinants of Technology Transfer" survey that was completed by 100% of TTCs in the Network. Because the study period overlapped with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also conducted a retrospective pre/post-pandemic comparison of determinants. TTCs reported relying on a broad group of factors when selecting EBPs to disseminate and the methods to do so. Stakeholder and target audience input and needs were consistently the most important determinant (both before and during COVID-19), while some other determinants fluctuated around the pandemic (e.g., public health mandates, instructions in the funding opportunity announcements). We discuss implications of the findings for technology transfer and frame the analyses in terms of the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation.

251 The Appalachian Translational Research Network (ATRN) Newsletter: Supporting Communication and Collaboration among Academic and Community Partners to Improve Health in Appalachia

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Appalachian Translational Research Network (ATRN) Newsletter provides a unique platform that facilitates communication among Appalachian-serving CTSAs/CTSIs and partnering academic and community organizations that strengthens research efforts and advances translational science across the region. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Published biannually, each ATRN Newsletter features content submitted by ATRN member universities and organizations. Members of the Communications Committee, who represent both CTSA- or non-CTSA- affiliated ATRN member institutions, provide as well as review and edit content for the Newsletter. Regular features include researcher and community member spotlights; funding opportunity announcements; information on upcoming seminars, trainings, and special events; and opportunities for collaborations among partnering ATRN institutions. Complementing regularly scheduled Newsletters, special editions are released as warranted, such as a special COVID-19 focused edition published in 2020. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: First published in 2012, the ATRN Newsletter initially represented founding ATRN institutions, the University of Kentucky and the Ohio State University CTSAs, and a readership of 50. Reflecting ATRN growth that now represents 9 academic centers including NCATS- and IDeA-funded hubs, affiliated universities and partnering organizations, readership has grown to include 500 subscribers from across the U.S. and 3 other countries. With the establishment of the official ATRN website in 2019, the ATRN Newsletter became a prominent addition, providing ATRN members’ access to both new and archived editions, thereby expanding reach and further strengthening critical communication across the Network. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Providing a vehicle for communication that supports ATRN collaborations and networking, the Newsletter is foundational to the success of the ATRN mission to improve health outcomes across Appalachia by fostering collaborative inter-institutional and community-academic research partnerships.

Realizing Justice40: Addressing Structural Funding Barriers for Equitable Community Engagement in Energy RD&D

The Justice40 Initiative, established by the Biden Administration through Executive Order 14008, aims to ensure 40% of the benefits associated with relevant governmental investments in areas such as climate and energy go to disadvantaged communities. However, persistent structural limitations pose challenges for energy researchers and engineers seeking to integrate justice into research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities, ultimately inhibiting full realization of Justice40. Using the Systemic Equity framework, this policy position paper highlights inadequacies in the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) funding model and proposes changes to RD&D funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) to support the in-depth community engagement necessary for more equitable technology creation and demonstration. The recommended changes to FOAs are provided to encourage DOE Program Offices to rethink the RD&D funding process, the values that are fortified (intentionally or unintentionally) in that process, and systematically recenter RD&D processes on the goal Justice40 set out to achieve—a more just, equitable, and sustainable future.

A Literature Review of NOx Emissions in Current and Future State-of-the-Art Gas Turbines

Abstract Current U.S. government policy seeks to achieve a completely carbon-free economy by 2050, with a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035 (per executive orders #14008 and #14057). To address these goals, the U.S. Department of Energy is evaluating strategies and technologies that support the production, utilization, transport, and storage of hydrogen (via initiatives such as Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Earthshot—Hydrogen and various DOE funding opportunity announcements). A carbon-free fuel such as hydrogen cannot be overvalued in a dynamic electric energy sector seeking to decarbonize. One of the most important technologies needed to achieve the goal of a carbon-free electricity sector is a 100% hydrogen-fueled gas turbine. Accommodating hydrogen-based fuels has been a key goal for various original engine manufacturers (OEMs) for many years, but much more research and development (R&D) is needed. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the current state-of-the- art of hydrogen turbine technology, especially regarding nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions compared to natural gas-fueled turbines. NOX is the primary criteria pollutant from thermally driven combustion turbines and should be controlled to levels that are equivalent to or below existing standards (as reported “existing standards” for hydrogen-fueled gas turbines may need to be rebaselined). This paper will provide an overview of hydrogen as a fuel and various NOX emissions control techniques that are relevant for hydrogen-based fuels. A conclusion from this overview is that, with some level of R&D, NOX emissions from hydrogen-fueled gas turbines can be controlled to levels similar to those produced by state-of-the-art (SOTA) natural gas-fueled combustion turbines while remaining competitive in terms of performance and efficiency.

Developing a shared understanding of translational science within CTSA hubs through facilitated retreats: A case study.

Translation of critical and broadly impactful health advancements is stymied by insufficient scientific scrutiny of barriers and roadblocks in the process. The Clinical & Translational Science Award (CTSA) funding opportunity announcement released in July 2021 makes clear the distinction between translational research and translational science (TS) and urges a shift from the former to the latter. This represents a significant shift in the overall scientific direction of the CTSA program and necessitates corresponding shifts in CTSA hub operations. To better support TS, the Team Science Core of the Duke CTSA hub designed and facilitated a virtual retreat for hub personnel that (1) enabled organizational learning about TS and (2) identified anticipated challenges and opportunities. A post-retreat survey was utilized to assess the degree to which the retreat met its stated goals. Our survey received a 62% response rate; 100% of respondents would recommend the session to others. Respondents also reported gains in all areas assessed, with evidence for greater understanding of TS and increased perspective of the value and relevance of TS. In this paper, we provide a roadmap for designing and implementing facilitated TS retreats, which we argue is a key step in TS capacity building through workforce development.

Grant writing

Grant writing is the process of responding to an application for a financial grant from institutions such as research organisations, government agencies, corporations, foundations, trusts, and international funding organisations. The skills required to write successful grants are referred to as grantsmanship. Over the past few decades, the process of applying for grants has become increasingly complex and highly competitive. Therefore, the grant proposals must be based on innovative ideas, capable of advancing the current status of knowledge, compelling, and well-written. Types of Research Grants Collaborative research grants are usually interdisciplinary, multicentre, and multicountry. These are led by senior researchers with a team of co-investigators including post–doctoral fellows, and postgraduate students. Fellowships are individual research grants that provide the fellow who obtains the grant the time to focus on the research project for a stipulated time. Targeted grants are for early-career, mid-career, or senior researchers. The grant announcement for these indicates the category of researchers who are eligible to apply. Networking grants are aimed at developing teams and establishing teams of academic and research collaborators for a particular research topic. These grants provide funding for researchers to engage in discussions regarding potential research ideas. Small grants fund small research projects or preliminary research that provide initial data for larger research projects in the future. Travel grants are usually for professional development and are provided by disciplinary specialist organisations. The researcher is supported to travel to institutions that have resources or opportunities that are not available at their home institution. Knowledge transfer grants or industrial partnerships are grants aimed at promoting collaboration and knowledge exchange between academic and non-academic collaborators. The funds can also be used for proof of concept, pilots, and getting new products to the market. Conference grants are used to disseminate research findings or host research conferences. Grant proposals The proposals should conform to the guidelines indicated in the funding opportunity announcement. Funders have guidelines regarding the sections of the proposals, font type, and font sizes to be used, sections of the proposal, page limits for each section, and the overall proposal. Project narrative This section provides the most comprehensive description of the proposed project. The main areas are the background and literature review that identify research gaps. It contains the research problem and questions/aims and objectives and documents the proposed research methods. Other areas addressed are the project management and delivery plan, which may require work packages. The budget and budget justification are also addressed in this section. Other documents required are: The curriculum vitae of the investigators detailing their previous research and how it relates to the current application. Well-written letters of support from collaborators and collaborating institutions that address the roles and responsibilities of team members are essential. This is particularly important for collaborative research that involves various partners from other universities, non-academic organisations, and industry. These partners should provide signed letters of support that indicate the specific contribution of the collaborator and commitment research project, and the contribution in cash or in-kind.

Distinguishing between translational science and translational research in CTSA pilot studies: A collaborative project across 12 CTSA hubs.

The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be "focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research." This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS. Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies. Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR (t = 6.92, p < .001) by an expert panel. The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS' vision of TS.

National Institutes of Health R-series Grants portfolio of racism and healthcare, 2017–2022

BackgroundAny form of racism in healthcare is an unacceptable barrier to receiving equitable and quality care, further contributing to health disparities among populations. For these reasons, it is critical to have a better understanding on the amount of research and scientific advances of funded projects aimed at racism in healthcare. An examination of the distribution of R-series funded research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on racism in healthcare during a 5-year fiscal year (FY) period (2017–2022) was conducted by the study team.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) for research project grants awarded on racism and healthcare during the FYs of 2017 to 2022. The number of R-series NIH funded projects on racism in healthcare were examined, including the abstract and public health relevance statement, number of publications, spending category, fiscal start and end dates, total amount of funding each year, funding agency/center(s), and type of funding opportunity announcements. Descriptive statistics were performed on the data by the research team.ResultsThere were a total of 93 R-series grants funded during the FYs of 2017 to 2022. Most of the grants were R01s (77.4%); focused primarily on racism at the system-wide level (68.8%), and on patients (64.5%); the largest racial and ethnic minority group reported were African/American/Black (20.4%); and close to 40% did not report race or ethnicity. None of the grants focused in internalized racism, which is at the individual –level. From the FYs of 2017 to 2022, 0.07% of all NIH research funding was awarded to racism in healthcare.ConclusionThe findings of this study showed the need for continued funding and of the need of more research on racism in healthcare, that potentially can reduce health disparities and inequities.

(Invited) The U.S. Department of Energy’s HydroGEN Consortium for Advanced Water Splitting Materials

The goals of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO) support those of the Biden Administration to build a clean and equitable energy economy and address the climate crisis through development and deployment of hydrogen technologies to the benefit of all Americans. HFTO is dedicated to meet the goals of DOE’s Hydrogen Shot,[1] which targets affordable clean hydrogen production at $1/kg within the decade, and the H2@Scale Initiative,[2] which aims to advance affordable hydrogen to enable decarbonization and revenue opportunities across multiple sectors.HFTO’s HydroGEN consortium (https://www.h2awsm.org/) for advanced water splitting materials, part of the DOE’s Energy Materials Network (EMN), includes a focus on multiple clean hydrogen production pathways, including several relevant to solar hydrogen production. Since the consortium’s establishment in 2016, HydroGEN researchers have made significant progress in the areas of low and high temperature electrolysis, as well as photoelectrochemical (PEC) and solar thermochemical (STCH) hydrogen production pathways. The HydroGEN consortium facilitates collaborations between national laboratories, academia, and industry bringing together world-class technical expertise with state-of-the-art facilities made available to project partners. HydroGEN offers an extensive collection of materials research capabilities for addressing R&D challenges. Project participants can choose from over 40 unique capability nodes. Each capability comprises—a combination of a tool, technique, and expertise—that is unique to the national laboratory system.HydroGEN has supported over 30 competitively selected R&D projects with industry and academic partners by providing streamlined access to national lab resources and expertise. The consortium is also credited with contributing over 100 publications, fostering cross-cutting activities to advance material performance and durability through community engagement and protocol development, and initiating critical laboratory-led efforts to address specific R&D gaps in the AWS portfolio. Despite the progress, there is still significant ground to be covered in the water splitting materials R&D space to enable low-cost and large-scale hydrogen production, especially in the direct solar hydrogen production pathway of artificial photosynthesis.Current consortium efforts include photoelectrochemical (PEC) hydrogen production among other advanced water splitting pathways. The consortium seeks to discover and design new low-cost materials and increase the efficiency and durability of current systems for carbon-free hydrogen production. The consortium is also engaged in connecting the research community by developing a data platform for secure data transfers and public data sharing. Additionally, HydroGEN supports benchmarking performance and protocols of electrolyzer systems to ensure apples-to-apples comparisons across academia and industry. A new cohort of solar fuels focused projects were recently selected from the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number: DE-FOA-0002792 with additional funding in this area expected in the future.[1] Hydrogen Shot | Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/fuelcells/hydroge-shot[2] H2@Scale | Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale Figure 1

Leveling the Playing Field: Initiatives to Address Gender and Racial Inequities in NIH Funding

Since 1990, the number of NIH-funded training grants awarded to women at the pre- and post-doctoral levels have been steadily increasing, with women comprising 60-61% of predocs, and 55-56% of postdoctoral fellows. Similarly, women constitute the majority of career development (K) awardees (58%). Nevertheless, the proportion of R01-equivalent awards obtained by women was only 35% of all awarded R01’s in 2022, although an improvement over the 22% rate in 1998. As for research grants by race, nearly 71% were awarded to Whites as of November 2022.Aware of these disparities, the NIH as a whole and the Office of Research on Women’s Health in particular have issued a number of funding opportunity announcements that seek to mitigate some of the barriers that prevent women and other underrepresented groups from obtaining more equitable representation in the NIH-funded biomedical workforce. Many of these available funding opportunities, which are intended to increase the recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce, are often overlooked or are unknown to the underrepresented sectors of the biomedical workforce. This presentation is intended to increase awareness of some of these mechanisms and create a greater impact on promoting diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility to disadvantaged groups. Public This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2023 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.

Selected Developments in Biotechnology Law and the Biotechnology Industry

Selected Developments in Biotechnology Law and the Biotechnology Industry

Evaluation of a clinical and translational research initiative: Developing and implementing a collaborative evaluation process in CAIRIBU.

Funding for large research initiatives, such as those funded through the National Institutes of Health U mechanism, has increased since 2010; however, there is little published research on how to evaluate the success of such initiatives. Here, we describe the collaborative evaluation planning process undertaken by the Interactions Core of the Collaborating for the Advancement of Interdisciplinary Research in Benign Urology (CAIRIBU) research community, a clinical and translational research initiative funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Evaluation is necessary to measure the impact of our work and to allow for continuous improvement efforts of CAIRIBU activities and initiatives. We developed and implemented an iterative seven-step process that engaged the Interactions Core, NIDDK program staff, and grantees at each step of the planning process. Challenges faced in planning and implementing the evaluation plan included the time burden on investigators to submit new data for evaluations, finite time and resources for evaluation work, and the development of infrastructure for the evaluation plan. We call on funding agencies to include more explicit requirements for evaluation participation from grantees, as well as dedicated funding to support the evaluation process, in future funding opportunity announcements for large research consortia.

INSIDE THE REVIEW MEETING

Abstract What happens to applications on meeting day? What do study section members discuss? Review of applications are evaluated for their scientific and technical merit, and this is reflected in the reviewers’ written assessment of the project’s overall impact. In addition, reviewers score five core criteria and additional review criteria as defined in the funding opportunity announcement. The panel’s initial assessment determines which applications will be discussed in full at the meeting. For each that is discussed, reviewers briefly present the strengths and weaknesses of the application and discuss the factors that inform their overall assessment. At the end of the discussion, a final impact score is given by all eligible members of the panel, which is reported on the summary statement. Every application undergoes a similar process that ensures that fair and consistent consideration is applied to all applications. At the end of the presentation, attendees will learn how the foundation and pillars of the NIH peer review process are put into practice through scoring, discussion, and potential impact on the field.

Reviewing knowledgebase and database grant proposals in the life sciences: the role of innovation

This article offers thoughts on reviewing grant proposals for biological knowledgebases and databases (KDs) in the hope of aiding grant reviewers and applicants in addressing the issue of innovation. Assessing such grant proposals involves a number of subtleties that are worthy of discussion, particularly for new reviewers and applicants. In part, this article is motivated by the release of two funding opportunity announcements by the US National Institutes of Health concerning KDs. We find that the amount of innovation required for different KD projects can vary significantly, particularly depending on where in its life cycle a given project is. Strong innovation is not necessarily required to have an impactful KD project. For example, PubMed has low innovation but high impact. The importance of innovation should be weighted differently for different KD projects depending on the challenges they face and their maturity. The score for the overall impact of a grant proposal might have little dependence on the innovation score, such as for a mature project that is already delivering strong impact.

Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in National Institutes of Health Funding Opportunity Announcements, 1992-2020

This cross-sectional study examines changes from 1992 to 2020 in the use of promotional language in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding opportunity announcements in comparison with trends reported in NIH grant applications.

Nutrition Research Funding Trends and Focus Areas at the US National Cancer Institute.

Evidence for diet and nutrition's role in the cancer continuum is inconsistent and requires further study. Although more investigation is needed, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) funding for nutrition has decreased. To examine nutrition research funding at the NCI, a portfolio analysis was undertaken for fiscal year (FY) 2018. Nutrition and other cancer-related terms were searched using the National Institutes of Health Query View and Report grants management dashboard. Grants were categorized by mechanism, funding status, applicant characteristics, funding opportunity announcement type, award type, and study characteristics. A total of 18 233 NCI grant applications were submitted in FY 2018; 12% were funded. Of the 653 nutrition-related grant applications received, 69 (11%) were funded. Funding status of nutrition grants did not differ statistically based on the type of funding opportunity announcement and were higher for applications classified as investigator initiated. Early stage investigators' nutrition applications were funded less than other investigators. Only 4% and 6% of overall and funded nutrition grant applications were submitted by registered dietitian nutritionist primary investigators, respectively. Average FY 2018 award amounts for funded nutrition and overall grant applications were approximately US $399 000 and approximately US $703 000, respectively. Although the percentage of NCI nutrition grants funded was similar to other grant funding at NCI in FY 2018, between FY 2012 and FY 2018, NCI decreased overall nutrition funding by 44%. Average grant award amounts for nutrition were less compared with overall NCI-funded grant applications and other topics. Our analysis highlights potential opportunities for greater investment in nutrition research at the NCI.

SAMHSA announces almost $1.5 billion in new SOR grants

On May 19, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), announced that it is accepting applications for the fiscal year (FY) 2022 cohort of the State Opioid Response (SOR). Only single state agencies (NASADAD members) and territories can apply. From the funding opportunity announcement: “The purpose of this program is to address the opioid overdose crisis by providing resources to states and territories for increasing access to FDA‐approved medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD), and for supporting the continuum of prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery support services for opioid use disorder (OUD) and other concurrent substance use disorders. The SOR program also supports the continuum of care for stimulant misuse and use disorders, including for cocaine and methamphetamine. The SOR program aims to help reduce unmet treatment needs and opioid‐related overdose deaths across America.” There will be 59 awards for the grants, which are for up to 2 years. No cost sharing is required. Applications are due July 18. For more on the grant, go to https://www.samhsa.gov/grants/grant‐announcements/ti‐22‐005.

The Development of Psychosocial Therapeutic and Preventive Interventions for Mental Disorders (R61/R33): A User’s Guide

ABSTRACT One of the four major goals outlined in the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) strategic plan (2021) is to develop and test new treatments and prevention strategies. The aim of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for the R61/R33 grant mechanism has been to support the efficient pilot testing of exploratory clinical trials of novel interventions for mental disorders in adults and children through an experimental therapeutics approach. The present commentary (a) describes the R61/R33 grant mechanism, defines terms, and summarizes information about current grants in the system, (b) outlines the review criteria, and (c) highlights several common critiques. Frequent concerns expressed by applicants as well as reviewers include defining and measuring the target/mechanism, establishing dose, selecting an appropriate control group, measuring fidelity, and determining power. Finally, alternative pathways for conducting randomized clinical trials for intervention development are discussed in contrast to or in addition to the experimental therapeutics approach for discovering novel interventions aimed at reducing and preventing mental illness across the lifespan.

NIH funding of COVID-19 research in 2020: a cross-sectional study.

ObjectiveThis study aims to characterise and evaluate the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) grant allocation speed and pattern of COVID-19 research.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingCOVID-19 NIH RePORTER Dataset was used to identify COVID-19 relevant grants.Participants1108 grants allocated to COVID-19 research.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was to determine the number of grants and funding amount the NIH allocated for COVID-19 by research type and clinical/scientific area. The secondary outcome was to calculate the time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date.ResultsThe NIH awarded a total of 56 169 grants in 2020, of which 2.0% (n=1108) wwas allocated for COVID-19 research. The NIH had a US$45.3 billion budget that year, of which 4.9% (US$2.2 billion) was allocated to COVID-19 research. The most common clinical/scientific areas were social determinants of health (n=278, 8.5% of COVID-19 funding), immunology (n=211, 25.8%) and pharmaceutical interventions research (n=208, 47.6%). There were 104 grants studying COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions, of which 2 grants studied the efficacy of face masks and 6 studied the efficacy of social distancing. Of the 83 COVID-19 funded grants on transmission, 5 were awarded to study airborne transmission of COVID-19 and 2 grants on transmission of COVID-19 in schools. The average time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date was 151 days (SD: ±57.9).ConclusionIn the first year of the pandemic, the NIH diverted a small fraction of its budget to COVID-19 research. Future health emergencies will require research funding to pivot in a timely fashion and funding levels to be proportional to the anticipated burden of disease in the population.

RDoC and the developmental origins of psychiatric disorders: How did we get here and where are we going?

About a decade ago, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) proposed an innovative framework, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), to classify psychiatric disorders. This complementary approach has been used with existing diagnostic systems to identify transdiagnostic factors that inform early detection of mental health disturbances and critically, provide novel targets for interventions. An additional goal, however, has been to clarify developmental processes and illness trajectories by operationalizing dimensional constructs during sensitive periods of neurofunctional development to capture the early emergence of behavioral alterations and impairment. As developmental factors are inherent to all RDoC systems and the units of analysis therein, NIMH shepherded developmental-oriented research with targeted funding opportunity announcements. This resulting work has highlighted promising phenotypes and biological markers related to psychiatric illness across the lifespan.