A Notice from the NIH indicates that RC1, RC2, RC3 and RC4 awards are eligible for supplementation under the programs designed to enhance Diversity and Re-Entry in the biomedical research staff of the US. These mechanism will be added to a long list (R00, R01 (or RL1), R10, R18, R22, R24, R35, R37, R41, R42, R43, R44, DP1, DP2, P01 (or PL1), P20, P30, P40, P41, P50, P51, P60, U01 (or UL1), U10, U19, U41, U42, U54) of eligible research grants.
These programs permit the PI of a research award to apply for an administrative supplement to support the participation of a scientist from underrepresented groups (including disabled) or returning from an “interruption due to family or other responsibilities” on their project. The Diversity supplement is broadly applied from the high school level on up to research faculty. Criteria are given as:

“For the purpose of this announcement, institutions are encouraged to identify candidates who will increase diversity on a national or institutional basis. The strength of an institution’s description and justification for the appointment of an identified candidate will be judged along with all other aspects of the proposed experience”.

Criteria for the Re-Entry supplement are give as:

Candidates: Candidates must have a doctoral degree, such as M.D., D.D.S., Ph.D., O.D., D.V.M., or equivalent; and must have been in a postdoctoral or faculty position at the time they left active research. All candidates must be planning a career in biomedical or behavioral research. Candidates who have begun the re-entry process through a fellowship, traineeship, or similar mechanism are not eligible for this program. Awards will be limited to citizens or non-citizen nationals of the United States or to individuals who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (i.e., in possession of an Alien Registration Receipt Card) at the time of application.
The following guidelines will generally be applied with discretion by the individual NIH ICs. In general, the duration of the career interruption should be for at least one year and no more than eight years. Examples of qualifying interruptions would include a complete or partial hiatus from research activities for child rearing; an incapacitating illness or injury of the candidate, spouse, partner, or a member of the immediate family; relocation to accommodate a spouse, partner, or other close family member; pursuit of non-research endeavors that would permit earlier retirement of debt incurred in obtaining a doctoral degree; and military service. The program is not intended to support additional graduate training and is not intended to support career changes from non-research to research careers for individuals without prior research training. Generally, the candidate should be in complete or partial hiatus from research activities at the time of application, and should not be engaged in full-time paid research activities. Preference will be given to candidates with a complete hiatus from research activities.

I like these programs. They are administrative reviews meaning that you can send them in whenever you want, they are reviewed rapidly and funding can be provided within 6 months. Staff are a huge cost to research awards, so oftentimes the PI who identifies a scientific trainee (or is approached by one) simply cannot provide support. These mechanisms help out with that while at the same time enhancing diversity and ameliorating the effects of stepping off the career for child bearing/rearing purposes.
WIN.
I also mention this for both the younger PIs and any trainees that might be eligible. These can be great boons to both labs and training scientists. It is well to be aware of these options for supporting research activities.

Well, there is always something new and interesting in the data, isn’t there? From the recent poll of readers, I note a couple of results that interested me.
-In the first poll on nonFederal oppression categories, I was amazed to find Friend of Charles Darwin selected so frequently. I mean, we kinda make fun of those people round these parts. If’n I was a betting man I might suspect a little bit of poll crash shenanigans…858 multivotes scored versus 194 on the single-option gender poll as of this writing? On average you were selecting 4 for this poll? hmm, could be I suppose…
-In the second poll on gender identification the numbers for male/female ran about equal- 49% male to 46% female as of this writing. Interesting mostly by way of comparison with the audience of Dr. Isis the Scientist which is polling 71% female / 28% male as of this writing.
-The third poll on ethnic and racial identification was my main interest.

Read the rest of this entry »