ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

42 U.S.C. § 283nShared Instrumentation Grant Program

submitted 82 years ago by Pub. L. 106-505 to r/title-42-THE-PUBLIC-HEALTH-AND-WELFARE · 217 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This law tells NIH what to weigh when giving out Shared Instrumentation Grants for shared scientific equipment. NIH must check the instrument's benefit, users' expertise, use plan, funding commitment, and community sharing. NIH must also follow standard peer review rules.

(a) Requirements for grants When deciding whether to award a grant under the Shared Instrumentation Grant Program, the Director of NIH must weigh five things: how much the instrument would help the scientific needs and research plans of its major users, by giving them an instrument that's unavailable or hard to get elsewhere; whether the user group or the applicant's institution has, and is committed to providing, the right technical expertise to use the instrument; whether the plan for organizing the instrument's use is solid, including the internal committee overseeing the applicant and any sharing arrangements; whether the applicant is committed to keeping the instrument running and maintained over time; and how much the instrument will actually be shared, and how much it will benefit the wider research community it serves. (b) Peer review When awarding these grants, NIH must follow the peer review rules set out in 42 U.S.C. § 289a.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a) Requirements for grants

In determining whether to award a grant to an applicant under the Shared Instrumentation Grant Program, the Director of NIH, acting through the Office of the Director of NIH, shall consider—

(1)

the extent to which an award for the specific instrument involved would meet the scientific needs and enhance the planned research endeavors of the major users by providing an instrument that is unavailable or to which availability is highly limited;

(2)

with respect to the instrument involved, the availability and commitment of the appropriate technical expertise within the major user group or the applicant institution for use of the instrumentation;

(3)

the adequacy of the organizational plan for the use of the instrument involved and the internal advisory committee for oversight of the applicant, including sharing arrangements if any;

(4)

the applicant’s commitment for continued support of the utilization and maintenance of the instrument; and

(5)

the extent to which the specified instrument will be shared and the benefit of the proposed instrument to the overall research community to be served.

(b) Peer review

In awarding grants under the program described in subsection (a), the Director of NIH, acting through the Office of the Director of NIH, shall comply with the peer review requirements in section 289a of this title.

Source credit: (July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, § 404L, formerly Pub. L. 106–505, title III, § 305, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2335; renumbered July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, § 404L, and amended Pub. L. 112–74, div. F, title II, § 221(b)(4), Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 1088.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1944Enacted · Pub. L. 106-505 · 114 Stat. 2335
  • 1944Amended · Pub. L. 112-74 · 125 Stat. 1088

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 106-505 on 1944-07-01.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case