Innovation Award FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

  • No, you are not required to be a member of the HUB to apply to our Opportunity Funds. We do require, as outlined in our section on Eligibility, that recipients of Opportunity Funds participate in HUB activities. Applicants can also request to be added to the HUB Slack workspace and listserv if they have not already done so!

  • No, collaborations can take place within a single institution or amongst multiple institutions. For collaborations between multiple institutions it is important to note that only one subaward will be issued to the contact PI’s institution. Funds allocated to collaborating institutions should be listed as a line item in the submitted budget. 

  • Anticipated award dates are from June 1, 2027 to May 31, 2028.

  • The NIH should be listed as the primary sponsor and UIC should be listed as sponsor.

  • You should follow the grant application process outlined by your institution. For example, it may be necessary for an admin to submit your proposal alongside a signed LOI.

  • No. Proposal submissions are only available to professors. 

  • A biosketch should be submitted for all PIs and co-Is written into the proposal.

  • Any typical direct cost can be listed in your budget. Examples include, but are not limited to, salaries, benefits, supplies, etc.

  • No. Existing collaborators are welcome to apply!

  • Proposals should follow NIH salary cap for all personnel.

  • Yes, you can include a letter of support. If you choose to do so, please include it at the end of your proposal following all required components.

  • Following your proposal submission, we will move your application through a review process by an external committee. This process will inform funding decisions where a joint team, including the HUB and NIH staff, will make final selections based on reviewer feedback and programmatic alignment. Panel selection for external review will be based on expertise necessitated to accurately and fairly review submitted proposals - review panel invitations will be sent following proposal submission deadline. Review panel member information will be released online following proposal reviews - panel members can opt out of information release to remain confidential.

     

    Proposals selected to move forward in the funding process will then begin a subsequent phase of review at the NIH. HUB personnel will collect additional materials (listed below) from the PIs of selected proposals for the NIH to then assess. Once the NIH has completed their systematic checks on awardee documentation, final awards will be processed at UIC for execution at the recipients’ institution.

     

                Additional Materials for Selected Proposals

    1. Current Other Support documents, uploaded as a single PDF

    2. Human Subjects Education, if human use applies, uploaded as a separate PDF

    3. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval number, if human use applies

    4. Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee (IACUC) approval number, if animal use applies

    5. Human Genomic Sharing Plan, if applicable

    6. For projects including subcontractors, include their: a) Other Support b) information for human subjects, if human use applies

  • The HUB plans to fund 8 proposals for the 2026 application cycle, each at a total amount of $150,000.

  • The HUB received 74 submissions to the inaugural 2025 Opportunity Fund cycle. Through a highly competitive process, we were able to fund 5 proposals.

  • Strongly Integrated

    1. Both computational and biomaterials labs involved in discussions during early proposal planning phases. 

    2. Aims not feasible without involvement of both labs.

    3. Approach clearly discusses the necessity of both computational and wet lab components.

    4. The collaboration creates mutual value by advancing the goals of both the computational and biomaterials labs. 

    5. There is iteration between experimental studies and computational work.


    Not Integrated

    1. Biomaterials proposal ideated prior to involvement of computational lab.

    2. Aims can be completed, albeit slower, without direct inclusion of a computational lab.

    3. Approach does not discuss the role of computational research in achieving overarching goals.

    4. Proposal could stand alone without inclusion of a computational component.