text:
Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program (S10 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)
S10 Biomedical Research Support Shared Instrumentation Grants
Reissue of PAR-21-127
NOT-OD-23-012 Reminder: FORMS-H Grant Application Forms and Instructions Must be Used for Due Dates On or After January 25, 2023 - New Grant Application Instructions Now Available
NOT-OD-22-190 - Adjustments to NIH and AHRQ Grant Application Due Dates Between September 22 and September 30, 2022
January 19, 2022 - Notice of Change to Description of NIGMS Interest in the S10 Funding Opportunity Announcements PAR-22-079, PAR-22-080, and PAR-22-081. See Notice NOT-GM-22-029.
PAR-22-079 , S10 Biomedical Research Support Shared Instrumentation Grants
Assistance Listing Number(s)
93.351, 93.859
The Shared Instrument Grant (SIG) Program encourages applications from groups of NIH-supported investigators to purchase or upgrade a single item of high-priced, specialized, commercially available instruments or integrated instrumentation system. The minimum award is $50,000. There is no maximum price limit for the instrument; however, the maximum award is $600,000. Instruments supported include, but are not limited to: X-ray diffractometers, mass spectrometers, nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers, DNA and protein sequencers, biosensors, electron and light microscopes, flow cytometers, and biomedical imagers.
Application Due Dates
Review and Award Cycles
Renewal / Resubmission / Revision (as allowed)
June 01, 2022 June 01, 2022 Not Applicable October 2022 January 2023 February 2023
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide,except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ).
Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.
Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.
Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.
The purpose of this funding opportunity is to continue the Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program administered by ORIP. The objective of the Program is to make available to institutions high-priced research instruments that can only be justified on a shared-use basis and that are needed for NIH-supported projects in basic, translational, or clinical biomedical and biobehavioral research. The SIG Program provides funds to purchase or upgrade a single item of expensive, state-of-the-art, specialized, commercially available instrument or an integrated instrumentation system. An integrated instrumentation system is one in which the components, when used in conjunction with one another, perform a function that no single component can provide. The components must be dedicated to the system and not used independently.
Types of supported instruments include, but are not limited to: X-ray diffractometers, mass spectrometers, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, DNA and protein sequencers, biosensors, electron and light microscopes, flow cytometers, high throughput robotic screening systems, and biomedical imagers. Applications for standalone computer systems (supercomputers, computer clusters and data storage systems) will only be considered if the system is solely dedicated to biomedical research.
All instruments, integrated systems, and computer systems must be dedicated to research only.
Foreign-made instruments are allowed.
The SIG Program will not support requests for:
An instrument with a base cost of less than $50,000;
Multiple instruments bundled together;
Purely instructional equipment;
Instruments used for clinical (billable) care;
Instruments or integrated systems that are not commercially available and do not have a manufacturer warranty
Institutional administrative management systems, clinical management systems;
Software, unless it is integrated in the operation of the instrument and/or necessary for generation of high-quality experimental data from the instrument;
Multiple stand-alone workstations for data processing, software licenses, and duplicate software items;
General purpose equipment (such as standard machine shop equipment), instruments to furnish a research facility (such as autoclaves, hoods, equipment to upgrade animal facilities), equipment for routine sustaining infrastructure (such as standard computer networks or data storage systems);
Disposable devices, office furniture, and supplies;
Alteration or renovation of space to house the instruments.
Applicants are advised to discuss with the SIG Scientific/Research Contact (See Section VII) any questions about appropriate types of equipment, eligibility, and Program requirements, prior to submitting an application for an integrated instrumentation system.
To promote cost effectiveness, to encourage optimal sharing among individual investigators, research groups and departments, and to foster a collaborative multidisciplinary environment, the instrument should be integrated in a core facility or another shared resource, whenever possible.
Each applicant institution must propose a Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) who can assume administrative and scientific oversight responsibility for the requested instrument. See Section III.1 for qualifications for the PD/PI. The PD/PI also will be responsible for:
Requesting no-cost extensions of the project period, if needed.
Preparing (and working with the institution to submit) a Final Research Performance Progress Report (Final RPPR) at the end of the project period. See Section VI.3 for the content of a Final RPPR;
Preparing and submitting Annual Usage Reports (AURs) of the instrument to the NIH for a period of four years after the project end date, see Section VI.3.
An Advisory Committee must be named to assist the PD/PI in administering the grant and overseeing the usage of the instrument. For details on the composition of the Advisory Committee, see Section IV.2 under "Administration." The PD/PI and the Advisory Committee are responsible for the development of guidelines for:
Maximum utilization of the instrument, including time allocation.
A detailed plan for the day-to-day management and safe operation of the instrument.
A plan to ensure that access to the instrument is limited to users whose projects have received approval from the Institutional Review Board, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or a Biosafety Committee, as applicable.
A financial plan for the long-term operation and maintenance of the instrument during the post-award period.
A relocation of the instrument within or outside the institution or change(s) of ownership, if such changes are necessary.
Recommending a new PD/PI, if such a need arises.
The PD/PI and the Advisory Committee should convene meetings and issue annual reports on the instrument status, including their recommendations for the instrument operations.
NIGMS is interested in co-funding S10 applications that include research projects aligned with the mission of NIGMS. NIGMS-supported research may utilize specific cells or organ systems if they serve as models for understanding general systemic principles. NIGMS also supports research in specific clinical areas that affect multiple organ systems.
In parallel, NIGMS is especially interested in promoting participation of Institutional Development Award (IDeA) states and programs in the S10 Program. The IDeA program will provide co-funding for scientifically meritorious applications from IDeA states and encourages sharing and collaboration among institutions, programs, and states.
Applications Not Responsive To This FOA
An individual application requesting more than one type of instrument (for example, a mass spectrometer and a confocal microscope) is not responsive to this FOA and will not be reviewed.
The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this FOA.
Not Allowed: Only accepting applications that do not propose clinical trials.
Applications will be accepted that request a single, commercially available instrument or an integrated instrumentation system. The minimum award is $50,000. There is no upper limit on the cost of the instrument, but the maximum award is $600,000. Since the cost of various instruments will vary, it is anticipated that the amount of the award will also vary. S10 awards do not allow indirect costs.
It is expected that applicants will employ the most economical approaches, including securing academic discounts, to formulate a cost-effective budget while meeting users' scientific needs.See Section IV. 6. Funding Restrictions Funding Restrictions for additional details.
Awards are made for one year only.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.
System for Award Management (SAM) – Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)- A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. SAM registrations prior to fall 2021 were updated to include a UEI. For applications due on or after January 25, 2022, the UEI must be provided on the application forms (e.g., FORMS-G); the same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) – Organization registrations prior to April 2022 require applicants to obtain a DUNS prior to registering in SAM. By April 2022, the federal government will stop using the DUNS number as an entity identifier and will transition to the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) issued by SAM. Prior to April 2022, after obtaining a DUNS number, applicants can begin both SAM and eRA Commons registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
Grants.gov – Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
The PD/PI should document (in the biographical sketch) technical expertise directly related to the type of requested instrument. The PD/PI does not need to have an NIH research grant or any other research support but is expected to be an expert on the requested instrument. The PD/PI may be a core director, tenured, or non-tenured faculty member of the applicant organization. The PD/PI must be affiliated with the applicant organization and must be registered on eRA Commons.
Multiple PDs/PIs are not allowed under the S10 mechanism.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application. This means that the NIH will not accept:
An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications).
There is no restriction on the number of applications an institution (as identified by a specific UEI number) can submit to the SIG and/or High-End Instrumentation (HEI) Programs each year, provided the applications request different types of equipment. However, only one application to the Basic Instrumentation Grant (BIG) Program is allowed per receipt date. Concurrent SIG, HEI or BIG applications for the same instrument (or the same type of instrument with added special accessories – for example, to meet the HEI budget requirement) are not allowed unless documentation from a high-level institutional official is provided, stating that this is not an unintended duplication, but part of a campus-wide instrumentation plan. Applicants are advised to discuss with the SIG Scientific/Research Contact (Section VII) potential duplicates before submitting two applications for the same type of instrument.
A single application requesting more than one type of instrument (for example, a mass spectrometer and a confocal microscope) is not responsive to this FOA and will not be reviewed.
Major User Group
At least three Major Users who have substantial need for the instrument must be identified. Each of these Major Users must be a PD/PI on a distinct active NIH research award (i.e., a grant or a cooperative agreement) in an area of basic, translational, or clinical research. The requirement is one award per investigator, with more awards per investigator allowed. An award given to multi-PDs/PIs is counted only once towards the fulfillment of this requirement. NIH training or fellowship grants (i.e., T and F mechanisms), other non-research and SBIR/STTR grants, Other Transaction (OT) awards, and contracts cannot be counted towards the fulfillment of this requirement. Once the eligibility requirement of three Major Users with distinct NIH-funded research projects has been met, additional users with active research awards from NIH or other sources may be added as Major or Minor Users. Investigators with funding from sources such as other Federal agencies, private foundations, or academic institutions, can be added as Major Users, provided they are engaged in basic, translational, or clinical research and can demonstrate a substantial need for the instrument. Major Users can be researchers from the same department or from several departments, divisions, or schools at the applicant institution, or from nearby or regional institutions. In certain circumstances, as technology dictates, Major Users may come from distant institutions, but they must demonstrate the need for the instruments and describe plans for regular access to the instrument.
To demonstrate the clear need for the requested instrument, the projects supported by NIH research awards (i.e., grants or cooperative agreements) should together use the instrument at the 75 percent level of the Accessible User Time (AUT), or higher – see Section Other Project Information for the definition of AUT. Major Users supported by NIH grants should collectively use the instrument at the 35 percent level of the AUT, or higher.
The Major User group must meet the eligibility requirement at the time of submission. In addition, if/when the application is considered for funding, the SIG Program Staff will check that the Major User group eligibility requirement is also met at the time of award.
An itemized quote from the vendor with appropriate academic discounts and warranty terms (specified directly in the quote) is required and must be included in the application.
The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
For this FOA, there is no overall page limit for the entire Instrumentation Plan. However, there are specified page limits for each section of the Instrumentation Plan as described below. All tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts must be included within the page limits for these sections. The applicants should make every effort to be succinct. It is expected that the length of the Instrumentation Plan's narrative will depend on the type of the requested instrument and the number of users. To be successful, an application does not have to reach the page limits described here.
Introduction to Resubmission (if applicable): 3 pages.
Justification of Need: 9 pages in total.
Technical Expertise: 3 pages in total.
Research Projects section must not exceed 30 pages in total. This section can be structured in subsections Research Projects of Major Users and Research Projects of Minor Users or subsections Specific Research Topics. The limit is 4 pages per each Major User's project; however, three or fewer pages are strongly recommended. The Research Projects of Minor Users subsection is limited to 4 pages in total.
Summary Table(s): 6 pages in total.
Administration (Organizational / Management Plan): 6 pages in total.
Institutional Commitment: 3 pages in total.
Overall Benefit: 3 pages in total.
Note: Letters of Support and Bibliography & References Cited Section are not included in the page limitations.
Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023 a Data Management and Sharing Plan is not applicable for this FOA.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.
Descriptive Title: Enter the generic name of the instrument requested in the title (for example, "600MHz NMR Spectrometer" or "High-Throughput DNA Sequencer").
Proposed Project: CY 2022 submission: enter start date 02/01/2023 and end date 01/31/2024; CY 2023 submission: enter start date 02/01/2024 and end date 01/31/2025; CY 2024 submission: enter start date 02/01/2025 and end date 01/31/2026.
Estimated Project Funding:
Total Federal Funds Requested: Enter the total Federal funds for the requested instrument. This entry cannot exceed $600,000 which is the maximum award under the SIG Program. If the cost of the instrument is more than $600,000 enter $600,000 (or any lower amount of the requested Federal Funds).
Total Non-Federal Funds: If Total Federal Funds Requested (described immediately above) and Total Federal & Non-Federal Funds (described immediately below) are not the same, enter the difference in this line. Explain how the difference will be paid in the Equipment section on the SF424 (R&R) Other Project Information form (described below).
Total Federal & Non-Federal Funds: Enter the total cost of the instrument from the quote.
Program Income: Enter zero as this does not apply to the SIG Program.
NOTE: A warning will be generated during submission for any S10 with a budget in excess of $500,000. This warning can be ignored.
SF424(R&R) Other Project Information
Project Summary/Abstract: The Project Summary/Abstract should contain a succinct and accurate description of the requested instrument and an explanation of the need for the instrument to advance research projects of the Users and augment research capabilities at the applicant institution. The application's broad, long-term objectives should be stated, concisely describing how access to the instrument will enhance the health-related goals of the research projects and stimulate biomedical research at the applicant institution. This section should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and understandable to a scientifically or technically literate reader.
NOTE: The Project Summary/Abstract must be no longer than 30 lines of text.
Project Narrative: Using no more than two or three sentences, describe the relevance of this research to public health. In this section, be succinct and use plain language that can be understood by a general, lay audience.
Bibliography & References Cited: List only publications that demonstrate the researchers' expertise in operation and usage of the requested instrument or are relevant to research projects, which will be supported by the instrument. References of the Research Projects Section may appear in this section or may be listed at the end of individual research subsections.
Facilities & Other Resources: Not Applicable. Do not include an attachment here.
Equipment: Describe the requested instrument by stating its manufacturer, model number, specific features, and accessories. Provide a detailed budget breakdown of the main instrument and requested accessories, including tax and import duties, if applicable. An itemized quote from the vendor, with appropriate discounts and warranty terms, is required. The quote must be scanned and combined in a single attachment with the equipment description as part of this upload. As described above in the SF424 Cover form, include an explanation of Total Non-Federal Funds in this section (if applicable).
Applications without a quote will be deemed incomplete and returned to the applicant without review.
If human, animal, or infectious materials, which could create a potential biohazard, are to be analyzed, funds for accessory containment equipment for the instrument may be requested in the budget.
Do not describe the need for the instrument or accessories in this section; such narrative should be a part of the Justification of Need section of the Instrumentation Plan.
Other Attachments:
I) Instrumentation Plan (in lieu of Research Plan form)
The entire Instrumentation Plan (with the sections described below) must be saved as a single PDF file - named "Instrumentation Plan" - and attached via Other Attachments. Organize the Instrumentation Plan in the specified order as described below, starting each section with the appropriate section heading (i.e., Justification of Need, Technical Expertise, Research Projects, etc.). Do not include links to websites for further information. Do not include animations/videos.
Introduction to Resubmission (if applicable): 3 pages
Justification of Need: Name the requested instrument. Compare performance of the requested model with other similar instruments available on the market. Justify the need for specific features and special accessories of the requested instrument. Each such accessory must be utilized by at least three Major Users.
If the requested instrument is under a lease agreement, demonstrate that the instrument is considered state-of-the-art at the time of the application submission (see details in Section IV.6 Funding Restrictions).
Justify the need for software. All software supported by this program must be integrated in the operation of the instrument or be necessary for the generation of high-quality data from the instrument. Depending on the needs of research projects, different configurations of such software may be needed to ensure productive scientific use of the instrument. If such additional software modules are requested (e.g., software configuration for the acquisition of metabolomics data, microscope image acquisition, and control modules), they must be essential for the advancement of research projects of least three Major Users. As noted previously, stand-alone workstations, duplicate software items, and software licenses are not allowed.
Explain why the chosen model and its manufacturer are the most suitable for your user group. Preliminary data are not required, though if feasible, can be included to justify the choice of the instrument. Especially, if access to a demo instrument is practical, preliminary data are encouraged. Provide an inventory of similar instruments existing at your institution, neighboring research institutions, or otherwise accessible; describe why each similar instrument is unavailable or inappropriate for the proposed research. If similar instruments are listed as "unavailable," add a letter to the Letters of Support section from the instrument manager explaining why the instrument is not available to your user group. Include specific documentation on the current usage and downtime of each of these existing instruments in annual hours and a realistic estimate of the projected usage for the requested instrument. You may use tables to clarify the presentation. Tables included within this section will count towards the specified page limit.
Define and justify the Accessible User Time (AUT) for the requested instrument. The AUT is the number of annual hours the instrument can be practically used for biomedical research. AUT hours may be limited by the times an instrument operator is available (if an operator is required), site or building access schedules, scheduled maintenance, start-up and standardization, and any other factors that take time away from the use of the instrument for biomedical research. More importantly, AUT will be limited by the type of the technology requested; some instruments can be and are typically operated 24/7 while other technologies can be used only during regular hours. Therefore, justify the AUT based on the type of the technology requested and an individual managerial plan at your institution to make clear that the AUT corresponds to expected practical full-time use of the instrument at your institution.
Technical Expertise: Describe the technical expertise of individuals who will set up and run the instrument. Specify who will ensure that the instrument is safely operated and appropriately maintained. State who will train new users. If the instrument requires complex sample preparation or consultation for experimental designs, describe the expert individual(s) who will serve in that capacity. Address technical support for data collection, management, and analysis.
Research Projects: In this section, describe the benefit of the requested instrument to enhance Users' research projects. Research projects may be drawn from a broad array of topics in basic, translational, or clinical research; in particular, research projects on the advancements of technologies for the benefit of biomedical research may be included. Begin with the subsections "Research Projects of Major Users". All Major Users must have substantial need for the requested instrument. Detailed eligibility requirements for Major Users are described in Section III.3.
Since the funded research projects have been previously peer reviewed, describe their details only as necessary to explain how the requested instrument will advance the projects' research objectives. Do not simply copy the Specific Aims section from a funded application. Present sufficient technical details about types of samples or specific experimental protocols to be employed to allow evaluation of whether the instrument is appropriate, would be effectively utilized, and would provide advantages over other methods and other similar existing or new instruments. In particular, explain the need for special features and accessories of the requested instrument by describing the specific studies that will utilize these options, as at least three Major Users must need each of these special options. Similarly, if special software modules are requested, justify how they will advance the research projects of at least three Major Users. Preliminary data are not required, but if available, they may be used to illustrate the benefit of the requested instrument to the research projects. Describe how generated data will be handled and analyzed so that benefits of the entire experimental set-up can be evaluated. Summarize benefits that the requested instrument will provide towards answering specific scientific questions. Be succinct and clear.
If you choose to structure this Research Project section by including the Research Projects of Major Users subsections, limit the text to no more than 4 pages per each Major User's project. In the beginning of each Major User's Project narrative, list the PI's name and grant information (number, title, project start and end dates). Specify the anticipated usage in annual hours for each project.
If you choose to group Research Projects in subsections Specific Research Topics, list Major Users, their funded grants that you describe therein, and their cumulative usage as measured annual usage hours, in the beginning of each subsection.
In cases of certain technologies (such as computer systems or X-ray detectors), a large number of users, exceeding what is necessary to make a strong case for the need of the instrument, may be expected. Keep in mind that the sole number of users is not a compelling factor to justify scientific needs for the requested instrument.
If there are Minor Users and other users, include an up to 4-page long section entitled Minor Users' Projects. Describe the need of the requested instrument to advance projects from Minor Users and the user community at your institution (e.g., unfunded users who have significant need for the instrument to develop their research programs or users whose expected needs are at the level of 1% or less of the expected usage time). Include a sum of the anticipated usage in annual hours for all Minor/Other Users.
You should focus the Research Projects section on detailed explanation of how the requested instrument will advance research projects. Research projects may be drawn from a broad array of topics in basic, translational, or clinical research; in particular, research projects on the advancements of technologies for the benefit of biomedical research may be included.
Summary Tables: At the beginning of this section, please re-state the Accessible Usage Time (AUT) in annual hours, as introduced in the Justification of Need Section.
Next, insert the following summary tables - a) Research Projects of Major Users and b) Research Projects of Other Users. The tables should have the following columns: User's name, grant number (for NIH awards list the grant numbers such as R01IC123456), brief title of the project, grant start and end dates, and estimated usage in annual hours. If there are multiple Users funded by the same grant, list a total of their estimated usage in annual hours for projects supported by that grant. If applicable, include in this section a separate table to indicate the users' needs for any requested accessory. Do not list users whose annual usage is at the level of 1% or less of AUT.
Following the tables, state
i. a total estimated usage time by Users' projects in annual hours,
ii. the percentage of the estimated usage time devoted to Major Users' NIH-funded projects, and,
iii. the percentage of the estimated usage time devoted to NIH-funded projects.
Major Users with NIH research funding should use the instrument at the level of at least 35% of the AUT; NIH-funded users (Major and Minor) should use the instrument at the level of 75% of the AUT or higher.
Provide an estimated usage time and AUT for the requested instrument, considering that both the AUT (related to the administration of the instrument) and the expected usage (depending on actual need for the instrument) may be significantly different for different types of instruments and at different institutions.
Administration (Organizational/Management Plan): Describe the organizational plan to administer the grant. Describe where the instrument will be located, how it will be utilized, how requests to use the instrument will be made, how time will be allocated among Major and Minor Users, how other projects and new users will be enlisted. Describe how users will be trained in experimental design, instrument operation and data analysis. Describe typical day-by-day management of the instrument. If the plans are to install the instrument in a setting other than a core or a shared resource facility, describe the procedures that will implement and assure broad access to the instrument and its use on a shared basis.
List the names and titles of the members of the local Advisory Committee. The membership of this Committee should be broad to balance interests of different users and should include members without conflicts of interest (non-users of the requested instrument) who can resolve disputes, if they arise. The membership of this Committee should include at least one senior institutional official (e.g., Provost for Research, Dean of School, Department Chair) who will represent the financial commitment of the institution. It is recommended that the Advisory Committee includes at least 4 members. Major and other active Users (such as Minor Users) of the instrument may be members, but none may Chair the Advisory Committee. The PD/PI cannot be a voting member of the Advisory Committee.
The PD/PI and the Advisory Committee should convene meetings and prepare annual reports on the instrument status. The reports will become part of the Final Research Performance Progress Report (Final RPPR) and the Annual Usage Reports (see Section VI.3).
Provide a plan about how the Users will be instructed and reminded about citing the S10 award in their publications and how their compliance will be verified.
Describe a plan for managing access to the instrument if users' projects involve human subjects, vertebrate animals, or biohazards such as infectious materials.
Financial Plan: Submit a specific financial plan for the long-term operation and maintenance of the instrument as such costs are not supported by the S10 Program. Explain how various operational costs will be met; specifically, costs associated with routine operation and maintenance of the instrument and costs for support staff. Enumerate the sources of income such as charge back fee structure, grants, or institutional support. The financial plan must include a table for years 1-5 of operation. For year 1, enter anticipated expenditures and anticipated income, showing how these estimates were derived. For years 2-5, specific dollar amounts are required; for years 2 – 5, approximate amounts, based on data for year 1, are sufficient. Typically, during year one, the maintenance costs are fully covered by a one-year manufacturer's warranty. In subsequent years, costs of maintenance must be considered in the financial plan.
Include a description of projected changes of the financial plan over the subsequent four years.
Operation: Include salary support of expert personnel that will operate the instrument and oversee routine care and procedures for standardization.
Maintenance: May include a service contract or funds for parts and local technical personnel who will maintain the instrument (if such personnel are qualified to do so).
Supplies: Include necessary supplies for operating the instrument such as chemicals, cryogenics, and other expendable items.
Software: include costs for updates/maintenance of software licenses needed for the proper operation of the instrument or additional software for data analysis.
Anticipated Income: Enumerate the sources of income, such as any charge back fee structure, grants, or institutional support.
Institutional Commitment: Describe the institutional infrastructure available to support the instrumentation, including space to house the instrument and a site for sample preparation, if applicable. Confirm the institutional support toward the maintenance and operation of the instrument. In particular, confirm the institutional commitment to the financial plan for maintenance and operations for five years from the installation date of the instrument or for its effective lifetime. Describe institutional support for personnel. The timeline of institutional support should be consistent with the expected usable lifetime of the requested type of instrument.
Overall Benefit: Explain how the instrument will impact NIH-funded research and contribute to the institution's long-range biomedical research goals.
II) Letters of Support
All letters of support should be combined in a single file named "Letters of Support" and uploaded as a separate attachment via Other Attachments. This combined file should include, as applicable:
Letters from institutional officials.
Institutional commitment for the proposed financial plan for maintenance and operations.
Letters about inventory of instruments at the institution which are unavailable to the PD/PI (as noted in the Justification of Need Section).
The institution (i.e., the entity with the same UEI as the applicant's institution) must also provide a table that includes information about performance of all previous S10-awarded instruments within the past five years; that is, that is, submission in CY 2022: FYs 2017-2021; submission in CY 2023: FYs 2018-2022; submission in CY 2024: FYs 2019-2023. (If there have been no awards, please state so.) The table should have the following columns:
1) S10 Grant Number;
2) Year of Award;
3) Installation Date of the Instrument;
4) PD/PI's Name;
5) Generic Name of Instrument;
6) Instrument Status: (Active (instrument in use), Pending (order placed, but instrument not delivered, instrument received but not installed or not calibrated for general use), Upgraded (or replaced), Not Available (sold, decommissioned, transferred)); (If the instrument is currently non-functional, provide a succinct explanation of the instrument status immediately following this table.)
7) Actual Usage Time (actual total time in hours per year the instrument was used for research; if the instrument has been installed less than a year ago, the hours can be extrapolated for an estimate of hours per full year)
8) Maintenance Agreement Active (Warranty in place), In-House (or Self-Insured), None (Fee for Service, Pending), Not Available (no longer supported by manufacturer); and
9) Publications: Enter the number of research publications that cite the S10 award or have been linked with the S10 award in My NCBI. The number of reported publications should be verified in the NIH RePORTER. (If there are no publications for any of the previously awarded S10-awarded instruments provide an explanation immediately following this table.)
Letter from Biosafety Official. If human, animal, or infectious materials, which could create a potential biohazard, are to be analyzed, a signed letter from the institutional biosafety officer stating the proposed containment plan was reviewed and adheres to documented biosafety regulations. If relevant, this letter is required in the application.
SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile
Include the profiles of the PD/PI, Major Users, Minor Users, and technical personnel, as applicable.
This FOA requires the attachment of Current & Pending Support for the PD/PI at the time of application submission. If PD/PI has no research grant or any other research support, state "None" in the form.
Appendix materials are not allowed for this FOA.
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.
Pre-award costs are not allowable.
Under the S10 mechanism, funding requests are limited to the purchase cost of the instrument only. Support for technical personnel, service contracts, extended warranties, software (except as defined in Part 2, Section I), and supplies are not allowable. Cost sharing towards the purchase of the instrument is not required and any institutional funds contributed to the costs of the purchase of the instrument are voluntary. If the amount of funds requested does not cover the total cost of the instrument, the application should describe the proposed source(s) of funding to cover the balance of the cost of the instrument and document their availability in a letter signed by an appropriate institutional official. Note that any voluntarily committed cost will be noted in the Notice of the Award and the institution will be held to the commitment and reporting requirements.
This Program does not provide facilities and administrative (F&A) costs or support for construction or alterations or renovations. Matching funds are not required. However, commitment of an appropriate level of institutional support, to ensure the associated sustaining infrastructure, is expected and should be described. The appropriate Grant will be awarded for a period of one year and is not renewable.
Applicants proposing the purchase of an instrument that the institution is planning to lease prior to an award are urged to consult with their institutional sponsored projects office and the NIH Grant Management Office (see Section VII for the contact information) regarding the applicable NIH policy prior to executing the leasing agreement. If the leasing agreement was executed more than one year prior to submission of the SIG application, the applicant must provide a strong justification for the requested Federal funds. This justification must demonstrate that the leased instrument is considered state-of-the-art at the time of submission - appropriate award adjustments may be necessary. Execution of a purchase order or agreement, making a down payment or other formal commitment to purchase the equipment prior to award will automatically eliminate an applicant from eligibility for an award.
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant, and/or non-responsive will not be reviewed.
No animations/videos are allowed.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Overall Benefit
Reviewers will provide an overall benefit score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood that the requested instrument will exert a sustained, powerful influence on the conduct of research projects and their scientific outcomes, in consideration of the following review criteria.
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Justification of Need
Is the need for the instrument clearly and adequately justified? Is the equipment essential and appropriate? Are all specific features, special accessories, and the software configuration of the requested instrument well justified, in particular, by their need by Major Users? Is Accessible User Time (AUT) well defined and explained? Is AUT reasonable for the requested technology/instrument type? Is AUT reasonable in the context of the managerial plan? Justification of selection of the requested instrument may include a comparison with other commercially available instruments of similar function. Is a User community that will benefit from the instrument well described? Is the use of the instrument on a shared basis assured?
Does the institution have the technical expertise to make effective use of the requested equipment? How well-qualified are the participating investigators or other assigned personnel to operate and maintain the instrument, conduct the projects, and evaluate the research results, including analysis and interpretation of data? Are the plans for new users' training well developed? Are the proposed biosafety procedures well described and appropriate?
Will research with the requested instrument advance the knowledge and understanding of the proposed projects? How will the research projects of individual Users be enhanced? Do Users adequately justify the requested instrument and accessories for the needs of their specific projects? If accessories are requested for the instrument, do at least three Major Users require each of the accessories for their research projects?
Is the plan for the management and maintenance of the requested instrument appropriate? Are the plans for the use of the instrument on a shared basis well-documented? Are the plans for time allocation of the instrument to different projects well developed? Are the sharing arrangements equitable? If needed, are the policies to manage projects which have human subjects, animals, or biohazards adequate? Is the membership of the Advisory Committee broadly based to oversee the use of the instrument for the appropriate range of biomedical investigators, to balance interests of different users, and to resolve disputes, if they arise? Is the financial plan for the instrument for five years or the expected lifetime of the instrument reasonable and secured, balancing anticipated expenditures and anticipated income? Is the expected usable lifetime of the instrument reasonable? Are adequate plans in place to document use and scientific benefits of the instrument by citations and acknowledgments of the S10 grant in the scientific publications?
Institutional Commitment
Does the institutional commitment letter provide support in the event of a shortfall of income? Is the institutional commitment to the financial plan for maintenance and operations provided for a period consistent with the expected effective lifetime of the requested instrument? Is the management of awarded S10 instruments adequate (based on the data in the table of Previously Awarded S10 Instruments in the institutional Letter of Support)? Does the Institution provide adequate infrastructure support for the requested instrument including space to house the instrument and site for sample preparation, if needed?
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan
Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Sharing Plan and Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) as part of the Resource Sharing Plan will not be evaluated at time of review, and a Data Management and Sharing Plan is not applicable for this FOA.
As applicable for the instrument proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will consider whether the budget is appropriate and fully justified for the requested instrument or instrumentation system, including, as applicable, individual components, accessories, and software.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by Center for Scientific Review, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.
Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the Council of Councils. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
Program balances among various types of supported instruments and geographical distribution of awards.
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.
Applicants should ignore eRA Commons system-generated just-in-time (JIT) requests which are typically sent soon after peer review. If an application is considered for funding, ORIP SIG Program staff will send PD/PI special instructions on how to submit a JIT update, from the e-mail address s10reports@od.nih.gov. Once an application is selected for funding, the grants management officer may request additional information.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient's business official.
Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities, including of note, but not limited to:
Federalwide Research Terms and Conditions
Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
Acknowledgment of Federal Funding
If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.
Should the applicant organization successfully compete for an award, recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex (including gender identify, sexual orientation, and pregnancy). This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/nondiscrimination/index.html
HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator's scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA.
Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. For guidance on meeting the legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to programs or activities by limited English proficient individuals see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/fact-sheet-guidance/index.htmlandhttps://www.lep.gov.
For information on an institution's specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities, including reasonable accommodations and making services accessible to them, see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html.
HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html. For information about NIH's commitment to supporting a safe and respectful work environment, who to contact with questions or concerns, and what NIH's expectations are for institutions and the individuals supported on NIH-funded awards, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/harassment.htm.
For guidance on administering programs in compliance with applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religious-freedom/index.html.
Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.
In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 and 2 CFR Part 200.206 "Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants." This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final RPPR and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. NIH FOAs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 45 CFR Part 75.301 and 2 CFR Part 200.301.
Final RPPR
At the expiration of the grant, a Final RPPR is required that describes the purchased instrument, and a list of all users and description of the value of the instrument to the investigators and to the institution as a whole. The following information about the award and the instrument must be included in the SIG Final RPPR:
1) Grant Number: 1S10OD#####-01
2) Principal Investigator: (Name, Institution, Department, Address)
3) Funding Period
4) Name of Instrument (including manufacturer and model)
5) Total Purchase Cost
6) Total SIG Award Amount
7) Other Sources of Funding (if appropriate)
8) Instrument Installation Date
9) List of users, their funding and hours of use
10) List of publications, if available. This publication list should be consistent with the NIH Public Access Policy.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over the threshold. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200 – Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.
eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)
General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources)
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Guanghu (Jeff) Wang, PhD
Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP)
Email:SIG@mail.nih.gov
Karen Brummett
Email:karen.brummett@nih.gov
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200.


text:
Q: Rails Unpermitted Parameter I have a form that has some prebuilt tags that the user can select on a post.  These tags are set up with a has_many through: relationship.  Everything seems to be working but when I save (the post does save) there is an Unpermitted parameter: :tags from the controller's save method.
Tag model:
class Tag < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :post_tags
  has_many :posts, through: :post_tags
end

PostTag model:
class PostTag < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :tag
  belongs_to :post
end

Post model:
class Post < ApplicationRecord
    ...
    has_many :post_tags
    has_many :tags, through: :post_tags

Post controller methods:
  def update
      # saves tags
      save_tags(@post, params[:post][:tags])

      # updates params (not sure if this is required but I thought that updating the tags might be causing problems for the save.
      params[:post][:tags] = @post.tags
      if @post.update(post_params)
        ...
    end
  end

...

private
  def post_params
    params.require(:post).permit(:name, :notes, tags: [])
  end

  def save_tags(post, tags)
    tags.each do |tag|
       # tag.to_i, is because the form loads tags as just the tag id.
       post.post_tags.build(tag: Tag.find_by(id: tag.to_i))
    end
  end

View (tags are checkboxes displayed as buttons):
  <%= form.label :tags %>

    <% @tags.each do |tag| %>

          <%=  check_box_tag('dinner[tags][]', tag.id) %> <%= tag.name %>

      <% end %>

Again this saves, and works fine, but I'd like to get rid of the Unpermitted parameter that is thrown in the console.

A: Your whole solution is creative but extremely redundant. Instead use the collection helpers:
<%= form_with(model: @post) |f| %>
  <%= f.collection_check_boxes :tag_ids, Tag.all, :id, :name %>
<% end %>

tags_ids= is a special setter created by has_many :tags, through: :post_tags (they are created for all has_many and HABTM assocations). It takes an array of ids and will automatically create/delete join rows for you.
All you have to do in your controller is whitelist post[tag_ids] as an array:
class PostsController < ApplicationController
  # ...

  def create
    @post = Post.new(post_params)
    if @post.save
      redirect_to @post
    else
      render :new
    end
  end

  def update
    if @post.update(post_params)
      redirect_to @post
    else
      render :edit
    end
  end

  private
  # ...

  def post_params
    params.require(:post)
          .permit(:name, :notes, tag_ids: [])
  end
end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Preached by Chris Morris on Wednesday, April 08, 2020
Genre: Hardcore, Punk
Label: Feel It
Length: 9.35'
Cold Feet are a band from Baltimore, Maryland who formed in 2016. Cold Feet play a raging style of 80's influenced hardcore/punk. Since forming in 2016, Cold Feet have released a self-titled nine song demo in July of 2016, a tow song tour cassette in March of 2017, and a self-titled four song EP in October of 2018. Punk Entity is the band's latest eight song EP, which was released via Feel It records on April 3rd, 2020. On Punk Entity, Cold Feet offer up eight tracks of raging and brutal sounding 80's influenced hardcore/punk. Overall, Punk Entity makes for an awesome listen and definitely should not be missed. Highly recommended! Enjoy!
Cold Feet on Bandcamp
Feel It Records on Bandcamp
TAGS: Baltimore, Cold Feet, Hardcore, Punk

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


I survived the Topaz procedure. Now, I'm just battling the post-op anesthesia-induced nausea. I tend to suffer with it about half the time after operations, unfortunately. Not the ideal way to drop a few pounds, but I guess I'll take it. :) My stomach hurts from puking. My right leg is a bit sore from supporting all my weight with the crutches. I'm sure my shoulders, back and arms will be sore in a few days from the crutches, too.


The 3D Plus is the most affordable 'Radiology class" 3D unit with a very useful 14 cm wide FOV, suitable for your Orthodontic Referrers, with 14 acquisition sizes to choose from.
Whilst not the largest FOV available, this model covers all the standard FOV sizes from Ø40x50 mm on up to Ø200x100 mm for comprehensive implant workup, TMJ studies etc.
In common with the other members of the Planmeca 3D family, 2D Pan & Ceph imaging is integrated into the system.
Planmeca ProMax® 3D Plus offers the user a wide variety of volume sizes for applications requiring 3D imaging.
This wide selection allows optimising the imaging area according to a specific diagnostic task, always complying with the best practices of dentistry and the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle to minimise radiation.
The new unit also offers a unique combination of three types of 3D data.
The user can acquire a patient CBCT image, 3D face photo and 3D model scan (impression or plaster cast scan), which are combined in one software suite. A virtual patient is created for different clinical needs.
Planmeca is the first to introduce this type of a concept, available for all Planmeca"s 3D units, and these additional unique features can be offered to your Referrer Dental Practices.
Planmeca ProMax® 3D Family is the first unit to combine 3 different types of 3D data.
The 3 different scan are brought together into one 3D image, creates a virtual patient in 3D, helping you with all the Dentist"s clinical needs.
Planmeca's optional ProFace is a unique CBVT imaging upgrade to deliver fully integrated 3D face scanned imaging.
This pioneering integrated system produces a realistic 3D face photo and CBCT image in a single imaging session.
You can also take a separate 3D face photo without exposing your patient to any radiation.
Designed to fulfill the most diverse diagnostic needs of today"s maxillofacial and dental professionals, Planmeca ProFace® is a highly effective tool for pre-operative planning and treatment follow-up.
It"s also ideal for patient motivation and for sharing information with colleagues.
Using the information from ProFace, the 3D face photo provides pre and post-operative comparisons. By superimposing images to show deviations with the ability to make measurements and view the relationship between bone and soft tissue. The results can be displayed in 3D or in 2D photo images.
The Planmeca ProMax® 3D family can be used to scan both impressions and plaster casts – an exciting feature that was an industry first for our CBCT units. And with our advanced Planmeca Romexis® software, the digitised models are available immediately and stored for later use.
Planmeca Romexis® incorporates a dedicated TMJ imaging module producing detailed images selectable from any angle or projection & with a wide range of selectable slice widths & thicknesses.
The Planmeca Romexis 3D rendering view gives an immediate overview of the anatomy and serves as an excellent patient education tool.
The images can be instantly viewed from different projections or converted into panoramic images and cross sectional slices.
Measuring and annotation tools such as nerve canal tracing assist in safe and accurate planning of treatment.
Planmeca Romexis allows easy planning and verification of implant placement using realistic implant models from several manufacturers. Soft tissue surface scan and crown design can be imported and superimposed with 3D X-ray data providing a perfect environment for implant planning.
The virtual treatment plan can be materialised into a real implant guide that can be used to accomplish your treatment exactly as planned.
Unique 'low dose" 2D imaging with optimized focus.
A unique SmartPan imaging system uses the same 3D sensor as used for panoramic imaging. This eliminates need to change sensors.
The SmartPan system automatically calculates 10 different panoramic curves in 2 mm shifts from the panoramic exposure data, automatically adjusting the sharpness of one layer.
The user can browse between the panoramic images and select the most suitable for diagnosis after the exposure.
Using SmartPan you can also select the 'Pan & TMJ" mode which produces an optimized view of the jaw & the TMJ"s with one low dose acquisition. Both temporomandibular joints will be showing in the image in an optimal and adjustable projection angle.
With Planmeca ProMax Cephalostat imaging is easier and more accurate than ever before. Just move the digital sensor from Pan to Ceph, or select the two fixed digital sensors option.
The functionally designed, easy-to-use head support guarantees accurate patient positioning in all cephalometric projections.
The carbon fibre ear posts and nasal support are extremely durable, hygienic, and fully transparent to radiation.
ProCeph 'one shot" DR flat panel cephalostat takes the image with one short exposure, giving excellent 'motion free" diagnostic image quality with low dose.
Planmeca uses the precise, free-flowing, computer-controlled SCARA (Selectively Compliant Articulated Robot Arm) arm construction can produce any movement pattern required. This enables accurate and reliable volume positioning and volume diameter adjustment, reducing the amount of radiation your patients are exposed to.


text:
Bagan wins World Heritage status
July 7, 2019	 read
Unesco approves listing of ancient Myanmar capital a quarter century after first nomination
YANGON: UNESCO has declared Myanmar's ancient capital of Bagan as a World Heritage Site, nearly a quarter of a century after the complex of Buddhist temples was first nominated for listing.
The decision recognizes the importance of the central Myanmar site – which includes more than 3,500 stupas, temples, monasteries and other structures built between the 11th and 13th centuries – and will likely be a boon to Myanmar's tourist industry.
Myanmar proposal to list the site was approved at a meeting of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Baku, Azerbaijan.
The International Council on Monuments and Sites recommended the listing, noting that Myanmar had adopted a new heritage law and had formed plans to reduce the impact of hotels and tourism developments around the temple.
Myanmar had reversed some "inappropriate conservation interventions", the body said, noting that Bagan was important for its historical significance and as a place of continuing Buddhist worship.
Bagan was first nominated as a World Heritage Site in 1995, but the military junta that ruled the country at the time was accused of ignoring experts' advice on restoration efforts and the nomination was rejected.
Earthquakes have also damaged the ancient structures, most recently in 2016 when nearly 200 temples were damaged by a 6.8 magnitude quake. Myanmar has renewed efforts to list the site since a transition from military rule began in 2011.
"Bagan is living heritage, having endured all forms of challenges for more than a thousand years," said Myanmar diplomat Kyaw Zeya, speaking on behalf of the Myanmar delegation at the Baku meeting.
"Today we are celebrating the joyous moment of the successful inscription of Bagan in the World Heritage List. Afterwards we will continue our efforts on conservation and management of Bagan so that this treasured heritage will remain for another thousand years."
Train service to Cambodian border to start tomorrow, 1 July
Smoking at home is banned in Thailand
Will the government's domestic travel measures persuade travelers to pack their bags?
What's the most popular flight in the world?
Thai beauty retailer KIS targets 30 stores in Bangkok aimed at millennials
PM praised for not responding to US appeal to postpone the ban on glyphosate
Over 1,000 leaders expected to attend ASEAN Business Summit
John on Thai Bar Girl Prices | Bangkok Freelancers
Bonzo on Why Thailand is called "Land of Smiles"?
Cindy on From Krabi to Phi Phi: Things to Do in the Krabi Province
Thai Buzz
Thailand Culture
watch,bdrip
From fancy resturants to small cafes to fitness studios to bars to news or entertainnment
Tweets by bkkexpatlife
2018 © bangkokexpatlife


We have listed all of the Headstart programs in Tohatchi, New Mexico . Click on the head start programs to view full details including maps and pictures.
If you do not see your head start listed in Tohatchi New Mexico listed below, you can add it to our database here - Add Your Program.
Due to finding no head start program listings in Tohatchi, New Mexico, we have listed the area listings for Tohatchi, below.


text:
A Chat with "Harper's Island" Victim #5
So who remembered to tune in to the show on Saturday night this week? If you were confused on Thursday night when you flipped over to CBS after "30 Rock" to find something other than "Harper's Island," then you must not have gotten the briefing about the network's decision to give up on the series on Thursday nights and movie it into one of their Saturday night death slots. It's not exactly as optimistic a move as the official CBS press release on the matter would have you believe, but as this week's victim observes, it's at least going to prove to be an interesting experiment, particularly if the show's DVR / TiVo ratings stay strong nonetheless.
Speaking of that victim, let's check in with the poor soul and see how they feel about the way they met their demise, which was, in its own way, as surprising as anything we've seen thus far on the series.
Bullz-Eye: Hey, Sean!
Sean Rogerson: Will!
BE: How's it going?
SR: (Laughs) Good, buddy! How are you?
BE: I'm good, thanks! Well, you didn't make it to the end of the series, but you did, at least, get to go fishing.
SR: I know, right? And a man loves his fishing…
BE: Well, sure. So how was it to film on the open water like that? Or, actually, how far out did you film those scenes?
SR: You know what? We did a couple of different stages. Most of the stuff where we were discovering the body and everything like that was right off a big dock or a platform. I love watching the show and remembering all of that, because there was a big group of people in front of us, and we're barely even in the water! But we did get to go take it for a spin.
BE: Excellent. Who ended up taking Muffin home?
SR: (Laughs) You know, I heard she stuck around for quite awhile, but…it was definitely Sully. Are you kidding me? I think he might've gone back and gotten her after she floated around for awhile.
BE: So how weird was it filming the bachelor party's strip-club scene? Because I have to figure that, even though you weren't actually in it, you surely must've been around the set…
SR: Well, you know, thanks for that question, because I was a little upset that I wasn't at least scheduled to be on set! I tried to talk to Dan (Shotz) and Karim (Zreik, executive producers of "Harper's Island") about that, but it didn't work out. But I heard it was a blast. I also heard that the young lady was a little bit nervous, but she seemed to do a pretty good job.
BE: You can't tell it from her performance.
SR: (Laughs) That's right.
BE: Booth might've been the most surprising death since Uncle Marty in the first episode, since Booth was barely even explored as a character until this episode, and then he was gone.
SR: Yeah, I think it might've been one of those things where they were playing along with people, leaving them in the background, making them the suspicious characters in the back who lay low, and you never know what's going to happen. It was kind of surprising either way. I was listening to what everyone else was saying, and I knew everybody would be surprised either way, so…
BE: Did you know this was going to be your final episode prior to getting the script, or were you just reading along when you hit the words, "Booth draws the short straw," and went, "Well, hell"?
SR: (Laughs) I found out…we had just done the scene where Sully runs by, where he's covered with feathers. It was the third episode, I think. We were all in our robes, and honest to God, I'm laying back there, just having the best damned time. I'm sitting there with Richard Burgi, the guy's the funniest dude ever, and we're just having a blast. It's late at night, and so we all get walked back to transport, and we're on our way, and I kind of hang back a little bit, just taking it all in. Karim walks by, gives me a little tap, and says, "Hey, buddy, can you, uh, come talk to me for a second?" "Sure, bro, what's up?" We walk around the corner, and as soon as he turned around, my response was just, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no!" But there it was. "I'm sorry, buddy, but this is it." (Laughs) So it went from the greatest couple of moments of my life, just hanging out, to getting a little bit of harsh realization. But, you know, I couldn't have asked for a better few months.
BE: That's funny that you mention Richard Burgi. Just about everyone I've spoken with thus far has made a point of saying just how awesome he is.
SR: Oh, my GOD! He is the coolest dude on the planet. I'm serious. I mean, that guy's got stories, and it's never a dull moment. Ever. Ever, ever. I don't care what you're doing, man. You could be just hanging out, having a coffee with the guy, and he'll just be doing something hilarious. Everything that comes out of his mouth is hilarious. He's great.
BE: So here's the traditional question I ask everyone: how did you find your way to the show in the first place? Was it just a standard audition?
SR: You know, mine was kind of a process. I did the first audition, and it was great. Karim was the guy in the room, and right away, he said one of those things where you hear a director or a producer say something that you think will never come to fruition. I did the audition, and Karim was, like, "Yes! That's great! You're our guy! Thank God!" And I was, like, "Um, alright, thanks," and I kind of backed out of the room, thinking, "Oh, great. I'm not getting this part. No way." But then I saw him on set, and he said, "I told you!" So that was the basis our relationship started on. But then after CBS did its thing and there was the possibility of a lot of people being recast, and we had to go through another audition process, so they could be sure that they'd found the right people. So it was about a two-month go-round, with a few auditions here and there. But it just happened to come my way.
BE: You had one of the more unexpected manners of death, too. What did you think when you found out that you were going to be a victim not of the killer but simply of your own clumsiness?
SR: (Sighs) Oh, man. I was so bummed. SO bummed. And, y'know, Karim tried to tell me in such a way where it was, like, "Oh, it's gonna be so heartfelt, because you're going to go into the woods and…" Actually, he told me a different thing right off the bat. He said, "You're gonna go into the woods, you're going to go bury the money, and you've got this gun, but then you're going to trip and fall and you're gonna shoot yourself." And there was just silence on the phone call before I went, "WHAT?" But he said, "No, no, it's gonna be great!" "Really?" (Laughs) "Because I don't want to tell anybody about this!" But as the writing evolved, when I got the script, I found out that it turned out to be a lot more heartfelt, I suppose, and a lot more innocently accidental, and not stupidly accidental. I just didn't want to be a total idiot. That's all I was thinking in my head: "Do I really have to be a huge idiot and trip, fall, and shoot myself?" But this, I thought, was a little bit better, a little more heartwarming, I guess.
BE: How hard was it to play dead with Chris (Gauthier) hanging over you?
SR: You know, it wasn't, because Chris and I had felt such a bond, especially over this episode, and just kind of getting to know each other through the show. We were just so there for each other as far as the scene and the moment. He was upset about me having to leave the show, anyway, and it was kind of breaking up that groomsmen bond we'd started to have. And it was just getting going during this episode, y'know? I think a bunch of guys are always really interesting on TV, especially with all these antics. It was just starting to get to the good stuff! But it wasn't hard. Everyone, the crew, was so awesome and so there for the scene, so it was easy.
BE: So are you throwing "Harper's Island" parties every week, like some of the other actors I've talked with?
SR: (Laughs) You know, I think this next week, a few of us have been working and just doing our thing and getting back on track here. I just go tback from L.A. for the past couple of months; I'm back in Vancouver now. But Malcom…Chris Gauthier…and I are going to get together. I'm going to get together with his family to watch the next one, so it'll be my first get-together up here back in Canada with people.
BE: Now, be honest: what was your first thought when you heard the show was being moved to Saturday nights?
SR: I was floored. I heard from one of the cast members, and I had no idea what it meant. I just thought, y'know, that they didn't get it a big enough chance, and what are they doing? It's just about to start…see, I thought the fourth episode really signified a big change in the show, because a friend is hiding something, and you start to wonder, "If a friend can do this, then who knows? It could be anybody." I just felt like they didn't give the audience enough of a chance to enjoy it. But then I got informed about the PVR ratings, and I know that every one of my friends out here is PVRing the show and watching it later, and it just kind of made sense. It's, like, if people aren't staying up for it and they want the viewers, then Saturday might be a bigger bet. And I had a ton of people calling me on Saturday, saying they were watching it at the time that the show was on, rather than just PVRing it. So I think it could be a smart move on CBS's part for the ratings.
BE: I'm not saying I'm thrilled that it got moved to Saturdays, but it does seem like it could be a potentially interesting experiment.
SR: Absolutely. I don't see how it can't be an interesting experiment, for sure, but I think the diehard fans, which I thought would always be there for a mystery show or a horror show, whatever they consider it, they'll follow it forever, wherever they put it. As long as CBS doesn't cancel it or something like that, these guys will follow it wherever it's going to go. And all of us, the cast and the fans, are doing our part to tell people where it's moved to, so I think we might even find new fans!
BE: Just a couple more quick ones for you…
SR: Sure!
BE: What did you think when you saw the supernatural element start to kick in?
SR: Okay, here's something I've got to tell you: I have no idea what's going on with that. None. I've been informed throughout the process of the filming of the show of some of the stuff that's going on, but that's one of the things that I have no idea about, and I'm just wondering what the heck is going on like you are. I have no idea what's going to happen.
BE: This might get the same approximate response, but…do you think that Booth's death is going to be the one where they finally start to say, "Maybe we should cancel this wedding"?
SR: (Laughs) You know, it's…my death is definitely one of the ones where it's gonna be noticed. It will be noticed, although coming up in the next couple of episodes, there isn't going to be a chance to worry about one person anymore. It's gonna start piling up. So while I'd like to say that Booth could be a big reason why this thing isn't going to happen, and he may be for a short amount of time, but the body count's gonna start piling up real quick real soon.
* Missed our interview with Victim #1? Go check it out!
* Missed our interview with Victims #2 and #3? Go check it out!
Posted in: Actors, Harper's Island, Interviews, TV, TV Dramas
Tags: Harper's Island, Harper's Island interview, Harper's Island interviews, Richard Burgi, Sean Rogerson
A Chat with Cassandra Sawtell ("Harper's Island")
One response to "A Chat with "Harper's Island" Victim #5"
sean rogerson forever says:
man I freaking love love love love sean rogerson!
hes so nice and I first encountered him in
grave encounters and he was so awesome in that
and its so sad that he gets a lobotomy in the
end or as I call it a forced lobotomy!
and it sucks that he dies after only four
episodes of harpers island damn it he should of
been on more!
love you booth and sean and its also great that
hes canadian(since I am)and hes freaking
gorgeous isnt he ladies?
mmm!
rock on sean and I hope you and your family
and friends have a really great christmas this
year and a happy star shined new year!
I wrote to him!
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hes so awesome im so freaking
excited right now cause im getting harpers
island for christmas and im opening it christmas
eve and after he dies im not even gonna bother
with the other discs like come on whats the
point right?
YOU ROCK MAN AND KEEP BEING A NICE GUY AND
KEEP BEING FLIPPING GORGEOUS AND KEEP ON ROCKING
HARD MAN!


There has been a "fundamental failure" by the State to provide a right to shelter and housing in Irish law, according to an independent law centre.
"As a result of this gap in legal protection, Mercy Law Resource Centre brought three separate High Court cases on behalf of three single mothers and their young children, of whom some had special needs," said acting managing solicitor Sinead Kerin.
"The courts refused to grant an order compelling the councils to provide emergency accommodation to these woman and their children as there is no right to shelter in Irish law," she said.
Ms Kerin said these cases show the failure by the State to provide emergency accommodation cannot be directly challenged in the courts.
"The gap in the law is clear and established as local authorities have a discretion but no duty to provide emergency accommodation for children in families," she said.
Mercy Law Resource Centre, which provides free legal assistance to those who are homeless, said a legally enforceable right to housing would not "give a key to a home for all" but would provide "recognition that a home is central to the dignity of each and every person and a foundation of every person's life".
It said a constitutional right to housing would put in place a basic floor of protection and the State would be obliged to realise the right to housing.
The centre will publish its report, Children & Homelessness: A Gap in Legal Protection, in Dublin on Wednesday.
As well as calling for a constitutional or statutory right to housing, the report calls for time limits on the use of emergency accommodation for applicants with children and legal aid for homeless and housing matters.
In 2017, Mercy Law carried out over 2,722 pieces of free legal work for 611 clients.
This involve meeting clients in their weekly clinics, legal representation in Residential Tenancy tribunals, Circuit and High Court Appeals, High Court Judicial Reviews and a Supreme Court Appeal.


text:
const { logger, consts } = require('@foxman/helpers');
const { ERRORTIPS } = consts;

module.exports = function(configPath) {
    try {
        require(configPath);
    } catch (err) {
        if (err.code === 'MODULE_NOT_FOUND') {
            if (~err.toString().indexOf(configPath)) {
                logger.error(ERRORTIPS.NO_CONFIG);
            } else {
                logger.error(ERRORTIPS.MAYBE_FOXMAN_CONFIG);
                logger.newline();
                logger.error(err);
                logger.newline();
                logger.error(ERRORTIPS.REINSTALL);
            }
        } else {
            logger.error(ERRORTIPS.INSTALL_LATEST_FOXMAN);
            logger.error(err);
        }
        return false;
    }
    return true;
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
AvaLabs, another Albanian success in the Forbes "30 under 30"
2 December 2022 12:39 pm
Albanian Startup Success has been showcased in "Forbes 30 under 30" many times these recent years, majorly in Finance. This time Kevin Sekniqi with his enterprise Ava Labs took the lead.
Kevin comes from Shkodra, he cofounded Ava Labs 5 years ago in New York and then moved it to Miami Florida, after finishing his studies at Cornell University. It took him a few years of work in companies such as Microsoft and Nasa to finally undergo the path of innovation himself.
As the youngest co-founder of Ava Labs, Sekniqi played a key role in the creation of Avalanche, a high-speed blockchain that counts over three million users, and AVAX, a cryptocurrency with a $4 billion market value. In September, private equity giant KKR said it would tokenize part of its Health Care Strategic Growth Fund II on Avalanche, granting investors access to private equity with a fraction of typically required capital.
Ava Labs makes it simple to launch decentralized finance applications on Avalanche, the fastest smart contracts platform in the blockchain industry. The company is empowering people to easily and freely digitize all the world's assets on one open, programmable blockchain platform.
Ava Labs was founded by Cornell computer scientists who brought on talent from Wall Street to execute their vision. The company has received funding from Andreessen Horowitz, Initialized Capital, and Polychain Capital, with angel investments from Balaji Srinivasan and Naval Ravikant.
Floreta Luli-Faber, Ambassador of Albania to the United States of America also wrote about Kevin. She met him in Miami and in her post it is shown how much she appreciated him in the first few hours when he would modestly recount his journey. Floreta remembers that when they met AvaLabs was still in the research phase and she is happy that it is now a success.


text:
Q: AngularJS - How to refer transcluded element in the link function Here's the link to the source code: http://plnkr.co/edit/OrdlKQGroRGk6q0AKeLI?p=preview.
I have created two directives in a parent-child relation. The child directive has an ng-repeat associated with it. As ng-repeat has a priority of 1000, I had to increase the priority of the child directive so that the link function of my-child-directive is called first followed by my-parent-directive.Inside the child directive's link function, I am using transclusion to add the compiled elements.
Question: Is there any way to get the reference of the transcluded <div> elements through ng-repeat?


Ring in the holidays – with one dead Santa.
It starts with Santa Claus being blown up.
It ends with one of the most garish gifts in the DC Universe.
It features six super-heroes behaving criminally stupid in an Agatha Christie-style caper that climaxes with a ridiculous deus ex machina simply because the story had only so many pages and just had to end.
So why is "The Man Who Murdered Santa Claus" such a fun story – and yes, even important?
When You've Caught the Great White Whale, What's Next?
When the Justice Society dropped in on their Silver Age substitutes.
That one comic book that somehow remains out of reach.
For some, it's "Detective Comics" No. 27, or "Amazing Fantasy" No. 15, or maybe "The Walking Dead" No. 1.
For me, for just about forever, it has always been "Justice League of America" No. 21.
If you have even a passing familiarity with the Silver Age of Comics, you understand the significance of that issue.
This August 1963 issue was insanely important for DC and for readers.


text:
/*
 * Copyright (c) 2011-2015 Spotify AB
 *
 * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 * You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */

package com.spotify.google.cloud.pubsub.client;

import io.norberg.automatter.AutoMatter;

@AutoMatter
interface PullRequest {

  boolean returnImmediately();

  int maxMessages();

  static PullRequestBuilder builder() {
    return new PullRequestBuilder();
  }
}


text:
package com.realscores.activity;

import android.app.Activity;
import android.app.Fragment;
import android.app.FragmentManager;
import android.os.Bundle;
import android.support.v4.widget.DrawerLayout;
import android.support.v7.app.ActionBar;
import android.support.v7.app.ActionBarActivity;
import android.util.Log;
import android.view.LayoutInflater;
import android.view.View;
import android.view.ViewGroup;
import android.widget.ListView;

import com.realscores.R;
import com.realscores.activity.fragments.CourseFragment;
import com.realscores.activity.fragments.NavigationDrawerFragment;
import com.realscores.obj.Course;
import com.realscores.obj.MainNavigationItemsEnum;

public class HomeActivity extends ActionBarActivity
    implements NavigationDrawerFragment.NavigationDrawerCallbacks {

  private NavigationDrawerFragment mNavigationDrawerFragment;
  private CharSequence mTitle;

  private String[] mPlanetTitles;
  private DrawerLayout mDrawerLayout;
  private ListView mDrawerList;

  @Override
  protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
    setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);

    mNavigationDrawerFragment = (NavigationDrawerFragment)
        getSupportFragmentManager().findFragmentById(R.id.navigation_drawer);
    mTitle = getTitle();

    // Set up the drawer.
    mNavigationDrawerFragment.setUp(
        R.id.navigation_drawer,
        (DrawerLayout) findViewById(R.id.drawer_layout));
  }

  @Override
  public void onNavigationDrawerItemSelected(int position) {
    // Create a new fragment and specify the planet to show based on position
    Class fragmentClass = MainNavigationItemsEnum.getEnumByPosition(position).getFragment();
    Fragment fragment = null;

    try {
      fragment = (Fragment)fragmentClass.getConstructor().newInstance();
    } catch (Exception ex){
      Log.e("No constructor found!", ex.getMessage());
      throw new RuntimeException(ex);
    }

    if (fragment == null){
      fragment = new CourseFragment();
    }

    // Insert the fragment by replacing any existing fragment
    FragmentManager fragmentManager = getFragmentManager();
    fragmentManager.beginTransaction()
        .replace(R.id.container, fragment)
        .commit();
  }

  @Override
  public void onListFragmentInteraction(Course course)
  {

  }

  public void onSectionAttached(int number) {
    switch (number) {
      case 1:
        mTitle = getString(R.string.courses);
        break;
      case 2:
        mTitle = getString(R.string.title_section2);
        break;
      case 3:
        mTitle = getString(R.string.title_section3);
        break;
    }
  }

  public void restoreActionBar() {
    ActionBar actionBar = getSupportActionBar();
    actionBar.setNavigationMode(ActionBar.NAVIGATION_MODE_STANDARD);
    actionBar.setDisplayShowTitleEnabled(true);
    actionBar.setTitle(mTitle);
  }

  /**
   * A placeholder fragment containing a simple view.
   */
  public static class PlaceholderFragment extends Fragment {
    /**
     * The fragment argument representing the section number for this
     * fragment.
     */
    private static final String ARG_SECTION_NUMBER = "section_number";

    /**
     * Returns a new instance of this fragment for the given section
     * number.
     */
    public static PlaceholderFragment newInstance(int sectionNumber) {
      PlaceholderFragment fragment = new PlaceholderFragment();
      Bundle args = new Bundle();
      args.putInt(ARG_SECTION_NUMBER, sectionNumber);
      fragment.setArguments(args);
      return fragment;
    }

    public PlaceholderFragment() {
    }

    @Override
    public View onCreateView(LayoutInflater inflater, ViewGroup container,
                             Bundle savedInstanceState) {
      View rootView = inflater.inflate(R.layout.fragment_main, container, false);
      return rootView;
    }

    @Override
    public void onAttach(Activity activity) {
      super.onAttach(activity);
      ((HomeActivity) activity).onSectionAttached(
          getArguments().getInt(ARG_SECTION_NUMBER));
    }
  }
}