1 / 22

Rachel’s Amateur Guide to Grant Writing Postdoc Development Workshop Wednesday 18 th September 2013

Rachel’s Amateur Guide to Grant Writing Postdoc Development Workshop Wednesday 18 th September 2013. Acknowledgements: Christopher Hass, Ph.D., Tammy Bray, Ph.D., Todd Constable, Ph.D., Lisa Brzustowic , M.D., Kimberly Espy, Ph.D., Michelle Kienholz , Ph.D. Tip #1: Expand your horizons.

ted
Download Presentation

Rachel’s Amateur Guide to Grant Writing Postdoc Development Workshop Wednesday 18 th September 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Rachel’s Amateur Guide to Grant WritingPostdoc Development WorkshopWednesday 18th September 2013 Acknowledgements: Christopher Hass, Ph.D., Tammy Bray, Ph.D., Todd Constable, Ph.D., Lisa Brzustowic, M.D., Kimberly Espy, Ph.D., Michelle Kienholz, Ph.D.

  2. Tip #1: Expand your horizons • Knowledge of grant opportunities in your field • Closing Dates of Solicitations • www.grants.gov keyword search for funding opportunities. • “cancer” 1/5th of open solicitations were not NIH • e.g. Life Sciences funding opportunities in almost every government funding agency: NIH, DOD, NASA, DOE, NSF, DOT, EPA, ED, USDA, DOC • www.research.ufl.edu “External Funding Opportunities Resources”

  3. Tip #2: People are EXTREMELY Important • Collaborators as Co-Investigators – UF, national and international • Letters of Support • Program Officers – talk, email, discuss idea, budget – don’t leave it until the night before • Reviewers – find a colleague with reviewing experience willing to review your proposal pre-submission • Choose the correct panel (NIH)

  4. Tip #3: Make it easy for reviewer • Spend the most amount of time on the 1-page summary • Make it easy for the reviewer to summarize the goals and strengths of your project • Highlight these important sentences that address the specific metrics e.g. the innovation of this work is to... • Typos, grammar and excessive repetition of certain words or phrases = annoyed reviewer

  5. Tip #4: Don’t False Start FOLLOW THE SUBMISSION GUIDELINES • Don’t give them an excuse to reject your proposal before it even reaches the program officer/reviewer. • If it says you’re only allowed 10 publications in the biosketch – don’t put 11. They WILL notice.

  6. Tip #5: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words • Space is very limited and if you have complex wordy concepts to convey think about using a picture/cartoon with an appropriate caption instead • Be concise – don’t take 6 sentences when you can say it in one.

  7. Tip #6: Preliminary Data • Very very important to demonstrate that you have all the tools/expertise to do the work (NIH) • Very important to demonstrate feasibility of approach • Alternatively make sure that there you have expertise on the research team

  8. Tip #7: Time Management • Start thinking very early • Be aware of program open and closing dates • Start writing early • Be thorough – literature • Time to contact potential collaborators, get people to review and proof read, discuss with the program officer • Don’t leave the budget until the last minute! • Be aware of time frame of review and actually getting funded

  9. Tip #9: Be Realistic • Don’t aim too high with your budget and proposed work for your first grant – make yourself a low risk option – prove yourself • Timetable for research methods and strategies • Don’t fish – we will search for the right method, we will investigate etc. – you should have already searched and investigated

  10. Tip #9: Wait – don’t submit that! • Don’t submit an obviously weak grant • Don’t submit a grant if you wrote it in a week • Do not get a reputation for submitting garbage. • then when you submit something good it will not be taken seriously. • Only submit grants you have seriously and rigorously worked on • and poured over the meaning of each sentence very carefully

  11. Tip #10: Learn and Persevere • Read the reviews and summary of discussion • Try not to get discouraged • Use the reviews to learn as much as you can • Even if you get funded – use the reviews

  12. Peer Review Panels • Important to go to the correct panel • the wrong panel may not have appropriate expertise • end up misinterpreting things you thought were obvious • typically not interested in your topic if it’s not their area of expertise • look at the composition of the panel • people in your field and do work you are familiar with should be on the panel • maybe only a handful of such people • networking – it’s good to know people on the panel

  13. Peer Review • you submit your grant, it goes to the correct panel, and many months later the panel meets • Prior to the panel meeting • 3-5 reviewers get your grant 8-10 weeks ahead of the meeting • read the grant • write the reviews at home • upload their critiques to the NIH website • assign preliminary scores to your grant

  14. Peer Review • at the meeting • the reviewers sit around a table like this for 1-2 days • all of these people will score your grant – only a few will actually look at it closely 1st 2nd 3rd discussants

  15. Hypothesis-Driven Research vs Discovery Science

  16. Triage. • the first thing the panel does is get rid of at least 50% of the grants • your name, grant title, and grant number are read • 1st and 2nd reviewers are asked if they want to unscore the grant – need consensus – otherwise it will be discussed and scored • peer pressure to unscore grants • reduces work load and time people have to sit at the table • if unscored you get the reviewers comments • but no summary of the discussion (there was none) • they move on to the next grant…

  17. The Reviewers. • hopefully the reviewers are experts in your field • each reviewer gets assigned 5-8 grants where they need to write reviews (1st, 2nd, or 3rd reviewer) • each reviewer may also get another 2-5 grants that they are readers on • this is a heavy load – each grant can take several hours • will discuss how to make your grant a pleasure to review

  18. The Review • 1st reviewer spends time summarizing goals, strengths and weaknesses, • evaluates grant following review criteria * • 2nd reviewer may or may not add much • same with the rest of the reviewers/readers

  19. Review Criteria • Understand the review criteria (Guidelines for Reviewers): • http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm • Significance: Does the study address an important problem? • Approach: Is the design/method appropriate? • Innovation: Is the project original? • Investigators: Are they suitable to carry out the work. • Environment: Does the environment (facilities) contribute to the likelihood of success?

  20. Scoring • Scoring: • http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm • each of the 5 criteria below are assigned a score 1-9 • 1 good • 9 bad • Significance: Does the study address an important problem? • Approach: Is the design/method appropriate? • Innovation: Is the project original? • Investigators: Are they suitable to carry out the work. • Environment: Does the environment contribute to the likelihood of success? • Ultimately you get 1 final overall score • the reviewers come to a recommended consensus during their discussion or agree to a range • everyone at the table (even people that haven’t even looked at your grant) score the grant based on the discussion they heard. • your final score is the mean x 10. (range 10-90)

  21. Anatomy of a Reviewer’s Critique • Overall strengths and weaknesses • Strengths & weaknesses of each core criterion • Scores for each core criterion • Comments on other review considerations • Additional comments (“advice”)

  22. SCORING GUIDANCE Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact

More Related