1 / 16

How to get a F32 NIH grant Brian Harfe, Ph.D. 9/18/2013

How to get a F32 NIH grant Brian Harfe, Ph.D. 9/18/2013. Outline. (the dreaded “learning objectives”). Learn who I am Understand what a F32 grant is Figure out how to get one See the funding rates. Who I am. Brian Harfe, Ph.D. Associate Professor, College of Medicine (10 years)

abeni
Download Presentation

How to get a F32 NIH grant Brian Harfe, Ph.D. 9/18/2013

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. How to get a F32 NIH grant Brian Harfe, Ph.D. 9/18/2013

  2. Outline (the dreaded “learning objectives”) Learn who I am Understand what a F32 grant is Figure out how to get one See the funding rates

  3. Who I am Brian Harfe, Ph.D. Associate Professor, College of Medicine (10 years) Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (4 months) Director of the Program in Developmental Genetics (5 years) Email: bharfe@ufl.edu Web (Liberal Arts): http://www.clas.ufl.edu/dean/assocdeans/harfe.html Web (Medicine): http://mgm.ufl.edu/faculty/faculty-home-pages/harfe-brian/ Brief history in time: BSc Glasgow University, Scotland Ph.D. The Johns Hopkins University (Carnegie Inst. – C. elegans) Postdoc #1 Emory University (2.5 years - yeast) Postdoc #2 Harvard Medical School (3 years, F32 NRSA grant – mice and chicks)

  4. Why am I here? • I review F32 NIH grants for NIH (Cell Biology and Development Fellowship study section) • 3/2012, 6/2012, 11/2012, 3/2013, 7/2013 (11/2013) • I have reviewed ~80 applications in the last year and a half • Also looked over a couple of colleagues applications at UF • Takes me ~2-3 hours/application to review • Yes, you get paid (approximately $400, which equals around $13.00/hour)

  5. What they are and why they are good The Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards (NRSA/F32) for Individual Postdoctoral Fellowships provides up to three years of support for promising postdoctorals who have the potential to become productive, independent investigators within the broad scope of biomedical, behavioral, or clinical research. Postdoctoral fellowship awards provide a stipend (based on the level of experience), tuition and fees if specific courses are required, and an institutional allowance. Shows you can get a grant (very important for next job). Allows you to work in a lab.

  6. Rules Applicant must identify a sponsoring institution and an individual who will serve as a sponsor (mentor or supervisor) and who will supervise the training and research experience Individual must have received the Ph.D. (or equivalent research degree), or a professional degree such as the M.D., D.V.M., etc Must be citizens or noncitizen nationals of the United States, or must have been lawfully admitted to the United States for Permanent Residence.

  7. How to get one funded (i.e. how are they scored) All reviewers use the same NIH scoring sheet NOT ALL CRITERIA ARE WIGHTED EQUALLY! 1-9 scale is used with 1 being the best (only whole numbers can be given) Each area of application is scored separately. One “Overall Score” provided for each application. Score DOES NOT represent an average of all the criteria scores.

  8. The Scoring Sheet Application #: Applicant: Overall Impact Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood that the fellowship will enhance the candidate’s potential for, and commitment to, a productive independent scientific research career in a health-related field, in consideration of the following scored and additional review criteria. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major impact. Overall Impact/MeritWrite a paragraph summarizing the factors that informed your Overall Impact score.

  9. PUBLICATIONS! • Where applicant has trained previously. Grades, letters of support. • Real life examples: • BAD: • Letters are very brief. Although they are strong it seems like the people writing the letters do not know the applicant very well (4). • Single first author publication (in G3) and one middle author paper (in Protein Science). Addition of at least one more publication would greatly strengthen the application(5). • One of the letters addresses the issue of a single publication but also states that another excellent paper is forthcoming. Publication of this paper would strengthen the proposal(6) • GOOD: • Seven papers published (another three are in various stages of revision). These include three first author papers (2). • Strong letters of support(2). • Outstanding grades from XXXX (undergrad) and XXXX(Grad school) (2). • Two first author publications (Biochemistry and Nature Chemical Biology) along with five middle-author papers and two reviews. Excellent publication record (1). • The Applicant has a nice blend of academic and industry experience (1).

  10. Funding MUST be in place to run lab during proposed project. • Proven track record of mentoring • Real life examples: • BAD: • - Has NSF grant through 2015 for 2 million and is PI on the proposal but there are four co-PIs. Unclear how much money is available to support the applicant (5). • GOOD: • If funding falls through, the Department Chair states that the department will provide funds to complete “his” research (however, the applicant is female) (3). • Outstanding mentoring plan (2). • Sponsor has an outstanding track record of mentoring students. Has won the XXX Postdoctoral Mentoring Award as well the “Dean’s Award in Mentoring of Graduate Students”(1) • HHMI Investigator with extensive funding through HHMIand a new R01 (1).

  11. not as important as you would think. Training Potential in Applicant sections can overcome weak Research Plan. • Something that can be done in three years. Something that is different than what applicant has done before. Will advance the field (i.e. exciting). NO Preliminary data needed. • Real life examples: • BAD: • The proposal appears to be an analysis of this channel family in the presence/absence of different inhibitors and/or when the linker region is removed. It is not innovative (6). • The order of the applicant is weird. It is a bit confusing to have the Preliminary Studies come last(4). • A number of controls have been left out including RNAicontrols(4). • GOOD: • The proposal is outstanding. It contains a new and exciting Aim 2, which complements Aim 1. The overall project is very focused on the role of Wnts in producing/inhibiting iPS (2). • The proposal is well written and flows very nicely from Aim 1 to Aim 2(2). • Experiments appear to have a good chance of working but at the same time are innovative(3). • Excellent description of alternative plans is included.

  12. - Will you learn something NEW that will help you get a job? • Real life examples: • BAD: • The application will have worked on the organism as an undergraduate, Ph.D. (same lab as undergrad work) and postdoc(7). • After the three year funding period the applicant would have spent 9-plus years working on the same gene in the same organism. She will have obtained a very limited set of skills and knowledge base(8). • Training potential is extremely limited since the goal is to learn a single technique during the three year funding period (8). • Additional details on exactly what courses/workshops the applicant will be taking would strengthen the application (4). • GOOD: • Applicant’s background is in protein folding and yeast transcription. The Applicant states that she would like to run a lab investigating metazoan signaling networks. The environment she has chosen is an excellent place to achieve this goal(2) • A detailed plan is in place to ensure that the Applicant meets her goals and is trained to become an independent investigator and thinker(2). • Weakness that the Applicant currently has will be addressed. These include designed long-term experimental goals and writing proposals (1). • Applicant will learn a number of new techniques including live cell imaging that will greatly broaden her training(1)

  13. Least important • Every place is great • Real life examples: • BAD: • GOOD: • The research environment at XXX University is outstanding. • The facilities for the proposed project are outstanding.

  14. How does this all work? Each Application reviewed by three people (Assigned as Reviewer 1, 2 or 3) Submit your review with all scores a few weeks before meeting “Overall” score is averaged (three numbers) Applications are then ranked Top ~50% are “discussed” at study section (generates a “Summary of Discussion” paragraph). Primary Reviewer gives summary of application. Comments are then added by Reviewers 2 and 3 and then open to panned discussion. EVERYONE then votes an “Overall” score. Score from all people on study section (not just people who reviewed application) are averaged to arrive at final score used to rank the application (usually ~15 people for F grant reviews).

  15. Funding rates differ depending on the NIH Institution 25.8% funding rate across NIH

  16. F32 Success Rate by Degree *can resubmit application one time

More Related