A Surgeon’s Perspective of the Grant Review Process

1. Pedro J. del Nido A Surgeon’s Perspective of the Grant Review Process

2. What Happens to Your Grant Application

3. Cover letter only for internal agency use- will not be shared with reviewers.

4. What happens to my grant?

5. What happens to my grant?

6. Study Sections • Review 50 to 120 grants per cycle (Feb, June, October) • Cover specific areas of scientific research • “Peer review” • Assign priority score and provide critiques

7. What Happens to Your Grant at Study Section • Study Section Meeting • Usually lasts 2 days • Chair (member of section) and SRA in charge • Institute representatives can attend but can’t discuss • Reviews/discussion occurs • Members privately write a priority score for each grant

8. Impactaddresses: • Probability of whether the research will exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field. • Significanceaddresses: • Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? • If the aims are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? Impact and Significance

9. Does application challenge/seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? • Concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? • Refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? Innovation

10. Personal Statement: • Why their experience and qualifications make them particularly well-suited for their roles in the project • Publications: • Recommended: no more than 15---up to five of the best; up to five of the most relevant to the proposed research; up to five of the most recent • If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? • If Established, have they demonstrated ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? Investigator

11. Common Reasons for Failure • Lack of clarity and focus in the specific aims • Lack of acceptable scientific rationale • Lack of knowledge of published relevant work • Lack of pilot data, no-one in your team has experience in essential methodology

12. Common Reasons for Failure? • Lack of attention to detail in your research methods – superficial, overly ambitious • Lack of a critical approach • Lack of recognition of potential problems and proposed solutions • Lack of value of the proposal – result and methods already well established

13. Common Reasons for Failure • Lack of confidence that you will complete the protocol • It must be clear that you (and other relevant people) will spend enough time on the project • Demonstrate that you have all the necessary people, PATIENTS and laboratory resources to be successful

14. Common Reasons for Failure • STARTING TOO LATE • Remember the “pros” take months (full-time) preparing grants – you are being compared with them

15. Web Resources • NIH: www.nih.gov • Office of Extramural Research • www.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm • Grants Policy • www.grants.nih.gov • Center for Scientific Review • www.csr.nih.gov • Overview of Peer Review Process • www.csr.nih.gov/review/peerrev.htm • CSR Study Section Rosters • www.csr.nih.gov/review/ssroster.htm