1 / 16

NIH GRANT NARRATIVE

NIH GRANT NARRATIVE.

dakota
Download Presentation

NIH GRANT NARRATIVE

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. NIH GRANT NARRATIVE • “A well written application creates a tale that appeals to the reader. The plot is revealed in the “Background and Significance” section, laying out a self-contained story. Unlike a novel, however, the story is unfinished….reviewers should be curious about what happens next, and the questions you propose (the specific aims) should reveal how you will unfold the next chapter” (Yang, 2005, page 2). • Use strong topic sentences to both introduce and summarize information in the paragraph. Some writers bold or underline these topic sentences, this helps a reader to peruse later to recall key points. Reading topic sentences only should convey nearly the full project. Each topic sentence is like a self-contained step on a logical step down your path of reasoning. (Yang, 2005) • Yang, O. O. (2005). Guide to effective grant writing: How to write an effective NIH grant application. New York: Springer.

  2. NIH GRANT NARRATIVE cont. • Figures should be clear and easy to read – do not try to put too much information into one figure; make sure that legends are clearly explained. A well-designed figure conveys the major point to readers within seconds (Yang, 2005). • Use blank lines to separate paragraphs and sections; leave room in margins for reviewers to write notes. (Yang, 2005). • Remember that reviewers are people – if the type is too small and the page is too crowded, they will feel annoyed reading your proposal. Also know that most reviewers will be looking at your proposal in a hotel room or airplane with sometimes less than great lighting. Make it easy for them to see and read and as clear and concise as possible.

  3. SPECIFIC AIMS • Yang (2005): • Usually about one page in length • Should be a clear summary of your ideas without technical details • A review should be able to re-read this page as an effective memory refresher of why the work is important and what the research will answer. • There are typically few or no citations because this page serves as a general summary • Address the following: • What is the field of investigation? • Why is it important? • What is the state of knowledge in this field? • What important questions remain unanswered? • What are the ramifications of answering these questions? • What limitations have posed barriers to research in the area? • What new or potential developments will allow you to address the questions?

  4. SPECIFIC AIMS cont. • Stating the aims (Yang, 2005): • List the aims succinctly, numbering is helpful. • For most research studies, the aims should be hypothesis driven (what will be tested by the data generated by your research proposal?) • The reviewers should see how the aims can be accomplished in the life of the grant; make sure they are feasible given your experience and timeframe. • If you are responding to a request for application (RFA) or program announcement (PA), it is crucial to relate your specific aims to the goals of the RFA or PA. • Common errors include a list of unrelated experiments, and the appearance of being like a fishing expedition rather than a hypothesis driven set of steps. • Another common error is specific aims that are dependent upon the success of earlier ones (this means the project is risky because if one aim fails, they all will).

  5. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE • (Yang, 2005) • Usually 2-4 pages long. • Should be thoroughly but concisely make the case for why the research is important, provide a context for the work, and point to how results would affect the field. • This section should serve as a review article for a sophisticated reader, but one who may not be familiar with the field. • Avoid jargon or abbreviations that make the reader have to search the text for explanation; if you do find it necessary to use abbreviations, re-define it at the beginning of each section so that it is easy for the reader to find.

  6. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE • (Yang, 2005) • Indicate why the area of research is important – convince the reviewer that the aims, if achieved, would contribute to a fundamentally important topic by answering key clinical questions or providing new clinical avenues. • Indicate what is known thus far in the area of research – include discoveries leading up to the questions being asked, prior attempts to address similar questions, current theories, prior limitations that have prevented a resolution in the area, and any recent advances that now make pursuit of the aims possible.

  7. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE • (Yang, 2005) • Indicate the implications of the proposed work to the field – how will accomplishment of the aims improve the field? Relate this to what is known and how your research broadens the state of knowledge. • You can mention the possible application of your findings, though be careful not to make claims that are tenuous. • Some authors conclude the section by restating the aims with a few sentences tying the aims to the background and significance just presented.

  8. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE • (Yang, 2005) • A common mistake is to use this section to present exhaustive knowledge without a clear direction. • Another common error is having long paragraphs with too many ideas. Instead, use self-contained paragraphs with one or a few very closely related ideas. • Avoid subjective statements that might alienate a reviewer who has a different point of view. Focus, instead, on the positives of your approach (don’t dwell on negatives of other approaches). • Be sure to acknowledge opposing viewpoints as well.

  9. PRELIMINARY RESULTS • (Yang, 2005) • Two major purposes: 1) to support the scientific basis of the specific aims and 2) to demonstrate the investigative team has the ability to carry them out. • This section should guide readers down the path of your research interests and point to next steps to be taken to achieve the specific aims of the grant. • It’s useful to include figures and tables within each subsection (e.g., preliminary study results cited). • It’s also helpful to end each subsection with a summary statement relating the point of the information just provided to the specific aims of the grant.

  10. PRELIMINARY RESULTS • (Yang, 2005) • This section is to showcase preliminary work done by you or your investigative team (not preliminary research done by others in this area). • One common mistake is including work that is not related or only peripherally related to the proposed study. If the content is not relevant but the methodology is, briefly describe how the methodology is pertinent to the proposed study. • The section should stand alone without any referral to outside publications or sources (this will actually annoy the reader).

  11. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS • (Yang, 2005) • This section is to let reviewers see how you plan to proceed throughout the proposed study period, and any alternative routes you might take if you hit roadblocks. • It is helpful to begin with an overview paragraph that paints the overall approach for each specific aim with broad strokes. • Each specific aim is then covered in an individual section, with verbatim restatement of the aim at the beginning of the section.

  12. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS • (Yang, 2005) • Within each aim, cover the following: • Hypothesis (1-2 sentences) • Rationale (1-2 paragraphs, summary of what was already presented in background and preliminary studies) • Experimental approach (the bulk of your writing is here to describe the experiments to be performed to address the specific aim) • Interpretation of results (1-3 paragraphs describing the implications of any findings) • Potential pitfalls and alternative approaches (potential roadblocks and how you will adjust to get around them if need be)

  13. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS • (Yang, 2005) • After the final aim, many authors choose to have a section summarizing “overall summary and significance” – this is a concluding section to restate the overall picture and discuss how the results of the aims will answer the questions posed in the application. • A common error in research plans is insufficient detail indicating how the investigator knows the study population will be available. In addition to demonstrating that the sample exists, you have to conduct power calculations to show that your proposed sample size has enough power to answer your study questions. • Take care not to over-interpret the results – provide caveats and possible alternative explanations for your findings.

  14. COMMON REVIEW PROBLEMS CITED BY PEER REVIEWERS • Problem not important enough. • Study not likely to produce useful information. • Studies based on a shaky hypothesis or data. • Alternative hypotheses not considered. • Methods unsuited to the objective. • Problem more complex than investigator appears to realize. • Not significant to health-related research. • Too little detail in the Research Plan to convince reviewers the investigator knows what he or she is doing, i.e., no recognition of potential problems and pitfalls. • Issue is scientifically premature. • Over-ambitious Research Plan with an unrealistically large amount of work. • Direction or sense of priority not clearly defined, i.e., experiments do not follow from one another and lack a clear starting or finishing point.

  15. COMMON REVIEW PROBLEMS CONT. • Lack of focus in hypotheses, aims, or Research Plan. • Lack of original or new ideas. • Investigator too inexperienced with the proposed techniques. • Proposed project a fishing expedition lacking solid scientific basis, i.e., no basic scientific question being addressed. • Proposal driven by technology, i.e., a method in search of a problem. • Rationale for experiments not provided, i.e., why they are important or how they are relevant to the hypothesis. • Experiments too dependent on success of an initial proposed experiment. Lack of alternative methods in case the primary approach does not work out.

  16. COMMON REVIEW PROBLEMS CONT. • Proposed model system not appropriate to address the proposed questions. • Relevant controls not included. • Proposal lacking enough preliminary data or preliminary data do not support project's feasibility. • Insufficient consideration of statistical needs. • Not clear which data were obtained by the investigator and which were reported by others . • All of these review problems are detailed at: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/cycle/part04.htm#e3

More Related