1 / 35

Mastering NIH Grant Writing Course

This course introduces preparing and critiquing standard NIH grant applications, with focus on career development. Learn anatomy of grant application, peer review, and submission process for successful career development grant applications.

dcornelius
Download Presentation

Mastering NIH Grant Writing Course

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. BU Career Development Grant Writing Course- Session 1, Part I

  2. Grant Writing CourseIntroduction • Objectives • Requirements& Outline of Classes • NIH Websites • Research Grant Types/Timing in Career • Physiology of Application/Review Process

  3. Objectives We will introduce you to preparing and critiquing standard NIH grant applications We will guide you in preparing a detailed candidate, career development, research plan, and supporting letters With the ultimate goal of submission of successful career development applications

  4. Requirements • Participate actively in all classes • Close coordination with your mentor • Prepare & bring to copies of assignments • Share grant components in class • Prepare critiques for applications of peers • Submit completed application to NIH • Provide us with feedback

  5. Outline of Classes • Walk through grant application process and anatomy of grant application • Week by week • Didactics on each section (this week more than normal) • Assignment for section just discussed • Peer review and critique of assignments • End of course critique of full applications

  6. Mission of NIH “The NIH mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.” SOURCE: http://www.nih.gov/about/FAQ.htm#grant BOTTOM LINE  NIH supports scientific research that will improve health; your CDA must FIT goals of NIH and Institute

  7. Short History of NIH • One of 11 operating agencies under DHHS (e.g., includes CDC, HRSA) • Under NIH, 27 Institutes/Centers (e.g., NICHD, NHLBI, NCI) • Institutes with different strategic plans, priorities, pay lines DHHS NIH Institutes

  8. Dynamics of a Research Question K Award

  9. General CDA • Different types (K01, K08, K23) • Generally 3-5 years • Considerations • You and your mentoring team as (more) important as research • Great salary support but limited research $$ • Goal is to have you transition to independence (R grant) so should be framed towards gaining your independence • You must be convincing about why you need additional training to gain independence

  10. NIH Website Basics:What are the types of CAREER DEVELOPMENT awards?www.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm • Check out the visual guide to NIH Career Development Awards for individuals with a health-professional doctorate. • Check out the listings for the different types of K. • NIH Career Award Wizard to help identify appropriate career awards based on training, etc.: http://grants.nih.gov/training/kwizard/index.htm

  11. http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm

  12. NIH Website Important Website: https://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx Information about: • Each Center and success rates for grant types • Amount of $$ per disease • Link to RePORTER– try to decide where your application best fits • Section focused exclusively on CDA

  13. NIH Website NIH Matchmaker- you put in abstract, brings up 100 projects most similar: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter_matchmaker.cfm NIH RePORTER- you search by key words, grant type or PI to get a sense of what is funded in your area

  14. RePORTER: Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools • How to access : • http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm • What’s the value of accessing RePORTER? • It shows the types of things being funded • It gives you a 2-3 year lead over publications. • It shows you what the competition is doing now.

  15. NIH Website Basics:13-18 Month Grants Process Overviewhttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/grants_process.htm • 3-6 or more months to prepare the application • 3 months for NIH to receive and assign it • 3-5 months for NIH to review it • 2 months for NIH staff to process the award *Note: this is with getting funded on the first try, which almost never happens

  16. Don’t procrastinate Time is your greatest resource and your most important asset. • Get started early (4-6 months before grant due). • Make steady progress; arrange dedicated time each week for grant-writing. • Get good peer review before you submit. • Submit only your best work; shoot for funding on the 1st round!

  17. Physiology of the Application ProcessNIH Review System – Review Cycles • WHEN ARE APPLICATIONS DUE? • It depends ... • On whether the application is new or revised • New applications: Feb 12, June 12, October 12 • To learn more, see this website: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm

  18. Physiology of the Application ProcessNIH Peer Review System – Two Tiershttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm • Study Section • Peers who carry out scientific review & make budget recommendations • Over 100 sections • Assignment made based on title and abstract • Can request a section via letter submitted with application • If you think the assigned section is inappropriate, can request a change PRIOR to review via the Scientific Review Administrator, whose contact info is provided to you when the application is assigned for review.

  19. Physiology of the Application ProcessNIH Review System – What’s an SRO? SRO = Scientific Review Officer • Intermediary between applicant and reviewers • Analyzes the application, gets qualified reviewers • Prepares the Summary Statement • Oversees administrative aspects of peer review meetings

  20. Physiology of the Application ProcessNIH Review System – Study Section • Each application is assigned to three reviewers. • They review the application carefully. • FIRST DECISION = “Streamlining” = Does the application have enough merit to justify discussion and scoring? • IF NO  The applicant receives a written statement summarizing the critiques of the 3 primary reviewers. • IF YES  • The application is summarized and critiqued orally by the first reviewer. The 2nd and 3rd reviewers give opinions to fill in blanks and voice dissenting views. • Other reviewers add their comments, ask questions. • SECOND DECISION = How to score the application.

  21. How is your proposal reviewed?

  22. Scores are on a 9-point rating scale • Your proposal is submitted electronically to the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) which then assigns it to an appropriate study section. • The study section Scientific Review Officer (SRO) will assign your grant to up to three reviewers. Before the meeting reviewers will submit preliminary written critiques together with an overall score to CSR for ranking. • Score is based five general criteria: Significance, Investigator, Innovation, Approach, and Environment. 1 = exceptional; 9=poor. Only integers will be used for scoring

  23. Physiology of the Application ProcessNIH Review Criteria http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm#Initial

  24. Before the review meeting each assigned reviewer will give a preliminary impact/priority score to each of their assigned applications. These score will help the review committee determine which applications will be discussed at the review meeting. • Only the proposals ranked in the upper 50% will be discussed at the meeting. • At the time of the meeting, reviewers will be called upon to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal to which they were assigned. Based on this discussion each member of the study section (up to 25-30 reviewers) will vote an integer score in the range 1-9. Overall score for your grant is the average of these individual scores multiplied by 10.

  25. After discussing an application, each eligible committee member (without conflict of interest, etc.) will give a final impact/priority score which should reflect their evaluation of the overall impact the project is likely to have on the research field. The overall impact/priority score for each application is the average of all the final impact priority scores multiplied by 10 (the 81 possible impact/priority scores will range from 10-90, with 10 being the best possible final score. The preliminary and final impact/priority scores assigned by each reviewer will be determined primarily by consideration of the five core review criteria. An application does not need to be strong in all five core review criteria to be judged likely to have major scientific impact.

  26. General Scoring Criteria

  27. 9-Point Scoring (Overall Impact)

  28. Questions/Comments?

More Related