Nuts and Bolts of NIH NRSA Fellowship Applications:

1. Nuts and Bolts of NIH NRSA Fellowship Applications: March 4, 2008 Libby O’Hare Ph.D. Candidate, Neuroscience UCLA GWC Writing Consultant

2. Outline Part 1: Pre-doctoral NRSA Application Overview Part 2: Focus on the Research Training Plan Part 3: Focus on the Background and Significance Section -tips and strategies for literature reviews Part 4: Focus on the Methods and Experimental Design Section -tips and strategies for methods sections Part 5: Making Your Research Plan More Competitive Part 6: Common Reviewer Complaints

3. Applicant Section Demographic & Administrative Information Research Training Plan NIH Biographical Sketch Short Essays Item 19: Project Description Item 20: Training and Career Goals Item 27: Previous Research Experience Sponsor Section Biographical Sketch List of Grants and Previous Trainees Training Plan (research environment and facilities) Letter of Support (applicant’s qualifications and potential) Part 1: NRSA Application Overview

4. Demographic and Administrative Information • Somewhat self-explanatory • Consult instructions booklet and the following websites • UCLA Office of Contracts and Grants: www.research.ucla.edu/ocga • Entity Identification Number, DUNS Number, ERA Commons sign-up • UCLA Grad Division: www.gdnet.ucla.edu/gss/postdoc/nihadmin.htm • Official in Business Office • Information on obtaining required signatures

5. Research Training Plan • Specific Aims • Background/Significance/Literature Review • Preliminary Data • Research Design and Methods • Human Subjects • Vertebrate Animals • Literature Cited • Responsible Conduct of Research

6. Applicant Biographical Sketch • Similar to a CV, but with a NIH specific format and additional required information • Requires special form • Education/training • Research Positions and Honors • Publications • Scholastic Performance • Chart reproducing your undergraduate and graduate academic transcripts

7. Short Essays • Item 19: Project Summary and Relevance to NIH mission • Succinct summary of project that can stand alone • Broad goals and health-relatedness • Informative and understandable to a scientifically literate audience • 2-3 sentence lay language summary of the relevance of the project to public health • Item 20: Career and Training Goals • How will the proposed training enable you to reach your career goals? • Identify skills, theories, conceptual approaches to be learned or enhanced during the proposed award period • Item 27: Research Experience • Chronological summary of prior research experience • Focus on scientific questions and conclusions, rather than exhaustive list of methodologies

8. Sponsor Section • Biographical Sketch • In a specific NIH format, most advisors have these handy • Research Support • In table format, list of all current and pending research support (financial information) • List of Previous Trainees • Letter of Reference • Training Plan, Environment, Research Facilities • Describe classes, seminars, and other opportunities for scientific and professional development (ethics classes should be described within the Research Training Plan) • Describe the research environment and available facilities and equipment • Describe the skills and techniques the applicant will learn during the fellowship period, and the relation between these and the applicant’s career goals

9. Part 2: Research Training Plan Specific and standard format: • Specific Aims • Background/Significance/Literature Review • Preliminary Data • Research Design and Methods • Human Subjects • Vertebrate Animals • References • Responsible Conduct of Research

10. (1) Broad Summary Statement of Project • 1-2 paragraphs • Place the overall research question in perspective • Attention grabbing • Use lay language and avoid references when possible

11. (2) Specific Aims and Hypotheses • Usually 2-5 specific aims are listed • Identify the project goals and main hypotheses to be tested • Should list aims using numbers and simple, specific sentences • Helpful to use different formatting tools (boldface, italics) to identify specific aims and hypotheses

12. (3) Background and Significance • Review of the current literature relevant to the proposed project • Putting the research question into perspective • Explicit explanation of the potential scientific impact of the project • How does your research question address a hole in the literature (how is your question novel)? • What progression of experiments that led to your project? • Clear and well organized--use subheadings where possible

13. (4) Preliminary Data • If applicable and available • If included, should be brief • Use images, graphs, tables • Main goal is to demonstrate that you can perform the technique/analysis/procedure you are proposing • Secondary goal is to indicate that your initial data is coming out as expected

14. (5) Methods and Experimental Design • Description of research design • Include information on: -Materials -Subjects -Instruments -data collection procedures -data analysis methods • Look at previous grant proposals from your lab to get a sense of the scope and details needed

15. (6) Expected Results and Possible Caveats • What are your expected results? • Given these results, what is your interpretation? • How does this interpretation fit with the concepts you have developed in the background and significance section? • What are potential confounds or caveats in your experimental design? • Discuss alternative approaches that may be used to address these confounds and caveats

16. (7) Broad Conclusions and Implications • 1-2 paragraphs • Place the overall research question in perspective (yes, again!) • Spell out exactly how the proposed research will advance the field • Use lay language and avoid references when possible

17. Part 3: Writing the Background and Significance Section • Function • Types and Styles • Tips and Strategies

18. Functions of Literature Reviews • Placing the current study within the wider disciplinary conversation • Illustrates the novelty and importance of the project • Explains how your research questions and/or research approach is different from those previously published • Justifies your methodology • Demonstrates your familiarity with the topic and your ability to study it successfully

19. Types of Literature Reviews • Exhaustive history: chronological review of previous studies that lead to the current project • Replication: description of current state of knowledge, or methodology; also argues for additional verification or possible variation (i.e. different sample population) • Missing pieces: description of current state of knowledge with identification of gaps in the field; argues how current research will address these gaps • Positional: identification of various arguments, trends, and debates in field; situates the proposed research within that context and then stakes out the study’s position **some lit reviews include aspects of all of these**

20. Tips and Strategies • Categorize your sources into topic clusters • Look for trends and themes and synthesize related information: • Develop the positions that are relevant for your project • Build on conclusions that have led to your project • Identify holes due to flawed assumptions or improper methods • Include a certain amount of simple reporting of previous results, but remember • You are writing discursive prose • Your primary goal is to critique • Focus on justifying your research questions and methodology

21. Part 4: Writing the Methods and Experimental Design Section • Functions • Suggested Format • Critical Questions • Human Subjects and Vertebrate Animals Considerations • Responsible Conduct of Research

22. Functions of Methods Sections • Describe the overall methodological approach • Illustration of how methods will answer your research questions • Development of rationale or scientific strategy • Description of specific methods of data collection • Explanation of data analysis methods/strategies • Address potential limitations and interpretations

23. Suggested Format Specific Aim #1 Rationale: • how does this design relate to your overall hypothesis? Methods: • data collection, data quality control, data management, statistical analysis Expected Results: • How will you interpret the expected outcome? • What are some different possible outcomes? • How will these be different outcomes be interpreted and addressed? (repeat for each specific aim)

24. Critical Questions • Are the methods I chose feasible and within my competence? • Did I address difficulties I may encounter with the proposed approaches, show I can handle them, and propose solutions and alternatives? • Did I consider how the limitations of the approaches may affect my results and data? • Did I describe the kinds of results I expect? • Did I show I am aware of the limits to and value of the kinds of results I expect? • Did I define the criteria for evaluating the success or failure of each experiment?

25. Human Subjects and Vertebrate Animal Research • Much of this information will be identical to that submitted to the UCLA IRB • Consult with your advisor to determine the best way to approach this section

26. Responsible Conduct of Research • Short statement describing any ethics training you will participate in • This type of class is required of all graduate programs receiving NIH funding, so there should be a course in your department that will satisfy this requirement • Can also describe informal means of training

27. Part 5: Making Your Research Plan More Competitive (A) Opening statement (B) Summary and integration of background literature and preliminary data (if applicable) (C) Possible caveats and confounds (D) Final take-home message

28. (A) Opening Statement • 1-2 paragraphs • By placing the overall research question in perspective in lay language you can get the attention of your reader immediately • Shows that you have a sense of the “big-picture” implications behind your research

29. (B) Summary and Integration of Background Literature and Preliminary Studies • In the literature review you discussed the current state of knowledge and highlighted the missing pieces of the scientific story • Your preliminary data illustrates that your methods are a sound approach for tackling these missing pieces • You have illustrated how previous research remains insufficient, AND how your preliminary data has positioned you to make the advance that your field needs!

30. (C) Expected Results and Possible Caveats (within Methods) • What are potential confounds or caveats in your experimental design? • What are alternative approaches? • This section illustrates your ability to think critically about your project and your experimental design

31. (D) Take-home Message • State exactly how the proposed research will advance the field • Shows that you have a sense of the “big-picture” implications behind your research

32. Part 6: Common Reviewer Complaints • Lack of original or novel ideas • Scientific rationale not valid • Project lacks focus, studies are not logically related, experiments do not follow from one another • Proposed studies based on shaky hypotheses • Alternative hypotheses are not considered • Proposed experiments are descriptive and do not test specific hypotheses

33. Common Reviewer/Reader Complaints • Lack of alternative methodological approaches in case the primary approach does not work out • Insufficient methodological detail to suggesting applicant doesn’t know what she/he are doing • No recognition of potential problems and pitfalls • Proposal lacks critical literature references, reviewers think that applicant does not know the literature

34. Summary • Pre-doctoral NRSA Application Overview • Overview of Research Training Plan Components • Writing the Background and Significance Section and the Methods Section • Making Your Research Plan More Competitive • Common Reviewer Complaints

35. NIH Grant Writing Resources NIH Center for Scientific Review: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/

36. UCLA Grant Writing Resources Graduate Writing Center (GWC) Individual Writing Consultation Appointments http://gsa.asucla.ucla.edu/gsrc/gwc/index.htm Grad Division’s Extramural Fellowship Proposal Consultants Dr. Chuck Olmstead (physical and life sciences) 310-835-5094 brainone@ucla.edu

37. Acknowledgements UCLA Graduate Writing Center Marilyn Gray Christine Wilson