The review process A timetable for grant preparation Application form modules & components The research module The

1. The review process A timetable for grant preparation Application form modules & components The research module The abstract The progress report The research proposal __________________________ The curriculum vitae module The budget module (as time allows) TOPICS TO BE COVERED

2. Grantsmanship… …but it has also a great deal to do with presentation ..has a lot to do with your past training, productivity, and scientific expertise and brilliance,

3. The CIHR Review Process Upon receipt in Ottawa: - application filed by CIHR staff - checked for completeness (all modules, signatures) - does it follows CIHR guidelines (length, etc) Each application is assigned to: - one primary internal reviewer - one secondary internal reviewer - one ‘reader’ (reads in any external reviewer comments)

4. The CIHR Review Panel Chairman- responsible for all processes Scientific officer (S.O.) delegates applications to panel reviewers • Reviewers often are not from in your sub-discipline • Some applications sent to alternate committees • Committees attempt to fill all functions (and reduce dependence on external reviewers [lack of participation]) Panel members (each one scores all applications) - expertise designed to cover the breadth of the application pool - 10-15 panel members

5. The review process • Before the review meeting in Ottawa • 1˚ and 2˚ review their assigned grants • Normally, each member is assigned perhaps 5 grants • as primary, 5 as secondary, and 5 as reader • 8 - 20 hr required to review each application • depending on how familiar you are with the area • At the meeting • First - all signed, scored & completed reviews are given to S.O. • Chairman reviews regulations of review panel, mandates, • guidelines, etc • •For each application • - the 1˚ & 2˚ reviewer’s scores are read out • Score range: 0-5 (few below 2.5, few above 4.5; ≤2.9 = triage) • 1˚ reads his review (5-10 min) • 2˚ adds any relevant comments (≈5 min)

6. The review process(con’t) • The panel asks any outstanding questions • Reader adds insights of externals • Consensus score is agreed upon by 1˚ and 2˚ • Grant is scored secretly by each committee member • Scores must be +/- 0.5 from consensus, or dissent must be registered verbally and discussed by entire committee • At the end of the panel (dy 2 or 3), all scores turned into S.O. • Mean scores ranked from top to bottom • All funds available are distributed • Highest awardee first, then down the rankings until funds exhausted • Scores of 4.0 or less, generally don’t get funded directly by CIHR

7. The review process for 1˚ & 2˚ reviewers • Reviewers read your CV • Provides written comment on your training, productivity • Do you have the capacity to run & complete the project • Impact of articles on community, quality of articles/journals • Reads your responses to previous reviews (and may use them if the responses are appropriate) • Reviewers don’t have access to your previous application • Reviewers assess your research proposal (pg 12a-k) • Provides written summary of your proposal • Does it read well grammatically?

8. The review process for the 1˚ & 2˚ (con’t) What the reviewer is assessing(con’t) • Is the background literature appropriately covered (sufficient depth, balance & accuracy)? • Reviewer medline searches routine • Is the scientific approach sound? ..novel? ..the best one? • Is sufficient detail present to judge this? • Numbers of repeats, subjects, methods of analysis • Technical wizardry won’t cover up inappropriate use • Could more simple approaches answer the question better? • ..or more cheaply? • Have you lined up good quality collaborators for your technically weak areas

9. Timetable for writing • One year in advance • Begin to think about the project • What experiments to do • What papers you need to publish • Write and submit papers (3 mnth) • Nine months • Begin preliminary experiments (3-5 mnth) • Line up collaborators, non-commercial reagents

10. Timetable (con’t) • Six months • Write a preliminary draft • Bounce ideas off knowledgeable colleagues (not necessarily friends) • Fill in a CIHR common CV online • Four months • Submit ethics protocols (animal, human, biosafety) • Finalize the experimental plan • Complete a background literature search

11. Timetable (con’t) • One month • Write a final version (with fig/tables) • Collate letters of support, collab., ms. status, etc • Check for literature updates & update CV • Confirm required signatories will be available • Two weeks • Print out final version of grant • Have two people proof-read it, then re-edit • One week • Obtain all signatures • Have all copies printed • Two days - courier the grant to Ottawa • thank your wife & kids for their understanding

12. The Abstract • This should be, in effect, a very high quality one-page grant application • With the exception of the 1˚, 2˚ & reader, many panel members read only the abstract (then, if intrigued, some of the proposal proper) • The abstract should: • Include the rationale for the project • Touch on your background • State the hypothesis, objectives and general approaches in as much detail as space will allow • Summarize the significance of this work for CIHR, etc.

13. General comments • Make it easy on the reviewer’s eyes & brains! • Reviewer fatigue is very real. Pay attention to: • Aesthetics, over-crowding, figure sizes & complexity • Use italics, etc, to highlight hypothesis & critical points; • separate & title sections (eg, Overview); use correct margins. • Don’t use overly complex sentences, or ‘micro-niche jargon’ The Research Proposal(appended pgs 12a - k) • ‘Should’ include the following sections: Rationale; Hypothesis & objectives; Background literature; Preliminary data; Research Plan; & Significance.

14. The Proposal - Hypothesis & rationale - • 1-2 ¶ overview to rationalize the project • Importance of the work • Succinct eloquence, not b.s. • State your hypothesis, objectives (Aims) & approaches • Is the hypothesis testable with the approaches selected? • Are these explicitly and plainly stated? • A strategy for the rank-order of the major aims? • You could work from the more theoretical (eg, Aim 1, in vitro) • to the more practical (eg, Aim 3, in vivo), applied, or risky. • Your rationale - if Aim 3 is risky, having it not work out wouldn’t jeopardize • the whole project, but then again…

15. The Proposal- Background literature - • Cover all RELEVANT background (3-5 pg) • Most reviewers won’t be ‘from’ your precise area • Use it to unequivocally rationalize project, hypothesis & approaches • Succinct, with great detail is good • doesn’t hurt to impress the review with the fact that you know EXACTLY what you are talking about (…but stay on track!) • Liberally reference this and other section(s) • 3-7 pg of citations not unusual or too much • References don’t count towards page limits • Use figures & tables as necessary • sub-discipline-specific names or terminologies • complex pathways • Figures and tables don’t count towards page limits, • but don’t use too many or the figures become the grant.

16. The Proposal- Preliminary data - • Critical for the success of most grants • Shows that you have relevant insights • And that, technically you CAN do the work • Use appended publications • Details of methods & discussion (esp. reviews) • Use simple graphs, figures(or lose the reviewer) • Appropriate amounts of preliminary data? • A balancing act: none or very little can kill the application, while too much makes it look like you’ve done much of the project already

17. The Proposal- The research plan - • Lay it out Aim-by-Aim • Each aim very briefly rationalized again • Very detailed experiments, laid out one after another • Especially if you aren’t known to be highly experienced • Use appended papers for methods if available • Indicate numbers of subjects, reps, stats approaches, reagent sources, cell numbers (are the numbers required realistic given your methods of generation/purification), etc.. - Include expected results, interpretations • ***- Include potential pitfalls & how you will deal with them • If experiment 3.2.5, for example, doesn’t work the way it • is run, what will you do? • If Aim 1 fails completely, is the whole project lost? • Are the aims presented in an appropriate order?

18. The Proposal - Significance and timelines - • How will all the experiments: • fit into the overall objectives of CIHR? • fulfill Canada’s (& international) health mandates? • will they be publishable and high impact? • What are the timelines for finishing each phase of the project? • What is your long-term plan • When the project is completed, how do you envisage taking the program forward?

19. Your curriculum vitae • Filled out & maintained online (Common CV) • Follow directions precisely • Append summaries of grants • ‘applied for’ or ‘in hand’ • indicate degrees of overlap with present application • unanswered questions, or suspect answers, can hold up your funding, even if granted • Append “most significant contributions’ • Significant to whom, and why? Impact on field? • Keep it ‘up to date’

20. Your curriculum vitae(con’t) • List of professional activities (that occupy your time) • Committee activity (local, regional, national, int’l) • Journal/grant review • Append list of publications • Last five years only, in chronological order • Don’t include ‘submitted’ papers (unless they are appended and accompanied by letter of receipt from journal) • Include granting agency support & your contribution • Peer-reviewed research publications, books, chapters & reviews, • published abstracts

21. The Budget • Personnel • Staff (identify Res Assist, tech, consultants & rationalize pay-scale) • Trainees (PDFs, Grad & summer students; identify, if possible, and rationalize) • Materials & Supplies • Animals • Calculate numbers required (each strain), cost/animal, housing costs (watch for hidden costs, and don’t ‘pad’ the budget • Expendables • Break this down into categories (plasticwares, disposables, IHC reagents, molecular biology reagents & kits, etc..) • Calculate relatively carefully (within ≈$100-250 per item) • rule of thumb for some panels, $15,000 per worker- no more!

22. The budget(con’t) • Materials & Supplies (con’t) • Services • Glassware cleaning, equip maintenance, equip operators • Rationalize each item (# hours on FACS, cost/hr, etc) • Get quotes on particularly expensive items (eg, 400 hr of FACS @ $50/hr) • Other • Specialized expenses that may not fit into any category above • Travel • almostautomatically given to attend meetings, if requested, • @ ≈$2,000 - 2,500/yr

23. The budget (con’t) • Equipment • Pay attention to rules on using special equipment grants • Thoroughly justify it’s requirement • Letters from the Dean or Dept head, etc • get two quotes • Small items (eg, pipettors) can be included in expendables • If others will use it, will they contribute to its cost? (why not?) • Taxes -- calculate these and include within the line items

24. CIHR Grants: “Just touch the water.. That’s it!” ...it really is easier than that! British Navy photo taken during a military exercise off the coast of S.Africa. Nominated by Nat’l Geographic as “Photo of the Year”. John R. Gordon Immunology Research Group john.gordon@usask.ca; x7214

25. CIHR due-date, plus 6 CIHR due-date, minus 7