Edward G. Conture Vanderbilt University Dept. Hearing & Speech Sciences Nashville, TN 37232 “ Scusset Beach Blues”

Grantsmanship: The Review ProcessPresentation to 6th Annual Conference on Research inCommunication Sciences & DisordersLessons for Success: Developing the Emerging ScientistMarch 27-29, 2008Rockville, Maryland Edward G. Conture Vanderbilt University Dept. Hearing & Speech Sciences Nashville, TN 37232 “ Scusset Beach Blues” Background Photo by Patricia Kenyon Grantsmanship_ReviewProcess_Conture_Feb09_2008FINAL.ppt

Outline • Theory of grantsmanship: Good idea, good science, good application …Slides 3-9 • Practice of grantsmanship: Overview of study section review process …Slides 10-22 • Conclusions …Slide 23

“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” Winston Churchill (1939)No one can forecast the actions a specific study section will take with your proposal; however, we can try to explain some basic aspects of the grant review process to help you view it as something other than a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Grantsmanship 101 THEORY: Good Idea, Good Science, Good Application (GISA): A hypothetical example PRACTICE: From Study Section Meeting to Study Section Reviews, and the important steps in between The “practice” portion of this presentation owes a great deal of thanks to Dr. Kim Oller, whose materials/outline from the 2005 L4S were adapted/used and significantly guided me in the development of this section. I do, of course, accept sole responsibility for any errors and/or misrepresentations contained herein.

Three basic “modes” of appeal/persuasion • Logos: The PI’s logical persuasion • “A causes B, C is essentially identical to A, therefore, C likely to cause B” (syllogistic reasoning, where possible) • Ethos: The PI’s personal persuasion • “The PI has been very productive, particularly in the area where funding is sought” • Pathos: The PI’s emotional persuasion • “From PI’s presentation, it is clear that America needs this knowledge and needs it now!”

Good idea (investigated using) good science (described in a) good application “Good” Idea: Leaf shape of trees is dictated by prevailing winds more than does soil and climate “Less than Good” Idea: Leaf shape tells us a lot about trees. “That’s right, those are my principles. And if you don’t like them, I have others.” Groucho Marx

Good Idea but so what? Compelling motivationLogos used to clarify and support the ethos [believability/character] of the PI and the PI’s ideas/theory/methods, with ethos made salient by appropriate appeals to pathos [compassion (for our ideas/approach)]: Logos: “Trees are crucial for soil and water conservation, for the quantity and quality of our water supply. Often taken for granted, trees remove harmful pollutants from the air and are a natural resource vital to our survival. It behooves us, therefore, to better understand trees.” Ethos: “Results of the PI’s published empirical studies make apparent that such an understanding would help us increase the growth rate, number and viability of these environmentally-helpful resources.” Pathos: “And in so doing increase our chances of survival as well as quality of life.”

Good Science:Like thepigs in Animal Farm, some approaches are more equal than others; reduce the differences, as much as possible, down to the one of import, for example, group classification Better science: Date palm and sugar maple trees – two trees with radically different leaf structure – will be subjected to the influence of controlled degrees of wind as light, soil and water conditions are held constant. Leaf and limb loss and growth as well as tree growth, destruction and damage will serve as dependent variables. Really less than better science: During the same winter, spring, summer and fall months, sugar maple trees will be studied in Burlington and date palms studied in Aruba. They will be studied systematically

Good Application: Reviewers are not clairvoyant; the PI must clearly explicate his/her idea(s), motivations for same and science; idea/science must be readily accessible to reviewers Good application:We will employ the “wind shear model of leaf shape (see p. 17 for details),” and some of its testable assumptions, to help address specific questions raised by our preliminary findings and theorizations: Does duration and speed of wind result in differences in leaf damage to tropical versus temperate clime trees (Question 1, Proposed Study 1)? Less than good application: We will study trees during different climatic conditions to answer the following questions: (1) How do trees respond to wind?

From theory (GISA) to practice (Study Section) • Nature of study section: • Composition of members • Composition of staff • How grant gets into hands of study section: • Assignment of grant to particular study section • Primary/secondary/tertiary assignments • What happens after initial assessment • Priority score • Triage • Preliminary Judgments • How study section processes potentially fundable grants • Presentation • Discussion • Voting to establish priority score • Assignment of percentile ranking • When the reviews come out • What to expect • What to think/do • What next? “Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.” Mark Twain.

Nature of an NIH study section: Member composition Consists of individuals inside and outside your area of interest/expertise Approx 10-20 members/study section, smaller groups convened for ad hoc reviewing Study section membership listed online Do not hesitate to request the study section you believe is most appropriate Study section and institute (e.g., NIDCD) selection are largely independent

Nature of an NIH Study Section: Staff composition Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) key individual in the review process SRA shepherd’s entire process of review Institute staff may (or may not) be present at review SRA together with designated Chair of the Study Section conducts the review session

How your grant gets into the hands of a study section:Assignment to particular study section An office largely independent of SRA makes assignment Title/abstract large factors in both institute as well as study section assignment; last thing written (Abstract) first thing read (Abstract): word to the wise: spend the time with Abstract to get it right, try to make it reflect good idea, science and application. You may request both institute as well as study section assignment but request should be in keeping with title and abstract

How your grant gets into the hands of a study section: Primary, secondary & tertiary reviewer assignments SRA/perhaps other staff assign proposal to 2-3 study section members: Usually individuals with most extensive background in area of proposal These individuals required to carefully read/review the grant and write up their review: Key individuals An ad hoc reviewer may be requested, and may not be physically present (e.g., communicates with study section by speaker phone at the time of grant review); typically happens when grant doesn’t readily map onto areas of expertise of study section members Each of these reviewers assigned other grants to review (perhaps 3 to 7 in total) and write critiques for; however, any member of the study section can comment on any other proposal assigned to study section

What happens once grant is initially assessed:Understanding thePriority score rating scale 1 to 5; bigger score is not better Scored typically in increments of 0.1; 1.4 would be great while a 2.2 might be encouraging, but not fundable Scores multiplied by 100, so a 140 would be great while a 2.2 encouraging, but unlikely to be funded Scores above 300 are not seen by the investigator, these are “lower half” scores and are not computed

What happens once a grant is initially scored: Triage: Lower half established at beginning of study section; these “triaged” grants are not reviewed but still generate full reviews Triaged grants not necessarily end of the line for the grant, depends on the content of the reviews Very carefully listen to and try to understand the reviewers, but don’t leave your critical faculties at the door when assessing their critiques. Respecttheir opinions, carefully consider same but also listen to yourself Having a grant triaged does not require one to roll over and play dead but it does require a clear-eyed view of reality and how to best adjust to same given your understanding of your idea/science/ability to clearly communicate both in a written document The triage process allows the study section to focus its attention on those grants that have a reasonable chance of funding in their current form “A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that others throw at him or her.” David Brinkley.

How study section processes potentially fundable grants: Preliminary judgments After lower-half (triaged) grants designated, SRA and chair establish order of review for grants to be openly discussed As each grant proposal comes up for review, the assigned reviewers give it a “preliminary priority score” Preliminary scores spoken without comments and oral reviews then begin

How study section processes potentially fundable grants:Presentation Primary reviewer speaks first, many times reading from written reviews brought to study section Secondary and then tertiary reviews speak in turn, sometimes in direct response to primary and/or each other Points of agreement/disagreement are highlighted and openly discussed/debated The more reviewers can be enthusiastic about a grant and “champion it,” the better the review goes for the grant

How study section processes potentially fundable grants: Discussion • After assigned reviewers have spoken, the entire study section may enter the discussion • No time limit per se is set for discussion of each grant, but the SRA/Chair keenly aware of the need to expeditiously and fairly review all grants, that is, the discussion of each grant is allowed to proceed but in a timely fashion • Differences of opinion among the key reviewers may be noted/discussed by other members of study section • Occasionally a non-assigned study section member will read, review and write up comments, significant additional comments; when this happens, which is rare, this reviewer will most likely be asked to submit his/her written comments to the PI given that these additional comments can influence the final score

How study section processes potentially fundable grants: Establishment of your priority score Chair/SRA calls discussion to a close Key reviewers voice final score, a score usually modified by previous discussion With exception of staff, everyone on study section votes in writing AND Your priority score = average of all votes Key reviewers scores are weighted equally with all others but their opinions typically the only basis other reviewers have for making their judgments

How study section processes potentially fundable grants: Assignment of percentile rank All proposals that come to study section for particular round of review are pooled Pool divided up by budgeted subgroups (i.e., R01s do not compete with R03s) Percentile ranks established within subgroups; How many proposals submitted, the quality of these proposals, amount of money available, all influence the payline, more or less…

When you receive the reviews: What to expect/what to think Focus on the content of the 3 or so reviewer’s critiques; skim them initially and then return when emotionality has subsided Careful reading, studying of the main points made by the reviewers – especially points brought up by two or more reviewers – is crucial “No one can make you inferior without your consent.” Eleanor Roosevelt.

When you receive the reviews cont’: What to expect/what to think Separate out their main from minor concerns, organize them on paper; share, if at all possible, the reviews and your organized “boil-down” of the comments with an experienced NIH investigator Seek opinions of such investigators about what the reviewers are AND are not saying about the proposal Above all, persevere if the score and content of the reviews are encouraging; if you aren’t getting grants rejected/sent back for revisions, you aren’t getting grants!! “Why, a four-year-old could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can’t make head or tail of it.” Groucho Marx.

Conclusions • GISA. Keep the GISA scaffold in mind, from the Abstract, through the Specific Aims, etc. • Explicate don’t (covertly) cogitate. Assume as little as possible, reviewers aren’t clairvoyant, what is in your head is not necessarily in theirs • Strive for excellence do not obsess with perfection. Understand the review process but do not obsess over it; instead, focus on your project and fully addressing the various elements of the NIH grant outline

Conclusions cont’ • Trust, learn and respond. The process is challenging but as fair as it can be made; listen to, trust and learn from the reviewers • Keep on keeping on. Above all, persevere; if at first you don’t succeed, try - after listening to, learning from and responding to the reviews - try again; for it is a truism, that every grant not submitted is a grant not funded! “The only thing I knew how to do was to keep on keeping on…” Bob Dylan

Edward G. Conture Vanderbilt University Dept. Hearing & Speech Sciences Nashville, TN 37232 “ Scusset Beach Blues”