1 / 31

Massachusetts General Hospital Postdoc Association Office for Research Career Development Grantwriting: Who Reviews Gran

Massachusetts General Hospital Postdoc Association Office for Research Career Development Grantwriting: Who Reviews Grants?. Janet E. Hall, MD Reproductive Endocrine Unit Department of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital Boston, MA. Today’s Goals. Understanding the Review Process

jayme
Download Presentation

Massachusetts General Hospital Postdoc Association Office for Research Career Development Grantwriting: Who Reviews Gran

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. Massachusetts General HospitalPostdoc AssociationOffice for Research Career DevelopmentGrantwriting:Who Reviews Grants? Janet E. Hall, MD Reproductive Endocrine Unit Department of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital Boston, MA

  2. Today’s Goals • Understanding the Review Process • what happens when you submit a grant to the NIH (or other agency)? • how does this influence how you prepare your application? • who can you talk to? • Resources

  3. Understanding the Review Process

  4. Institution Reviews the Application NIH Submits the Application Allocates Funds Conducts Research Submission of a Grant Grant Application PI Initiates Research Idea

  5. What’s in the Box? • NIH is one of eight health agencies that are part of the US DHHS • NIH is composed of 27 separate Institutes or Centers • Office of the Director • Nat’l Cancer Institute • Nat’l Eye Institute • Nat’l Heart, Lung & Blood Institute • Nat’l Human Genome Research Institute • Nat’l Institute on Aging • Nat’l Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism • National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases • Nat’l Institute of Arthritis & Musculoskeletal & Skin Diseases • Nat’l Institute of Child Health & Human Development • Nat’l Institute on Deafness & Other Communication Disorders • Nat’l Institute of Dental Research • Nat’l Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases • Nat’l Institute on Drug Abuse • Nat’l Institute of Environ Hlth Sciences • Nat’l Institute of General Medical Sciences • Nat’l Institute of Mental Health • Nat’l Institute of Neurological Disorders & Stroke • Nat’l Institute of Nursing Research • Nat’l Library of Medicine • Nat’l Center for Research Resources • John E. Fogarty International Center • Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center • Center for Information Technology • Center for Scientific Review (CRS, formerly DRG)

  6. Know your NIH Institute! • Look at NIH Institute-specific websites (www.niddk.nih.gov) • Learn Institute’s research priorities • Look at Institute’s application success rates (# applications; # awards): http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/success.htm

  7. Types of Scientific Review Groups • ScientificGroups (SRG) • CSR • Regular Study Sections • Special Study Sections • Special Emphasis Panels • Institutes • Scientific Review Groups • Contract Review Committees • Applications Reviewed • Research Project Grant • Academic Research Enhancement Awards • Postdoctoral Fellowships • Small Business Innovation Research • Shared Instrumentation • Program Projects • Centers • Institutional Training Grants • Contracts • RFA’s • Conference Grants • Career Awards • Some Small Grants

  8. NIH System of Peer Review • Center for Scientific Review • assigns to Study Section & Institute/Center • Study Section • evaluates for Scientific Merit • Institute • evaluates for Program Relevance • Advisory Councils and Boards • recommends action • Institute Director • takes final action for NIH Director ($)

  9. Initial Review: Scientific Merit • Assignment to Study Section • Information Sent to Investigator • assignment number • name, address and telephone number of the scientific review administrator (SRA) of the Review Group to which the application is assigned • assigned Institute contact and telephone number (s)

  10. Who Assigns the Applications? • Referral Officers • Professional Scientists most of whom also serve as Scientific Review Administrators of CSR Study Sections • Can I Influence the Assignment? • Cover Letter • indicate the Study Section which you think is most appropriate • study section rosters and overall interests are posted • Reorganization is ongoing • indicate the Institute(s) likely to be interested in funding your work

  11. Initial Review: Scientific Merit • Constitution of Study Section by SRA • ensures expertise to review all grants • distributes grants among reviewers • Grants Forwarded to Reviewers • reviewed for conflict of interest and appropriateness of assignment • each reviewer will have 8-12 grants to review in full as primary, secondary or reader • reviewers will receive all grants (60-75 in total)

  12. Initial Review: Scientific Merit • CSR Study Sections • review 80,000 applications per year • ~ 70-75% of applications reviewed by NIH • uses ~18,000 external reviewers • Study Section Membership • ~ 16 members - regular and ‘ad hoc’ • term is 3-4 years with staggered appointments • Criteria for Selection to Study Section • demonstrated scientific expertise • mature judgement, balanced perspective, and objectivity • personal integrity - critical re confidentiality • representation - women, minority, clinical

  13. Initial Review: Scientific Merit • Preparation of Review • scientific review using established criteria • Streamlined Review - bottom half • Study Section Meeting • 3 times/year x 2 days • members/chair, SRA, Institute Representatives • review bottom half grants • individual discussion of all top half grants primary, secondary, reader, full group and final vote by all members (1 high --- 5 low)

  14. Criteria-Based Review • attempt to emphasize more innovative concepts and approaches rather than safe science • SIGNIFICANCE • APPROACH • INNOVATION • INVESTIGATOR • ENVIRONMENT

  15. Council Review • Priority Score • average of all scores x 100 • ranking tabulated from the results of the current and two previous review meetings percentiles • preparation of summary statement (pink sheet) • Institute’s National Advisory Council • scientific and public representatives ~12-15 • meet 3x/yr to advise the Institute on its programs and priorities and review research applications • review of application based on scientific merit and relevance to the Institute’s programs and priorities

  16. Awarding of Grants • Institute • acts on recommendations of the Initial Review Group and Council • scientific merit • programmatic considerations • availability of funds INSTITUTION INVESTIGATOR

  17. CHECK How Long Does it Take? Submission Jan-May May-Sept Sept-Jan Initial Review June-Jul Oct-Nov Feb-Mar Group (IRG) National Advisory Sept-Oct Jan-Feb May-Jun Council Board Earliest Possible Dec 1 Apr 1 July 1 Funding *** Dates are changing so stay current CSR is considering new ways to shorten the review cycle. CSR is considering novel grant and review formats.

  18. CHECK R01 Applications are now Electronic *    No paper applications will be allowed *    Applicants and grants offices should prepare Now!*    BIG process change      -- Involves change in application form      -- Must use application form from specific Funding Opportunity Announcement in the NIH Guide *   Grants offices must submit applications Get more info at http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt

  19. Grant Mechanisms

  20. R21 R03 Grants for Different Career Stages: PhD F32 or T32 K22 K02 R37 T32 F31 R01 Independent PI Graduate Student Faculty Position PhD T32 - Institutional Training Grant - pre & post doctoral slots F32 - Individual Minority Pre-Doc F32 - Individual Postdoctoral Fellowship K22 - Research Scholar Dev’t Award *R03 – Small Grant *R21 – Exploratory Grant K02 - Independent Scientist Award R37 - Merit Award

  21. NIH Career Development Programs (“K” Awards) • fourteen different mechanisms • articulate with Career Stage: Mentored, Mid-career, Senior • interact with other NIH Awards • use “K Kiosk” or “Career Award Wizard”: http://grants.nih.gov/training

  22. “Career” or K-series Awards • designed to “protect” time, i.e., free up time currently spent in clinic or on administrative or teaching duties • most are for early career development • provide ‘salary’ not ‘stipend’ • meant to train U.S. citizens/permanent residents • K99 is an exception to this policy • limited to U.S. research/clinical institutions

  23. K-series Awards • K01 – Mentored Research Scientist Development Award (Ph.D.)- usually basic research • K08 – Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award (M.D. or other clinical degree)- usually basic research • K23 – Mentored Patient-oriented Research Career Development Award (M.D. or other clinical degree) • K99/R00 – Pathway to Independence (PI) Awards • K22- Transition Award- 2-3 years at NIH; 2-3 years at extramural academic institution in U.S. • K24 – Mid-Career Investigator Award in Patient-oriented Research (M.D.)

  24. Elements Reviewed in Mentored K Award Applications • Qualifications of candidate • prior training • letters of recommendation • publications** • Mentors • previous mentoring experience • expertise in area of research • current funding • Research project • hypothesis driven • preliminary data • reasonable in time frame • logical sequence of studies • appropriate safeguards • Career development plan • ‘enrichment’ • training • future plans • Environment

  25. Mentored Clinical Scientist Career Development Award (K08/K23/K99) • Essential components of grant application: • career development plan must be carefully documented • may include coursework • may work toward a graduate degree • mentorship must be strong and appropriate • Institutional commitment to career development must be clear

  26. Who reviews K award applications? • K award applications are generally reviewed by Institute-specific study sections, NOT the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) • check the roster of study section members BEFORE the review • http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm

  27. R-series grants • R01s – Research project grants unsolicited and in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (e.g. PAs and RFAs) • R21s – Exploratory/Developmental grants usually only in response to FOAs • R03s – Small grants only in response to FOAs

  28. Resources

  29. Use the Institutional Resources Available to You • Clinical Research Program • Statistical Support • Clinical Research Center • Scientific Review Committee • Research Affairs Administration Ask your colleagues! Ask your mentors!

  30. Grant Resources Sample K award applications • K08: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/training/redbook/k08model.htm • K23: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/training/redbook/k23models.htm

  31. NIH (www.nih.gov) • Office of Extramural Research • Grants Policy • Institute Personnel • New Investigators http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/resources.htm • Center for Scientific Review • Referral & Review • overview of Peer Review Process • SRG Study Section Rosters • NIH Peer Review Notes • Grants Net www.grantsnet.org • Private Foundations (examples): • ADA www.diabetes.org , JDRF www.jdrf.org Use the Resources Available to You

More Related