NIH Grants: Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness

1. NIH Grants: Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness Silvia da Costa, Ph.D. Director of Faculty Research Relations Office of Research

2. Research Grants Competing Applications and Awards

3. The NIH Peer Review Process • Application received • Assignments made • Initial peer review Funding considerations • Scientific Review Group Institutes or Centers (ICs) • (Study section) (Duals possible) • Scientific Review Officer Program Officer • Second level of review • Council • Funding decision • IC Director • Award!

4. Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness

5. Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness • Research to address the needs of the funding institute

6. The NIH Peer Review Process • Research to address the needs of the funding institute • Application received • Assignments made • Initial peer review Funding considerations • Scientific Review Group Institutes or Centers (ICs) • (Study section) (Duals possible) • Scientific Review Officer Program Officer • Second level of review • Council • Funding decision • IC Director • Award!

7. Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness • Research to address the needs of the funding institute The NIH is not interested in funding good science The NIH is interested in funding good science that meets the needs of the of the funding institute “Small business” mentality: Your proposal as an “investment”

8. Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness • Research to address the needs of the funding institute To which Institute should you submit your grant?

9. Awards by Institutesorted by average number • Research to address the needs of the funding institute

10. 2010 Funding Success Rate per NIH IC • Research to address the needs of the funding institute

11. NIH RePORT • Research to address the needs of the funding institute http://report.nih.gov/reports.aspx

12. Institute Strategic Plan • Research to address the needs of the funding institute http://report.nih.gov/reports.aspx

13. Institute Strategic Plan • Research to address the needs of the funding institute http://report.nih.gov/strategicplans/index.aspx

14. Institute Strategic Plan • Research to address the needs of the funding institute • Research to address the needs of the funding institute

15. Institute Strategic Plan • Research to address the needs of the funding institute

16. IC Area of Interest • Research to address the needs of the funding institute • http://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html

17. Any Questions • Research to address the needs of the funding institute

18. The NIH Peer Review Process • Application received • Assignments made • Initial peer review Funding considerations • Scientific Review Group Institutes or Centers (ICs) • (Study section) (Duals possible) • Scientific Review Officer Program Officer • Second level of review • Council • Funding decision • IC Director • Award!

19. Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness • CRISP RePORTER

20. CRISP RePORTER • CRISP RePORTER http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm

21. Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness • Choosing the right study section

22. Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness • Choosing the right study section Who will be reviewing your grant? Identifying potential members of your Scientific Review Group

23. Center for Scientific Review (CSR) • Choosing the right study section http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx/

24. Center for Scientific Review (CSR) • Choosing the right study section http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Pages/default.aspx

25. Center for Scientific Review (CSR) • Choosing the right study section

26. Center for Scientific Review (CSR) • Choosing the right study section

27. Grant Proposal Cover Letter • Application title • FOA # and title • Request: • Choosing the right study section • Place SRG & IC review requests on separate lines • Place positive & negative requests on separate lines • Include name of IC or SRG, followed by a dash and acronym • Provide explanations for each request in a separate paragraph • You can ask for a specific study section but it is not necessarily guaranteed… • Check eRA Commons regularly to see confirm to where it was assigned. • Contact the PO immediately if it was not assigned to the section you wanted - they usually will try to accommodate your request

28. Any Questions • Choosing the right study section

29. Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness • Grant sections

30. Good Grantsmanship Grant writing is a learned skill! • Grant sections

31. Academic Writing Grant Writing Sponsor goals: Service attitude Future oriented: Work that should be done Project-centered: Objectives and activities Persuasive rhetoric: “Selling” the reader Personal tone: Conveys excitement Team-focused: Feedback needed Strict length constraints: Brevity rewarded Accessible language: Easily understood Scholarly pursuit: Individual passion Past oriented: Work that has been done Theme-centered: Theory and thesis Expository rhetoric: Explaining to reader Impersonal tone: Objective, dispassionate Individualistic: Primarily a solo activity Few length constraints: Verbosity rewarded Specialized terminology: “Insider jargon” • Grant sections Porter, R. Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposal. J Res Admin XXXVIII(2):37-43,2007

32. Approach: Restructured Research Plan Previous Application New Application • Grant sections

33. Significance (1/2 page) • Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? • If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? • How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? • Grant sections • Innovation (1/2 page) • Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? • Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? • Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

34. Biographical Sketch • Personal Statement –what experience and qualifications make the applicant particularly well-suited for the project. • Limited to 4 pages (per person) • Publications limited to 15 • 5 most recent • 5 best • 5 most relevant to the application • Grant sections

35. Biosketch: Include the PMCID • Example • Varmus H, Klausner R, Zerhouni E, Acharya T, Daar A, Singer P. 2003. PUBLIC HEALTH: Grand Challenges in Global Health. Science 302(5644): 398–399. PMCID: PMC243493 • Grant sections http://publicaccess.nih.gov/citation_methods.htm

36. Specific Aims Page - Outline Background information Relevance (medical/clinical) Gap in knowledge/Current knowledge Long-term goal (of your lab) Objective of the proposal Hypothesis - Basis for hypothesis Rational for study Specific Aims Hypothesis How it will be tested Expected Results Why proposal is innovative Significance PI / Environment Positive Impact “Payoff” for the Institute/Foundation • Grant sections

37. Specific Aims Page – Target Audience • Grant sections

38. Diabetic conditions TGF Aim 1 Aim 2 YYY XXX abc WW WSWS CVCV Aim 3 Diabetic Neuropathy Hypothesis:text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text Specific Aims – Diagrams • Grant sections

39. Specific Aims Page Your job is to make the reviewer’s work easier! Background information Relevance (medical/clinical) Gap in knowledge/Current knowledge Long-term goal (of your lab) Objective of the proposal Hypothesis - Basis for hypothesis Rational for study Specific Aims Hypothesis How it will be tested Expected Results Why proposal is innovative Significance PI / Environment Positive Impact “Payoff” for the Institute/Foundation What is not known is … It is relevant because… The objective of the proposal is.. The rational is based on the need to… This proposal is innovative because… The research is significant because.. It will have a positive impact due to… Our unique research environment specializing in XYZ will assure the success of the proposed project… It helps the XX institute fulfill it’s mission towards… or is in line with the goals of the institute in that… • Grant sections

40. Specific Aims Page Abstract • Grant sections

41. Experimental Design New format: Old format: • Hypothesis • Rationale • Experimental approach • Methods • Interpretation of results • Potential pitfalls • Alternatives • Hypothesis • Rationale • Preliminary Data • Experimental approach • Methods • Interpretation of results • Potential pitfalls • Alternatives Innovation Significance • Grant sections Significantly reduced Preliminary Data Timeline Go/No-Go & Milestones

42. Alternatives & Pitfalls Preliminary data Quantitatable data Milestone (M1); Hypothesis Strengthened Hypothesis Milestone (M1) Go Assay 1 Expected Results Associated to M1, not necessarily to individual assays. Go/No-Go • Grant sections Assay 2 No-Go Assay 3 Alternatives & Pitfalls No need for extensive detail Assay 4 Alternative Assays

43. Alternatives & Pitfalls Demonstrate to the reviewer that you have thought of, and planned for, all possibilities. Alternatives & Pitfalls • Grant sections Anticipated Results and Alternative Approaches: “There are no perceived obstacles to completing this aim with results as predicted.” Alternative Assays

44. Summarize with the Timeline • Grant sections M1: text, text, text; M2, text, text text Go/No-Go identified in Alternatives & Pitfalls Milestones identified either in the main text or with the Table Your entire proposal summarized in one Table and one Figure

45. Response to Reviewers Q: What if you know that you are “Right” and the reviewers are “Wrong”, is it appropriate to argue your position in your resubmission? A: NO! Never be Argumentative ! Never be Abrasive ! Do not do long term damage to yourself Always address all comments and critiques Thank the reviewer for their effort Remind them of the good comments • Grant sections • Choosing the right study section

46. Response to Reviewers How to shoot yourself in the foot… The reviewer’s comments regarding the proposed mode of action of XXX are frankly astonishing and somewhat disturbing as they suggest a view biased in favor of the more conventional mode of action for antibody. Clearly this reviewer is not familiar with the anti-inflammatory properties of XXX and apparently did not read the background sections on ‘Antibody prophylaxis and therapy’ (section 3.3) and ‘Anti-inflammatory Activity of XXX’ (section 3.4) in which XXX mechanisms of action were discussed. • Grant sections • Choosing the right study section

47. Any Questions • Grant sections

48. Early Stage Investigator Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness

49. Early Stage Investigator http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators

50. R01-Equivalent investigatorsNumber supported on competing awards, by career stage of investigator • Early Stage Investigator