NIH Grants Help

1. NIH Grants Help Presented by the Office of Research and Grants(ORG)

2. The ORG Team • Jack Blazyk, Ph.D. - Associate dean for research • Jay Shubrook, D.O. – Director of clinical research • Brooke Gowl, Ph.D. – Research and program grants developer • Victor Heh, Ph.D. – Biostatistician • Jessica Wingett, CPS/CAP – Manager • Suzanne Vazzano, CPS/CAP – Administrative associate • CammieStarner, R.N., CCRC – Research nurse • Lynn Petrik, R.N., B.S.N. – Research nurse

3. Topics • OU Resources • Changes at NIH – How to choose the best funding mechanism for you • New NIH Review and Scoring System

4. OU Resources

5. Proposal Development • Brooke Davis, research grants developer, is available to help with proposal preparation • Have the proposal written well before the deadline if editing help is needed • Victor Heh, biostatistician, is available for help with research design and statistics

6. Approvals, Budget and Submission • Electronic transmittal form – LEO • Judi Rioch, COM’s pre-award grant & contract manager at ORSP – budgeting process, certification pages, signature process, and proposal submission • ORSP website, information for OU proposal preparation, budget templates

7. Pre-Submission Reviews • Should we offer to review Specific Aims? • Send complete proposal to RSAC or ORG if you would like preliminary reviews before submission • One month for internal reviews by the Research and Scholarly Affairs Committee (RSAC) • Two months for external review coordinated by ORG from experts in your field (beyond OU) • Pre-review improves quality!

8. Changes at NIH How to choose the best funding mechanism for you

9. New Investigator Policy • New Investigator (NI) • Has not previously competed successfully as PD/PI for a significant NIH independent research award. • See FAQs about NIH's Enhancing Peer Review on the ORG website for more information.

10. Early Stage Investigator Policy • Early Stage Investigator (ESI) • Is  a NI within 10 years of completing his/her terminal research degree or is within 10 years of completing medical residency (or the equivalent) • See FAQs about NIH's Enhancing Peer Review on the ORG website for more information.

11. Revised New and Early Stage Investigator Policies NOT-OD-09-013 New Policy Beginning in FY 2009, NIH expects to support New Investigators at success rates equivalent to that of established investigators submitting new applications.  Applications from New Investigators will be clustered during initial peer review to the extent possible.  The NIH strongly encourages New Investigators, particularly ESIs, to apply for R01 grants when seeking first-time NIH funding. 

12. R01 vs. R15 • ESI / NI Bump? R01 - YES R15 - NO • NIH now supports new PIs (mostly ESIs) at the same success rates as established investigators submitting new applications. • In FY 2009, NIAID initially set the payline for new and ESI R01 investigators at 2 percentile points higher than the regular R01 payline (12th percentile). Eventually, they raised the R01 payline to the 25th percentile in order to reach NIH targets. They also used other mechanisms such as selective pay and R56-Bridge awards to fund more new & ESI.

13. R01 vs. R15 (as of 1/25/10) R01 Next Submission Dates 10/5/10, 2/5/11, 6/5/11 Direct Costs Up to $250K per year (modular budget) > $250K per year (detailed budget) Award Length Up to 5 years RP Page Limit 12 R15 Next Submission Dates 10/25/10, 2/25/11, 6/25/11 Direct Costs Up to $300K total (Detailed budget for > $250K) Award Length Up to 3 years RP Page Limit 12

14. Should You Submit an R01? “More than ever before, that answer could be yes for new investigators. NIH hopes to change the paradigm and encourage new investigators to apply for an R01 instead of an R21. Even if you have little preliminary data, consider applying for an R01. A higher payline will make it easier to get funded. And we can use an R56-Bridge award to help you get preliminary or other data should your R01 not succeed. While many new investigators have used an R03 or R21 to collect preliminary data, this approach may no longer be the best one. An ESI who gets an R03 or R21 would need to pay attention to the number of years he or she would spend on this award and could lose ESI status if too many years passed after training.” From NIAID Funding News – 11/21/08

15. NIH policy on new application vs. resubmission “Simply rewording the title and Specific Aims or incorporating minor changes in response to comments in the previous Summary Statement does not constitute a substantial change in scope or content. Changes to the Research Plan should produce a significant change in direction and approach for the research project. Thus, a new application would include substantial changes in all sections of the Research Plan, particularly the Specific Aims and the Research Design and Methods sections.” NOT-OD-03-041

16. Know Your Study Sections • Study Sections have been changing • Check the CSR Study Section Roster Index andCSR Review Group Descriptions • Recommend a Study Section and Institute in your cover letter

17. New Grant Review Criteria • Five core criteria • Significance • Investigator(s) • Innovation • Approach • Environment

18. New Grant Review Scoring • The new scoring system uses 9-point scale (1 = exceptional, 9 = poor) • Each criterion receives a separate score • In addition, impact is scored separately, also from 1 to 9 • Your Overall Impact (Priority) Score is the average of the impact scores from each reviewer multiplied by 10 (i.e., scores range from 10 to 90)

19. NIH Website

20. NIH Website

21. NIH Grant Writing • For more grant writing tips check out Tips for Writing a Successful NIH Grant Proposal and FAQs about NIH's Enhancing Peer Review on the ORG website.

22. Please call • If you wish to speak with me about funding for your research, please email or call me to set up an appointment. • Brooke A. Gowl, Ph.D. Research and Program Grants Developer 233 Grosvenor Hall 740-593-2304 davisb4@ohio.edu