1 / 23

NICHD Mission in Research on Human Language and Communication

NIH 101: What You Need to Know! Daniel Sklare, PhD, NIDCD Lana Shekim, PhD, NIDCD Peggy McCardle, PhD, NICHD ASHA LfS ’08 Conference.

nura
Download Presentation

NICHD Mission in Research on Human Language and Communication

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. NIH 101: What You Need to Know!Daniel Sklare, PhD, NIDCDLana Shekim, PhD, NIDCDPeggy McCardle, PhD, NICHDASHA LfS ’08 Conference

  2. NICHD Mission in Research on Human Communication; NIH Two-Tiered Review Operations: Who are your reviewers and what transpires at study section? And…The Funding Decision: How Does it Happen?

  3. NICHD Mission in Research on Human Language and Communication To more fully understand and to translate to practice (clinical, educational, and in parental guidance): • Typical language development (oral, signed, bilingual) • Shared interests with NIDCD include sign language acquisition, lg acq in hard of hearing/deaf children with cochlear implants; gestural development in deaf children • Atypical language development (other than studies exclusively focused on SLI); language difficulties related to developmental disabilities and syndromes • Shared with NIDCD: language development, characterization, & tx for autism, SLI, lg disorders in children speaking Black English/ bilingual /ELL

  4. NICHD Mission in Research on Human Language and Communication (Cont’d) • Speech perception and normative processes in speech development • Some overlap with NIDCD as it supports and is studied in conjunction with speech disorders • Cognitive and developmental cognitive neuroscientific bases of human language and communication • Reading, writing and related learning disabilities

  5. Who are they? “Peers” and experts… • Reviewers must be recognized authorities in their field; • Now or formerly, a principal investigator on a research project comparable to those being reviewed;  • Dedicated to high quality, fair reviews; • Not have a conflict with the application being reviewed! • Panels must have diversity with respect to the geographic distribution, gender, race and ethnicity of the membership. 

  6. What about mentors, coauthors, and colleagues? CONFLICTS of INTEREST are taken very seriously. Certain people will be excused from the review: • Anyone from your institution • Partner, Spouse, Significant Other, coauthor, collaborator, etc. • Anyone with a vested interest in the outcome • Anyone who feels they cannot be objective

  7. Which Panel will review my proposal? • A “study section”—there are a couple hundred… • You can choose, but do so wisely – with help from your program official • Which study section depends on: • Scientific content and methodology • Mechanism (e.g., R01, R03, F32, K01 . . .) • Which Institute proposal goes to • Whether responding to RFA

  8. What an applicant gets after review • A score • A percentile (usually, depending on review) • Detailed written comments from at least 2 reviewers • Even if your application is “unscored” • An opportunity to talk to a program official about your options!

  9. How do I know who’s on the review panel? • Check the CSR Web site on Peer Review – http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/ • For meeting dates, descriptions of review groups, and panel rosters • BUT… panels change with ~25% rotating off each year and temporary members added as needed for expertise

  10. Are all review panels in CSR? • R01s and many other grant types are reviewed by CSR. • There are ALSO review divisions in each Funding Institute at the NIH. • They review RFAs and for some Institutes special grant types (e.g., at NICHD program projects, small grants and many training grants are reviewed “in house”) • Reviews are organized and conducted by Scientific Review Officers (different from Program Officials)

  11. Five review criteria • Significance • Innovation • Approach* • Investigator* • Environment* Reviewers also must consider human subjects protection and diversity

  12. *What R01 reviewers are told about evaluating new researchers: • Approach: More emphasis on demonstrating feasibility of techniques/approaches than on preliminary results • Investigator: More emphasis on training and research potential than on number of publications • Environment: Evidence of institutional commitment—resources, time to perform research

  13. How is scoring done? • Priority score assigned • Numerical rating—Scientific merit of proposed research relative to "state of the science" • 100-150: Outstanding • 151-200: Excellent • 201-250: Very good • 251-300: Good • 300-500: Unscored (usually) • Assigned reviewers recommend a range of scores, but all reviewers at the table score each application! Your score is the average.

  14. What do the scores mean? • 100-500… lower is better! Think Golf, not basketball. • Percentiles are reversed – again, lower is better. • Unscored – triage of those in the lower half… not a death warrant.

  15. How many tries? • Three strikes and you’re out…01, 01-A1, 01-A2. • On each revision, 3-page intro outlining your responses to the concerns (R01 & R15; for R03 and R21 it’s limited to 1 pg) • Mark your changes when you can • An extra month for submission (revisions have different submission deadline)

  16. What if I’m “out”? • Read your summary statement • Talk to your PO • Think about new grant type (mechanism – smaller or larger, high innovation) or new approach (“new” version) • (Think about other funders) • Try, try again!

  17. Evaluation of scientific merit is separate from funding decisions • Evaluation of scientific merit: • Run by Scientific Review Officer • Decision whether to fund: • Program Officials • Advisory council • Institute director

  18. What Determines Which Awards Are Made? Scientific merit (the score and percentile) Program Considerations Availability of funds

  19. What’s the Current Funding Climate? • Constrained but not impossible (tighter paylines) • Strategies – • Smaller grants (don’t exceed maximums) • Research teams with programmatically coordinated grants • Leverage collaborations – and funds/ funding sources • Be creative

  20. Consider ALL Funding Sources • Grants,Gov sponsored by HHS but covering all of US Govt, http://www.grants.gov/ • National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/ • US Dept of Education http://www.ed.gov/ • The Foundation Center http://fdncenter.org/

  21. Environment of the Research Scientist Competing for NIH Funding

  22. How the trip can feel if you read the rules, know the system, and stay the course!

  23. NICHD Extramural Research Language Development Program Contact Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., MPH Chief, Child Dev. & Behavior Branch, NICHD Tel: 301-435-6863 Email: PM43Q@NIH.GOV CDB Branch website: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/crmc/cdb/ Center for Scientific Review website: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/

More Related