Getting Your First Research Grant

1. Getting Your First Research Grant Kristina M. Jackson & Kenneth J. Sher

2. Topics to Discuss • Sources of Funding • federal agencies, foundations, and associations • on-line demonstration to locate funding sources • NIH Grants • NIH jargon • CRISP • How are NIH grants evaluated? • How to obtain the NIH grant form • Hints for writing a successful grant

3. Government Agencies • Dept. of Health and Human Services • National Institutes of Health • Center of Disease Control and Prevention • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration • National Science Foundation • Department of Defense • Environmental Protection Agency

4. National Institutes of Health • National Institute on Aging (NIA) • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) – AIDS –National Cancer Institute (NCI) • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) • National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) • National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) • National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

5. Foundations and Associations • American Psychological Association • American Cancer Society • American Heart Association • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation • Alcohol Beverage Medical Research Foundation • National Center for Responsible Gaming

6. Foundations and Associations • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression • James S. McDonnell Foundation • Carnegie Foundation • Ada Project: Resources for Women • Global Fund for Women

7. On-line information on funding • National Institutes of Health (NIH) • National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) example • Research training (pre/post baccalaureate) • Dept. of Health and Human Services (DHHS) • American Psychological Association (APA) • National Science Foundation (NSF)

8. Predoctoral/Postdoctoral NIH Grants • F 31 Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (NRSA) • F 32 Postdoctoral Individual NRSA • K 01 Research Scientist Development Award • R 01 Research Project • R 03 Small Research Grants (B/START) • R 21 Exploratory/Developmental Grants

9. NIH Jargon • Program Announcements(PAs) -- describe general area of research for which NIH is seeking proposals • Request for Applications (RFAs) -- describe research for which NIH is seeking proposals; specific receipt date and start date; set number of fundable proposals • Initial Review Group (IRG) -- study section; reviews application for scientific merit • Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) -- in charge of each study section • Program Officer -- liason between PI and NIH; monitors the project

10. NIH Jargon • Center for Scientific Review (CSR) -- responsible for receipt/referral of applications • Direct costs -- funds used by investigator to support research (e.g., personnel, equipment) • Indirect costs -- funds awarded to grantee organization to cover overhead/administrative costs • Extramural Awards -- Funds provided by NIH to researchers/organizations outside the NIH • Intramural -- Research conducted by NIH employees

11. CRISP • Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) • Searchable database of federally funded research projects

12. PHS 398 • Official NIH grant submission form • Electronic format • NIH -- need Adobe Writer 3.2 • Baylor College of Medicine • 50-page instruction sheet • Hints for writing successful grants • Ellen Barrett • The Original How to Write a Research Grant Application

13. How are NIH grants evaluated? • Priority score/percentile ranking • priority score is a number assigned to an application by the study section • indicator of scientific and technical merit • ranges from 100 (highest merit) to 500 (lowest merit) • study section members assign scores from 1.0 to 5.0 • priority scores are average of votes X 100 • percentile ranking available after all priority scores are known • Funding availability $$$$$$$$$ • That particular institute’s overall objectives

14. Criteria for Priority Score • Significance • Approach • Innovation • Investigators • Environment

15. Hints for Writing a Successful Grant • Adhere very carefully to the instructions • Read the announcement carefully • Complete the entire application and provide all information requested -- in the right place • Use most current references available • Allow sufficient time to prepare the entire proposal -- preparing a successful grant is very time consuming • Use the space you have as efficiently as possible

16. Title/Abstract • Make sure the title is very specific to your research • The abstract may be the single most important page in your application! • State concisely and realistically what the proposed research is intended to accomplish • Create a link between the specific aims of the project and implementation, measurement, and analysis

17. Specific Aims • Document the nature and importance of a central research question(s) • Demonstrate scholarship & creativity

18. Document the nature and importance of a central research question(s) • make strong case for the importance of the proposed work • remember some reviewers may not be familiar with area of research; pitch review for them too • importance of the topic might not be self-evident to persons from other disciplines • distinguish proposed work from earlier work • need to be explicit about study goal • you want to make reviewers excited about proposal

19. Demonstrate scholarship & creativity • identify relevant research studies • identify a central research question • discern the forest from the trees • demonstrate conceptual/theoretical sophistication • demonstrate empirical sophistication- reconcile seemingly disparate findings • procedural differences • sampling, measurement, & power issues • you want to get the reviewers excited about you

20. Common Errors • Failure to document the applied or theoretical significance of the problem • Need for the proposed research is not compelling • The focus is too broad • The lack of clear goals makes it difficult to assess the overall proposal

21. Common Errors • Fail to raise potentially problematic issues • Raise problematic issues but not carefully address them • Adoption of harsh or overly critical tone • Mislead reviewer on the actual focus of the study • The proposed work is too extensive for the requested period of support

22. General Solutions • Proposal should speak directly and succinctly to what is being asked. • Reviewers consider brevity and clarity to be indicative of a focused approach to the research objective & researcher’s ability to achieve the specific aims of the project (consider using bullets). • Some reviewers may not be familiar with the area of research; application should be self-explanatory.

23. Literature Review • Know something about literature reviewing • Obtain up-to-date references (computerized literature searches, SSCI, CRISP) • Critically review your own literature review • is it objective? • is it as thorough as possible (given space constraints)? • are alternative conceptualizations possible? • Evaluate the extent the literature review is consistent with your proposed research plan

24. Common Errors • Failure to appreciate the relevant larger literature • Unsupported assumptions/failure to distinguish empirical findings from speculation • Uncritical acceptance of virtually anything • Putting essential information in the appendix • Literature review is limited • Miscite important studies

25. General Solutions • Avoid general statements • Avoid citations that are peripheral to your question -- referenced work should specifically relate to the proposed questions • Avoid paraphrasing a well-known report that is likely to be familiar to the reviewers • Reconcile seemingly disparate findings • Distinguish proposed work from earlier work • Do not rely too heavily on secondary sources

26. Research Design/Method • Discuss in detail the experimental design, procedures, protocol to be used • Describe potential difficulties/limitations of proposed procedures; describe alternate approaches • Provide psychometrics • Describe new methodology and any advantage over existing methodology • Discuss statisticial methods for specific hypotheses • Provide power analysis to determine sample size

27. Common Errors • Methodology is not adequately developed/detailed • Absence of pilot data raises concerns about feasibility • Lacks evidence that potential subjects will participate • Potential problems are not recognized • Data management is not adequately addressed • Adequate work plan/time is absent • Personnel allocation is inappropriate

28. Subjects and Sampling Procedure • Identify criteria and rationale for inclusion and exclusion • Establish access to and ability to recruit and retain adequate numbers of target and comparison subjects • Describe random selection of subjects • Avoid samples chosen on the basis of convenience • Present plans to enhance participation • Discuss processes to address attrition

29. Common Errors • Subject recruitment not addressed • Choice of the sample based on convenience rather than scientific rationale • Rules for subject exclusion not addressed • Results will be biased by non-blind subjects or staff • No or inappropriate control group • Randomization procedures not described • Sample size -- not justified, too large, too small • Attrition of subjects -- estimate and how to handle

30. General Solutions • Use standard, accepted design methodology wherever possible; avoid unnecessary creativity. • Be sure to fully describe recruitment procedures and ways you will deal with attrition. • The research design and methods is the heart of the application -- devote enough time to it. • Note: An estimate of women, men, and minority subjects MUST be provided. Provide strong, scientific rationale for excluding any subgroup.

31. Measurement and Instruments • Use relevant criteria appropriate to age, environment, sex, etc. • Consider feasibility of measures • Consider characteristics of special populations, such as cultural orientation

32. Common Errors • Variables not specific or defined • Instruments not tested or even developed • Use of new or unfamiliar instruments without justification for not using well-established instruments • Instrument not valid for proposed study population • Potential mediators not described • Testing burden seems excessive • Inappropriate unit of analysis

33. General Solutions • Demonstrate that issues like access to the target group, attrition of participants, and outcome measures have been considered and addressed. • Discuss things that might go awry. • This reinforces the reviewers in the applicant’s potential and experience.

34. Data Analysis • Clearly describe • coding • data reduction • hypothesis testing • data management (including missing data) • Lay out each hypothesis and how it will be tested • Cite experience from previous studies/previous use of analysis techniques

35. Common Errors • Some hypotheses are not adequately tested • Data analytic procedures are not adequately described • Plans for data reduction are not adequate • Chance for Type I/II errors not acknowledged • Inappropriate sample size

36. General Solutions • Consult with statisticians/other methodologists • Consider bringing consultants on • Present measurement and general models in detail along with alternatives to be compared • Provide appropriate statistical power analysis

37. Budget • Personnel or Salary costs • Fringe Benefits • Consultants • Equipment • Supplies • Travel • Human subject costs

38. Budget • Make a list of all personnel & describe their role • Describe & justify the role of each consultant • Justify & give basis for each equipment request • Justify supplies & list the quantity and per unit cost (e.g., 500 pads @ $1.50 per pad) • Carefully justify travel, include all costs (airfare, mileage, ground transportation, lodging, per diem) • Don’t inflate costs -- may be interpreted as lack of understanding of the proposed research (NIH 4%)

39. Human Subjects • Describe the characteristics of the subject population (number, age range) • Describe plans for recruitment of subjects and consent procedures to be followed • Describe any potential risks (physical, psychological, etc.) • Describe procedures for protecting against/minimizing risk

40. Don't be distressed if... • Much of what you want to say can't get said • you're under extreme page limitations • You wished you had another day (week, month, year) to complete your literature search • that's par for the course • however, in most cases, it is far better to wait a round (not wait around) to submit a polished product rather than submit an application prematurely

41. Don't be distressed if... • You feel that writing the application is a waste of time if you’re not funded • for most of us, not getting funded is the first step towards getting funded • even if not ultimately funded, work on the application can be recycled into other ongoing work and applications