Rachel’s Amateur Guide to Grant Writing Postdoc Development Workshop Wednesday 18 th September 2013

1. Rachel’s Amateur Guide to Grant WritingPostdoc Development WorkshopWednesday 18th September 2013 Acknowledgements: Christopher Hass, Ph.D., Tammy Bray, Ph.D., Todd Constable, Ph.D., Lisa Brzustowic, M.D., Kimberly Espy, Ph.D., Michelle Kienholz, Ph.D.

2. Tip #1: Expand your horizons • Knowledge of grant opportunities in your field • Closing Dates of Solicitations • www.grants.gov keyword search for funding opportunities. • “cancer” 1/5th of open solicitations were not NIH • e.g. Life Sciences funding opportunities in almost every government funding agency: NIH, DOD, NASA, DOE, NSF, DOT, EPA, ED, USDA, DOC • www.research.ufl.edu “External Funding Opportunities Resources”

3. Tip #2: People are EXTREMELY Important • Collaborators as Co-Investigators – UF, national and international • Letters of Support • Program Officers – talk, email, discuss idea, budget – don’t leave it until the night before • Reviewers – find a colleague with reviewing experience willing to review your proposal pre-submission • Choose the correct panel (NIH)

4. Tip #3: Make it easy for reviewer • Spend the most amount of time on the 1-page summary • Make it easy for the reviewer to summarize the goals and strengths of your project • Highlight these important sentences that address the specific metrics e.g. the innovation of this work is to... • Typos, grammar and excessive repetition of certain words or phrases = annoyed reviewer

5. Tip #4: Don’t False Start FOLLOW THE SUBMISSION GUIDELINES • Don’t give them an excuse to reject your proposal before it even reaches the program officer/reviewer. • If it says you’re only allowed 10 publications in the biosketch – don’t put 11. They WILL notice.

6. Tip #5: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words • Space is very limited and if you have complex wordy concepts to convey think about using a picture/cartoon with an appropriate caption instead • Be concise – don’t take 6 sentences when you can say it in one.

7. Tip #6: Preliminary Data • Very very important to demonstrate that you have all the tools/expertise to do the work (NIH) • Very important to demonstrate feasibility of approach • Alternatively make sure that there you have expertise on the research team

8. Tip #7: Time Management • Start thinking very early • Be aware of program open and closing dates • Start writing early • Be thorough – literature • Time to contact potential collaborators, get people to review and proof read, discuss with the program officer • Don’t leave the budget until the last minute! • Be aware of time frame of review and actually getting funded

9. Tip #9: Be Realistic • Don’t aim too high with your budget and proposed work for your first grant – make yourself a low risk option – prove yourself • Timetable for research methods and strategies • Don’t fish – we will search for the right method, we will investigate etc. – you should have already searched and investigated

10. Tip #9: Wait – don’t submit that! • Don’t submit an obviously weak grant • Don’t submit a grant if you wrote it in a week • Do not get a reputation for submitting garbage. • then when you submit something good it will not be taken seriously. • Only submit grants you have seriously and rigorously worked on • and poured over the meaning of each sentence very carefully

11. Tip #10: Learn and Persevere • Read the reviews and summary of discussion • Try not to get discouraged • Use the reviews to learn as much as you can • Even if you get funded – use the reviews

12. Peer Review Panels • Important to go to the correct panel • the wrong panel may not have appropriate expertise • end up misinterpreting things you thought were obvious • typically not interested in your topic if it’s not their area of expertise • look at the composition of the panel • people in your field and do work you are familiar with should be on the panel • maybe only a handful of such people • networking – it’s good to know people on the panel

13. Peer Review • you submit your grant, it goes to the correct panel, and many months later the panel meets • Prior to the panel meeting • 3-5 reviewers get your grant 8-10 weeks ahead of the meeting • read the grant • write the reviews at home • upload their critiques to the NIH website • assign preliminary scores to your grant

14. Peer Review • at the meeting • the reviewers sit around a table like this for 1-2 days • all of these people will score your grant – only a few will actually look at it closely 1st 2nd 3rd discussants

15. Hypothesis-Driven Research vs Discovery Science

16. Triage. • the first thing the panel does is get rid of at least 50% of the grants • your name, grant title, and grant number are read • 1st and 2nd reviewers are asked if they want to unscore the grant – need consensus – otherwise it will be discussed and scored • peer pressure to unscore grants • reduces work load and time people have to sit at the table • if unscored you get the reviewers comments • but no summary of the discussion (there was none) • they move on to the next grant…

17. The Reviewers. • hopefully the reviewers are experts in your field • each reviewer gets assigned 5-8 grants where they need to write reviews (1st, 2nd, or 3rd reviewer) • each reviewer may also get another 2-5 grants that they are readers on • this is a heavy load – each grant can take several hours • will discuss how to make your grant a pleasure to review

18. The Review • 1st reviewer spends time summarizing goals, strengths and weaknesses, • evaluates grant following review criteria * • 2nd reviewer may or may not add much • same with the rest of the reviewers/readers

19. Review Criteria • Understand the review criteria (Guidelines for Reviewers): • http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm • Significance: Does the study address an important problem? • Approach: Is the design/method appropriate? • Innovation: Is the project original? • Investigators: Are they suitable to carry out the work. • Environment: Does the environment (facilities) contribute to the likelihood of success?

20. Scoring • Scoring: • http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm • each of the 5 criteria below are assigned a score 1-9 • 1 good • 9 bad • Significance: Does the study address an important problem? • Approach: Is the design/method appropriate? • Innovation: Is the project original? • Investigators: Are they suitable to carry out the work. • Environment: Does the environment contribute to the likelihood of success? • Ultimately you get 1 final overall score • the reviewers come to a recommended consensus during their discussion or agree to a range • everyone at the table (even people that haven’t even looked at your grant) score the grant based on the discussion they heard. • your final score is the mean x 10. (range 10-90)

21. Anatomy of a Reviewer’s Critique • Overall strengths and weaknesses • Strengths & weaknesses of each core criterion • Scores for each core criterion • Comments on other review considerations • Additional comments (“advice”)

22. SCORING GUIDANCE Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact