1 / 35

Writing a successful NIH grant

Writing a successful NIH grant. Information from NIH: Louis V. De Paolo NICHD Roger G. Sorensen NIDA 2009 NIH Regional Seminars , Las Vegas. http://www.nihregionalseminar.com/site/pdf/session2/Grant%20Writing%20for%20Success.pdf. What Determines Which Grants Are Funded?.

trynt
Download Presentation

Writing a successful NIH grant

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. Writing a successful NIH grant Information from NIH: Louis V. De Paolo NICHD Roger G. Sorensen NIDA 2009 NIH Regional Seminars, Las Vegas http://www.nihregionalseminar.com/site/pdf/session2/Grant%20Writing%20for%20Success.pdf

  2. What Determines Which Grants Are Funded? • Scientific merit • Program considerations • Availability of funds

  3. Principles of Success • Understand the peer review process • Understand the institute’s mission • Every institute is different! Use the web to find out what the mission of the institute is. • Secure collaborators (mentors) to complement your expertise and experience • Don’t compete … collaborate! • Learn and practice the skills of writing applications for grant funds • Good grant writing is a learned skill.

  4. Plan ahead • Start early • Seek advice from colleagues • Start with a good idea • Talk to your NIH program officer • Use the NIH website (www.nih.gov) • Remember review criteria • Follow instructions carefully

  5. Pre-Submission Planning Timeline

  6. Remember … Before you start • Talk to Program Staff at appropriate institute • Read instructions for application form SF 424 R & R or PHS 398 • Remember that these forms are changing as of January 25th, 2010!!! Check the web for new application forms. • Know your audience • Which review committee is most likely to get your application? • Propose research about which you are passionate and totally committed to doing

  7. Start with a good idea • Does the idea address an important problem? • Will scientific knowledge be advanced? • Does it build upon or expand current knowledge? • Is it feasible to implement/investigate?

  8. Establish a connection with your program official • Let him/her know who you are. • Ask if he/she would review and discuss a concept paper. • Send him/her a concept paper to aid the program official in helping you. A concept paper includes a brief description of: • Study goals • Problem/background • Significance • Research question • Design/analysis • Description of the research team

  9. Tips for writing the sections of the proposal • The title and abstract need to capture the attention of the reviewers! If they do not, the reviewers may not continue reading your proposal.

  10. Title • Captures the essence of the goals and objectives of the project

  11. Abstract • Concise presentation of the project • Statement of significance • Hypothesis and research questions • Methods and analysis • What are you going to do, why are you doing it, how are you doing it, what do you hope to find?

  12. Specific Aims • Grab the reader immediately • State long-term objectives • Explicit hypotheses and research questions • Keep the hypotheses limited • Concise outline of entire project • Set your proposal apart from the rest. Catch the attention of the reviewers!

  13. Research strategy • Your research strategy needs to answer 4 essential questions: • What do you intend to do? • Why is the work important? • What has already been done? • How are you going to do the work?

  14. Changes to the research strategy

  15. SIGNIFICANCE • Does this study address an important problem? • If the aims are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? • What will be the effect on concepts or methods that drive this field?

  16. INNOVATION • Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods? • Are the aims original and innovative? • Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?

  17. APPROACH • Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? • Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternatives?

  18. Get to the right review group • Title, abstract, specific aims all point to the main goals of your project • Attach a cover letter • Suggest the institute and review group assignment* • Outline areas of key expertise needed for appropriate review • Do not name specific reviewers • *Consult with Program Official

  19. Keep your reviewers happy • Reviewers work late at night • Help them stay alert and interested • Make your application easy to read and easy to understand • Convince them to advocate for your idea • Get them on your side!

  20. Top 10 Common Reviewer Concerns

  21. # 1 Concern There are not CLEAR HYPOTHESES or WELL DEFINED GOALS • Provide a focused hypothesis and objectives • Describe the importance and relevance of your problem • Be clear on how your project will move the field forward

  22. # 2 Concern The SPECIFIC AIMS do NOT TEST the Hypothesis The SPECIFIC AIMS DEPEND on results from previous aims • The best proposals are those with independent specific aims that address your hypothesis using different approaches

  23. # 3 Concern The Proposal is: NOT MECHANISTIC, or NOT SCIENTIFICALLY RELEVANT • Do not propose correlative studies, propose strong associations • Do not propose general observations, propose specific manipulations

  24. # 4 Concern This Application is not Appropriate for the Grant Mechanism • A R21 is NOTa R01 • A Career Development Award (K) is NOT a Research Project Grant (R)

  25. # 5 Concern The Proposal is OVERLY AMBITIOUS • Set realistic goals for the budget and project period you propose

  26. # 6 Concern Preliminary Data is Lacking • Include preliminary data for all aims • Use preliminary data to show knowledge of methods and data analyses • But DO propose more than just confirming preliminary results

  27. # 7 Concern I’m not sure that the Investigator can do the PROPOSED EXPERIMENTS • Don’t propose what you can’t do • Include Collaborators and Consultants on your project • Describe the value of datasets and experimental models

  28. # 8 Concern The Background section is missing key publications and experimental findings • Thoroughly describe the literature, especially controversies, but • Support your views and ideas • Be sure you have found key references

  29. # 9 Concern Experimental Details, Alternative Approaches, or Interpretation of Data are Inadequately Described • Don’t assume the reviewers know the methods • Provide other experimental directions you might use should you encounter problems • Show the reviewers that you have thought about your research plan

  30. # 10 Concern The Proposal is NOT RELEVANT to the MISSION of the INSTITUTE • Don’t try to make your application FIT the Mission of a Particular Institute

  31. Three Simple Rules to remember when planning, writing, and submitting your application

  32. # 1 DO NOT write the application for yourself Unless you are going to fund it yourself You MUST convince the entire review committee and the funding agency

  33. # 2 Reviewers are never wrong, Reviewers are never right: they simply provide an assessment of material that you provided in your application Don’t Take It Personally!

  34. # 3 The comments in the summary statement only list some of the weaknesses …. not all of the weaknesses. When you revise your application use the time as an opportunity to improve the entire application.

More Related