Dr. Marnin J. Heisel , Ph.D., C.Psych . The University of Western Ontario

1. Writing a Department of Psychiatry Seed Funding Application: Some Tips and Tricks When Applying for Pilot Funds Dr. Marnin J. Heisel, Ph.D., C.Psych. The University of Western Ontario Department of Psychiatry Research Interest Group Presentation July 11, 2013

2. What is a Pilot Study? • Typically a small study, of limited scope and duration (and cost) • Intended to: • test a concept (proof-of-principle) • evaluate methods or measures • test the safety of a study protocol • establish one’s research abilities (as a PI) • assess the feasibility of data collection • generate an effect size for future analyses • demonstrate the soundness of an idea • pave the way for a future larger study

3. Pilot studies are really not intended to be ultimate research projects, sui generis • They are intended to test a new idea or practice, to demonstrate that something has promise or can work, with the ultimate aim of facilitating or promoting a larger project or undertaking • Pilot projects are successful if they lead to: • innovative/important (publishable) findings, and • success in extramural funding competitions

4. One of the most common requests made by reviewers of full-scale grants (especially regarding new ideas, new researchers or research teams, or innovative protocols) is for some pilot data to demonstrate that the study can be carried out by this team in this fashion, and has a good chance of being completed and succeeding • Having some pilot data, even if only a little, can sometimes make a difference between getting a so-so review (and no funding) and getting a project funded

5. Sometimes it appears that reviewers want the full study to be carried out before they will consider funding the full study; this is not appropriate • Yet, reviewers (and funders) do not want the pilot study to be the end of the research, but rather the beginning • Sadly, however, this sometimes occurs…

6. “When it comes to moving health care practices forward efficiently, Canada is a country of perpetual pilot projects. We seldom move proven projects into stable, funded programs, and we rarely transfer the outcomes of pilot projects across jurisdictions. This approach is not serving our health care system well.” • Hon. Monique Bégin

7. Western’s Department of Psychiatry Seed Funding Competition • Purpose: primarily (although not exclusively) to support research by trainees & junior faculty • The intention is to support new research ideas and new researchers • It constitutes an investment, by the Department of Psychiatry, in its people (researchers, faculty, and trainees) and in the future of mental health research • To raise the Department’s profile • To lay the foundation for extramural grants

8. Western’s Department of Psychiatry Seed Funding Competition: What It Is • A competitive grant application process • Not everyone will be funded, but repeat submissions are possible (& often encouraged) • A peer-reviewed funding competition • Projects are reviewed by the Department of Psychiatry Research Committee; typically 2 or more individuals are selected to provide an anonymous review of the project

9. Western’s Department of Psychiatry Seed Funding Competition: What It Is Not • A source of on-going funding • A source of top-up or gap funding • A way of preserving financial resources • A vehicle for preferentially supporting a subject area or type of research or research group or program or theme or individual • A source of start-up funds • A source of funding for equipment • A source of funding for travel or conference support • A source of funding for training or education

10. Some Logistics • The seed funding competition currently occurs twice yearly (usually in Spring and Fall) • This year, we have decided to stagger the seed funding competition with the Lawson’s Internal Research Funding (IRF) competition • The departmental research office issues a call for proposals, usually 1 or more months prior to the submission deadline • Faculty and trainees are encouraged to apply for funding and are provided with instructions and application forms (please follow them!)

11. Some Logistics (cont.) • Project funding limit: $7,500 (previously $5K) • Available funds vary from competition to competition (and from year to year); we are currently in good fiscal shape-so apply often • Funds are primarily to be devoted to carrying out a project, not for purchasing large equipment or for travel or conference support • R.A. support, payment of participants (and for participant travel), for expendable equipment, and other direct study expenses are generally appropriate when within funding limits

12. Some Logistics (cont.) • Partial, top-up, or gap funding is generally not encouraged, and may not be supported • Although we are happy to support pilot studies, studies solely designed to assess project feasibility generally do not fare well • We want to see innovative ideas, strong and appropriate methods, team members with relevant and/or necessary skills for carrying out the project, and projects with broader mental health relevance and with a good likelihood of translating into successful extramural funding applications

13. Before Submitting Your Application • Plan well in advance; writing grants takes time • You typically don’t want to begin writing your grant a day before the submission deadline • When writing your application, think about the work you want to do (or project you’d like to carry out), and then think about how you can begin to carry-out that program of research or what sort of data might be helpful to begin establishing your argument (and competence) • Then focus your ideas; seed fund projects need not be large or excessively complicated

14. Take the time to review the literature, see what has been done before, what has worked (and what hasn’t), and to identify gaps in the field • Applications will likely not be funded if the study being proposed has already been done by someone else, or it has not worked, or the published study was far more advanced than what you are proposing • Be up to date, use current methods and tools and ask relevant questions • Show innovation, but within reason • Attend to issues of grantsmanship

15. Grantsmanship • See (for e.g.,): • “the Art of acquiring peer-reviewed research funding” (Jacob Kraicer)* • http://www.hfsp.org/funding/art-grantsmanship

16. Grantsmanship • Wordsmithing • Strategizing • Persuasion • Demonstrate knowledge, acumen, and vision • “Walking the walk” and “talking the talk”… • …to get you funding

17. Ultimately, great research studies begin with great ideas; researchers generally are rewarded for being thinkers (although not always) • Your project is likely to float (or sink) depending on the science involved • If the idea is good, the aims reasonable, the methods strong, and the team (and budget) appropriate, you stand a good shot at success • Although not always on your first attempt; please do not despair if you are not funded

18. When writing your application, please be very clear regarding: • how your project fits within the field • how your research will help advance the field (incrementally, at first) • your study goals/aims and hypotheses • your study methods, measures, procedures • your sample (if relevant) • your personnel (if relevant) • data collection, storage, and security • data analysis (including statistical approach) • sample size justification!!!!! • relevant ethical issues • anticipated pitfalls (and remedies) • dissemination/KT • next steps (especially plans for future grants)

19. It helps to demonstrate passion and excitement about your topic; if you aren’t enthused about your work, the reviewer isn’t likely to be either • Write clearly: • avoid jargon • define key terms • avoid acronyms (they can lead to acrimony) • avoid lengthy and run-on sentences • keep to one idea per sentence • and one main idea per paragraph • avoid meandering literature reviews • demonstrate the need for your study

20. A good grant reads like…a good read • There is format, syntax, context, and a clear beginning, middle, and end • You are telling a story; walk your reader through it, from beginning to end • Don’t leave it to your reviewer to figure out what you are saying (or the value in your project); they might not • Try to adopt a tone of interest, competence, and respect, avoid being argumentative

21. Applicants are strongly encouraged to be in touch with me to discuss project ideas well ahead of submission deadlines • I am happy to provide feedback and assistance in developing project ideas • It is, similarly, a very good idea to find strong research mentorship and to access your mentor in developing the research idea and methods and in writing (and re-writing) your application • Please have your work peer-reviewed prior to submitting it for funding • You might want to ask a friend to read it too

22. A Few Words on Budgeting • $7,500 will only go so far…but it’s a start • Budget appropriately • Demonstrate that your expenses are appropriate and necessary in order to carry out your study • Be economical, if you can • Share resources, if you can • But don’t worry about asking for $7,500 if that is what you need • Make sure to justify your proposed expenses • And please get the math right

23. After Submitting Your Application • Once you have submitted your application, it will be reviewed initially by the research office to generally make sure that it fits within the scope/instructions of the competition • We will then send it out for peer-review to department research committee members (and occasionally to faculty outside of the research committee, if additional expertise is required) • Reviewers will be asked to share their review with the research committee (in-person or in writing) for the committee’s review of proposals and funding decision-making

24. Similar to CIHR, we use a 5-point scale (5 is best); submissions scored below 3.5 are typically not considered eligible for funding • Submissions scored above 3.5 are not automatically approved for funding…that decision is made based on committee discussion and available funds during that competition • We won’t always know how many projects will be funded for a while (e.g., if someone is awaiting word on other outstanding funding submissions)

25. I will write to you, informing you of the results of the competition, and sharing your reviews • I may also ask for clarification on certain points • Possible results: you are funded, you are not funded, or you are partially funded, contingent on some issue(s) • I am always available to meet and talk about the funding competition in general and your submission in particular • I am also happy to help you think-through next steps (whether you had been funded or not)

26. Do not despair if you are not funded at first • It never feels good to be turned-down for funding; that never goes away in one’s career • Successful researchers are not necessarily smarter, brighter, luckier, or more “plugged-in” to clinical/scientific/political/funding realities than are those who are not successful • Successful researchers somehow find a way to avoid being devastated by rejection (usually) and lick their wounds and try again (and again, and again, and again sometimes) • I know…easy to say…hard to do

27. After you Are Funded • Before receiving access to project funds, you must: • Receive research ethics approval (we can help you with this) • Write a ROLA and open a study account (Bernice James can help with this) • Buy needed equipment, hire needed personnel, recruit needed participants, do needed research! • Disseminate your findings • Seek/receive extramural funding support • Await call from the Nobel committee

28. Thank You