NIH – CSR and ICs

1. NIH – CSR and ICs

2. The Academic Gerontocracy

3. Response to the Crisis • Early investigator status: first real grant application. • K awards, R13s etc don’t discount your status, but participation in a P01 does. • Institute specific payline softening. • Status maintained as you resubmit. • Encourage earlier R01 submission: push funding to the first cycle.

4. RO1s : Gaming the system • Choose your title carefully: this directs it to a particular review group. • Write the abstract clearly and carefully. • Check the review panel and identify conflicts. • If rejected, you can appeal-rarely successful. • Respond politely to the reviewers: don’t argue the toss ( usually) and never get verbally annoyed.

5. RO1s – Secular Trends • Shorter 6 page grants – focus on hypothesis and preliminary data. Less on exhaustive description of methodology. • Track record more relevant • Expanded scale – avoid clustering? 30 is the new 150? • Higher success on resubmissions. Approaching 30%. • Faster pasting of review. • ARRA impact on payline as challenge grants spill over. • T-RO1s, Pioneer Awards.

6. New Critiques • Bullet points on overall impact, significance, investigators, innovation, approach, environment. • Also: human subjects, women and minority inclusion, vertebrates, biohazards. • And comments on – resub, renewal, revision. • And – foreign orgs, select agents, resource sharing , budget and period of support • http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ • http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/QuickLinks-AnswersforApplicants.htm

7. New Scoring System • High • 1 • Exceptional • Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses • 2 • Outstanding • Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses • 3 • Excellent • Very strong with only some minor weaknesses • Medium • 4 • Very Good • Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses • 5 • Good • Strong but with at least one moderate weakness • 6 • Satisfactory • Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses • Low • 7 • Fair • Some strengths but with at least one major weakness • 8 • Marginal • A few strengths and a few major weaknesses • 9 • Poor • Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses

8. RO1; Budgets , resources • Justify everything in detail – personnel, equipment, supplies, mice, volunteer payments , recruitment costs, consortia • May take modular approach if <$250k • Describe resources and environment – feasibility and compliance • IRB and IAUCC – just in time. • 3 or 5 years • Effort – 50% on first

9. Focus and Persistence • Clear and novel hypothesis. Is it important? • Evidence of feasibility: don’t distract with fluff. • Take advantage of your critical mass – seek pre-review. • Abstract and figures in preliminary data are the keys. • Be responsive and polite on resubmission. • Commonly asked questions at CSR website… • http://cms.csr.nih.gov/nr/rdonlyres/60b2d32e-ae00-4358-8c51-2e11cc46eac8/15100/insiderguideapplicantsfinal.pdf

10. MATURING YOUR STRATEGY • Some grants require a minimum of 20% effort. Otherwise, scale back and redistribute • Shuffle your application dates – stay out of phase • Mix your portfolio. 2 RO1s and a PPG • Non-NIH sources increasingly important

11. A WALTZ WITH MEPHISTO

12. IDENTITY IS THE BALANCE BETWEEN INTEGRITY AND ADAPTABILITY • Maintain your intellectual and fiscal independence • Balance your portfolio • Guard authorship and the right to publish • State and have managed your conflict of interest • The best service you can provide is to tell the truth, even painful truths

13. STAY TRUE TO YOUR COLORS