Academic Research Enhancement Award Sandra J. Hewett, PhD Professor of Neuroscience Department of Biology 01/06/12

to support meritorious research to strengthen the research environment of the institution to “expose” students to research. Supports small-scale research projects at educational institutions that provide baccalaureate or advanced degrees for a significant number of the Nation's research scientists but that have not been major recipients of NIH support Purpose of the Award

2011NIAAA9111.1%$442, NIA %$2,350, NIAID %$11,082, NIAMS %$2,291, NCCAM %$1,593, NCI %$9,096, NIDA %$2,329, NIDCD %$3,441, NIDCR %$1,539, NIDDK %$2,935, NIBIB3139.7%$1,089, NIEHS4748.5%$1,658, NEI %$655, NIGMS %$18,209, NICHD %$3,545, NHGRI6116.7%$277, NHLBI %$3,445, NLM200.0%$0 2011NIMH %$1,850, NINR3825.3%$894, NINDS %$8,435, NCRR3133.3%$341, FY Total %$77,504,120 AREA Success Rates Fiscal Year Institute apps reviewed # apps awarded Success Rate Total Funding

Project period is limited to 3 years Direct costs are limited to $300,000 over the entire project period (1-3 yr) Multiple PIs allowed This is NOT a training or fellowship program. The application should include plans to expose students to hands-on research but should not include training plans. All NIH ICs participate except FIC (Fogarty International Center) and NIMHD (National Institute of Minority Health and Disparities) Preliminary data are not required; however, they may be included if available. Details

be the PI of any active NIH research grant including another AREA grant at the time of award of an AREA grant (although s/he may be one of the project personnel for an active NIH grant held by another PI). be awarded more than one AREA grant at a time (although s/he may hold successive new or competing renewal AREA grants). submit an application to NIH for another research grant for essentially the same project proposed in a pending AREA application (in accordance with the general NIH prohibition against the submission in the same review cycle of more than one application for the same work). AREA Restrictions for PI Eligibility MAY NOT :

Write the body of the application with the core criteria that will be specifically addressed in your summary statements (discussed later) as headings: Significance: Explain how your project addresses an important problem or will break down a critical barrier to progress in the field. Innovation: Examples: -Novel theoretical concept that will shift current research practices -New approaches or methodologies -Use of existing instrumentation in novel ways -Generation of new materials (inventions)

Approach : Make sure overall strategy, methodology and analyses are well- reasoned and/or well-justified. Preliminary data not needed but can be included if you have some. Include feasibility data to demonstrate ability to successfully perform new techniques, if no preliminary data. References from your lab or others to show likelihood of success of the approach. Describe expected results or (from my perspective the latter is best) all possible outcomes and how each would be interpreted. Have Section specifically for “Questions/Pitfalls/Remedies” where you identify problems (if they exist) and present alternative strategies should they be necessary.

Facilities and Resources: 1.Include a profile of SU and its academic component. Estimate the number who have obtained the baccalaureate degree and have gone on to obtain academic or professional doctorate degree in health related sciences in last 5 yr. 2.Specific listing of how many undergrads and master’s students you have personally trained and whom have advanced to academic or professional doctorate degree should be clearly articulated. [Can be included in biosketch as well]. 3. Describe the special characteristics of the school/academic component that make it appropriate for AREA grant, according to the three objectives. 4. Describe the likely impact of an AREA on the PI and the research environment of the school. Environment:

PIs Biosketch should include the following (4 pages): See Example as these have changed: Follow the Directions!!!! 1)Previous or Current Experience in Supervising Students in Research Should be Clearly Explained in Personal Statement 2) If published with students make sure to point this out your publication section. For instance, underline name or star* and tell at the beginning of the section that this denotes undergraduate or graduate student trained. 3) Describe other relationships within the institutional framework (e.g., cross- departmental collaborations) Must submit a Biosketch for ALL “Key Personnel” (PI, Co-PI, significant collaborator). Significant contributors to the grant should include in their personal statement how they will contribute to the science and to the education of students. Investigator :

Budget: 1.The entire budget MUST be requested in Budget Period 1 2.Faculty on 9-mo. appointments may request 3 mo. of summer salary. Request for UG student salary both AY and summer acceptable (and encouraged for it indicates an investigator’s commitment to undergraduate research). 3. Salary for technical personnel or grad students permitted but should relate in justification how this person will help the undergraduate students and not just further PIs research.

 Critique template contains a total of 18 boxes (see handout). 1. Significance 6. Resubmission 13. Overall Impact 2. Investigator(s) 7. Renewal14. Budget and Period of Support 3. Innovation 8. Revision15. Select Agents 4. Approach 9. Protection of Human Subjects 16. Applications from Foreign Organization 5. Environment 10. Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children 17. Resource Sharing Plan 11. Vertebrate Animals18. Additional Comments to Applicant 12. Biohazards

Scoring Descriptions ImpactScoreDescriptorStrengths/Weaknesses High Impact 1Exceptional Weaknesses 2Outstanding 3Excellent Moderate Impact 4Very Good 5Good 6Satisfactory Low Impact 7Fair 8Marginal 9Poor Strengths

Score Descriptor Descriptor Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses 1ExceptionalExceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses 2OutstandingExtremely strong with negligible weaknesses 3ExcellentVery strong with only some minor weaknesses 4Very GoodStrong but with numerous minor weaknesses 5GoodStrong but with at least one moderate weakness 6SatisfactorySome strengths but also some moderate weaknesses 7FairSome strengths but with at least one major weakness 8MarginalA few strengths and a few major weaknesses 9PoorVery few strengths and numerous major weaknesses 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

No Triage, just non-discussed Discuss ~ 50-60% of applications. Non-discussed applications receive criterion scores only

 Summary statement are shorter and more focused (see handout).  Discussed applications will also have a summary of the panel’s discussion at the meeting.  ALL applications will be scored. ◦ Not discussed applications will receive criterion scores only with no summary. Summary Statements

Assignment Role: Rev 1 Significance: 4 Investigator(s): 2 Innovation: 5 Approach: 8 Environment: 2 Reviewer's Preliminary Overall/Impact Score: 7 Assignment Role: Rev 1 Significance: 2 Investigator(s): 1 Innovation: 2 Approach: 2 Environment: 2 Reviewer's Preliminary Overall/Impact Score: 2 What you DON’T want to see: What you DO want to see:

Frequently Asked Questions: Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA)