Successful NIH Grant Applications (with a hint or two for DoD) Stephen B. Pruett, Ph.D. Department Head, Department of Basic Sciences College of Veterinary.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Bernie Engel, Professor and Head Agricultural and Biological Engineering 1 March 25, 2014.
Advertisements

NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NIH K01, K08, AND K23 (CAREER DEVELOPMENT) and K99/00 PATHWAY TO INDEPENDENCE AWARD GRANTS Liz Zelinski Former Reviewer and backup.
How Your Application Is Reviewed Robert Elliott, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Effective SBIR/STTR Proposal Responses How to Beat the Odds February 20, 2013.
DIVISION OF LOAN REPAYMENT Milton J. Hernández, Ph.D. Director Division of Loan Repayment OEP, OER Mapping your Career with NIH.
Grant Writing: Specific Aims and Study Design Zuo-Feng Zhang, MD, PhD EPIDEMIOLOGY
Research Funding: Navigating the DOD David Dorman, DVM, PhD, DABVT, DABT.
How Your Application Is Reviewed Vonda Smith, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
PRESENTER: DR. ROBERT KLESGES PROFESSOR OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AND MEMBER, DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND.
November 13, 2009 NIH PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS: 2010 REVISONS.
How to Improve your Grant Proposal Assessment, revisions, etc. Thomas S. Buchanan.
Temple University Russell Conwell Learning Center Office of Senior Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies GETTING INVOLVED IN RESEARCH AT TEMPLE UNIVERSITY.
Enhancing Peer Review at NIH University of Central Florida Grant Day Workshop October 26, 2009 Anne K. Krey Division of Scientific Review.
THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS David Armstrong, Ph.D.
How to Write a Scientific Paper Hann-Chorng Kuo Department of Urology Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital.
UAMS Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Grant Writing: A Primer for the Initial Application
Policy WG NIH policy proposal. Goal: Incorporating global access licensing as one of the additional review criteria Question 1: Should we propose this.
CAREER DEVELOPMENT  Career Development Program for Early and Mid-Career Women Faculty  Workshops  Roundtables  Mini-Mentoring Sessions.
Specific Aims Grant Writing Workshop Specific Aims Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study Boston University School of Medicine.
NIH Review Procedures Betsy Myers Hospital for Special Surgery.
The Center for Symptom Management The NIH review process Kathryn Lee, RN, PhD April 3, 2009 MDP.
COMPONENTS OF A GOOD GRANT PROPOSAL Philip T. LoVerde.
Life in Graduate School Lori Raetzman, PhD Molecular & Integrative Physiology Molecular & Cellular Biology Undergraduate Workshop: What to Expect from.
We have reviewed this material in accordance with U.S. Copyright Law and have tried to maximize your ability to use, share, and adapt it. The citation.
NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research RFA OD
The NIH Grant Review Process Hiram Gilbert, Ph.D. Dept. of Biochemistry, Baylor College of Medicine Xander Wehrens, M.D. Ph.D. Dept. of Molecular Physiology.
Academic Promotion in Different Career Paths David J. Bjorkman, MD, MSPH Florida Atlantic University.
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
Presubmission Proposal Reviews at the College of Nursing (CON) Nancy T. Artinian, PhD, RN, FAAN Associate Dean for Research and Professor.
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 1 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
Approach or Research Design Randall Duncan Biological Sciences COBRE Grant Writing Workshop January 21, 2015.
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 1 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
1 Preparing an NIH Institutional Training Grant Application Rod Ulane, Ph.D. NIH Research Training Officer Office of Extramural Research, NIH.
Carilion Clinic, Office of Sponsored Projects Frequently Asked Questions Pre-Award Procedures For Principal Investigators.
Fellowship Writing Luc Teyton, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Immunology and Microbial Science
Tips on Fellowship Writing A Reviewer’s Perspective Wendy Havran.
Using the NCBI SciENcv application to generate NIH Biosketches in new format Hermanie Pierre-Noel and Silvia Pulido, Ph.D University of Central Florida.
Research Funding Opportunity & Scientific Capacity Building in Developing Countries By Dina R. Andersson 1.
Ronald Margolis, Ph.D. National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases Amanda Boyce, Ph.D. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal.
How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University
Restructured NIH Applications One Year Later:
An Insider’s Look at a Study Section Meeting: Perspectives from CSR Monica Basco, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Coordinator, Early Career Reviewer Program.
Office for Research Subjects (ORS) & Research Administration (ORA) In-Sync to Help Make your Research Happen Stephanie Gaudreau, Sr.Research Subjects Specialist,
How Research Gets Funded A report by Wayne Wakeland from a workshop given at PSU in late Sept. ’06 by The Grant Institute.
ENHANCING PEER REVIEW: GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF RESTRUCTURED GRANT APPLICATIONS.
UNM CTSC Mentored Career Development Scholar’s Program Presentation Template Name Title Department or College Mentors.
Response to Prior Review and Resubmission Strategies Yuqing Li, Ph.D Division of Movement Disorders Department of Neurology Center for Movement Disorders.
Foundations in Writing Competitive NIH Proposals Joseph G. Grzywacz, Ph.D. Chair & Norejane Hendrickson Professor Department of Family and Child Sciences.
Peer Review and Grant Mechanisms at NIH What is Changing? May 2016 Richard Nakamura, Ph.D., Director Center for Scientific Review.
Rigor and Transparency in Research
NIH R03 Program Review Ning Jackie Zhang, MD, PhD, MPH College of Health and Public Affairs 04/17/2013.
Scientific and Scholarly Validity
Presenter: dr. Robert Klesges Professor of Preventive Medicine
Information Session February 6, :00-4:45 pm
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
Publishing without tears.
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
What Reviewers look for NIH F30-33(FELLOWSHIP) GRANTS
How to Write a Successful NIH Career Development Award (K Award)
Rick McGee, PhD and Bill Lowe, MD Faculty Affairs and NUCATS
Information Session January 18, :00-1:45 pm
Dr. Lani (Chi Chi) Zimmerman, UNMC Dr. Bill Mahoney, IS&T
Approach Section: The “Meat” of the Proposal
Study Section Overview – The Process and What You Should Know
Biosketches and Other Attachments
VPR Service Units Vice-Principal (Research) Portfolio Service Units
Opportunity fund grants at COM
Presentation transcript:

Successful NIH Grant Applications (with a hint or two for DoD) Stephen B. Pruett, Ph.D. Department Head, Department of Basic Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine

Be a Reviewer The best way to learn to write an outstanding grant application is to serve as a grant reviewer. NIH has a program to give junior faculty members experience reviewing grants: ecomeAReviewer/ECR/Pages/default.aspx Please take a look and do this ASAP. ecomeAReviewer/ECR/Pages/default.aspx

NIH Scoring Sheet Template

NIH Scoring Sheet Template Continued ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items. Responses for Protections for Human Subjects, Vertebrate Animals, and Biohazards are required for all applications. A response for Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children is required for applications proposing Human Subjects Research.

Relative importance of review criteria Although each reviewer may decide on the relative importance of each criterion, NIH has been consistently emphasizing “Overall Impact” and “Significance”. “Investigator” has become more important recently, and not only are publications critical, but publications in high impact journals are getting more attention.

Buzzwords for NIH Incremental research is bad; transformational research is good Hypothesis driven, mechanism-based Translational (or at least translational implications)

Keys for Success Know your reviewers-both professionally and personally (NIH lists review group members, so take the trouble to present at the meetings at which they present and to get to know them personally). There is a slight “Mississippi Bias”: your application must be better than everyone else’s. There can be no grammatical errors, unreadable figures, or anything else that will make your application “suspect”. The “Mississippi Bias” is not huge or insurmountable. An MSU faculty member recently received a PERFECT score (1 percentile) on an R01 application!!!! However, this score was received on the 3 rd submission and after the P.I. had published 14 papers the year before the application.

People You Need to Know for Success with NIH Program Officer. This person is identified in your grant review. This is the scientist who helps determine NIH priorities for research. I received 2 R01 grants that I would not have otherwise received had not the Program Officers pleaded my case. They did so because I went to visit them. Call your Program officer early and often. Offer to help them by modifying your application to best meet their program priorities! Your Scientific Review Administrator is also identified in your review report. This is the person who decides who will review your application. Get to know this person. Try to help this person. Explain the type of reviewer your application needs.

DoD Personal relationships are key. There are some programs that are really easy to obtain funding from: heet.asp?id=9380 Air Force Summer Faculty Research Program. Requires travel, and a summer away from home and provides the potential for long-term DoD funding for biological scientists. In general, relationships are critical and once you have satisfied DoD that you will produce, you can have funding for more extended periods of time.