Grant Mechanisms Research Projects Small Research Grant R21 Exploratory/Developmental Grant R15 Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) R43, R44 Small Business Innovation Research Grant (SBIR) P01 Research Program Project R03, SMALL GRANT, PA-03-108 (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm) Scope: Pilot or feasibility studies, Secondary analysis of existing data, Small, self-contained research projects, Development of research methodology, Development of new research technology <= two years; <= $50,000 per year. Research Plan <= 10 pages. Only one revision. R21, EXPLORATORY/DEVELOPMENTAL GRANT, PA-03-107 (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/r21.htm) Scope: encourage new, exploratory and developmental research projects by providing support for the early stages of their development (e.g., assess the feasibility of a novel area of investigation or a new experimental system that has the potential to enhance health-related research. may involve considerable risk but may lead to a breakthrough in a particular area, or to the development of novel techniques, agents, methodologies, models or applications that could have major impact on a field <= two years The combined budget for the two year project period <= $275,000. Two revisions permitted R15, AREA Grants (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/area.htm) Institution: <= $3 million/yr TC in each of four or more of the last seven years PI: May not be the principal investigator of any active NIH research grant

Grant Mechanisms Fellowship & Research Career Programs Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (NRSA) Postdoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (NRSA) K22 K01 Career Transition Award (NIAID) Career Transition Award (NCI) K08 Clinical Investigator Award K23 Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award K22, CAREER TRANSITION AWARD NIAID: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-02-018.html Applicants: postdocs 1) in an NIAID intramural lab; 2) supported T32, F32 or RSUMs Time: two years; not renewable PHASE I: Research plan Phase II (12 months to identify a suitable position) Acceptable start-up package = a) position as asst. prof. b) significant funds and resources; c) modest if any teaching load; d) no administrative responsibilities. Budget: $150K for 1st yr; $100K for 2nd yr.

Review of your proposal There are hundreds of study sections 60-100 grant / study section Study section rosters (about 20 people) can be found at: http://www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp Each grant has about 3 reviewers All study section members score the grant 100-500 Choose a study section that has goals consistent with your proposal http://www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/award.htm You can lose on the abstract and first page

Grant Writing What makes a good grant proposal? What makes a great grant proposal? Good idea Good science Good application

A good proposal Is this enough? Well performed study Appropriate and up-to date technology Carefully analyzed data that is accurately reported Ethical considerations dealt with appropriately What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable Is this enough?

Benchmarks of an “Outstanding” Application New or original ideas Focused, incisive research plan Knowledge of published relevant work Experience in essential methodology Future directions and contingency plans

More Benchmarks of an outstanding proposal Published in respected journals Recognized and cited by peers Presented at high-quality meetings Fundable on competitive grant review What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

What makes an outstanding proposal? Asks important questions Has potential to yield “seminal” observations What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Does the project have the potential to yield a “seminal” observation? Create truly new knowledge? Lead to new ways of thinking? Lay the foundation for further research in the field? What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Writing a Grant Proposal Good idea Good science Good application

Pursue original science Consider your perspective: Novel vs. derivative Hypothesis-driven vs. “fishing expedition” Mechanistic vs. descriptive

Picking a Research Project Ten steps to picking a Research Project What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable C. Ronald Kahn New England Journal of Medicine. 1994

Steps to picking a Research Project Anticipate Results you might obtain Is the most successful outcome interesting? What would be the next step if you are successful? Are you prepared to follow up? What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Steps to picking a Research Project Is the area of interest to a large fraction of the scientific community? If only of interest to a limited number of people in the field, results may be difficult to publish and hard to fund What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Steps to picking a Research Project Is the field overpopulated? Look for an under-occupied niche that has potential Good strategy for someone finishing a postdoctoral fellowship Try to avoid competing head-on with mentors or other recognized figures in your field

Steps to picking a Research Project The best ideas come from listening to talks and reading papers outside your area of interest. Talks and papers outside your area of interest may point you in truly new directions and allow you to anticipate the evolution of the field. What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Steps to picking a Research Project Find a balance between low-risk and high-risk projects Include a high-interest project because this will be an opportunity to make a truly seminal observation What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Steps to picking a Research Project Be prepared to pursue the work to the next important level. To be recognized for important research accomplishments may require a willingness to pursue a project to any depth necessary What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Steps to picking a Research Project Differentiate yourself from your mentor This is especially true of you stay at the same institution. Independence is an important criteria for promotion and tenure You need to be more expert than your mentor in some area even if you choose to collaborate. What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Picking a Research Problem However, collaboration can be a good strategy especially if you are not technically prepared to carry out a particular aspect of the project List an expert in this area as a collaborator on your grant. Once you have established some expertise in an area, you can become more independent. Picking a Research Problem What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Steps to picking a Research Project Focus rather than trying to make an impact in three or four different areas at once. At first focus on one or at most two projects and define very limited goals. What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Writing a Grant Proposal Good idea Good science Good application

Good Science Logical and organized Research Plan Rationale for the Methods chosen Include Experimental Pitfalls Include Alternative Approaches Sufficient Experimental Detail Prelimianry dataa may consist of your won publicaitons, publicaions of others, unpulished data from your won laboratory or from others, or some combination.

Good Science Use appropriate controls Avoid “shotgun” approaches and “fishing expeditions” Do not assume reviewers with know what you mean: SPELL IT OUT Prelimianry dataa may consist of your won publicaitons, publicaions of others, unpulished data from your won laboratory or from others, or some combination.

Good Science The Hypothesis A meaningful hypothesis and a means to test it Rationale for the hypothesis A set of related aims Aims that are focused and not diffuse What is important in your field Do you know the field and its literature? Is the field overpospulated? Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

Formulate Sound Hypotheses Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin What’s the hypothesis here?

Writing a Grant Proposal Good idea Good science Good application

Good Application Read and Follow all instructions Make sure your Institute offers the type of grant you plan to prepare. For instance, not all Institutes offer R21 grants Use clear and grammatically correct English Write short, clear sentences. Minimize the use of overly technical jargon Avoid Reviewer fatigue

Selling Your Ideas It’s your responsibility to make it effortless for the reviewers to understand… Your ideas Why they are important Why your approach is reasonable and feasible Present an organized, lucid write-up! Write for the skeptic: how would you convince your harshest critic? Do not write the application for the “specialist:” assume the reviewers won’t know your system as well as you do

Keep your focus on your big picture Focus: do not let your ideas wander from your main theme Show how this project fits into your “big picture” research objectives, describe future directions

Presentation & Formatting Prepare a reviewer-friendly application! Organize with headings & subheadings, but avoid too many levels Include well-designed tables and figures with appropriate legends Stay within the page limitations Use a readable typeface and font size (Ariel 11pt) Minimize grammatical & typographical errors

Components of a Grant Application Abstract Specific Aims Background and Significance Preliminary Results Research design

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Abstract Pretend reviewer has only this page to read Abstract should be a mini outline for the proposal.

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Abstract Include a general statement of the problem being addressed including gaps in our knowledge Include your hypothesis and why your experiments will fill the gaps in our knowledge (and why this is important) Include an outline of the specific aims and methods to be used, expected outcomes and the long-range significance.

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Abstract Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

Specific Aims The Specific Aims are the first part of the proposal that the reviewer reads. Include a short description of problem and background summary (one paragraph) The Specific Aims should address an hypothesis and the hypothesis should be clearly stated They should be bulleted and clearly and succinctly outline the proposed research. Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

Important Tip Specfic Aims The specific aims should be interrelated but should not depend on the success of one aim to perform the others. Example: Aim 1 proposes to identify and clone the cellular receptor that restricts HXV infection to humans. In Aim 2, there are plans to construct transgenic mice expressing the receptor to develop an animal model for HXV to study pathogenesis. What if there is more than one receptor? Or you are not successful in identifying putative receptors? Or infection is also blocked at a stage past entry? Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims Identify hole in our knowledge Explain why this hole is important State your hypothesis and long term goals Identify a series of logical steps to test your hypothesis

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims List the aims as a bulleted list with a brief description of the approaches to be used after each aim Be specific. Avoid generalities. Avoid saying you will characterize or describe a phenomenon or determine the relationship between two processes

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims Think about “aim” as a verb. Your aims should suggest a particular outcome rather than being descriptive. Do not merely “characterize” or “describe” something! It’s boring and it doesn’t convey the importance or excitement of what you hope to accomplish

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims A specific aim that collects data with out describing the rationale for the hypothesis sounds like a fishing expedition. Each aim should include a hypothesis if possible.

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims Is the scope of the problem achievable? Avoid proposing 10 years of work in a 3 or 4 year proposal

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims Combine low risk aims with one or two that are innovative and original An innovative aim will include novel concepts or approaches An innovative aim should advance the field The specific aims should be interrelated but one aim should not depend on the success of another

Brief summary of background Long term goal Hypothesis Rationale Specific Aims Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Backround and Significance Rationale

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Backround and Significance Set the stage Show how existing work lays the ground work but does not go far enough Bring together ideas and results (yours and others) Identify gaps that your proposal will fill Lay out still unanswered questions you will answer

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Backround and Significance Compare and contrast work of others. Evaluate and critique it, but do so respectfully Cite literature judiciously. You can’t cite every finding, but try to be fair.

One more Tip… After describing the background that relates to a particular aim, end that section with: This problem will be addressed in Aim _. Remind the reviewer that you are going to save the day and solve that problem in this grant by filling in that particular gap in our knowledge Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Preliminary Results In God we Trust All others must bring Data

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Preliminary Results Demonstrate expertise in the techniques you are going to use. Show your hypotheses are supported by your initial studies Include only pertinent data Advance your data clearly and professionally (don’t be sloppy) Include well-designed tables and figures

Research Design & Methods Provide a well-focused research plan Provide sufficient experimental detail Address data interpretation, anticipated results and alternative approaches Propose a realistic amount of work Secure collaborators for areas in which you lack experience and training

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Experimental Design Address each Aim one at a time Keep numbering consistent between Specific aims and Experimental Design section Make sure design and methods are well- developed and appropriate? Are problems areas addressed?

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Experimental Design Start with a brief overview to remind reviewers what you are doing Start each aim with brief rationale and hypothesis to be tested Provide framework for description of experimental details which follow

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Experimental Design If each aim has common experimental detail, you can end the entire section with a General methods section, separate from the specifics for each Aim. Most reviewers what to see how the general research design plays out before fine details of methodology.

Keys for a Successful Grant Application Experimental Design How much detail is enough? Convey credibility but don’t get too bogged down in details. If you have previously shown expertise either in preliminary results or publications, you don’t need as much detail as if the techniques are new to you. Arrange for collaborations or coinvestigators in scientific areas in which you do not have established credentials.

Research Design and Methods Do provide the rationale for each experimental approach Discuss possible outcomes and how these will be interpreted Discuss potential pitfalls and alternative approaches Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

A Picture Can Be Worth a Thousand Words Illustrate models instead of describing them in the text Use schematics to summarize If data figures or schematics are inserted into the Preliminary Studies or Research Design sections, make sure both the figure and the legend are legible and easily readable by the reviewer Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

Using Figures Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin Both the figure and legend can easily be read by the reviewers.

Using Figures The legend can be read but the schematic cannot be read. Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin The legend can be read but the schematic cannot be read.

Neither the figure nor the legend can be read. Using Figures Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin Neither the figure nor the legend can be read. Why bother showing it?

Useful Tip Add a short summary at the end of the Research Design and Methods section to drive home what will be learned from the studies and why that is significant. Future directions can be included briefly. Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

Bottom Line? What will the reviewers be looking for? How will they judge the application?

Benchmarks of an “Outstanding” Application New or original ideas Focused, incisive research plan Knowledge of published relevant work Experience in essential methodology Future directions and contingency plans

Review of Research Grants REVIEW CRITERIA Significance Approach Innovation Investigator Environment

Review of Research Grants REVIEW CRITERIA Investigator - who are you? Make sure your CV is complete and conveys your areas of expertise and training. Make sure your preliminary results section conveys who you are. Actions speak louder than words.

Review of Research Grants REVIEW CRITERIA Environment - Make sure you convince reviewers that your institution addresses all requirements of the proposed research plan. List areas of expertise of colleagues, research cores and facilities that will aid your research, any institutional support that exists. Justify reliance on external resources.

What if your first grant is not funded? Don’t give up Initial failure is common

What if your first grant is not funded? Learn from it and succeed - a majority do Study criticism in pink sheet Decide if problems are reparable Attend diligently to each criticism Keep a positive tone and attitude in addressing criticism

Most common reasons for failure Lack of new or original ideas Diffuse, superficial or unfocused research plan Lack of knowledge of published relevant work Lack of experience in the essential methodology Uncertainty concerning the future directions

More reasons for failure Questionable reasoning in experimental approach Absence of acceptable scientific rationale Unrealistically large amount of work Lack of sufficient experimental detail Uncritical approach

Remember There is no grantsmanship that will turn a bad idea into a good one, but……. There are many ways to disguise a good one William Raub, Past Deputy Director of NIH

Resources National Institutes of Health http://www.nih.gov National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov Hints for Writing Successful NIH grants by Ellen Barrett. http://chroma.med.miami.edu/Ellens.how.to.html Extramural Funding Opportunites http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/extra/extdocs/gntapp.html Sounding Board: Picking a Research Problem by C. Ronald Kahn. The New England Journal of Medicine. 330:1530 How to Ask for a Research Grant by Janet S. Rasey. In Writing, Speaking, and Communication Skills for Health Professionals. Yale University Press. Pg 91-117

Scientific Questions Focused Lead to testable hypotheses Interesting Significant

Drill down to a specific question What does PTH do? What does PTH do in osteoblasts? How does PTH regulate bone formation in osteoblasts? What are the downstream targets of PTH in osteoblasts? What are the immediate early genes induced by PTH through the cAMP-PKA pathway in osteoblasts?