Funding Strategies for New Faculty Israel A. Goldberg Health Research Associates UTHSC - Memphis March 25, 2008

Focus on NIH, because -- Most biomedical-funding organizations use proposal and review formats similar to the NIH format

NIH INSTITUTES AND CENTERS AANational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNIAAA AGNational Institute on AgingNIA AINational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNIAID ARNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNIAMS ATNational Center for Complementary and Alternative MedicineNCCAM CANational Cancer InstituteNCI DANational Institute on Drug AbuseNIDA DCNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative DisordersNIDCD DENational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNIDCR DKNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNIDDK EBNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNIBIB ESNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNIEHS EYNational Eye InstituteNEI GMNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNIGMS HDNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNICHD HGNational Human Genome Research InstituteNHGRI HLNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNHLBI LMNational Library of MedicineNLM MDNational Center on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNCMH MHNational Institute of Mental HealthNIMH NRNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNINR NSNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNINDS RRNational Center for Research ResourcesNCRR TWJohn E. Fogarty International CenterFIC

Focus on NIH, because -- Most biomedical-funding organizations use proposal and review formats similar to the NIH format That’s where they keep the big money

Focus on the NIH R01 grant proposal, because -- Most biomedical-funding organizations use proposal and review formats similar to the NIH-R01 format R01 = Currency of the Realm R01 = Your Academic Advancement R01 = Your Goal

Focus on the NIH R01, because -- Most biomedical-funding organizations use proposal and review formats similar to the NIH-R01 format R01 = Currency of the Realm R01 = Your Academic Advancement R01 = Your Goal Institutional and smaller-agency funding are key to getting started.

Top 10 errors in grant proposals

1. Proposing to do too much – Common problem of new PIs Giving reviewers too many targets to throw darts at Assuming that the reviewers will be impressed with your ability to do everything

A. SPECIFIC AIMS(One Page) Begin with a 3- to 4- sentence paragraph that presents: Big picture Focus What I hope to accomplish Organizing hypothesis S.A Test the Prediction that.... 1A. We will manipulate X and measure Y..... Our hypothesis predicts ….. 1B. We will..... Our hypothesis predicts..... S.A Test between the alternative hypotheses, A and B. 2A. We will manipulate X and measure Y..... Hypothesis A predicts...., whereas hypothesis B … 2B. We will..... Hypothesis A predicts...., whereas hypothesis B predicts …. S.A. 3 – Ditto Scientific American - style diagram

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 2. No Hypotheses or Predictions Methods in search of reasons Create animal models Descriptive ‘bean counting’ or ‘fishing’ [If you must do any of these, explain why.]

Criteria for SPECIFIC AIMS and HYPOTHESES of a grant proposal ___________________________________ Specific aims should: test predictions that are based on meaningful hypotheses about the fundamental mechanisms that drive important functional relationships

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 3. Silly Hypotheses

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 4. Disconnect between Specific Aims and Research Design & Methods Methods without Designs Incomplete details of methods

D.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ( pages) D.1. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS ( pages) [Continues the logical flow of the Specific Aims] D.2. DETAILS OF METHODS (5 - 9 pages) [Cookbook Recipes in Copious Detail] D.3. TIMETABLE of Aims and Experiments (10-12 lines)

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 5. Expertise missing Demonstrated capability in Prelim Studies Published, demonstrated capability Appropriate consultants Cameo appearances

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 6. Non-Modular Budget Inflated budget Naïve low budget without explanation

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 7. Tilting at other people’s windmills There are no “kid’s grants”

Sample Success Rates FY-2007 NHLBI R01 727/3,332 = 22% R03 0/60 = 0% R21 91/797 = 11% NIAMS R01 166/746 = 22% R03 34/229 = 15% R21 46/271 = 17%

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 7. Tilting at other people’s windmills There are no “kid’s grants” Present YOUR best science – RFAs can waste your time and efforts

Trans-NIH Initiatives  NIH Roadmap  Neuroscience Blueprint  Genes and Environment  Trans-Institute Research Programs Angiogenesis Nano-medicine Obesity Etc. Genes & Environment

NIH Office of Portfolio Analysis and Strategic Initiatives (OPASI) [ These special initiatives account for less than 2% of total NIH budget.

Advice to all young PIs 1. Don’t tilt at other people’s windmills 2. R01 = Currency of the Realm 3. R01 = Your Academic Advancement

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 8. Sloppiness Typographical errors, poor grammar Inconsistent information

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 9. Unexplained hiatus in productivity

Top 10 errors in grant proposals 10. Amended proposals -- Giving reviewers new targets to throw darts at Failing to take advice Trying to “rebut”

NIH Success Rates in FY-2007 R01 Proposals 20,648 new R01 proposals 3,958 were funded Success Rate = 19% Note: Success rates are not percentiles

NIH Success Rates of FIRST- TIME Competing Proposals in FY All FIRST-TIME Competing Proposals – 8% FIRST-TIME Competing Renewal Proposals – 7% FIRST-TIME New Proposals – 9% As published in Science, April 2007

Revision and Resubmission When you prepare a revised proposal -- Do what the reviewers advise you to do. Do not argue or ‘stick to your guns.’ Do not add anything to replace dropped components, unless reviewers specifically advised you to do that. Do not add anything simply because you think the amended proposal is too thin. Anything you add is now a new target for the reviewers’ darts. And, every dart costs you points.

PERSISTENCE PAYS Success Rates of NIH New R01 Applications in FY-2002 There were 16,896 New R01 Proposals -- 11,924 were First Time 3,871 were First Revision 1,101 were Second Revision Success Rates First Time20% First Revision34% Second Revision47%

COMPARISON OF TWO STRATEGIES FOR NEW GRANT APPLICANTS