Study Section Reviewer’s Top 10 Tips American Heart Association November 12, 2010 NHLBI & AHA Funding and Grant Writing Study Section Reviewer’s Top 10 Tips American Heart Association November 12, 2010 Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study Boston University School of Medicine No industry relationships to disclose

Presenter Disclosure Information Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM NHLBI and AHA Funding and Grant Writing FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: ♥No industry ♥1R01HL ♥1RC1HL ♥1R01HL ♥1R01AG UNLABELED/UNAPPROVED USES DISCLOSURE: None Get Involved in AHA Functional Genomics & Translational Biology

1. How do Reviewers Work? Hard For virtually all grant reviewers, the study section work takes place after their day job Your job is to make their job easy

2. What type of grant should you apply for? Bookmark funding websites ­NHLBI » ­AHA » 13 »Applicant guide Check sponsored programs for other opportunities e.g. ­Robert Wood Johnson ­Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute ­Local foundations

2. What type of grant should I apply for? Review eligibility & match the funding mechanism with ­Your idea ­Training ­Publication record Myth ­AHA doesn’t fund clinical work

3. How do you Pick a Topic? What excites you? Will it help you build an identity distinct from your mentor? Will it build to an RO1

3. How do I Get Started? Ask to see colleague’s successful grants Ask to see colleague’s critiques Look at NIH Reporter to see what is funded by your institute, on your topic, via your mechanism

4. How important are the Specific Aims? The reviewer should know in one page ­Why the question is important ­Why your approach is innovative ­Your aims »What hypothesis you seek to test ­Why your team/environment is well-suited to the conduct the study ­For a training grant »How the study fits into the rest of your career

5. What do Reviews want to Read? Novel science that answers an important question ­Novel »Will the study shed new insights »Look in an unstudied/understudied population »Use an innovative technique ­Clinical relevance »Does it address a question of public health significance »Could you explain to a lay person ‘so what’ »Think family reunion & elevator speech

6. What dew Raveiwrs KNOT want to sea? A sloppy grant ­NO typos / grammar problems  Correct references Clear subject headingsLogical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out manuscript makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science Slick presentation cannoT RESCUE HO HUM contentA sloppy grant ­NO typos / grammar problems  Correct referencesClear subject headings ­Logical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out manuscript makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the scienceSlick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content A sloppy grant NO typos / grammar problems  Correct references Clear subject headingsLogical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out manuscript makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum contentA sloppy grant ­NO typos / grammar problems  Co rrect references Clear subject headings Logical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out manuscript makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the scienceSlick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content

6. What do Reviewers NOT want to see? Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content but A sloppy grant  Instead aim ­No typos No grammar problems ­Avoid long paragraphs Correct references ­Subject headingsAvoid tiny font ­Logical flowAvoid TNTC abbreviations Sloppiness encourages concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers Lucid writing, organized, well-laid out manuscript makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science Can scientist not in the field understand the grant?

7. What Are Common Pitfalls? Success of aims 2-4 dependent on aim 1 Over-ambitious Unrealistic or absent timeline Unclear next steps  Does the project build your career  RO1 Lack of limitations section Lack of essential personnel Complicated, long background

7. What Are Common Pitfalls? Approach not worked out ­Quality control for measurements ­Statistical methods reviewed by a statistician ­Power calculations »Several scenarios with assumptions laid out »Easy to understand

8. Features that Wow the Reviewer Picture that elegantly and simply captures Your conceptual model Illustrates your data Outlines your study design Added bonus of breaking up the text and allowing the grant to breath

9. When should an early career investigator start working on a grant? 1.You cannot start too early 2.With the 2 submission rule you need the first submission to be strong  Grants not discussed have a higher chance of ‘double jeopardy’ 3.Specific aims formulated at least 3 months in advance 4.First draft 8 weeks 5.Mentor s and colleague s have time to review draft at least 1 month in advance 6.You cannot start too early

Budget Do not over or under budget

10. What if it doesn’t get a good score? Regroup with your mentors Address all major issues raised by the Reviewer ­Quote the Reviewer directly ­Have multiple colleagues read your introduction If you disagree, do so with utmost respect Setback are opportunities ­To reassess, realign, reinvigorate ­Reviewers may have saved you from wasting 4 years on a project to nowhere The key to success in research is resiliency

Get Involved in AHA Functional Genomics & Translational Biology