CHHE Faculty Development Core Activities: Grant Writing Workshops Research Mentoring Funds available for attendance at scientific meetings and workshops meetings and workshops Seed money and funds for Pilot Projects

CHHE Faculty Development Core Members/Mentors: Chris McGahan James Bonner Jane Hoppin Rob Smart Cathrine Hoyo Gerald LeBlanc Alison Mostinger-Reif Heather Patisaul Philip Sannes Fred Wright Dan Burke Emilie Rissmann

Grant writing 101—Specific Aims and general principles

Contact information: M. Christine McGahan

The Proposal  Read the Instructions

Know who your reviewers are!!!! Call and get information from the granting Call and get information from the grantingagency Shyness is not rewarded

1. Describe the Research Project - Open with a general statement about the importance of the subject area - Should be understandable to any reader

2. Present preliminary data in support of your hypothesis 3. Clearly state your Hypothesis, a separate section will make this simple for the reviewers 4. Follow this with a general statement about approach, model and methods used 5. Specific aims

6. Describe the purpose and usefulness of the results of this project - There MUST be a clear reason or purpose behind your proposed project - This needs to be spelled out in a clear and completely unambiguous way -Do not overstate the importance of the project but you also must state why YOU are the best person and in the best position to do this work.

Ideas that get funded - Innovative, not a me-too project - Is thoroughly researched - Engages the reviewers, makes them into advocates for your idea/proposal - Potential for having a significant impact on the field is readily assessed

Common reasons for failure and rejection of a proposal of a proposal - Lack of a really good, original idea - An unimportant problem - Lack of experience, expertise or resources - Unrealistic quantity of work proposed - Uncertain outcome

“This project appears to be assembled from a catalogue. In each instance the PI seems to have chosen procedures or assays because they are available as a package or kit or purchasable service.” “The main weakness of this proposal is that no justification is actually given for any of the proposed experiments, so the whole thing sounds like a bunch of experiments done simply because they can be done.” “Nebulous rambling discourse inspiring no confidence” Actual statements from reviews

Helpful hints for proposals you will write in the future - Get feedback from at least two other experienced grant writers about your approach - Get feedback from at least one other scientist who is an expert in your field - Try to get good collaborators to sign on as consultants especially when starting out and your experience is not broad enough yet. The letters of support they provide are extremely helpful.

Choosing a sponsor/mentor - MUST be respected by his/her peers - Should have a reputation for having time to spend with mentees - Should be known for promoting mentees who are high achievers

Sponsor’s responsibilities for proposal preparation - Participate in helping you define your goals - Go over the proposal with you and help you learn to write a good proposal - Should NOT write it for you

Mentor’s responsibilities after the grant is funded (for ESI) funded (for ESI) - Schedule regular meetings to ensure that progress on the project is satisfactory - Be available for troubleshooting problems which inevitably arise - Make sure the project is taken to completion and that the requirements, such as writing a progress reports are done in a timely fashion - Make sure that necessary resources are available when they are needed

There is a sign-up sheet to request grant writing assistance Teams of 2-3 faculty, one generalist +1-2 content experts will be chosen

Essentials for writing a successful proposal - Learn from others -- don’t try to reinvent the wheel - Schedule enough time - Have a schedule ---- and keep to it - Give yourself enough lead time, you need to work with a sponsor and get feedback, then the proposal needs to be written/critiqued/re- written, etc. Three-six months is about right for an NIH R01.

Take home message - NEVER work in isolation on a proposal, everyone needs feedback, even very experienced grant writers

In the grant review process, as in life, FAIRNESS FAIRNESS does not always rule does not always rule

PERSISTENCE is the key to success in the grant game

Responding to the Critique -- rules for later grant and manuscript submissions and manuscript submissions - Use the “twenty-four hour rule”, grow a thick skin and try not to take the review personally - No matter how unfair the critique appears to be---- you MUST respond to it in some way - An objective eye is essential, find a knowledgeable and experienced colleague to help - It is possible to turn a critique, even a very bad one, to your advantage, but it takes a lot of creativity

REMEMBER TO SIGN UP FOR GRANT WRITING ASSISTANCE