1. Mei Zhang, Ph.D. Dept. of Molecular & Cellular Biology Baylor College of Medicine Jeff Rosen Lab K99/R00 (Kangaroo) Award

2. * “To facilitate a timely transition from a mentored postdoctoral research position to a stable independent research position with independent NIH or other independent research support at an earlier stage than is currently the norm.” Overall Goal of the NIH Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00) *K99/R00 Program Announcement (PA-11-197) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-11-197.html

3. Two phases: K99: “1-2 years of mentored support for highly promising postdoctoral research scientists.” R00: “up to 3 years of support contingent on securing an independent research position.”- Robert J. Milner, Ph.D. & Joan M. Lakoski, Ph.D Applicants: PhD or MD or equivalent doctoral degrees, no more than 5 years of postdoctoral research training at the time of initial application or resubmission. Non ‐ U.S. citizens may apply. But institution must be domestic. Transition to R00 phase requires offer and acceptance of tenure ‐ track, full-time AP position (or equivalent). Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00)

4. Facts about K99/R00 http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/new_investigato rs/K99_R00_awards.htmhttp://grants1.nih.gov/grants/new_investigato rs/K99_R00_awards.htm 183 awards (out of 893 applications) in 2007 180 (out of 795) in 2008 204 (out of ? ) in 2009 194 (out of ? ) in 2010 ~20% success rate

5. Institute or Center FICNCCAMNCINCMHDNCRRNEINHGRINHLBI FY 20100128014135 Institute or Center NIANIAAANIAIDNIAMSNIBIBNICHDNIDANIDCD FY 2010865461754 Institute or Center NIDCRNIDDKNIEHSNIGMSNIMHNINDSNINRNLMTotal FY 201061271613843194 The numbers funded and pay lines may vary every year for every institute. Facts about K99/R00

6. Register an eRA Commons username to submit applications to NIH https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/

7. Component of Candidate Information Candidate’s Background Career Goals and Objectives Career Development/Training Activities During Award Period Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research (1 page) Statements by Mentor, Co-mentor(s), Consultants, Contributors (6 pages) Component of Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate Description of Institutional Environment (1 page) Component of Statements of Support Institutional Commitment to the Candidate’s Research Career Development (1 page) Component of Research Plan Research Strategy Biographical Sketch (4 pages) For these sections combined, 12 pages Specific Aims (1 page) Individual Documents with Page Limitations

8. Supplemental Sections Correspond to the Review Criteria for K99/R00 Candidate Career Development Plan Research Project Mentoring Team, including Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s) Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate Read the program announcement and the updates. Remember and Address the 6-8 questions under the above each review criterion while writing your grant.

9. Candidate Career Development Plan Research Project Mentoring Team, including Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s) Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate Scored Review Criteria

10. Is the candidate an independent, productive, and mature junior scientist? Record of research productivity Quality of the candidate's pre- & postdoctoral research training experience Potential to achieve an independent, tenure-track position within the time period requested for the K99 phase References

11. Is the candidate an independent, productive, and mature junior scientist? Record of research productivity Reasonable publication record in quality journals; Fellowships or other evidence of ability to write grants Quality of the candidate's pre- & postdoctoral research training experience Statement of commitment to a career in biomedical research (Candidate Background) Potential to achieve an independent, tenure-track position within the time period requested for the K99 phase Career goals & how they relate to prior training & experience (Career Goals & Objectives) References At least three strong letters of recommendation

12. Developing Candidate Statements Previous and present research experience and accomplishments (Ph.D. and Post-doc) –Big picture and specific aims of Ph.D work as well as current project. –Awards, accomplishment, and any advancement you made in science –What makes you the top 5% candidate. –What are your specific qualifications that make this project a success. –Current expertise should be stated as well as future expertise gained during the career development (tailored to the research objectives).

13. If limited experience/publications: state limitations, for example new and challenging techniques etc. Mentor’s letter can help. Developing Candidate Statements

14. Candidate Career Development Plan Research Project Mentoring Team, including Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s) Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate Scored Review Criteria

15. Does the candidate have a well-defined career development plan? Describe in detail how you will use the mentored phase to acquire new skills & knowledge. −Didactic course work and hands on training needed to achieve the objectives of the research plan. −A plan for attending ethics courses, journal clubs, seminars, data review, lab meetings, conferences, or a training in grant writing etc.. Describe specific activities designed to achieve each goal (Timeline). How will you use this additional training to distinguish yourself from your sponsor? Describe how your institutional environment will enhance your success in achieving your goals. When you finish the mentored phase will you be well-positioned to seek an independent faculty position and compete for an R01?

16. Candidate Career Development Plan Research Project Mentoring Team, including Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s) Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate Scored Review Criteria

17. Research Project The format of the Research Plan Specific Aims (1 page) Research Strategy: a)Significance b)Innovation c)Approach hypothesis-driven not overly ambitious or routine

18. Are outcomes, potential problems, and alternative approaches thoughtfully considered? Is there a clear delineation between the studies performed during the mentored and independent phases? Clearly state how you will overlap and how you will distinguish your research from your mentor’s. Does the proposed research have the potential to significantly contribute to the goals of the program/institute? Description of a Good Research Project

19. Candidate Career Development Plan Research Project Mentoring Team, including Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s) Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate Scored Review Criteria

20. Mentoring Team Do they have a strong record of providing excellent training? Are they established, well-funded investigators? Are they committed to your training and successful transition into a faculty position?

21. Your mentoring team should be chosen based on the proposed specific aims of the project. Co-mentors/collaborators help fill in the gaps when specific aims are outside your and/or your mentor’s expertise. Use an outside collaborator/expert; Someone nationally known for their expertise. Make sure his/her expertise is synergistic with your advisor. Ask the expert if you could spend some time in their lab learning a new technique at your own expense. Co-mentors/collaborators for basic science grants vs. epidemiological vs. clinical/translational grants. How to Establish a Strong Mentoring Team

22. Trainee’s research project preferably should be distinct from the mentor’s research project. However, If research area is too different, there will be questions on whether the mentor is appropriate for the proposed project. Some overlap is helpful. For example, a new system but current technology or a new technology using current system. How to Establish a Strong Mentoring Team

23. Mentor’s Statement About the Candidate About the Mentor About the Project About the Institution

24. Mentor’s Statement About the Candidate Research abilities and potential to contribute significantly based on current expertise and research training. Evidence of candidate’s research productivity (good place to discuss unpublished papers). How candidate’s current and future training will prepare him/her to implement a successful independent phase. Why there is a need for additional training. Candidate’s commitment to a career in biomedical research. Candidate’s current and long term research goals.

25. Candidate Career Development Plan Research Project Mentoring Team, including Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s) Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate Scored Review Criteria

26. Description of Institution/Environment Describe in detail the resources and the expertise available to you at your institutions. Supports collaborative efforts, scientific interactions. Has a number of scientific leaders. A strong statement of Institutional Commitment is essential!

27. Protections for Human Subjects Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children Vertebrate Animals Biohazards Select Agents Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research *“Applications lacking a plan for instruction in responsible conduct of research will be considered incomplete and may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed. ” *NOT-RR-11-005 Budget and Period of Support Resource Sharing Plans Additional Review Criteria and Considerations

28. Each proposal is reviewed by 2–3 reviewers Each proposal gets an Impact Priority score: 10 (exceptional) to 90 (worst) bottom 50-60% may be unscored. A K99/R00 application is usually reviewed by a special panel within the institute it is sent to. Do your homework, look up panel members and do a PubMed search. No guarantee that they will actually be at the review meeting, but it can’t hurt to know their expertise while writing your proposal. Review Process

29. MEETING ROSTER Subcommittee F - Manpower & Training National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE NCI-F Manpower & Training Grants NCI-F CHAIRPERSON DOHERTY, GERARD M., MD NORMAN W. THOMPSON PROFESSOR, SECTION HEAD, GENERAL SURGERY CHIEF, DIVISION OF ENDOCRINE SURGERY RESIDENCY PROGRAM DIRECTOR UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 3 MD PhD, 8 MD, 14 PhD SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ADMINISTRATOR PROGRAM REPRESENTATIVE GRANTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT

30. Think like a reviewer “NIH Guideline” Has a depth and breadth of knowledge, experience, wisdom, knows the interest of scientific community, and will give the best scores to those that are most likely to contribute to our body of knowledge. Not familiar with your technique or your specific field of research. Must read 10-15 applications. A successful application is clear, precise, easy to read, has a detailed experimental design section, and is free of typo or other errors.

31. Two common mistakes of new applicants “NIH Guideline” Too little detail about the research, and justification of the significance of the problem. Proposing far more work than can be done during the grant period.

32. Be realistic about the time things take A year to collect preliminary data 2-3 months to write the grant 5-6 months from submission to review 1-2 months to receive summary statements >9 months from submission to funding, if you are lucky.

33. Apply Early! Don’t wait until you are in your 4th year.

34. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/QsandAs.htm Frequently Asked Questions about K99/R00

35. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/contacts/parent_K99_R00.html K99/R00 Contacts at NIH Contact your Scientific Review Officer, Program Officer. They have been very helpful!!

36. Acknowledgements Fariba Behbod, Pharm.D., Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dept. of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine The University of Kansas Medical Center