1. Foundations in Writing Competitive NIH Proposals Joseph G. Grzywacz, Ph.D. Chair & Norejane Hendrickson Professor Department of Family and Child Sciences

2. Goal & Specific Aims Goal: Enable emerging investigators in obtaining their first NIH Grant Specific Aims – Delineate and dispel entrenched myths about obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – Illustrate common errors in grant-writing made by inexperienced investigators – Describe strategies for favorable reviews (and greater potential for funding)

3. My Background 1998 Ph.D. in HDFS from the University of Wisconsin Continuous NICHD Funding since 2003 – R03 (perfect score) – R21 – 3 R01s (perfect score on most recent) Co-I on several R01s funded by NIA, NIEHS, NIOSH In 2012, 2 nd highest funded NIH investigator across all departments of Family Medicine nationally Standing member of 2 NICHD Review Subcommittees Ad-hoc Review on several CSR review committees

4. Common Myths of NIH Grant Getting NIH only funds hypothesis-testing research NIH is not interested in conceptually-grounded research Reviewers are experts on the topic and methods of my study Program officials have a lot of sway over funding decisions Favorable reviews depend on the “luck of the draw” There are tried-and- true “methods” for grant-writing

5. Common Errors by Emerging Investigators Forgetting the NIH Mission Diluted or ambiguous specific aims – Determine the relationship between the psychosocial stressors, biobehavioral health, and health outcomes. Confusing “significance” and “innovation” – Significance: what critical problem is the work addressing – Innovation: how does the work move beyond status quo Background overkill Misalignment in “Design” Description – Over-focus on analyses in a primary data collection project – Under-focus on issues of sample design, loss to follow-up in secondary data analysis projects

6. Strategies for Favorable Reviews 1.“Psychology of the Reviewer” 2.Write each section with an eye toward the review criterion – What is the critical barrier in the evidence base, and how will overcoming this barrier advance health? (Significance) – The investigator(s) are well-equipped to accomplish the stated aims. (Investigators) – The research uses novel techniques or concepts. (Innovation) – The study design, recruitment and data collection techniques, measurement, and analyses are appropriate for achieving the scientific aims. (Approach) – The environment supports the likelihood the proposed project will be successfully completed (Environment)

7. Strategies for Favorable Reviews 1.“Psychology of the Reviewer” 2.Write each section with an eye toward the review criterion 3.Anchor the project in well-defined specific aims – Clear aims will have apparent requirements for study design, key measurements, and relevant analyses 4.Use “strong” writing – Shorter, active sentence structure – Word selection (e.g., “scholars suggest” versus “investigators argue”) – Make your point in the thesis sentence 5.Structure is your friend

8. Questions? Joe Grzywacz Family & Child Sciences jgrzywacz@fsu.edu 850-644-2484