1. Introduction to NIH
Alan J. Snyder, Ph.D. VP and Associate Provost for Research & Graduate Studies May, 2017

2. Outline About NIH: Scale, organization and character
Grant programs and applications
The review process
Advice
Resources

3. Scale, organization and character

5. Organization: Institutes & Centers (IC’s) Set agendas and fund research
NCI
NICHD
NINDS OD
NEI
NIDCD
NINR
NHLBI
NIDCR
NLM
NHGRI
NIDDK CC
NIA
NIDA
CIT
NIAAA
NIEHS
CSR
NIAID
NIGMS
FIC
NIAMS
NIMH
NCATS
NIBIB
NIMHD
NCCIH

6. What gets funded
Lots of basic science, with a substantial health/disease focus
Truly outstanding science with logical but possibly intangible relationship to understanding and treating disease
Sound science with clear opportunity for impact

7. Potential clinical impact
What gets funded
Potential clinical impact
Iogical, but intangible or remote
major, tangible
Quality of science
sound
excellent
outstanding No
Yes

8. Funding and review process are usually separate
How things get funded
Funding and review process are usually separate
Institutes and Centers (IC’s)
Set agendas, offer programs and fund grants
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Reviews the majority of grant applications

9. Your program official
Works for the Institute or Center (career position)
Interested in having a productive portfolio
Can be your friend and advisor
Has little discretion in funding

10. The Center for Scientific Review
Scientific Review Officers (career position)
Assign applications to review groups (“study sections”)
Recruit peer reviewers, conduct review sessions, prepare feedback
Peer reviewers
Your university colleagues
Majority nominated to standing study sections for 4 years
Standing members are R01 or higher PI’s
Others “ad hoc”

11. Institute/Center Council
Final approval of all grants
Most approvals en masse
Larger grants require specific approval

12. Grant programs and applications

13. Terminology: Grant Mechanisms
R01 – research project grant – the “flagship”
R21 – exploratory/developmental grant
R03 – small research grant
R15 – AREA grant
P series – program project and center grants
U series – cooperative grants

14. Terminology: Solicitations
Investigator-initiated (unsolicited) - most common
Calls for proposals in identified areas:
Program announcements
PA – No funds set aside and no special review
PAR – No funds set aside but special receipt dates and/or review process
PAS – Funds set aside
Request for applications (RFA)
Funds set aside, separately reviewed

15. R01 vs. R21 R01 – “flagship” investigator-initiated grant R21
Normally requires preliminary data (but check PA or PAR)
Usually renewable (traditionally, over and over)
R21
Requires only rationale (but see below)
Not renewable (gateway to R01)
Both R01 and R21
Require a well-constructed and specific plan
Require clear and convincing evidence that you can do everything you say you’ll do

16. New and Early Stage Investigators
Average age, PhD with first R01, is ~42
NI (new) – prior to first R01 or larger grant
ESI (early stage) – NI within first 10 years (plus any extensions) of terminal degree
Individual institutes and centers may give preferences to new and ES investigators
See grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/

17. New steps to share the wealth
NEW Grant Support Index (GSI)
R01 PI = 7 points
Applicants with GSI > 21 must explain how they’ll reallocate their efforts
Expected impact on 6-7% of investigators
Could free up funds for ~1,600 new awards/year
NIH expects to implement the GSI starting with the September 2017 due date

18. Application structure
Abstract – your story in a nutshell (write this last)
Introduction (amended apps only)
Specific Aims – your goals (write these first)
Research Strategy – your story
Significance – Aims and proposed work in context
Innovation – departure from the obvious and from the pack
Approach – your plan
Preliminary studies/rationale/progress report – your proof
etc. (not that these things don’t matter!)

19. The review process

20. Assignment New applications are assigned to
an Institute or Center (IC) according to the content. Dual assignment is possible
a review panel (“study section”).
Amended applications
generally go to the same review panel.
Renewal applications
go to the same IC.

21. Review criteria
Significance How does the world change if this project is done?
Investigators Are these people the best prepared to do it?
Innovation Does the work challenge current paradigms?
Approach Are studies well designed and poised to succeed?
Environment
Do the investigators have everything they need?

22. Review process
Each application reviewed in advance, usually by 3 assigned reviewers.
Written reviews posted prior to the live meeting.
Per initial triage, about half of applications are not discussed and receive a score of “UN” (unscored).
Lots of experiments, e.g., with pre-reviews.

23. Scoring system Criterion scoring – by assigned reviewers
Integer scores from 1 … 9 corresponding to Exceptional…Poor (sort of)
Impact (“priority”) score – by all panel members, only if discussed
Integer score from 1 … 9
Average x 10  score from 10 … 90

24. Review process
Reviewers provide an impact score from 1 (best) to 9 (worst)
Reviewers do not recommend funding
Reviewers may, and do, recommend budget changes, especially to carve out weak portions
Reviewers may, and do, recommend reduction in years of funding
5-year plan commonly yields 3 years’ funding

25. Trends in CSR review Mail reviews / pre-reviews (two-stage)
Use of less experienced reviewers

26. Funding: from CSR to the IC
Impact score  percentile within the review group
Applications ranked by percentile across review groups
Funding per available funds in IC or program
subject to across-the-board cuts to hit goals for numbers of funded projects
some program officer discretion at the margins
potential for partnering among IC’s
Program offices must justify funding based on the rankings from CSR.

27. Implications of the review system
Percentile is determined by the application’s position within the batch reviewed by the review panel.
Funding is determined by percentile rank and available funds at the Institute or Center.
Therefore, both competitiveness (or openness to your ideas) at the review panel and ”payline” at the IC affect your chances.

28. Some advice

29. Tips for NSF investigators
Most NIH grants are meant to be renewable, or gateways to long lines of research
Proposed work should usually be put in context of a longer-range plan,
yet should be self-contained as a project.

30. Tips for NSF investigators
NIH reviewers expect very specific plans
DO describe alternatives to key, less than fully proven techniques.
DON’T list mere possibilities without providing a clear sense of your intended approach.
Goal: Make reviewers fully confident in your ability to complete the work.

31. Tips for NSF investigators
NIH reviewers
evaluate proposals.
do not recommend for or against funding.
NIH program officials
fund proposals based on reviewer evaluations.
NEVER say in a proposal that the program officer liked your idea or suggested that you apply.

32. Tips for NSF investigators
NIH expects to cover salary and benefits for all faculty effort, year-round.
Absence of year-round faculty effort on the budget page can cause reviewers to question your commitment to the project.
Unless you have good reason to limit your grant budget, request full salary recovery.
Always show your full time commitment clearly.

33. Keys to success Know your audience
What they know, what they don’t know
Be cognizant of multidisciplinary and disease/system-oriented study sections
Remember: most reviews are done by overworked people on nights and weekends

34. Keys to success Telling a good story Engaging from the very start
Momentum/anticipation/surprise
A meticulously prepared, well-written, well-referenced, easy to read application
A clear, specific plan
With alternatives as appropriate in limited, critical, areas

35. Your goals Make the reader care about your research question
Make the reader want to know what happens (when you get to do the work)
Convince the reader that you can do it

36. Making them want to know
A clear problem or possibility important to people other than you
patients (but never stretch the argument)
caregivers (ditto)
scientists (more than those just like you)
A novel, interesting and promising approach

37. Convincing them that you can do it
A meticulously prepared, well-written application
No logical gaps
Demonstrated facility with key techniques
A sound structure to the overall plan

38. Things to avoid at all costs
A plan of unrealistic scope
The descriptor “ambitious” can be a positive, or a big negative.
“Specific Aim fatigue”
Think long and hard about more than three specific aims.
Hyperbole
Never call your own work “innovative.” That’s for reviewers to decide.

39. Things to avoid at all costs
Getting mired in technical details
Skipping over key details
An application that is, in any way, hard to read
Your own system of acronyms 

40. Use a cover letter to steer your application
…to an Institute or Center
Check success rate data online.
But be certain it’s a good fit.
Dual assignment is possible.
Speak with program officer(s) about fit.
…to a study section
Check rosters online.
Consider both individuals and disciplines/perspectives.
Again, be certain it’s a good fit.

41. The cover letter List expertise needed for review
Request IC and/or study section assignment
Point out RFA or PA
Request any exclusion of reviewers
competitor, long-standing scientific disagreement, conflict of interest

42. Work within NIH structure/culture
Address the right audience, separately and one at a time:
Review process – SRO, CSR
Advice & counsel, interpreting critique – program office
Grant application – peer reviewers
NEVER quote or characterize a conversation with your program office in an application

43. Resources
Applicant AND reviewer guidelines, study section rosters, and more…
public.csr.nih.gov
grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm
OER home page
grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm
RePORT success rate data
report.nih.gov/success_rates/