1. Grant Writing Workshop Specific Aims
Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM
The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study
Boston University School of Medicine
No industry relationships to disclose
Associate Editor, Circulation
2R01HL092577
1R01HL102214
N01-HC 25195
1P50 HL12016 1 1

3. Resources
FDD Page Isabel Dominguez created on grant writing tips researchers/grant-writing/
Russell & Morrison’s Grant Writers’ Seminars & Workshops The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook

4. BUMC Grant Writing Resources
Associate Provost for Research
Carter Cornwall’s Proposal Training
Clinical Research Resources Office
Clinical and Translational Science Institute
Corporate and Foundation Relations
Expertise and Instrumentation Search
Office of Medical Education
Office of Sponsored Programs
Vice Chair for Research (DOM)

5. 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

6. Getting Started How do you Pick a Topic?
What excites you and experts in your field?
Is it important?  Significance
Is it novel?  Innovation
Will it build an identity distinct from your mentor?
Read the everything you can find on the topic
NIH Reporter what is already funded on your topic
Will it build to subsequent funding/RO1s?

7. Getting Started? The Blank Page
Ask to see colleagues’ successful grants
Ask to see colleagues’ critiques
Have you blocked out time to write your grant???

8. How important are the Specific Aims?

9. How important are the Specific Aims?
Fundamental to the Application’s Success

10. Why are the Specific Aims Important?
Reviewers often determine a grant’s merit merely after reading the S.A.
Study section silent reading period. S.A. is only section most study section members will read
Roadmap to the entire grant

11. Specific Aims Chapter 7 - Grant Application Writer’s Workbook Outline Grant – Paragraph 1
Significance
Clinical
Current knowledge
Gap in knowledge/unmet need

12. Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 2
Long term goal
Big picture of research program
Objective of application
Central hypothesis and rationale
Links back to first paragraph

13. Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 3
Specific Aims – for each aim
Approach
Specific question
Sample
Design
Specific hypothesis tested

14. Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 4
‘Payoff’
Expected outcomes
Why group & environment perfectly suited
What impact on patients and field

15. What dew Raveiwrs KNOT want to sea?
Details details details
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 grant 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 flowLeads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers
A well-laid out grant 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  Correct references Clear subject headings Logical flow
Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the scienceSlick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content

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

17. What Are Common Pitfalls? Significance
Not of major public health import
Technical tour de force, but so what
Lack of a conceptual model
Lack of stated hypothesis seeking to test
‘fishing expedition’
Lack of generalizability
novelty, significance, conceptual model, overly ambitious scope, overdependence of project completion on success of one aim; participant selection, generalizability, power, multiple testing, confounding, questionable project feasibility, key expertise lacking, problematic quality control data, organization, questionable institutional support, inadequate mentoring plan,

18. What Are Common Pitfalls? Innovation
Incremental
novelty, significance, conceptual model, overly ambitious scope, overdependence of project completion on success of one aim; participant selection, generalizability, power, multiple testing, confounding, questionable project feasibility, key expertise lacking, problematic quality control data, organization, questionable institutional support, inadequate mentoring plan,

19. When should an early career investigator start working on a grant?
When should ALL
investigators start working on a grant?
When should an early career investigator start working on a grant?
You cannot start too early
2 submission rule: 1st submission must be strong
Grants not discussed higher chance of ‘double jeopardy’
S.A. formulated at least 3 months in advance
First draft 8 weeks
Mentors and colleagues have time to review draft at least 1-2 months in advance