1. Study Section Overview – The Process and What You Should Know
George Richerson, MD, PhD
Chairman, Neurology
University of Iowa

2. K08/K23 K08 or K23? When should you apply? As early as possible!
Some CNS-TP residents apply during residency
will

3. Time from end of residency to K award (in months)
(K awards made 1/2009 to 1/2014)
All
MD only
MD/PHD
K08
Mean
55.5
68.6
46.3
SEM
3.2
5.2
3.6 N 95 39 56
K23
60.6
63.9
43.2
2.9
8.9 55 46 9

4. Success of NIH Training Grants
NIH RPG award rates for first-time applicants with a prior LRP or K award are much higher than for those without:
For MDs: 44.1 percent vs 9.2 percent.
For MD/PhDs: 60.0 percent vs 10.1 percent.
Similarly, close to 80 percent of a cohort of MD/PhDs with past MSTP appointments ( ) have applied for RPGs
Approximately 78 percent have been successful.
NIH Physician-scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group Report. June 1, 2014.

5. How are K Awards reviewed?
By a study section devoted only to K Awards
NST-1 is the NINDS K Award study section
Each study section has its own personality
My description is of NST-1
General structure is the same for others

6. How are K Awards reviewed?
Study section meets three times per year in DC or other site
Meeting is held in a conference room at a hotel
About scientists – typically half in person & half on phone
NIH Program Officers usually join in person or on the phone
3-4 members read and “score” each grant before the meeting
Primary reviewer
Secondary reviewer
Tertiary reviewer
Discussant

7. Review of K Awards Focus is on 3 main parts of each grant: Science
Mentoring Plan
Career Development Plan (“Pathway to Independence” - How your K will lead to an R01 and independent lab)

8. Review of K Awards Scores of 1 to 9 assigned to each of five criteria
Candidate
Career Development Plan/Career Goals & Objectives/Plan to Provide Mentoring
Research Plan
Mentor(s), Co-Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s)
Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate
Expectation of faculty position – not contingent on K
Protected time (specific assignments)
Each grant given an “Overall Impact” score
Can weight 5 criteria however you feel is justified
½ of the grants are “triaged” based on preliminary scores of just the assigned reviewers – others might not read grant

9. How are K Awards reviewed?
Everything just described occurs before the meeting!

10. How are K Awards reviewed?
At the meeting
Everyone introduces themselves and their area of research
Everyone is asked if there is any grant on the “triage list” that they want to rescue.
A single vote is sufficient to rescue a grant.
Otherwise everyone marks that grant as “ND” (Not Discussed).
For each application, anyone in conflict has to leave room

11. How are K Awards reviewed?
Reviewers give “preliminary scores”
Primary reviewer gives overview
Touchs on each of the review criteria
Emphasizes score driving factors
Other reviewers summarize their main score driving factors
General discussion open to all members
Final scores by reviewers; Everyone enters their score into online scoring system; Anyone outside the range?
Typically takes 20 minutes per application

12. Review of K Awards After everyone is done scoring then they discuss
Training in Responsible Conduct of Research
Authentication of Key Resources
Vertebrate Animals
Human subjects
Resource Sharing
Budget

13. Review of K Awards Don’t read your review Don’t drone on
Scores often don’t change for main reviewers
If there is a difference of opinion the person with the worst score often has the most influence on other SS members
Not supposed to discuss any grants except as a group
Proceedings are confidential – don’t ever ask SS members for details of review

14. What Do You Do When Your Grant isn’t funded?
Read the Summary Statement dispassionately
Decide what you need to do to fix the grant
Resubmit if it is fixable
What if it is “Not Discussed?”

15. Type 1 – De Novo Submissions – 83%
Type 2 – Competing renewals – 17%
Lauer, Extramural Nexus, NIH, 2017

16. Type 1 – De Novo Submissions – 83%
Type 2 – Competing renewals – 17%
Lauer, Extramural Nexus, NIH, 2017

17. Type 1 – De Novo Submissions – 83%
Type 2 – Competing renewals – 17%
Lauer, Extramural Nexus, NIH, 2017

18. NIH Recommendations for K Award Reviews
NINDS would like to get K awards to applicants within months of residency if they have:
A prior record of conducting and publishing outstanding science on an important subject.
Submitted a well-written application on a significant topic with strong science and high quality preliminary data.
Constructed an excellent career development plan
Have outstanding mentors and mentorship plan
Have a project that has the potential for future funding
If the above are true then they should not be penalized for a lack of residency and post-residency publications.
Steve Korn, NINDS, 2016

19. Now you have your K Award!
What next?
This will be the hardest 5 years of your career – if you want to be successful
Increase publications
Career development
Learn new techniques or new scientific field
Develop independence
Prepare for an R01

20. NIH Physician-scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group Report
NIH Physician-scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group Report. June 1, 2014.

21. Where Should You Apply for Grants?
Send the same grant to multiple funding agencies (NIH, VA, DOD, Navy, NSF, Foundations)
Consider multiple grant mechanisms (R01, U01, PPG, VA Merit Review, DP2, StrokeNet, NeuroNEXT)
Choose an NIH Institute that will give you the best odds
Payline
Special programs / RFAs
Type of research they fund (14 institutes fund neuroscience)
Invest time learning about available programs and RFAs
Talk to NIH Program Officers – They care and want to help

22. If you do good science, everything else follows