1. Grants for Lunch: Recycling your Grant Proposal William J Calhoun MD FACP FCCP FAAAAI Sealy and Smith Distinguished Professor of Internal Medicine Director: Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, Immunology, Critical Care, and Sleep [APICS]

2. Topics Grant strategy – avoiding the need to recycle! Grant review process – what you need to know Reading the critique (‘pink sheets’), and reading between the lines Composing your response

3. Grant Strategy - 1 Keys to NIH grant success  Outstanding science Make sure your ideas are up-to-date Novelty gets you some points Scientific rigor is essential

4. Grant Strategy - 2 Keys to NIH grant success  Clear written presentation Specific Aims page is the centerpoint  Start with Aims  Develop crisp, specifically testable hypothesis  Refine Aims  Keep Aims structurally simple Background must highlight the ‘holes’ in current knowledge (which your grant will fill) Strong and relevant preliminary data  Feasibility  Proof-of-concept Methodology description  Time line  Overall strategies  Specific methodologic details  Statistics  Organize – “Make the reviewers’ job easy”

5. Grant Strategy - 3  Perseverance

6. Grant Strategy – Do’s and Don’ts Do  Involve a senior investigator early in the process  Get the adminstrative and budget information completed early!  Get critical feedback often during the process  Read your own grant as if you were a disinterested reviewer  Avoid typographical errors and misspellings  Use figures and tables appropriately to augment the text  Write a story  Make the reviewers’ job easy!

7. Grant Strategy – Don’ts Don’t  Use fine print  Include superfluous data  Abuse appendices  Go it alone  Presume too much  Forget statistical analysis, power and sample size calculations?

8. Grant Review Process The Review Branch Role of the Executive Secretary The Study Section  Process  Scores  “Unscoring”  Critiques The Council

9. The Critique Scored or Unscored Priority Score Critiques  Reviewers 1, 2 (?3)  Summary Statement Reading between the lines – interpreting the code words

10. Now, the ball is in your court! Appeal / Advice  Was the critique fair?  Was there factual error in the critique? Submission Approach  Respond/amend (three strike rule)  New application

11. Revise, or Start Over (#1) ? Critique of first submission  Is the overall critique favorable or unfavorable?  Are there signals of lack of enthusiasm in the critique?  What is the priority score, or was it unscored?  Can you substantively address the points raised in the critique with additional background, or additional preliminary data?  Are the criticisms structural (investigators, environment, resources), scientific (experimental design, statistical analysis,etc), or philosophical?  How does your mentor / senior collaborator interpret the tone of the critique?  Default position is to revise and resubmit!

12. Revise, or Start Over (#2) ? Critique of second submission  All points of first submission are relevant  Was the second round of critique consistent, or inconsistent, with the first round?  Are there recurring concerns?  Does the tone of the critique invite, or discourage resubmission?  Default position is to Revise

13. Composing Your Response - 1 Response to Critique – 3 Pages  Tone Respectfulness, without obsequiousness Common desire for the best science Give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt Use areas of difference of opinion as an opportunity to reinforce your views Depersonalize!  Structure Point-by-point, reviewer-by-reviewer (generally best) Thematic response

14. Composing Your Response - 2 Content of Response  Scientific concerns Strong new data are the best Alternative interpretations Alternative methodologies Alternative scientific strategy  Structural concerns – address with specific changes YOU! Collaborators Environment Resources  Philosophical Concerns!

15. Composing Your Response - 3 Differentiate new and old content in the body of the grant  Don’t use underlining, shadowing, or bolding!  Don’t use color (NIH duplicates with B&W photocopiers)  Consider use of alternative font (serif / san-serif)  Consider use of margin highlights  “Make the reviewers’ job easy” Make sure that ALL new material in the body of the grant is referenced in the 3 page response  Judicious duplication of important material is OK  Conveys ‘responsiveness’ and collegiality to the reviewers  “Make the reviewers’ job easy”

16. Composing Your Response - 4 Take advantage of new material  New preliminary data  New publications  New ideas Consistent with original – extensions Inconsistent with original – ‘refining’  New collaborators  New institutional resources Integrate new material seamlessly with existing grant application Recognize that THIRD SUBMISSION is an up or down vote!