1. Navigating the Grant Submission Process Anita L. Harrison Associate Director of Administration Hollings Cancer Center March 26, 2015

2. Presentation Outline Funding Opportunities NIH Grant Tools/Resources/Mechanics MUSC Grant Mechanics/Processes Tips for Success

3. Intramural Funding Opportunities  MUSC Research Web page –SCTR, COBRE, various MUSC Centers  Hollings Cancer Center Specific –ACS-IRG (Fall Request for Applications (RFA) and sometimes a Spring Request) - $30K and renewable for additional year; must be an Assistant Professor –Program Project Grant Pilot RFA (LOI due June 1) - $100K –Translational Pilot - $50K RFA to be released in Fall –HCC/Georgia Regents Univ. Pilot in Immunology – $50K will be released in April

4. Extramural Funding Opportunities  MUSC Resources –Office of Research Development (ORD) email alerts –PIVOT (best source for private foundation proposals)  Key Agency Pages –Grants.gov –NCI web page –NIH K Kiosk –Department of Defense –American Cancer Society

5. Types of Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA)  Program Announcement (PA) –Identifies areas of increased priority and/or emphasis on particular funding mechanisms for a specific area of science; reviewed by standing study section –Usually accepted on standard receipt (postmarked) dates on an on-going basisstandard receipt (postmarked) dates –Remains active for 3 years from date of release –Special Types: PAR : A PA with special receipt, referral and/or review considerations, as described in the PAR announcement  Request for Application (RFA) –Identifies a more narrowly defined area for which one or more NIH institutes have set aside funds Usually has a single receipt (received on or before) date specified in the RFA announcement –Reviewed by a special Scientific Review Group convened by the issuing institute  Request for Proposal (RFP) Solicits contract proposals. An RFP usually has one receipt date.

6. Presentation Outline Funding Opportunities NIH Grant Tools/Resources/Mechanics MUSC Grant Mechanics/Processes Tips for Success

7. NIH Grant Tools & Resources  NIH Reporter –A searchable database of federally supported biomedical research –Identify, analyze various NIH institutes research portfolios, funding patterns, funded investigators: –Identify areas with many or few funded projects –Identify NIH-funded investigators and their research –Identify potential mentors/collaborators

8. NIH Grant Tools & Resources  NIH Center for Scientific Review Great resources for applicants in developing successful proposals Critical to identifying the appropriate study section for your proposal Identifies the program officer for which you need to develop a meaningful relationship Your proposal’s title, abstract, specific aims should clearly align with your study section’s purview Every proposal is required to attach a cover letter to the Center for Scientific Review suggesting the NIH Institute, integrated review group and study section for which your proposal should be directed Your letter should also outline areas of key expertise needed for appropriate review but do not name specific reviewers

9. NIH Grant Tools & Resources  ERA Commons  The eRA Commons is an online interface where signing officials, principal investigators, trainees and post-docs at institutions/organizations can access and share administrative information relating to research grants.  You must have an ERA Commons account to apply for a federal grant.

10. NIH Grant Mechanics  NIH Grant numbers and Research Project Codes  Walk thru a Funding Opportunity Announcement  SF424 – basic guidelines for what to include in each section of the grant  NIH Scoring Criteria

11. NIH Grant Mechanics Application Type Activity Code Administering Organization Serial No Suffix Grant Year Suffix Other 1R01CA10022801A1 Type lNew Type 2Renewal (Competing continuation) Type 3Competing Revision/Administrative Supplement Application Type 4Extension- Request for additional years of support beyond the years previously awarded. Type 5Non-competing continuation Type 6Successor-In-Interest Type 7Change of grantee institution Type 8Change of NIH awarding IC for a non-competing record Type 9Change of NIH awarding IC for a Renewal application Typical NIH Grant Number – what do the parts tells you? 1R01 CA100228-01A1

12. NIH Grant Mechanics  NIH Grant numbers and Research Project Codes  Walk thru a Funding Opportunity Announcement  SF424 – basic guidelines for what to include in each section of the grant  NIH Scoring Criteria

13. NIH Grant Mechanics NIH Scoring & Review Criteria Every Application is scored (1-9) for the following components (some FOAs have additional criteria) - Significance - Investigator - Innovation - Approach - Environment

14. NIH Grant Mechanics NIH Scoring & Review Criteria Final Score is based on IMPACT 1)the importance of the topic you proposed 2)the likelihood that you can complete the experiments you designed and get the work done. Note that IMPACT is not an average of the scores in the other component areas (significance, investigator, innovation, approach and environment)

15. NIH Grant Mechanics NIH Scoring & Review Criteria Impact Impact/Priority ScoreDescriptorAdditional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses High 1Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses 2Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses 3Excellent Very strong with only some minor weaknesses Moderate 4Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses 5Good Strong but with at least one moderate weakness 6Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses Low 7Fair Some strengths but with at least one major weakness 8Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses 9Poor Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses Definitions Minor: easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen the impact of the project. Moderate: weakness that lessens the impact of the project. Major: weakness that severely limits the impact of the project.

16. “Anatomy” of Grant Process Program Staff Funding Opportunity Announcement Announcement Grant Application (R01, R03, R21, K01, K08, etc.) Grant Application (R01, R03, R21, K01, K08, etc.) NationalAdvisoryCouncilNationalAdvisoryCouncil Program Staff Program Staff $ RevisionRevision ResearcherIdeaInstitutionResearcherIdeaInstitution CSRReferral and Review CSRReferral Collaborators

17. Presentation Outline Funding Opportunities NIH Grant Tools/Resources/Mechanics MUSC Grant Mechanics/Processes Tips for Success

18. MUSC Grant Mechanics/Processes Identify and meet with your department’s grants management person (they will help you with budget, institutional approvals, interface with Office of Research & Sponsored Projects - ORSP) Know what your departmental requirements are for grant submissions (departmental deadlines, policies on submitting grants with no allowance for indirects, policies on submitting as a new PI, etc.) Every department is assigned an individual that submits grants to the agencies on your behalf (they certify that you have completed the application correctly; note grants are not awarded to individuals, they are awarded to MUSC)

19. MUSC Grant Mechanics/Processes EPDS (some refer to it as the “blue” sheet): Electronic Proposal Data Sheet – must be completed prior to submission to ORSP MUSC utilizes Cayuse as an interface between MUSC and grants.gov Your department may have an individual who will load your application or you may be expected to load the application. ORSP requires your application to be completed in Cayuse and your EPDS fully executed three days prior to agencies deadline (no exceptions)

20. Presentation Outline Funding Opportunities NIH Grant Tools/Resources/Mechanics MUSC Grant Mechanics/Processes Tips for Success

21. Grant Writing for Success Writing the Application:  Start early  Seek advice from colleagues  Start with a good idea  Talk to your NIH Program Official(s)  Use the NIH webpage (www.nih.gov)  Remember review criteria  Follow instructions carefully

22.  Lack of or weak impact  Significance not obvious or weak — Too ambitious, lacking focus — Unclear or flawed hypothesis — Feasibility unsupported  Poor writing  Applicant track record weak or lacking appropriate expertise  Approach flawed Common Reasons Cited for a Weak Application

23. Appropriate Writing Style Write to the funding source Write in the correct language of the field - but no jargon Never write in 1st person Clarity 5 W’s Write to inform –don’t use language that is biased Write to persuade –data from reputable source –use current data –establish credibility –No unsubstantiated opinions

24. Questions/Discussion