1. Funding for Academic Environment
Presented by:
Ronald Braithwaite, Ph.D. Professor Morehouse School of Medicine Departments of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Family Medicine and Psychiatry
April 27, 2011
Substance Abuse and HIV/AIDS in Latinos: Linking Research with the Community

2. “Anatomy” of the Grant Process
Researcher
Idea
Institution
Program Staff
Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA)
RFA or PA
Collaborators
Grant Application
(R01, R03, R21,
K01, K08, etc.)
Revision
It all begins with you! $
National
Advisory
Council
CSR
Referral
and Review
Program Staff

3. Extramural Research
NIH has 3 major funding instruments to support extramural research:
Grant: Investigator decides the research to be designed or developed and the approach.
Contract: Government decides the research to fill their perceived need and establishes detailed requirements.
Cooperative Agreement: Similar to grants, but awarding Institute/Center (IC) and recipient have substantial involvement in carrying out the project's activities.

4. NIH Behavioral and Social Research Support in FY 2002
NIMH $
NIDA $
NICHD $
NCI $
NIA $
NIAAA $
NHLBI $
NINR $
NIDCD $
NINDS $
NCRR $
NEI $
NIDDK $
NIAID $
NIDCR $
OD $
NIAMS $
NHGRI $
NCCAM $
NIEHS $
NIGMS $
FIC $
NLM $
NIBIB $
NCMHD $
Total $2,399.5

5. Award Mechanisms: Research Project Grants
Traditional – R01
Exploratory/Developmental Grants – R03/R21/R33/R34
Program Project – P01
Research Center Grants – P50, P60
Small Business – R41, R42, R43, R44

6. Career and Research Training Awards
Ensure diverse pool of highly trained scientists to conduct biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research
Career Development Awards – K
Training Grants – T
Fellowships – F
Point out specific session on Training & Career dev grants.

7. So … What Type of Grant Is Right for Me?
Stage of research career?
- experience and expertise?
Research needs?
- mentors or collaborators?
- size of project?
Talk with staff …
They will help you find the right funding mechanism.

8. Funding Mechanisms Graduate Student NRSA F30, F31, R36, T32
Postdoctoral
NRSA F32, T32
Transition
K01, K08, K23, K12, K22, K99/R00
Early Career
R03, R21, R15
What is a funding mechanism? It’s not the levers and rods that operate the drawer on your friendly neighborhood ATM.
It is a bewildering and baffling cacophony of generally incomprehensible acronyms that describe the kinds of grants that the NIH gives. In general the acronyms have all of the inherent meaning of the beat frequency of a distant pulsar.
There is some sense, though:
F = fellowship
T = training
R = research
K = kareer development (Spelling is the Department of Education.)
Mid-Career
R01, K02, P01, K24
Senior Investigator
K05

9. NIH Grant Mechanisms R01 Traditional investigator-initiated grant
< $500K/yr, 3-5 yrs. Need approval if more than $500K for any year of the grant
R03 Small Grant
< $100K for 2 yrs
R21 (NCI) Exploratory/Developmental Grant
< $275K for 2 yrs
R13 Conference Grants
amount dependent on score, timeliness, budget, NIH interest

10. Career Development Awards
Career Development Programs (K series)
K01 Mentored Research Scientist Development Award
K08 Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award
K22 NCI Transition Career Development Award
K23 Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award

11. NCI Research Fellowships and Training Funding Opportunities
Fellowships (F series)
F32 Individual Postdoctoral Fellows
F33 Senior Fellows
F31 NIH Predoctoral Fellowship Awards for Minority Students
Training (T series)
T32 Institutional Research Training Grants
Predoctoral Research Training Partnership Award (TU2)
Individual postdocs F32 - for applicants with the potential to become productive, independent investigators in fields related to the mission of NIH
Research training on a full-time basis, at least 40 hrs/ wk with restricted clinical duties
NIH PREDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP AWARDS FOR MINORITY STUDENTS (F31)
<5 years of support for research training leading to the Ph.D. or equivalent degree; the combined M.D./Ph.D. degree et al in biomedical, behavioral sciences, or health services research.
Academic institutions identify & recruit students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups.
NOT for MDs or other professional degrees unless also enrolled in combined professional doctorate/Ph.D. degree program in biomedical, behavioral, or health services research.
Review Criteria
Quality of the academic record and the prior research experience of the applicant as well as the potential for independent contributions to scientific knowledge;
Quality of the graduate program in which the applicant is enrolled or has been accepted for enrollment;
Qualifications and the research/research training experience of the applicant's sponsor or research advisor;
Match b/t research interests of student & research advisor/sponsor and quality of career development plan;
Quality of research training plan including training in the responsible conduct of research
For advanced graduate students, scientific significance, originality, and feasibility of the proposed research; for beginning students, quality and clarity of stated research interests.

12. Components of a Successful Grant Application – Bottom Line!
Strong Idea
Strong Science
Strong Application
A strong idea, backed by strong science, leads to a strong application.

13. Some key considerations
Write a clear and concise abstract
Never assume that reviewers “will know what you mean”
Tell a coherent and consistent story
Write for a multidisciplinary audience
Place your project in a larger scientific/public health context
Create a cohesive application package
Pay attention to grammar and spelling!!
Conduct a “mock” review with colleagues

14. Before You Start Writing
Do your homework!
Find the right NIH Institute
Review the Institute FOAs
Find the right funding mechanism
Know the review committee(s)
Talk to the Program Officer at the Institute
DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Except for deciding on a funding mechanism, there’s no requirement that you do any of these!

15. Concept Development -- What will be learned?
Questions to continually ask
yourself:
-- What will be learned?
-- Why is this research important?
HINT!!
The reviewers are going to ask these questions too.

16. Planning Guide for New Applications8 4 5 6 7 2 3 1
Months before receipt date
PLANNING PHASE
WRITING PHASE
SUBMISSION
PHASE
Receipt Date
Meet institutional deadlines
Assess yourself, your field, and your resources
Brainstorm; research your idea; call NIH program staff
Set up your own review committee; determine human and animal subject requirements
Get feedback; edit and proof read
This is just a sample, but it is worthwhile to lay something out like this.
HINT!! Putting something like this in your application, showing your notion of the timeline for completing the research you proposed is a GOOD THING.

17. The SCIENCE Define a fundamental question
Transform idea(s) into an exciting story/
“a scientific journey”
Build confidence and enthusiasm (and
sense of importance/relevance of your
particular research to the field)
The second bullet here is really important. Tell a story. Make the reader want to read more. Here is where having someone read it over for you can be really helpful. Ask them if the way is was written made them want to continue reading.

18. Writing -- General Comments
Investigate a significant issue
in science
Use clear and concise language
Propose a doable project
What is a feasible project? One that can be done with:
The techniques you propose
The time frame you propose
The people you propose

19. Writing -- General Comments (cont)
Create interest and build enthusiasm
about project
Be very concerned about
“packaging”
Never assume your audience will
“know what you mean”
For this third bullet you have to do a bit of a balancing act. You want to provide all of the information the reviewer needs to review your application, but you have page limitations too. This is where knowing the charge of the review committee and its makeup, in terms of scientific areas, can be very helpful.

20. Title (the “Hook”) Clear and descriptive
Here’s your first shot at winning over the audience.

21. Abstract (Project Description)
Present the big picture
There isn’t enough space to wow the audience with technical acumen in the abstract.
But…………

22. Abstract (Project Description)
… the 2nd “Hook” … use it as another important opportunity
If the reviewers aren’t excited after reading the abstract…………….
Hope you brought a life jacket.

23. … to convince reviewers
The Application
12 pages
… to convince reviewers
Page limitation was changed for the January 2010 receipt date. 12 pages for the R01 and most Ks, others (R03s for instance) are 6 pages
This is it. This is where you have to really do your best job of writing.
Let’s talk for a minute about the people that will be a part of your application.
*For RO1s, most Ks and some other grant mechanisms
keep abreast of changes
by subscribing to the NIH Guide!

24. Key Personnel Justify thoroughly
You need to have the right people to do the job!

25. Why are YOU the person to do this?
Biographical Sketch
Who ARE you?
Why are YOU the person to do this?
Personal Statement
Maximum of 15
publications
First is YOU!!
This is a really important section. It’s here that you provide evidence that YOU! are qualified to lead this endeavor. And there’s a new way to do that – with a Personal Statement! From each Key Personnel.
Do you have the experience needed in the methods? With the specific question?
Now I want to step back for a second and talk for a bit about where you are, as an applicant, in terms of your career.
As I showed in an earlier slide, there are career development grant mechanisms that are designed especially for people at different stages of their careers. Of real importance to most of you, though, is that the NIH is committed to supporting new investigators and people at the early stages of their careers.

26. Consultants/Collaborators
Justify thoroughly
These have to work hand-in-hand with your qualifications. Between your talents and expertise and those of your collaborators you have to have all of the bases covered. If not, trouble.
Avoid putting on someone just because they are a “big name”. You don’t want to see a comment like: “Dr. Smith/Jones is listed as a collaborator but his/her role is unclear.”

27. Duration of Study Justify thoroughly
This can trip up less experienced folks. This is kind of another balancing act. You don’t want to be criticized for proposing a time frame that implies a lack of confidence in what you can accomplish, on the other hand, you don’t want to propose to do 10 years of work in a 3 year grant. Again, a review by some of your more experiences colleagues can be a real help here.

28. Do not underbudget or overbudget Justify! Justify!! Justify!!!
and
Justify! Justify!! Justify!!!
Even in these days of modular budgets this can be important. Be realistic. Many of the people who will be reading your application have done or are doing similar work. If you propose a budget that doesn’t make sense in terms of what you propose to do it can be taken as evidence that you don’t really know the research very well.

29. Specific Aims What will be the IMPACT! Summary of your goals
Your best shot! If the reviewers aren’t enthusiastic
by the end of the Specific Aims they’re
seldom won back.
ONE PAGE to encapsulates the whole project.
This is what you hope to achieve and this is how it will IMPACT your field.
This may be THE most important section of your grant application.

30. Research Strategy – 4 sections
Significance
Innovation
Approach
Preliminary Studies/Progress Report
This section should EXPLICITLY address the 3 review criteria - Significance, Innovation and Approach

31. Significance
Why is what you want to do important?
How will what you want to do change the field?
This section sets the stage. The reviewers have read your Specific Aims. They know what you want to do. This is where you convince them why you want to do it!

32. Innovation What’s new here? Are there novel concepts, approaches,
methodologies?

33. Approach
Provide rationales throughout as to why certain methods were selected and why key alternatives were not
Provide timeline – a realistic and well- planned estimate of start/end times for each experiment
Address potential problems and solutions
This is where the rubber meets the road – the core of the application. Although the NIH has tried to stress the importance of significance and innovation “the devil is in the details” is an adage that still applies to almost all kinds of grant applications.
The timeline can be very important because it shows the reviewers that you have thought through the project.
With respect to the latter – next slide

34. Approach identify weaknesses and explain how
Exercise humility – it is far better to
identify weaknesses and explain how
you will deal with them than it is to
hope that the reviewers won’t
find them (they always do!)
Highlight strengths of application
whenever you can!

35. Approach (Avoid These Criticisms!) Not enough detail
Methods out of date
Experiments don’t test the hypotheses
What hypothesis/hypotheses?
Not enough detail. This one is thorny given you now have only 12 pages.
Methods out of date. Isn’t always a valid criticism. Make sure that you can justify choosing the methods that you did. There is a temptation to stick with what you know. Not always a bad thing. But don’t open yourself up to the criticism of “a method looking for a problem”
The last two are really important. Do some mental “if…….then” experiments. If this experiment comes out this way, then…….Try to avoid any that end with “yeah, but…” or “what if…..”

36. Approach (Avoid These Criticisms!) No place to go if Aim 1 fails
Fishing expedition
No place to go if Aim 1 fails
Inappropriate statistical analysis
Insufficient power
Sequence & priorities missing - logic/flow
In terms of this last bullet, this is where the having someone read it over for you can be especially helpful – see if the logic of your Research Plan makes sense to someone reading it for the first time.

37. And Don’t Forget to talk with
Be ProACTIVE!!!
Be PERSISTENT!!!
PLAN Ahead!!!
And Don’t Forget to talk with
your PROGRAM OFFICER!!!

38. “OVERALL IMPACT”
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed). 

39. 9-Point Scoring System

40. 1st Level Review Standing study section typically has 12-24 members
Typically 3 meetings each year face-to-face or electronic
Review applications at each meeting

41. Summary Statement The summary statement contains:
Overall Resume and Summary of Review Discussion for applications that are discussed
Essentially Unedited Critiques
Priority Score and Percentile Ranking, if given
Budget Recommendations
Information about human subjects and other matters, as needed, and administrative notes

42. NOW WHAT TO DO?! Read summary statement Re-read summary statement
Talk with your Program Officer
Talk with your colleagues
If the weaknesses can be fixed, revise and
resubmit the application

43. Common Problems in Applications (check prior to submission)
Diffuse or unfocused research plan
Studies lack cohesiveness
Insufficient detail
Insufficient evidence of knowledge of relevant literature
Unrealistically large amount of work
Uncertainty concerning future directions
Lack of specific data to show feasibility of approach

44. Common Problems in Applications (Continued)
Absence of new or original ideas
Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale
Insufficient evidence of experience in the essential methodology
Outdated methodologies
Questionable reasoning in approach
Uncritical approach
Poor preparation and presentation

45. Common Problems in Applications (Continued)
Inadequate consideration of protection
for human or animal subjects; absence or
problems with data and safety monitoring
procedures
Missing or inadequate inclusion of
Women
Minorities
Children

46. On-Time Submission
Initial submission must have a Grants.gov timestamp on or before 5:00 p.m. local time of submitting organization on the receipt date.

47. My Top Ten Critical Factors
Identify the gap in science you will fill
Clearly define Hypothesis/Scientific Aims
Clearly define design
Clearly define primary outcome
Link outcomes to specific measures
Limitations Section: proactively defuse weaknesses and justify your decisions
Have others read it prior to submission
Detailed Recruitment and Retention
Timeline/Feasibility
Pilot Data, Pilot Data, Pilot Data
Repeat core Issues at least 3X
Explain your rationale/choices

48. Why points are deducted (by me)
Design
Unclear
Schedule of assessment
Wrong Control Group
Lack of Theoretical Grounding
Wrong Statistical Model
Insufficient/Incorrect Power Calculations
Lack of Pilot Data (RO1 only)
Weak/Wrong/Unspecified Measures

49. The “Top Ten” List Read and re-read the program announcement
Assemble a strong research team
Use the strongest study design possible
If you have not been on a study section, confer with someone who has
Be sure to document the innovations(s)
Document strong access to the study population
Make sure the writing, organization, & grammar are as tight as possible (write, re-write…read, re-read)
Seek reviews before submission
Make careful use of the summary statement
Persevere and don’t take rejection personally

50. Most Common Problems Lack of new or original ideas
Diffuse, superficial or unfocused research plan
Lack of knowledge of published relevant work
Lack of experience in the essential methods
Uncertainty concerning the future directions
Questionable reasoning in methodological approach
Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale
Unrealistically large amount of work
Lack of sufficient methodological detail
Uncritical approach

51. Thank You
Q & A