1. Study Section Reviewer’s Top 10 Tips Academy for Faculty Advancement Grant Writing Study Section Reviewer’s Top 10 Tips Academy for Faculty Advancement Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study Boston University School of Medicine No industry relationships to disclose ♥1R01HL092577 ♥1R01HL102214 ♥Associate Editor, Circulation

2. Sally Rockey, Rock Talk, http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/03/our-commitment-to-supporting-the-next-generation/

3. Sally Rockey, Rock Talk, http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/03/our-commitment-to-supporting-the-next-generation/

5. NIAID has made four successful R01 applications available with the reviewers’ comments: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pa ges/appsamples.aspx http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pa ges/appsamples.aspx Page that Isabel and I put together on grant writing tips: http://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/for- researchers/grant-writing/http://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/for- researchers/grant-writing/

6. 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)

7. 1. 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

8. 2. What type of grant should you apply for? Bookmark funding websites ­NHLBI »http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm »listserv@list.nih.gov ­Your specialty society »E.g. AHA, ACS, etc. Check sponsored programs for other opportunities e.g. ­Robert Wood Johnson ­Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute ­Local foundations ­Read the BU sponsored programs emails

9. 2. What type of grant should I apply for? Review eligibility & match the funding mechanism with ­Your idea ­Training ­Publication record

10. 2. What type of grant should I apply for? Team Sports Advantages of MPI ­Psychological advantage of spreading the wealth ­Complementary skill sets ­Translational Ability to cover salary with only your funding ­Can you provide value being a co-investigator another person’s grants

11. 2. What type of grant should I apply for? Review eligibility & match the funding mechanism with ­Your idea ­Training ­Publication record Myth ­AHA doesn’t fund clinical work

12. 3. Getting Started How do you Pick a Topic? What excites you? Will it help you build an identity distinct from your mentor? Look at NIH Reporter to see what is funded by your institute, on your topic, via your mechanism http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm Will it build to an RO1

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

14. 4. How important are the Specific Aims? The reviewer should know in one page ­Why the question is important ­Why your approach is innovative ­Your aims »What hypothesis you seek to test ­Why your team/environment is well-suited to the conduct the study ­For a training grant »How the study fits into the rest of your career

15. 5. What do Reviews want to Read? Novel science that answers an important question ­Novel »Will the study shed new insights »Look in an unstudied/understudied population »Use an innovative technique ­Clinical relevance »Does it address a question of public health significance »Could you explain to a lay person ‘so what’ »Think family reunion & elevator speech

16. 6. What dew Raveiwrs KNOT want to sea? 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 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 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  Co rrect 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

17. 6. What do Reviewers NOT want to see? Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content but A sloppy grant  Instead aim ­No typos No grammar problems ­Avoid long paragraphs Correct references ­Subject headingsAvoid tiny font ­Logical flowAvoid 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?

18. 7. What Are Common Pitfalls? Exercise

19. 7. 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

20. 7. What Are Common Pitfalls? Innovation Incremental

21. 7. What Are Common Pitfalls? Investigators Unclear next steps  Does the project build your career  RO1 Lack of publications in field Lack of completion prior funding aims Key expertise lacking ­Statistician, ­Bioinformatician ­Specific experimental technique So much funding or lack of protected time ­Unclear ability to participate on current application

22. 7. What Are Common Pitfalls? Institutional/Environment Lacking ­Specific mentoring plan ­Experts in field ­Lack of space ­Protected time ­Support for career

23. 7. What Are Common Pitfalls? Approach Overdependence project completion on success of 1 aim Timeline ­Over-ambitious ­Unrealistic ­Absent timeline Confounding Quality control for measurements

24. 7. What Are Common Pitfalls? Approach not worked out Statistical methods reviewed by a statistician ­Power calculations »Several scenarios with assumptions laid out »Easy to understand ­Multiple testing

25. 8. Features that Wow the Reviewer Picture that elegantly and simply captures Your conceptual model Illustrates your data Outlines your study design Added bonus of breaking up the text and allowing the grant to breath

26. 9. When should an early career investigator start working on a grant? 1.You cannot start too early 2.With the 2 submission rule you need the first submission to be strong  Grants not discussed have a higher chance of ‘double jeopardy’ 3.Specific aims formulated at least 3 months in advance 4.First draft 8 weeks 5.Mentor s and colleague s have time to review draft at least 1 month in advance 6.You cannot start too early

27. Budget Do not over or under budget

28. 10. What if it doesn’t get a good score? Regroup with your mentors Address all major issues raised by the Reviewer ­Quote the Reviewer directly ­Have multiple colleagues read your introduction If you disagree, do so with utmost respect Setbacks are opportunities ­To reassess, realign, reinvigorate ­Reviewers may have saved you from wasting 4 years on a project to nowhere The key to success in research is resiliency

29. Get Involved in Your Professional Organization