A BEGINNERS GUIDE TO GRANT WRITING AND REVIEW

Transcription

1 A BEGINNERS GUIDE TO GRANT WRITING AND REVIEW Slides cotributed by: Nacy Desmod (NIMH) Margaret Jacobs (NINDS) Richard Ikeda (NIGMS) Luis Sataa (Uiv. Washigto)

2 Ehacig Your Chaces Talk to NIH: Look through the NIH web site to idetify appropriate Istitutes. Call the Program Directors at the Istitutes to discuss your idea. Make sure your applicatio is assiged to the correct Study Sectio. Discuss potetial Study Sectios with both Program Directors ad Scietific Review Admiistrators. Craft your applicatio carefully.

3 How do I kow who to call? Visit NIH istitute web pages to see what differet istitutes support ad what their iterests are. Go to CRISP ad search o your topic at Ask colleagues who do similar work who supports it

4 For Fellowships or New PIs Idetify a metor(s) ß ß ß ß with a track record with a commitmet to you & your career goals eed ot be your research advisor more tha oe is OK!

5 It Pays to Pla ahead ß ß ß ß ß Grat writig takes time probably more time tha you expect Bouce ideas off metors & colleagues Talk to program staff Decide o your target deadlie Get orgaized

6 Kow Your Audiece Reviewers are scietists from academe ad idustry. Reviewers do review for study sectios i additio to their regular job

7 SELECTION OF PEER REVIEWERS Research Capability No-Research Active ad Productive Researchers No-Doctoral Scietific Commuity

8 Do t be creative make the reviewers job easier ß Use the correct forms (PHS398 or PHS416) ß Follow the istructios ß Follow the recommeded format ß Fill the forms out completely ß Do t guess ask questios

9 Demostrate mastery of your research topic ß Explicitly state your ratioale. ß Cite the appropriate literature thoroughly. ß Iclude prelimiary data. ß Idetify problematic aspects of hypotheses or techiques; idicate back-up strategies. ß Provide expected/alterative outcomes ad iterpretatios. ß Do t forget your traiig/career developmet pla!

10 Grats Have Several Parts: All of Them are Importat Face Page, Budget, ad BioSketches Abstract Resources Research Pla Specific Aims Backgroud & Sigificace Prelimiary Results Research Desig Huma Subjects, Vertebrate Aimals

11 Be creative but pragmatic ß Formulate your Specific Aims ß Seek feedback ß Focused? ß Feasible? ß Realistic (ot overly ambitious)? ß Good traiig vehicle for you? ß Did I say Focus? Be certai every aim ad experimet is clearly related to the overall goal of your proposal.

12 For A Effective Specific Aims Sectio: Backgroud (itroductory paragraph) Overall Goal (Big Picture) Put your area of research i perspective Summary of prelimiary results

13 Backgroud ad Sigificace Do ot write it as a review article Highlight cotroversies ad how they will be solved by the proposed experimets Lik cotroversies ad outstadig issues to relevat sectios i your grat

14 Clarity is a Virtue, Especially i the Research Desig Restate aim Ratioale Approach/expected outcomes Potetial Pitfalls

15 Cosider the review criteria ß The cadidate: your backgroud ad potetial to develop ito a idepedet researcher ß Research pla: its scietific merit, sigificace, feasibility & relatioship to your career plas ß Traiig/career developmet pla: its compoets & how well it fits the research pla ß The sposor: his/her track record as both a researcher ad metor ß Istitutioal eviromet & commitmet to the traiig/career developmet of the cadidate

16 Keep The Basic Review Criteria i Mid: Sigificace Approach Eviromet Iovatio Ivestigator Huma Subjects/Vertebrate Aimals

17 Craftig The Applicatio Write clearly ad do t assume that the reviewers kow all that you kow. Explai the importace ad impact of the project. Orgaize the specific aims aroud testable hypotheses. Preset a coheret ad detailed research pla based that is based o the prelimiary results that are available. Explai how expected results will be iterpreted. Metio problems ad pitfalls that may be ecoutered. Provide alterative plas whe appropriate.

18 Help the reviewers do their jobs ß Use a reviewer-friedly format. ß Preset the proposal i bite-sized bits. Use sectio headigs, bold type, etc. to ehace readability. ß Be cocise! ß Walk the reader through the experimets. Do t just preset a list of methods. ß Iclude a explicit timelie.

19 A strog research proposal ß Has well-defied Specific Aims. ß Proposes ovel, iterestig & focused experimets. ß Is likely to advace kowledge. ß Provides supportig Prelimiary Data. ß Has a appropriately detailed Experimetal Desig. ß Documets appropriate scietific expertise. ß Has a reasoable & justified budget. ß Traiig applicatios eed other stregths too.

20 Improvig The Applicatio Typos ad poor grammar leave a egative impressio. Do t be overly ambitious. (I a summary statemet, the adjective ambitious is usually ot a positive commet.) Write a strog applicatio ot a log applicatio. Start early, Fiish early, Put the applicatio away for a week-the reread it.

21 Get a Review from Colleagues At least 4-6 weeks before your grat is due At least oe perso outside the field Is it clear? Do aims seem coected? Are there typos, missig citatios, etc?

22 Do t assume do t be sloppy ß Do t assume the reviewers will kow what you mea be clear. ß Watch grammar. Avoid jargo. ß Make sure you ve completed all required sectios i the idicated order. ß Get i-house critiques well i advace of the deadlie. ß Spell check ad ß Read your applicatio carefully before submittig.

23 About Usig Color Grats come to the NIH i hard copy Multiple copies of your applicatio are made for reviewers They oly see black ad white

24 Commo problems to avoid ß Lack of ew or origial ideas ß Absece of a acceptable scietific ratioale ß Lack of kowledge of relevat, published work ß Overly ambitious research pla ß Superficial or ufocused research pla ß Questioable reasoig i experimetal approach ß Lack of experiece with a essetial methodology ß Isufficiet experimetal detail

25 After Your Grat is Submitted

26 Referral, Review, ad Fudig Ceter for Scietific Review Istitutes ad Ceters Referral NIGMS NCI NIAID Review NHLBI

27 Role of Study Sectio Scietific Review Groups (SRGs) are to evaluate the scietific or techical merit of a applicatio SRGs do NOT make fudig recommedatios

28 Study Sectios Reviews coducted by Ceter for Scietific Review (CSR) ad idividual Istitutes/Ceters (IC s) Each stadig study sectio has members, primarily from academia Study sectios maaged by Scietific Review Admiistrator (SRA) As may as applicatios are reviewed at each study sectio meetig

29 Whe You Have Your Assigmet You may call the SRA to fid out about sedig additioal iformatio Rosters are posted approximately 30 days before the study sectio meets Look at the roster whe it is posted. Expertise Coflicts of Iterest

30 Before The Review The SRA is your poit of cotact prior to the review meetig. Your program admiistrator is your poit of cotact after the review meetig.

31 No-Nos Do t Do These Do ot cotact a study sectio member prior to the review. Do ot cotact a study sectio member after the review.

32 What Happes at the Review? The SRA assigs each grat to three reviewers well before the meetig. Primary, secodary, ad discussat Before the meetig, reviewers submit their commets to IAR. SRA determies (with Chair) what applicatios appear to fall i the lower half. These applicatios may be streamlied at the begiig of the meetig.

33 Streamliig Occurs at the begiig of the review meetig Applicatios are ot discussed Applicats receive critiques of reviewers that were writte before comig to the meetig

34 At The Meetig After streamliig, discussio of applicatios i upper half. Each assiged reviewer makes commets Discussio by group i geeral about poits of agreemet/disagreemet Everyoe votes a score based o what they heard i the discussio ad the recommedatios by the reviewers

35 The Review Criteria Sigificace: Does the study address a importat problem? How will scietific kowledge be advaced? Approach: Are desig ad methods welldeveloped ad appropriate? Are problem areas addressed? Iovatio: Are there ovel cocepts or approaches? Are the aims origial ad iovative? Ivestigator: Is the ivestigator appropriately traied? Eviromet: Does the scietific eviromet

36 After the Review Meetig Scores are etered ito database ad released. SRAs prepare summary statemets with revised critiques

37 Summary Statemet Overall resume ad summary of discussio Essetially uedited critiques Priority score ad percetile rakig Budget recommedatios Admiistrative otes Aimal/huma subjects cocers

38 Commo Problems i Applicatios Lack of ew or origial ideas Absece of a acceptable scietific ratioale Lack of experiece i the essetial methodology Questioable reasoig i experimetal approach Ucritical approach Diffuse, superficial, or ufocused research pla Lack of sufficiet experimetal detail Lack of kowledge of published relevat work Urealistically large amout of work Ucertaity cocerig future directios

39 You Get Your Summary Statemet: Now What? Scored applicatios Wait for your summary statemet Do ot call the SRA Call your program admiistrator Uscored applicatios

40 What if my applicatio is ot scored? Wait for the commets from the reviewers. Call your program admiistrator Rewrite Rewrite ad submit to differet study sectio

41 If you eed to revise ß Discuss the summary statemet; get help i revisig. ß Be polite. ß Be resposive to all of the reviewers criticisms. ß Put all ego aside. If i doubt, do it their way.

42 How to Respod to Criticisms Some criticisms are fairly easy to address: The prelimiary data i Figure 1 could be iterpreted as chromatid exchage, but the PI did ot discuss this possibility. We have ew prelimiary data (show i sectio) OR This is true, ad I appreciate the reviewer s takig the time to poit it out. I have icluded this possibility my discussio of our prelimiary data

43 Others are more difficult The research pla is overambitious. Remove a large sectio(s) of the grat? Reach a compromise? Argue agaist removig ay experimet?

44 Last, but hardly least ß Celebrate your efforts. ß Do t forget to call us. ß Have fu doig sciece.