Reflections on Successful Strategies for Grant ProposalsRandolph J. Nudo, PhD

NIH Extramural Data Book – last update May 2008 Data provided by the Division of Information Services, Reporting Branch

SUCCESS RATES OF NEW (TYPE 1) R01-EQUIVALENT APPLICATIONS FROM FIRST-TIME AND ESTABLISHED INVESTIGATORS

NEDB 2

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fiscal Year

Succ

ess

Rate

First-Time Previously Funded

Your grant was hosed! What now?

First R01 application• Priority score = 372; percentile score = 71.2• Strengths = 3; Major Weaknesses = 8• “The ability to form meaningful conclusions of the

study hinges on the validity of the method and its analysis.”

• “…controversial method…caution must be taken in the interpretation…, but this is not discussed in the proposal.”

NIH Extramural Data Book – last update May 2008 Data provided by the Division of Information Services, Reporting Branch

More tidbits• “…experimental design section is not well organized… …

descriptions are inadequate.”• “The PI comes from a background where he has learned to

perform evaluation of receptive fields in layer IV in sensory cortical areas…no preliminary data to show that these responses can be recorded in motor cortex; layer IV does not exist in motor cortex.”

• “Are the changes in the data a consequence of the manipulation?”

Response to criticism• Resubmit as soon as possible.• Always remind the reviewer what they liked about your proposal

• “Although (the proposal) was given a poor priority score of 372, it seemed that the Study Section wanted to see the experiments done.”

• Don’t just provide an adequate response to major criticisms. Go above and beyond!• “…more thorough discussion of…” “Research Design and

Methods reorganized” “quantitative methods described in detail” “objective method” “describe reliably” “enables statistical procedures to be applied to estimates of variability”

• In the Introduction, focus primarily on red flag(s).

• Understand the criticism thoroughly. Defend your position confidently and unapologetically.– ½ page description of new preliminary data -- “We

routinely record somatic sensory receptive fields in motor cortex…” Placed in context of literature. “new section in Preliminary Studies…” Most extensive and quantitative to date.

NIH Extramural Data Book – last update May 2008 Data provided by the Division of Information Services, Reporting Branch

The subsequent review • Priority score = 157; percentile score = 9.9• Weaknesses = None.• “The PI presents interesting preliminary data…

The proposed studies will test ideas in a careful systematic fashion.”

• “Revision appears to address the criticisms raised in the previous review…high probability for success.”

Team Approach to Grant Team Approach to Grant WritingWriting

Methods for team Methods for team approachapproach

Engage the entire laboratory: graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, technicians

Everyone independently creates two or three specific aims

Aims are grouped (similar themes, similar methodologies)

Aims are prioritized (novelty, solid preliminary data, “fit” with other themes”, rationale, significance)

Best aims developed into full research design protocols. One or two lab members per aim

PI has more time to develop a bird’s eye view and concentrate on the overall program

Results of team approachResults of team approachPriority score = 134; percentile score = 0.4“The discussion of this application was fairly

minimal reflecting the fact that committee members were largely in consensus with respect to the numerous attributes of this study and few weaknesses.”

“If at first you don’t succeed, just keep on suckin’ till you do suck seed.”--Perverted proverb, Los Angeles area, circa 1960