NIH Grants: Strategies to Improve Your
Competitiveness
Silvia da Costa, Ph.D.Director of Faculty Research Relations
Office of Research
Research Grants Competing Applications and Awards
The NIH Peer Review Process
Application received Assignments made
Initial peer review Funding considerations
Scientific Review Group Institutes or Centers (ICs) (Study section) (Duals possible) Scientific Review Officer Program Officer
Second level of reviewCouncil
Funding decision IC Director
Award!
Research to address the needs of the Funding Institute
CRISP RePORTER
Choosing the right study section
Grant Sections
Early Stage Investigator
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Research to address the needs of the funding institute
The NIH Peer Review Process
Application received Assignments made
Initial peer review Funding considerations
Scientific Review Group Institutes or Centers (ICs) (Study section) (Duals possible) Scientific Review Officer Program Officer
Second level of reviewCouncil
Funding decision IC Director
Award!Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
The NIH is not interested in funding good science
The NIH is interested in funding good science that meets the needs of the of the funding institute
“Small business” mentality: Your proposal as an “investment”
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
To which Institute should you submit your grant?
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
Awards by Institutesorted by average number
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
2010 Funding Success Rate per NIH IC
FIC
NLM
NINR
NHGRI
NIDCD
NIAAA
NIBIB
NEI
NIDA
NIMH
NIDDK
NHLBI
NCI
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Chart Title
FIC
NLM
NINR
NHGRI
NIDCD
NIAAA
NIBIB
NEI
NIDA
NIMH
NIDDK
NHLBI
NCI
$- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000
Award Amount (‘000s)
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
NIH RePORT
http://report.nih.gov/reports.aspx
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
Institute Strategic Plan
http://report.nih.gov/reports.aspxResearch to address the
needs of the funding institute
http://report.nih.gov/strategicplans/index.aspx
Institute Strategic Plan
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
Institute Strategic Plan
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
Institute Strategic Plan
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
IC Area of Interest
http://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
Any Questions
Research to address the needs of the funding
institute
The NIH Peer Review Process
Application received Assignments made
Initial peer review Funding considerations
Scientific Review Group Institutes or Centers (ICs) (Study section) (Duals possible) Scientific Review Officer Program Officer
Second level of reviewCouncil
Funding decision IC Director
Award!
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
CRISP RePORTER
CRISP RePORTER
CRISP RePORTER http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Choosing the right study section
Who will be reviewing your grant?
Identifying potential members of your
Scientific Review Group
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Choosing the right study section
http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx/
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Choosing the right study section
http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Pages/default.aspx
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Choosing the right study section
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Choosing the right study section
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Choosing the right study section
Grant Proposal Cover Letter
Application title FOA # and title Request:
• Place SRG & IC review requests on separate lines• Place positive & negative requests on separate lines• Include name of IC or SRG, followed by a dash and acronym• Provide explanations for each request in a separate paragraph• You can ask for a specific study section but it is not necessarily
guaranteed…• Check eRA Commons regularly to see confirm to where it was
assigned.• Contact the PO immediately if it was not assigned to the section
you wanted - they usually will try to accommodate your request
Choosing the right study section
Any Questions
Choosing the right study section
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Grant sections
Good Grantsmanship
Grant writing is a learned skill!
Grant sections
Porter, R. Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposal. J Res Admin XXXVIII(2):37-43,2007
Scholarly pursuit:Individual passion
Past oriented:Work that has been done
Theme-centered:Theory and thesis
Expository rhetoric:Explaining to reader
Impersonal tone:Objective, dispassionate
Individualistic:Primarily a solo activity
Few length constraints:Verbosity rewarded
Specialized terminology:“Insider jargon”
Sponsor goals:Service attitude
Future oriented:Work that should be done
Project-centered:Objectives and activities
Persuasive rhetoric:“Selling” the reader
Personal tone:Conveys excitement
Team-focused:Feedback needed
Strict length constraints:Brevity rewarded
Accessible language:Easily understood
Academic Writing Grant Writing
Grant sections
Approach: Restructured Research Plan
Previous Application New Application
Background and Significance
a. Significanceb. Innovationc. Approach
• Preliminary Studies for New Applications
• Progress Report for Renewal/Revision
Research Design and MethodsPreliminary Studies/Progress Report
Grant sections
Significance (1/2 page)
• Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field?
• If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?
• How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Innovation (1/2 page)
• Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?
• Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense?
• Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Grant sections
Biographical Sketch
• Personal Statement –what experience and qualifications make the applicant particularly well-suited for the project.
• Limited to 4 pages (per person)
• Publications limited to 15–5 most recent–5 best–5 most relevant to the application
Grant sections
Biosketch: Include the PMCID
Example
Varmus H, Klausner R, Zerhouni E, Acharya T, Daar A, Singer P. 2003. PUBLIC HEALTH: Grand Challenges in Global Health. Science 302(5644): 398–399. PMCID: PMC243493
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/citation_methods.htm
Grant sections
Specific Aims Page - OutlineBackground informationRelevance (medical/clinical)Gap in knowledge/Current
knowledgeLong-term goal (of your lab)Objective of the proposalHypothesis - Basis for hypothesisRational for studySpecific Aims
HypothesisHow it will be testedExpected Results
Why proposal is innovative SignificancePI / EnvironmentPositive Impact“Payoff” for the
Institute/FoundationGrant sections
Specific Aims Page – Target Audience
Grant sections
Specific Aims – Diagrams
Diabetic conditions
TGF
XXX YYY
WW abc
Diabetic Neuropathy
CVCV WSWS
Hypothesis: text text text text text text text text texttext text text text text text text text text text text texttext text text text text text text text text text text text
Aim 1 Aim 2
Aim 3
Grant sections
Specific Aims Page
Background informationRelevance (medical/clinical)Gap in knowledge/Current knowledgeLong-term goal (of your lab)Objective of the proposalHypothesis - Basis for hypothesisRational for studySpecific Aims
HypothesisHow it will be testedExpected Results
Why proposal is innovative SignificancePI / EnvironmentPositive Impact“Payoff” for the Institute/Foundation
What is not known is …
It is relevant because…
The objective of the proposal is..
The rational is based on the need to…
This proposal is innovative because…
The research is significant because..
It will have a positive impact due to…
Our unique research environment specializing in XYZ will assure the success of the proposed project…
It helps the XX institute fulfill it’s mission towards… or is in line with the goals of the institute in that…
Your job is to make the reviewer’s work easier!
Grant sections
Specific Aims Page Abstract
Grant sections
Experimental Design
HypothesisRationalePreliminary DataExperimental approachMethodsInterpretation of resultsPotential pitfalls Alternatives
Old format:
HypothesisRationaleExperimental approachMethodsInterpretation of resultsPotential pitfalls Alternatives
InnovationSignificance
TimelineGo/No-Go & Milestones
Significantly reduced Preliminary Data
New format:
Grant sections
Preliminary
data
Hypothesis
Assay 1 Expected Results Go/No-Go
Go
Quantitatable dataMilestone (M1);
Hypothesis Strengthened
No-Go
Alternatives&
Pitfalls
AlternativeAssays
Assay 2
Assay 3
Associated to M1,not necessarily to
individual assays.
Milestone (M1)
Assay 4No need for extensive detail
Grant sections
Alternatives & Pitfalls
Grant sections
Alternatives & Pitfalls
Alternatives&
Pitfalls
AlternativeAssays
Anticipated Results and Alternative Approaches: “There are no perceived obstacles to completing this aim with results as predicted.”
Demonstrate to the reviewer that you have thought of, and planned for, all possibilities.
Aim Timeline Yr.1 Yr.2 Yr.3 Yr.4 Yr.5
1 Assay 1 & 2 x
Assay 3 x x
2 x x
Milestones M1 M2 M3
Go/No-Go Gi Gii
Summarize with the Timeline
Go/No-Go identified in Alternatives & Pitfalls
M1: text, text, text; M2, text, text text
Milestones identified either in the main
text or with the Table
Your entire proposal summarized in one Table and
one FigureGrant sections
Response to Reviewers
Choosing the right study sectionGrant sections
Q: What if you know that you are “Right” and the reviewers are “Wrong”, is it appropriate to argue your position in your resubmission?A: NO!
Never be Argumentative ! Never be Abrasive !Do not do long term damage to
yourself
Always address all comments and critiques
Thank the reviewer for their effort
Remind them of the good comments
Response to Reviewers
Choosing the right study sectionGrant sections
The reviewer’s comments regarding the proposed mode of action of XXX are frankly astonishing and somewhat disturbing as they suggest a view biased in favor of the more conventional mode of action for antibody. Clearly this reviewer is not familiar with the anti-inflammatory properties of XXX and apparently did not read the background sections on ‘Antibody prophylaxis and therapy’ (section 3.3) and ‘Anti-inflammatory Activity of XXX’ (section 3.4) in which XXX mechanisms of action were discussed.
How to shoot yourself in the foot…
Any Questions
Grant sections
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Early Stage Investigator
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0Ag
e at
Firs
t R01
Aw
ard
Fiscal Year
Figure 1. Average Age of Principal Investigators with MD, MD-PhD, or PhD at the time of First R01 Equivalent Award from NIH, Fiscal Years 1980 to 2011
MD-PhD
MD Only
PhD Only
Early Stage Investigator
R01-Equivalent investigatorsNumber supported on competing awards, by career stage of investigator
Early Stage Investigator
NIH Priority: Continued Focuson New Investigators
• New Investigator is an NIH research grant applicant who has not yet competed successfully for a substantial, NIH research grant.
• Example: a PI who has previously received a competing
NIH R01 research grant is no longer considered a New Investigator. However, a PD/PI who has received a small grant (R03) or an Exploratory, Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) retains his or her status as a New Investigator.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/investigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649Early Stage Investigator
NIH Priority: Continued Focuson New Investigators
• Early Stage Investigators: ESIs are New Investigators who are within 10 years of completing their terminal research degree or within 10 years of completing their medical residency at the time they apply for R01 grants.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/investigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649Early Stage Investigator
New Funding Policy for New and Early Stage Investigators
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/investigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649
• For R01 applications as of FY2009, NIH expects to support New Investigators at success rates equivalent to that of established investigators submitting new applications.
• The majority of New Investigators are expected to be Early Stage Investigators
• This will apply to R01 grants only & is intended to discourage need to apply for R21 or R03 before R01
Early Stage Investigator
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
New
Inve
stiga
tors
as a
Per
cent
age
of A
ll Co
mpe
ting A
war
dees
Num
ber o
f New
and
Expe
rienc
ed R
01 E
quiv
alen
t Prin
cipa
l Inv
estig
ator
s
Fiscal Year
Figure 2. Number of New and Experienced Investigators on R01 Equivalent Grants and New Investigators as a Percentage of All Competing R01 Awardees (FY 1962 - 2011)
Established Investigators
New Investigators
Percent New
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigatorsEarly Stage Investigator
Funding Policy for NIs & ESIs
• Applications from ESIs, like those from all New Investigators, are given special consideration during peer review and at the time of funding.
• Peer reviewers are instructed to focus more on the proposed approach than on the track record, and to expect less preliminary information than might be provided by an established investigator.
• Applications will be clustered during initial peer review to the extent possible.
Early Stage Investigator
Special Programs for NIs & ESIs
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/investigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649
• Pathway to Independence Award (K99-R00) provides support as a postdoctoral scholar transitions from a training position to a faculty position
• Director’s New Innovator Award (DP2) provides
support to highly innovative research approaches
Early Stage Investigator
How does the NIH Recognize NIs & ESIs?
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/investigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649
NI and ESI status is determined automatically by the functionality built into eRA Commons, based on the investigator’s record of receiving NIH grants and the date of their terminal degree and/or completion of medical residency.
Make sure you are correctly designated as an ESIVerify your degree completion date in your
NIH Commons Profile (eRA Commons)
Early Stage Investigator
Extension of ESI Status
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/esi_extension_add.htm
ESI extensions will be considered only after the terminal research degree and/or the residency end date has been added to the eRA Commons Profile.
NIH will consider requests to extend the ESI period for reasons that can include medical concerns, disability, family care responsibilities, extended periods of clinical training, natural disasters, and active duty military service.
Early Stage Investigator
Loss of ESI Status
Status applies only to R01s
If you are applying for an R01 with another non-ESI, the proposal will not be reviewed as an ESI application. If awarded, you will lose your ESI
status.
Need to balance use of experienced collaborator with loss of ESI status.
Early Stage Investigator
Word Reduction & Editing Suggestions
Early Stage Investigator
Methods – Keep it Brief
A total of 1 x 107 cells in 0.4 ml of serum-free RPMI 1640 medium was transfected with 2 g of the reporter plasmid, 0.5 g of the Renilla luciferase control vector (pRL-TK; Promega), and 30 g of the expression vector by electroporation (250V and 950 F). Following electroporation, cells were incubated for 10 minutes at room temperature and then transferred into growth 10 ml of medium and cultured at 37°C and 5% CO2 for 40–48 hours.
Cells (1 x 107 in 0.4 ml of serum-free RPMI 1640 medium) were transfected with the reporter plasmid (2 g), Renilla luciferase control (0.5 g, pRL-TK; Promega), and expression vectors (30 g), by electroporation (250 V, 950 F), incubated (10 min, room temperature), transferred into growth medium (10 ml) and cultured (37°C, 5% CO2, 40 - 48 h).
A total of 1 x 107 cells in 0.4 ml of serum-free RPMI 1640 medium was transfected with 2 g of the reporter plasmid, 0.5 g of the Renilla luciferase control vector (pRL-TK; Promega), and 30 g of the expression vector by electroporation (250V and 950 F). Following electroporation, cells were incubated for 10 minutes at room temperature and then transferred into growth 10 ml of medium and cultured at 37°C and 5% CO2 for 40–48 hours.
The power of parenthesis…
78 to 58 words…
Methods – Keep it Brief
Cells (1 x 107 in 0.4 ml of serum-free RPMI 1640 medium) will be transfected with the reporter plasmid (2 g), Renilla luciferase control (0.5 g, pRL-TK; Promega), and expression vectors (30 g), by electroporation (250 V, 950 F), incubated (10 min, room temperature), transferred into growth medium (10 ml) and cultured (37°C, 5% CO2, 40 - 48 h).
Cells will be transfected by electroporation with the reporter plasmid, Renilla luciferase control and expression vector, then transferred into growth medium and cultured (40 - 48 h).
Cells (1 x 107 in 0.4 ml of serum-free RPMI 1640 medium) will be transfected with the reporter plasmid (2 g), Renilla luciferase control (0.5 g, pRL-TK; Promega), and expression vectors (30 g), by electroporation (250 V, 950 F), incubated (10 min, room temperature), transferred into growth medium (10 ml) and cultured (37°C, 5% CO2, 40 - 48 h).
58 to 23 words…
Figure Legends… Keep it briefFigure 2. Protein spots in 2-D gels for (A) DR0099, DR2340 and DRA0346: SsB, RecA and PprA, respectively; (B) DR0307 and DR1082: elongation factor G and light-repressed protein A, respectively and (C) DR1473 and DR2128: phage shock protein A and DNA-directed RNA polymerase alpha subunit, respectively.
Figure 2. (A) The spots of proteins in the 2-D gels: DR0099, DR2340 and DRA0346: SsB, RecA and PprA, respectively. (B) The spots of proteins in the 2-D gels: DR0307 and DR1082: elongation factor G and light-repressed protein A, respectively. (C) The spots of proteins in the 2-D gels: DR1473 and DR2128: phage shock protein A and DNA-directed RNA polymerase alpha subunit, respectively. (D) Relative protein expression levels of proteins. Protein expression was calculated as described in experimental procedures.
The values are the mean ± standard deviation
(D) Relative protein expression levels
Values are mean ± SD
(see Experimental Procedures)
of four independent experiments repeated twice each.
(n=4, in duplicate)
94 to 62 words…
Spell-check
First: Go to EDIT on the Word tool bar, choose SELECT ALL
Then: Go to TOOLS, LANGUAGE, SET LANGUAGEChoose English
Uncheck “Do not check spelling or grammar”Then click OK
“What is written without effort is, in general, read without pleasure.”
Samuel Johnson
Question marks from Stock images