“Successful Grant Writing”A Process

Dr. Don Frazier

Professor Emeritus, University of KentuckySchool of Medicine, Director UKMC Outreach Center for

Science and Health CareerOpportunities

PI UK/NIGMS Internet Grant Writing Program

What we know……

“Grantsmanship is a scholarly activity andGrantsmanship is a learned skill”

1st Rule: Start Early

Pre-submission

How to get started

The Idea – Research Plan

1. Fits with expertise and facilities2. Research the literature

Questions to be addressed

• What granting agencies funds my area of research?

• How do I get a copy of their mission statement and guidelines?

• Where do I find the application forms?• What do they want? How and who will

evaluate the merit of my proposal?• NOW I CAN START TO WRITE!!

The RePORTER Database

• An On-line Resource for Research Administrators and Faculty

• Developing Proposals to NIH and other DHHS Agencies

RePORTER Database

• National Institutes of Health (NIH)• Agency for Health Care Research and Quality

(AHRQ)• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP)• Food and Drug Administration (FDA)• Health Resources and Services Administration

(HRSA)• Office of Assistant Secretary of Health (OASH)• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services• Administration (SAMHSA)

Search the RePORTER Database for Funded Project Information

Determine if specific projects have been funded as well as the funding mechanisms (e.g., R01, R03, R21, K01, K99)

Identify potential competitors and/or collaborators

Pre-Writing

• Generating an idea• Preliminary research• Reading the literature• Planning the project• Making notes/lists• Walking the dog• Cleaning the house• Shutting up the committee

Pre-Writing, con’t.

Some Writers need to talk through ideas early in order to figure out what they want to write

Some writers need to write a lot of material and then evaluate the ideas they’ve actually expressed

Why read out loud?

What’s the rule for ordering adjectives of AGE, NATIONALITY AND NUMBER

YoungThe Puerto Rican Women

Four

Writing as a Process – 3 stages

Pre-Writing Writing Revision• preliminary research re-seeing• reading literature rethinking• planning project rewriting• making notes editing• figuring out the rules/notes

All the real work is in the pre-writing and the revision. Drafting is the easiest part of the process.

Bridge how it feels at the pre-writing stage – from sitting and staring at a blank page to committing your ideas to paper.

Tremendous personal variation

• Working times• Writing conditions• Working patterns• What a writer needs and when

she/he needs it.

Discovering topic, audience and purpose

Gathering data andinformation

Writing a draft

Writing the thesis and developing a sketch

Reviewing and Categorizinginformation

Techniques to Start

• Asking & Answering Questions

• How is my research innovative?• How will it increase knowledge in the field?

• Will gaps or discrepancies in the field does this work fill?• If I succeed, what would be the next logical research beyond this

application?• What I Really Mean Is (WIRMI)

Revision Practices

• Begin with Hypothesis and Specific Aims• Underline and Outline main points (reverse

outline)• Revise Paragraphs and Sections for Coherence• Strengthen Transitions

• See--http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/306f04/great_big_transitions_list.htm

• Edit on the Floor for Organization• Read the Document Out Loud• Edit for Grammar and Language Issues

• All the words I use in my stories can befound in the dictionary - it's just a matterof arranging them into the rightsentences. W. Somerset Maugham

Metaphor!

• How do you get to funding?

• Practice!• Practice!• Practice!

Ask a pro.

Writing with Style: Conversations on the Art of Writing. John R. Trimble. Prentice Hall, 2000.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/678/01/�

SUBMIT!!

From the Latin submittere, to set under

1. To give in to the authority, power, or desires or another.

2. To subject to a condition or process; To allow oneself to be subjected to something.

3. To commit (something) to the consideration or judgment or another.

Funding Opportunity Announcements

• All applications must be submitted in response to an active FOANOT – OD – 10 – 134

• Parent (investigator initiated)

• RFA/PA/PAR (Solicited)May have special eligibility, submission dates, review criteria, etc.Different policies (postmark vs received)

• Available through the NIH Guide or Grants.gov

Grants.gov

How to find Funding Opportunities and Download Applications Utilizing Grants.gov and the NIH Guide

What is Grants.gov

• Federal government’s single on-line portal to find and apply for Federal grant funding

• Used by all 26 Federal grant-making agencies

• What is NIH’s eRA Commons?

• NIH system that allows applications/grantees to electronically receive and transmit application and award information

• Both are equally important in an NIH proposal submission!

Finding an Opportunity –Grants.gov

Locate and learn more about funding opportunities in a standardized manner

Sign up to receive new grant postings by email

Full Announcement - will contain all important information about the funding opportunity

This will take you back to Grants.gov to download this package.

Grants.gov Emails – AOR onlyApplication received by Grants.gov

Search by all Recent/Pending eSubmissionsby specific Grants.gov Tracking Number

Evaluating a Proposal

Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.

--Dr. Johnson

Focus of Proposal Critique

• Proposal critique• Presentation• Clarity• Emphasis on sponsor mission• Conformance with the guidelines• Organization• Development of details• Missing pieces

NIH Peer Review Process

• Rational: The more you know about how the system works – the higher the probability of success.

National Institutes of Health

Much of the biomedical research in the United States is supported by the Federal Government, primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

2008 NIH Budget

• 28+ Billion

How can I get some of this money?

Grant Application to NIH

Grant Application

NIH

NIH is organized into:

27 Separate Institutes & Centers each with different:

•Missions & Priorities

•Budgets

•Ways of deciding which to fund.

Range of ALL NIH Grants

NHLBI

NCI

NIAID

NIGMS

NIMHNINR

CC

NCCAM

OD

CIT NEI

NIAMS

NIANIEHS

NIBIB

NIDDK

NIDCR

NIDCD

NCRR

NINDS

NICHD

NIAAA

NIDAFIC

NLMNCHMD

NHGRI

NIH Dual System of Review

• Level 1 – Scientific Review 1. Peer Review study section in Center for

Scientific Review (CSR) or Institute2. Evaluation of scientific merit

• Level 2 – Programmatic Review1. Institute Council2. Funding Decision

CSR Integrated Review Groups (IRGs)

• 24 IRGs – Each representing a cluster of study sections around a general scientific area

• Applications generally assigned first to an IRG and then to a specific section within that IRG for evaluation of scientific merit

CSR Peer Review – Fiscal Year 2009

•112,000 applications received*

•77,000 applications reviewed

•25,000 reviewers

•240 Scientific Review Officers

•1,600 review meetings

•*Includes nearly 30,000 one-time applications submitted for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grants.

NIH Peer Review Process

• Center for Scientific Review Referral Office• Assignment to Integrated Review Group (IRG) and one of the IRG’s

study sections• Assignment to Institute

• Study Section Review• Streamlined• Full committee discussion and scored

• Council Review and Funding Decision

NIH Review Process

• Institute council programmatic review and funding decision based on:

1. Scientific rating by study section2. Proposal’s compatibility with Institute’s

mission3. Available funding

NIH Peer Review Summary Overview

Advisory Council -- Programmatic• Assesses quality of study section review• Makes recommendation to Institute staff• Evaluates program priorities and relevance• Advises on policy

Study Section – Scientific • Provides independent outside review• Evaluates scientific merit, significance• Recommends length and level of funding

Output: Individual Criterion Scores, Preliminary Impact Score, and, if discussed at meeting, Summary Statement with Overall Impact Score

Output: Funding Recommendations

Institute Director• Makes final funding decision based on

Council input, programmatic priorities• Must also Pass Administrative ReviewOutput: Funding

Decisions

3 - 7 months

1 - 3 months

1st level

2nd level

Rosemarie Hunziker, PhD, Program Director, NIH Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering

SCORING

• Reviewers will use the new NIH scoring scale for all applications

• This scale will apply to the overall impact/priority score and individual review criteria.

• The scoring range is 1 – 9, not 1 – 5.• Applications will be scored using whole

numbers only, no decimals.

Review Criteria: Scoring Individual Criteria

• The individual critiques # 1 – 5 receive numerical scores using the new 1 – 9 scoring scale:

SIGNIFICNACEAPPROACH

INNOVATIONINVESTIGATORS

ENVIRONMENT

Restructured Applications

• Changes in Biographical Sketch• Changes in Resources• Changes in Research Design

• Introduction (where applicable)• Specific Aims• Research Strategy

Alignment of Application with Review Criteria

Core Review Criteria Application Section

Significance Research Strategya. Significance

Investigator (s) BiosketchIncluding Personal Statements

Innovation Research Strategyb. Innovation

Approach Research Strategyc. Approach

Environment ResourcesEnvironment

Impact/Priority Score

• Final score for the application• Assessment for the project to exert a sustained, powerful

influence on the fields involved.• Application score range will be 10 – 90, calculated as an

average of all reviewer scores multiplied by 10• The impact/priority score is not an average of the

individual criterion scores• Is the synthesis/integration of the five core criteria and

any applicable additional review criteria.• An application need not be strong in all categories to be

judged likely to have a major scientific impact.

1 – 9 Scoring Scale

Timeline: New Applications

Receipt Scientific Council Awarddate Review Review Date

February 5 July October December

June 5 October January April

October 5 March May July

Core Understandings

• Winning an NIH grant is most often anextended process, not a one-time undertaking.

• Resubmission is the norm.• Investigators should...

Expect not to be funded on the original submission.But develop and write the proposal as conscientiously

as possible (as though they do expect to be funded).

Avoid a “test” run to get review input.

Core Understandings

• Investigators with unfunded applicationsneed to…

Recognize that they’re in good company—withwell-funded investigators everywhere!

• Well-funded investigators…Work the resubmission process through to success.

Don’t do anything until they can respond to thecritiques calmly.

Revise carefully and resubmit.

The Resubmission Dilemma

• Investigator issues—unfunded NIHapplication

Do I need a new project? MaybeCan I send it (as is) to a different study

section? Not reallyIs it worth resubmitting? Often

• Right answer = fastest route tofunding

Analyzing the Summary Statement

• Identify each and every criticism.• Look for specific suggestions even a

“blueprint” on how to change the…1. Design2. Aims3. Experiments4. Personnel

• Specific instructions can be like gold

Resubmit or Not—Deciding Factors

• Questions for the investigator:Are you able to make the changes required

to respond to the criticisms?Are you willing to make the recommended

changes?If not, how convincing is the case for your

original version?

Writing the Introduction

• Introduction--a 1-3 page document thatsummarizes the substantial…

1. Additions2. Deletions3. Changes

Understanding the Introduction

Introduction to the revised application—what it is…

A diplomatic tool to “win friends” on thestudy section

A point-by point listing of each reviewerconcern

Understanding the Introduction

• Introduction to the revised application—what it isn’t…

A rebuttalArguing is a difficult success strategy!

The complete discussion of the changesyou’ve made

Full discussion goes in the Research Plan!A reiteration of reviewer praise

Reviewers will have the original summarystatement at hand.

Strengthening the Application

• Encourage faculty to strengthen theapplication with…

Convincing new preliminary data fromongoing studies.

Recent publications based on the research.Revisions that result from partial

accomplishment of the research.Addition of valuable collaborators.

Compose the Introduction

Compose the introduction with utmost care.• Tone1. Professional2. Diplomatic3. Not argumentative4. Not gushing5. Not overly apologetic

The Grantee Institution

Actual recipient of award

Legally responsible for proper conduct and execution of grant

Provides fiscal management

Provides over sight on allocation decisions

Assures compliance with Federal, NIH, and organization-wide requirements

Grants Management

1. Adhere to approved Budget2. Complete specific aims as projected in

your time table3. Publish your results4. Follow the guidelines for the Progress

Report

Get Funded

• Don Frazier, Ph.D., serves as the Course Director. His email address is Donald.Frazier@uky.edu

• Margaret McConnell is the Program Coordinator and her email address is mcmcco2@uky.edu

• The Course Director and Program Coordinator are available to answer any questions you have about the course. To reach them call: 859-323-7024

INDEX OF MODULES

Index of Modules• Module 1: Introduction and Instruction Process Modules• Module 2: The Application Process• Module 3: The Review Process• Module 4: Writing Tips***************************************************************************************************• Module 5: Specific Aims Writing Modules• Module 6: Research Strategies• Module 7: Human Subjects • Module 8: Vertebrate Animal• Module 9: Budget/ Budget Justification• Module 10: Additional Proposal Components• Module 11: Summary and Abstract**********************************************************************************************• Module 12: Resubmission Process Modules• Module 13: RePORTER