funding strategies for new faculty israel a. goldberg health research associates uthsc - memphis...

Funding Strategies for New Faculty

Israel A. Goldberg

Health Research Associates

UTHSC - MemphisMarch 25, 2008

Focus on NIH, because --

Most biomedical-funding organizations use proposal and review formats similar to the NIH format

NIH INSTITUTES AND CENTERS

AA National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism NIAAA AG National Institute on Aging NIA AI National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases NIAID AR National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases NIAMS AT National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

NCCAM CA National Cancer Institute NCI DA National Institute on Drug Abuse NIDA DC National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders NIDCD DE National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research NIDCR DK National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

NIDDK EB National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering NIBIB ES National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences NIEHS EY National Eye Institute NEI GM National Institute of General Medical Sciences NIGMS HD National Institute of Child Health and Human Development NICHD HG National Human Genome Research Institute NHGRI HL National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute NHLBI LM National Library of Medicine NLM MD National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities NCMH MH National Institute of Mental Health NIMH NR National Institute of Nursing Research NINR NS National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke NINDS RR National Center for Research Resources NCRR TW John E. Fogarty International Center FIC

NIH Dual Proposal Review System

NIH Director

Institute Institute Institute Center for Scientific Review

(CSR) - Receives proposal - Assigns to Institute and Study Section

Study Section Reviews

Scientific-Merit

$$$$ Funding

Advisory Council Reviews

Program Relevance

Focus on NIH, because --

Most biomedical-funding organizations use proposal and review formats similar to the NIH format

That’s where they keep the big money

NIH Congressional Appropriations B

illio

ns

of

Do

llars

DOUBLING

$13.7$15.6

$17.8

$20.5

$23.3

$27.1$28.0 $28.6 $28.6

$29.2

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

Focus on the NIH R01 grant proposal, because --

Most biomedical-funding organizations use proposal and review formats similar to the NIH-R01 format

R01 = Currency of the Realm R01 = Your Academic Advancement

R01 = Your Goal

Focus on the NIH R01, because --

Most biomedical-funding organizations use proposal and review formats similar to the NIH-R01 format

R01 = Currency of the Realm R01 = Your Academic Advancement R01 = Your Goal

Institutional and smaller-agency funding are key to getting started.

Top 10 errors in grant proposals


1. Proposing to do too much – Common problem of new PIs Giving reviewers too many targets to throw darts at Assuming that the reviewers will be impressed with your

ability to do everything

A. SPECIFIC AIMS (One Page)

Begin with a 3- to 4- sentence paragraph that presents:Big pictureFocusWhat I hope to accomplishOrganizing hypothesis

S.A. 1 -- Test the Prediction that ... .1A. We will manipulate X and measure Y .... .

Our hypothesis predicts …. .1B. We will.... .

Our hypothesis predicts .... .S.A. 2 -- Test between the alternative hypotheses, A and B.

2A. We will manipulate X and measure Y .... .Hypothesis A predicts ...., whereas hypothesis B …

2B. We will.... . Hypothesis A predicts ...., whereas hypothesis B predicts … .

S.A. 3 – Ditto

Scientific American - style diagram


2. No Hypotheses or Predictions Methods in search of reasons Create animal models Descriptive ‘bean counting’ or ‘fishing’ [If you must do any of these, explain why.]

Criteria for SPECIFIC AIMS and HYPOTHESES of a grant proposal___________________________________

Specific aims should: test predictions that are based on meaningful hypotheses about the fundamental mechanisms that drive important functional relationships


3. Silly Hypotheses


4. Disconnect between Specific Aims and Research Design & Methods

Methods without Designs Incomplete details of methods

D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS (10 - 15 pages)

D.1. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS (6 - 10 pages)[Continues the logical flow of the Specific Aims]

D.2. DETAILS OF METHODS (5 - 9 pages) [Cookbook Recipes in Copious Detail]

D.3. TIMETABLE of Aims and Experiments(10-12 lines)


5. Expertise missing Demonstrated capability in Prelim Studies Published, demonstrated capability Appropriate consultants Cameo appearances


6. Non-Modular Budget Inflated budget Naïve low budget without explanation


7. Tilting at other people’s windmills There are no “kid’s grants”

Sample Success Rates FY-2007 NHLBI

R01 727/3,332 = 22% R03 0/60 = 0%R21 91/797 = 11%

NIAMS

R01 166/746 = 22% R03 34/229 = 15%R21 46/271 = 17%


7. Tilting at other people’s windmills There are no “kid’s grants” Present YOUR best science – RFAs can waste your

time and efforts

Trans-NIH Initiatives NIH Roadmap

Neuroscience Blueprint Genes and Environment Trans-Institute Research Programs

•Angiogenesis•Nano-medicine•Obesity•Etc.

Genes &

Environment

NIH Office of Portfolio Analysis and Strategic Initiatives (OPASI)

[http://opasi.nih.gov/]

These special initiatives account for less than 2% of total NIH budget.

Advice to all young PIs

1. Don’t tilt at other people’s windmills

2. R01 = Currency of the Realm 3. R01 = Your Academic Advancement


8. Sloppiness Typographical errors, poor grammar Inconsistent information


9. Unexplained hiatus in productivity


10. Amended proposals -- Giving reviewers new targets to throw darts at Failing to take advice Trying to “rebut”

NIH Success Rates in FY-2007

R01 Proposals 20,648 new R01 proposals 3,958 were funded Success Rate = 19%

Note: Success rates are not percentiles

NIH Success Rates of FIRST-TIME Competing Proposals in FY-2006 All FIRST-TIME Competing Proposals – 8%

FIRST-TIME Competing Renewal Proposals – 7%

FIRST-TIME New Proposals – 9%

As published in Science, April 2007

Revision and ResubmissionWhen you prepare a revised proposal --

Do what the reviewers advise you to do. Do not argue or ‘stick to your guns.’ Do not add anything to replace dropped

components, unless reviewers specifically advised you to do that. Do not add anything simply because you think the amended proposal is too thin. Anything you add is now a new target for the reviewers’ darts. And, every dart costs you points.

PERSISTENCE PAYS

Success Rates of NIH New R01 Applications in FY-2002

There were 16,896 New R01 Proposals -- 11,924 were First Time

3,871 were First Revision

1,101 were Second Revision

Success Rates

First Time 20%

First Revision 34%

Second Revision 47%

COMPARISON OF TWO STRATEGIES FORNEW GRANT APPLICANTS

“ONE SHOT”

ODDS FAIL RATE

EVENTUAL SUCCESS RATE

.20 .80 1 - (0.80) = 0.20

COMPARISON OF TWO STRATEGIES FORNEW GRANT APPLICANTS

1. “ONE SHOT”

ODDS FAIL RATE


.20 .80 1 - (0.80) = 0.20

“PLAN TO RESUBMIT”

ODDS FAIL RATE


1ST Try .20 .80 1ST Revision .34 .66 2ND Revision .47 .53 1 - (0.80 x 0.66 x 0.53)

= 1 – (0.28) = 0.72

funding strategies for new faculty israel a. goldberg health research associates uthsc - memphis...

Documents