Montrez-moi l’argent Show me the money

Naglaa H. Shoukry, Ph.D.

Professeur agrégé, Département de médecine, Université de MontréalCentre de Recherche du CHUM, Montréal, QC, Canada

Naglaa.shoukry@umontreal.ca

1

2

When, where and how?

1. You cannot start one week before and expect to have a great application

2. The success rate is very low, so your application has to be excellent preferably outstanding

3. Maximize chances of success

4. Read the RFA carefully

5. Ask advice from someone who has been on this committee or who had a grant funded through this committee

6. The bottom line is that you need to convince the whole committee that you have a plan, you know how to execute it and that you are the best one to do it.

3

Where to start?

1. Good ideas are not enough, planning is key.

2. A few months before:

1. Idea

2. How you can do it?

3. All needs to be hypothesis driven, even discovery grants.

4. Do you have what you need as preliminary data, publications, collaborations, etc.

5. Make sure that you get all that you need well in advance (permits, signatures, letters of collaboration, ethics approvals, Biostatistics, etc.)

4

Registration

1. Title and Abstract

2. This is probably how reviewers will be assigned, so put some effort into them. They need to be interesting and reflect the novelty and significance of your research as well as relevance to the RFA or priority announcement.

3. One page

• Background and Rationale

• Hypothesis

• Experimental design /Specific Aims

• Expected results and significance.

5

General consideration

1. A good application should read like Time magazine

2. Tell a story

3. The reviewer is not necessarily an expert on the topic so simplify and explain

4. Other members of the committee will probably look only at your abstract and CV, so spend some time on that.

5. Language, style, formatting

6

6. A picture is worth a thousand words, so use diagrams, models, illustrations, etc.

7. Not too many Figures/preliminary data (be selective)

8. Include all pertinent information in the main text of the grant.

9. Repeat but not too much.

10. For new investigators, you need a letter of support from you postdoctoral mentor

11. If you did not yet start your position, you need to show level of commitment of the host institute

7

General consideration

Summary of progress

1. If renewal, then stress the knowledge gained and productivity on the last grant (# of papers, impact factor, citations, patents, etc.)

2. Visibility in the media

3. If new, then stress your own productivity in this domain, especially if it is novel

8

Full Application

1. Overview

2. Background

3. Preliminary data

4. Gaps in knowledge, rationale and hypothesis

5. Experimental design overview

6. Specific Aims

7. Feasibility and time line

8. Data Interpretation and significance/Innovation

9

1. Overview

One paragraph summarizing your grant, hypothesis and specific aims (similar to summary but shorter)

10

2. Background

• Review of the literature including your published work

• Assume that the reviewer knows nothing about the topic

• Explain abbreviations (can include a list)

11

3. Preliminary data

- Any new data necessary to the project

- If data from your published papers are essential, then include as preliminary data. Reviewer will not read your appended papers

- Can be described here and/or combined with specific aims

12

4. Gaps in knowledge, rationale and hypothesis

Summary of what we know, what we do not know, what is your hypothesis and why we should study it

13

5. Experimental design overview

- Describe general research plan and common techniques that will be used (ex. Patient cohorts, biobanks, animals, etc)

14

6. Specific Aims

- 3-4 aims maximum, each can have ~ 3 subaims

- Aims should not be dependent on each other but complementary

- For each aim:

- Rationale

- Hypothesis

- Experimental design

- Expected outcome

- Statistical analysis/ power/sample size calculations

- Pitfalls, limitations and alternative strategies

15

7. Feasibility and time line

- Availability of what you need to do the proposed project

- Patient samples/animals/cell lines

- Access to specialized equipment /platforms (Flow cytometry, imaging, BL3, etc.)

- Availability of personnel who will do the work, especially specialized techniques like imaging or others

- Collaboration in place for things you do not have expertise in

- Calculation of what you need (ex. if you can only get 10 mls of blood, how will you do all experiments)

- Power calculation

16

7. Feasibility and time line

17

8. Data Interpretation and significance /Innovation

- How you will interpret all the data and link the specific aims

- Significance of the findings to the field and other fields

- Be more specific, not “this will help design new anticancer treatments”

- Through all sections, you have to repeat your hypothesis and significance (repetition reinforces the message)

18

Optional: Knowledge translation

- How will your project or results generated be applied and translated to the patient.

19

Budget

1. Ask for what is required to do the work, not what you think they will fund unless there is a maximum.

2. Justify

3. Get quotations, especially for services

4. Justify, justify, justify

5. Be realistic as well and do not overinflate

6. Reagents ~ 20K/person employed on the grant

7. Describe in kind contributions/ resources (ex. Student who already has a fellowship)

8. Never spend > 75% or your budget in a given year

20

CV

1. Always highlight papers on which you are corresponding author

2. Significant contributions

3. It is harder to break into a new area when you have not published on it

4. More confidence in getting the work done if you already have a strong track record.

5. Your publications page is probably the most important part of your grant.

21

Resubmission

1. It is not personal, so do not make it so

2. Thank the committee for the constructive criticism

3. Highlight the positives, address all critiques

4. Most likely will not be reviewed by the same reviewers and the new ones will not have access to previous reviews, so make a general narrative of the main critiques

5. Don’t be cynical or bitter

6. Highlight what you changed to address the critiques, especially any additional publications or new data

22

The review process

1. Three reviewers: Primary, Secondary and reader

2. Primary reviewer is the one with the best knowledge of the field. Try to get him on your side so that he can be your advocate

3. Other members do not read your grant

4. Your grant must stand out among 10 other grants.

5. Help the reviewer write the critiques by showing that you are aware of the strength and weaknesses of your proposal

6. Try to use keywords that can help: Transdiscplinary, patient oriented, translational

23

Other general comments

1. Have a colleague read it

2. Ask for help from your mentors

3. Don’t wait until the last minute

4. Revise, revise, revise

5. Spelling, language and style

6. Make sure all your t's are crossed and i's are dotted

7. Respect the formatting, now they look for any reason to discard a grant

24

Bonne Chance

25