Slide 1

NIH Grants: Strategies to Get FundedSilvia da Costa, Ph.D.Director of Faculty Research RelationsOffice of ResearchResearch Grants Competing Applications and Awards

2Data and chart description for this slide can be located at http://report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook/Charts/Default.aspx?showm=Y&chartId=159&catId=2Strategies to Improve Your CompetitivenessStrategies to Improve Your CompetitivenessResearch to address the needs of the funding instituteThe 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 instituteResearch to address the needs of the funding instituteThe NIH is interested in funding good science that meets the needs of the of the funding institute

Small business mentalityStrategies to Improve Your CompetitivenessThe NIH is not interested in funding good scienceStrategies to Improve Your CompetitivenessTo which Institute should you submit your grant?Research to address the needs of the funding instituteAwards by Institutesorted by average number

Research to address the needs of the funding institute2010 Funding Success Rate per NIH ICResearch to address the needs of the funding instituteNIH RePORT

http://report.nih.gov/reports.aspxResearch to address the needs of the funding institute

Institute Strategic Planhttp://report.nih.gov/reports.aspxResearch to address the needs of the funding institute

http://report.nih.gov/strategicplans/index.aspxInstitute Strategic PlanResearch to address the needs of the funding instituteInstitute Strategic Plan

Research to address the needs of the funding instituteResearch to address the needs of the funding instituteInstitute Strategic Plan

Research to address the needs of the funding instituteIC Area of Interesthttp://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html

Research to address the needs of the funding instituteAny Questions

Research to address the needs of the funding instituteThe 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 CompetitivenessCRISP RePORTERCRISP RePORTERCRISP RePORTERhttp://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm

CRISP RePORTERCRISP RePORTERhttp://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfmKeyword Cancer, first few pages of search

NCINational Cancer InstituteNIBIBNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNIANational Institute on Aging NIGMSNational Institute of General Medical Sciences NIMHDNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities NINRNational Institute of Nursing Research NHGRINational Human Genome Research Institute NIAMSNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases NCCAMNational Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine NIEHSNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNIAIDNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases NCATSNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences ODOffice of the DirectorStrategies to Improve Your CompetitivenessChoosing the right study sectionWho will be reviewing your grant?

Identifying potential members of yourScientific Review GroupStrategies to Improve Your CompetitivenessChoosing the right study sectionhttp://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx/Center for Scientific Review (CSR)

Choosing the right study sectionhttp://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Pages/default.aspxCenter for Scientific Review (CSR)

Choosing the right study sectionCenter for Scientific Review (CSR)

Choosing the right study section

Center for Scientific Review (CSR)Choosing the right study sectionAny Questions

Choosing the right study sectionStrategies to Improve Your CompetitivenessEarly Stage InvestigatorNIH Priority: Continued Focuson New InvestigatorsNew 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 InvestigatorNIH Priority: Continued Focuson New InvestigatorsEarly 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 InvestigatorFunding Policy for NIs & ESIsApplications 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 InvestigatorSpecial Programs for NIs & ESIshttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/investigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649Pathway to Independence Award (K99-R00) provides support as a postdoctoral scholar transitions from a training position to a faculty position

Directors New Innovator Award (DP2) provides support to highly innovative research approachesEarly Stage InvestigatorHow does the NIH Recognize NIs & ESIs?http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/investigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649NI and ESI status is determined automatically by the functionality built into eRA Commons, based on the investigators 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 InvestigatorLoss of ESI StatusStatus 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 InvestigatorStrategies to Improve Your CompetitivenessGrant sectionsGood Grantsmanship

Grant writing is a learned skill!

Grant sectionsApproach: Restructured Research PlanPrevious ApplicationNew ApplicationBackground and SignificanceSignificanceInnovationApproachPreliminary Studies for New ApplicationsProgress Report for Renewal/RevisionResearch Design and MethodsPreliminary Studies/Progress ReportGrant sectionsSignificance (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 sectionsImportant to differentiate between the two! Biographical SketchPersonal Statement what experience and qualifications make the applicant particularly well-suited for the project.

Limited to 4 pages (per person)

Publications limited to 155 most recent5 best5 most relevant to the application

Grant sectionsBiosketch: Include the PMCIDExample

Varmus H, Klausner R, Zerhouni E, Acharya T, Daar A, Singer P. 2003. PUBLIC HEALTH: Grand Challenges in Global Health. Science 302(5644): 398399. PMCID: PMC243493 http://publicaccess.nih.gov/citation_methods.htmGrant sectionsSpecific 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 AimsHypothesisHow it will be testedExpected ResultsWhy proposal is innovative SignificancePI / EnvironmentPositive ImpactPayoff for the Institute/FoundationGrant sections

Specific Aims Page Target AudienceGrant sectionsSpecific Aims DiagramsDiabetic conditionsTGFXXXYYYWWabcDiabetic NeuropathyCVCVWSWSHypothesis: 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 textAim 1Aim 2Aim 3Grant sectionsSpecific Aims PageBackground informationRelevance (medical/clinical)Gap in knowledge/Current knowledgeLong-term goal (of your lab)Objective of the proposalHypothesis - Basis for hypothesisRational for studySpecific AimsHypothesisHow it will be testedExpected ResultsWhy proposal is innovative SignificancePI / EnvironmentPositive ImpactPayoff for the Institute/FoundationWhat 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 its mission towards or is in line with the goals of the institute in thatYour job is to make the reviewers work easier!Grant sectionsSpecific Aims Page Abstract

Grant sectionsExperimental Design HypothesisRationalePreliminary DataExperimental approachMethodsInterpretation of resultsPotential pitfalls Alternatives

Old format: HypothesisRationaleExperimental approachMethodsInterpretation of resultsPotential pitfalls Alternatives

InnovationSignificanceTimelineGo/No-Go & Milestones& Preliminary DataSignificantly reduced New format:Grant sectionsPreliminary dataHypothesisAssay 1Expected ResultsGo/No-GoGoQuantitatable dataMilestone (M1);Hypothesis StrengthenedNo-GoAlternatives&PitfallsAlternativeAssaysAssay 2Assay 3Associated to M1,not necessarily to individual assays.Milestone (M1)Assay 4No need for extensive detailGrant sectionsAlternatives & PitfallsGrant sectionsAlternatives & PitfallsAlternatives&PitfallsAlternativeAssaysAnticipated 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.AimTimelineYr.1Yr.2Yr.3Yr.4Yr.51Assay 1 & 2xAssay 3xx2xxMilestonesM1M2M3Go/No-GoGiGiiSummarize with the TimelineGo/No-Go identified in Alternatives & PitfallsM1: text, text, text; M2, text, text textMilestones identified either in the main text or with the TableYour entire proposal summarized in one Table and one Figure

Grant sectionsGrant Proposal Cover Letter Application title FOA # and title Request: Place SRG & IC review requests on separate linesPlace positive & negative requests on separate linesInclude name of IC or SRG, followed by a dash and acronymProvide explanations for each request in a separate paragraphYou can ask for a specific study section but it is not necessarily guaranteedCheck 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 sectionResponse to ReviewersChoosing the right study sectionGrant sectionsQ: 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 yourselfAlways address all comments and critiquesThank the reviewer for their effortRemind them of the good comments

Response to ReviewersChoosing the right study sectionGrant sectionsThe reviewers 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 footAny Questions

Grant sectionsWord Reduction & Editing SuggestionsEarly Stage InvestigatorMethods Keep it BriefA 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 4048 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 37C and 5% CO2 for 4048 hours.The power of parenthesis78 to 58 wordsMethods Keep it BriefCells (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 wordsFigure 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(mean SD)(see Experimental Procedures)of four independent experiments repeated twice each.(n=4, in duplicate)94 to 58 wordsSpell-checkFirst: 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 grammarThen click OK

What is written without effort is, in general, read without pleasure. Samuel Johnson

Question marks from Stock images