Professional Development (NEURO 596)

Types of grants

objective

•  training/career

–  fellowship

–  career award

•  research

•  conference

•  equipment

•  infrastructure

form •  investigator-initiated

–  individual – groups

•  “set-aside” grants •  contracts

Getting information on agencies that fund research

•  grants office at your institution •  colleagues •  internet

– agency websites – databases

•  acknowledgements on papers

Sources of grants

•  US Government

–  NIH

–  NSF

–  Depts. of Education,

Defense, Energy

•  State Government

–  NJC Spinal Cord Injury

–  NJ Cancer Commission

–  NJC Brain Injury

•  Private Foundations

–  Pew Charitable Trust

–  Bill & Melinda Gates Fndn.

•  Non-Profit Organizations

–  American Cancer Society

–  March of Dimes

•  Corporations

–  Pfizer Inc.

Apply to the best funding source

•  improve odds: match objectives – research interests – personal characteristics

• career phase • gender, ethnicity

Contact the program staff

•  in their offices – phone – email – letter – in person (by appointment)

•  at professional meetings

Information to collect

•  is your concept relevant •  current instructions •  funding

– rate – level (amount, years)

•  who reviews •  what are review criteria

http://www.nih.gov/about/maps.html

•  Structure of NIH •  Grant Submission •  The Study Section

Navigating the NIH

Poster by L. Azzinaro http://www.nih.gov/od/museum/exhibits/history/

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

•  Agency of the US Public Health Service

•  Mission: research, training, education

•  27 Institutes + other components •  More than 75 buildings on a campus covering

over 300 acres

•  Director: ? •  Budget ~ $30 billion

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Functional Divisions:

National Institute of Neurological Diseases & Stroke (NINDS)

A Typical Institute

Advisory Council: – oversees institute

Division of Intramural Research: – NINDS research labs in Bethesda

Division of Extramural Research: – grants & contracts for external research

Program Officer (aka: Program Director or Program Official)

•  Communicates program priorities Writes Program Announcements (PA) Writes Request for Applications (RFA) •  Initiates and encourages interest in scientific

areas of importance in line with each Institute’s mission

•  May attend study section meetings

Responsibilities of the Program Officer Continued…

• Responds to inquiries from PIs • Resolves issues from the peer review process • Evaluates the programmatic merit of each grant • Recommends grants for funding to council • Reviews the annual progress of grants

What is the NIH Looking For ?

•  The best science

•  Expertise and resources to get it done

•  Who can get one?

–  Any qualified scientist with academic credentials and experience

appropriate to the application

–  Institution is the grantee (except: fellowships and career awards)

–  Shared responsibilities

–  Domestic or Foreign (NB: Citizens or Permanent Residents only

for F series)

Cooperative Agreements

U10, U13 U19, U24 U42, U43 U44, U54

Ruth L. Kirschstein-National Research

Service Awards (NRSA)

F30, F31 F32, F33

T32 ,T15 T34, TU2

Research Project Grants (RPGs)

R01, R03 R15, R18 R21, R24 R33, R37 R41, R42 R43, R44 R55, R56

P01

S06, S15

U01

Research Career

Programs

K01, K05 K07, K08 K11, K12 K22, K23 K24, K25 K30

Education Project Grant

R25

Construction

C06

Cancer Centers & Specialized Programs of

Research Excellence (SPOREs)

P20, P30 P41, P50

U54

Grant Mechanisms at NCI Out of approximately 11,000 grant actions administered by the NCI in FY2004, there were over 50 Grant Mechanisms that were reviewed. Among them were:

Types of NIH Grants

•  Training Grants •  Investigator-Initiated

– Regular Research Grant: R01 – Program Project Grant: P01 – Specialized Programs of Research Excellence

(SPORE) – Small Business

•  Innovative Research Grant (SBIR) – R43, R44

• Technology Transfer Research (STTR) – R41, R42

Training Mechanisms Supported by ICs

student post doc resident

junior faculty

senior faculty

F31 F32 K Awards (career dev)

training:

research:

R01

P01

R21 R03

The Grant Triangle

NIH Institute Study

Section

application funding

1. an application is initiated & prepared by an investigator

2. application is submitted to NIH through the investigator’s home institution

3. a NIH study section reviews the proposal & the score is sent to a NIH Institute

4. the Institute Council decides whether to fund the grant

5. an Institute Program sends funding for the grant to the home institution

6. the home institution administers the grant for the investigator

Program Council

Development, Receipt and Assignment of Applications

CSR assigns app to Initial Review Group

Application submitted to Center for Scientific Review, NIH

CSR Assignment Office

CSR assigns app to NIH Institute

CSR assigns application number

1st Month 2nd Month

*Notice of assignment sent in 1-2 weeks.

*Application assessed for completeness & eligibility

Who Reviews Grants? IRG/ Study Sections

•  16 Initial Review Groups -98 Study Sections -3 annual review cycles

3rd Month 4th Month

Post Study Section Meeting

•  Record scores and budgets

•  Produce Summary Statements

–  Email notification approx. 5 months after application is

received.

–  Summary statement is also available through the NIH

Commons immediately following the Post Study Section

meeting.

5th Month 6th Month

2nd Level of Peer Review: IC Board/Council •  Closed session

•  Reviews programmatic merit of each grant

•  Selected Pay (HPPs, foreign grants, human subjects/animal welfare concerns, PI appeals)

•  En bloc approval of all other applications

•  Approval of new program initiatives and concept clearances

•  Consideration of policy issues

7th Month

Funding Timeline

Oct 1/Nov 1*‘04

Feb 1/Mar 1* ‘05

Jun 1/Jul 1* ‘05

Feb Mar ‘05

Jun Jul ‘05

Oct Nov ‘05

Mar-Jun ‘05

Sep 30 ‘05

Nov’05/Feb‘06

May/Jun ‘05

Sep/Oct ‘05

Jan/Feb ‘06

Jul 1 ‘05

Dec 1 ‘05

Apr 1 ‘06

Submission Review Post-Review Phase

Standard Receipt Date

(New/Revised and

Continuation)

Initial Peer Review

Funds Released for Payline

Grants Chosen for Expedited Second-Level

Review

Council Meeting:

Funding Approved for

Nonexpedited& Special Action

Awards

Anticipated Award

•  fully electronic submission process –  through Grants.gov website

•  Transitions on Hold Career •Fellowship •Training

• Complex • K12

•  for more information see: http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/

Electronic Grant Submission

The Grant Review Process

•  applications must be submitted from a recognized institution

•  each application has two independent reviews within NIH: “Dual Review”

•  funding goes to the investigator’s home institution not to the investigator

The Grant Review Process

1.  Study Section: •  scientific merit •  written review & score

2.  Institute Council: •  significance, programmatic merit •  approval for funding

Center for Scientific Review (CSR) Application Receipt Center

Approximately 35,000 competing

applications received by CSR

every round!

(Picture taken prior to eRA)

•  Independent unit within NIH

–  separate from Institutes

•  Receives & assigns applications:

–  to Study Sections for review

–  to Institutes for funding

•  Administers review panels (Study Sections)

•  Rosters and descriptions can be found at http://www.csr.nih.gov

Navigating NIH

•  Structure of NIH •  Grant Submissions •  The Study Section

images © 2002 www.arttoday.com • http://www.csr.nih.gov/welcome.htm

Responsibilities of the Scientific Review Officer

The SRO: •  Selects reviewers •  Manages study sections and project site visits •  Prepares summary statements •  Provides requested information about study

section assignments and proceedings — but does not answer questions about scores, percentiles or funding (see Program Officer)

Reviewers

•  Selected by the SRO for their expertise •  Reviewers must be critical, objective and when

appropriate, advocates instead of critics •  Reviewers must excuse themselves for

discussions of grants from their own institutions or from applicants with whom they are collaborating or have any other conflict of interest

•  Reviewers must not discuss the review process outside of the meeting

The Study Section

Assignments: – primary & secondary: written reviews – tertiary (“reader”): read & comment

Review Criteria – defined for each application type

Priority Scores: – scale: 100 (best) to 500 (worst)

Sequence of Review

•  moderated by Chair •  reviewers state initial score •  primary & secondary reviewers present •  tertiary reviewer comments •  open discussion •  reviewer’s re-state scores •  all members score application •  SRO writes summary of discussion

1.  Applicant (Approx. 30% of score)

a. Credentials, Reference letters, Mentor(s) statements

2.  Research training plan (Approx. 40% of score)

3.  Mentor and mentor’s training plan (Approx. 20% of score)

4.  Environment & institutional commitment to the candidate (Approx. 10% score)

5.  Training in Responsible Conduct of Research

Percentile Rankings

•  Rank relative to other applications reviewed by SRG at the last three meetings

•  Range from .5 (best) to 99.5 (worst) •  Examples:

–  Funded Proposal: Score = 179; Percentile = 11.9%

–  Unfunded Proposal: Score = 240; Percentile = 49%

Applicants for F31 Awards

•  The average application is not submitted by your average

graduate student or postdoc. Average F31 Applicant will have:

–  All As and Bs.

–  GREs of 560 V, 660 Q and 5.0 A

–  Significant research experience

–  Authorship on at least 1 paper

–  1 or more abstracts from scientific meeting

–  Recommendations letters with all 1s and 2s.

–  Strong preliminary data that they generated.

and the intent of Feedback

•  Summary Statement (the pink sheet) –  Summarizes comments during review process –  will also include a summary of discussion of all

members –  Program officer may also be able to provide

additional feedback

–  Provides an opportunity for revision based on reviewers comments - argue at your own risk!

Things are changing dramatically

•  Length change; 25 → 12 pages for grants and Ks

•  Length change; 10 → 6 pages for Fs

•  Change in scoring system (1-9)

•  More structured review (bullet points, scores for each review criteria)

•  Different emphasis on review criteria (?)

•  A2 eliminated – only get 2 shots

Foundations vs the NIH

•  Differences –  objectives – focused vs broad interests – career phase – gender, ethnicity – stipend support

•  Non-U.S. citizens may apply for training in the United States

•  One submission deadline per year

•  Must demonstrate relevance of project to MS

•  Funding recommendations are made based on a composite score and an MS

relevance score

–  Composite score = 40% Candidate + 30% Mentor + 30% Research Plan

•  Postdoctoral stipends are higher than the NIH levels

Goal of National MS Society Research Fellowship Program: To attract promising young M.D. and Ph.D. researchers and to retain them in the field of MS.

Robert J. Milner, PhD Penn State College of Medicine

David Owens, PhD

NINDS

Jennifer Stark, PhD

National Multiple Sclerosis Society