“Successful Grant Writing”A Process

 

Dr. Don Frazier

Professor Emeritus, University of Kentucky

School of Medicine, Director UKMC Outreach Center for Science and Health Career

Opportunities

PI UK/NIGMS Internet Grant Writing Program

What we know……

“Grantsmanship is a scholarly activity and

Grantsmanship is a learned skill”

1st Rule: Start Early

Pre-submission

How to get started

The Idea – Research Plan

1. Fits with expertise and facilities

2. 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

Young

The 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 and information

Writing a draft

Writing the thesis and developing a sketch

Reviewing and Categorizing information

Techniques to Start

• Asking & Answering Questions• How is my research innovative?

• How will it increase knowledge in the field?• What gaps or discrepancies in the field does this work address?• If I succeed, what would be the next logical research beyond this

application?• What I Really Mean Is (WIRMI)

• 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!

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.

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 eSubmissions by specific Grants.gov

Tracking Number

Core Understandings

• Winning an NIH grant is most often an

extended 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 applications

need to…

Recognize that they’re in good company—with

well-funded investigators everywhere!• Well-funded investigators…

Work the resubmission process through to success.

Don’t do anything until they can respond to the

critiques calmly.

Revise carefully and resubmit.

The Resubmission Dilemma

• Investigator issues—unfunded NIH

application

Do I need a new project? Maybe

Can I send it (as is) to a different study

section? Not really

Is it worth resubmitting? Often• Right answer = fastest route to

funding

Analyzing the Summary Statement

• Identify each and every criticism.

• Look for specific suggestions even a “blueprint” on how to change the…1. Design

2. Aims

3. Experiments

4. 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 that

summarizes the substantial…

1. Additions

2. Deletions

3. 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 rebuttal

Arguing is a difficult success strategy!

The complete discussion of the changes

you’ve made

Full discussion goes in the Research Plan!

A reiteration of reviewer praise

Reviewers will have the original summary

statement at hand.

Strengthening the Application

• Encourage faculty to strengthen the

application with…

Convincing new preliminary data from

ongoing studies.

Recent publications based on the research.

Revisions that result from partial

accomplishment of the research.

Addition of valuable collaborators.

Compose the Introduction

Grants Management

1. Adhere to approved Budget

2. Complete specific aims as projected in your time table

3. Publish your results

4. Follow the guidelines for the Progress Report

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 Dual System of Review

• Level 1 – Scientific Review

1.Peer Review study section in Center for Scientific Review (CSR) or Institute

2.Evaluation of scientific merit

• Level 2 – Programmatic Review

1. Institute Council

2.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

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 section

2.Proposal’s compatibility with Institute’s mission

3.Available funding

NIH Peer Review Summary Overview

Advisory Council -- Advisory Council -- ProgrammaticProgrammatic

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

Study Section – Study Section – Scientific 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 DirectorInstitute 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:

SIGNIFICANCE

APPROACH

INNOVATION

INVESTIGATORS

ENVIRONMENT

Impact/Priority Score

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

powerful influence on the institution. • 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

1 – 9 Scoring Scale

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