Why Do Funded Research?

We want/need to understand our world

Why seek funding?Understanding costs money

Private and government sponsors have historically funded the costs

Funded projects have led to big impact

Why seek funding?

Research is expensive•Subject payments•tests and forms, copy costs, equipment •Biomarkers, neuroimaging, etc•Money for conferences, networking

• The less obvious reasons–Indirect costs to your employer

•Marketability, job security, etc

Developing a Programmatic Line of Research

Developing a Program of Research

Research something that is feasible.

Research something you like as long as it satisfies #1.

A program of research begins as a correlation

You decide whether to move toward mechanism or treatment.

Developing a Program of Research

Focus on simple experiments

Collaborate with experts

Become an expert on something

Rely on yourself for the promotion of your work

Publish your findings

Tie it all Together

Think of your research as a narrative.

Spend time thinking about theoretical issues.

Continue to look for new inspiration.

Treat your program of research like a new business.

Evolution of Specific Aims

Specific Aims

• Purpose of the study

• Brief introduction – “mind the gap”

• Brief mention of team and/or preliminary studies.

• Overall goal of the study

Aims• Be concise

• Highlight sentences that can be read alone.

• Make aims more general and hypotheses more specific.

• Limit the number of aims – less is more!

• Not too much detail, but don’t leave anything out.

Strategies for Developing a Successful Grant

Background and Significance• Sets the stage for the study.• Follows your outline.• Provides justification for this as the next logical

step.• Here is where you test your sequence of studies.

– We usually want to do the study that is three ahead of where we are at in readiness.

Background and Significance

• Outline key points that set the stage for the study.• Use these as headings for this section.• Not a dissertation!

– Don’t overwrite this section.

• Again, highlight sentences.• Summary at end, repeat aims and hypotheses.• Define the big picture impact.

Preliminary Studies

• Justification for your research team and environment.

• Outline your team and their expertise – including you.

• Outline what techniques, abilities, and data are needed to set the stage for the proposed study.

Preliminary Studies

• These are not all pilot data.• You are part of a team.• Preliminary data demonstrate ability – feasibility,

not proof of concept. • Pilot data present proof of concept.

• Both are needed!

Methods

• Largest part of the grant.• Starts with an overview.• Experimental design considerations section.• Participants (not subjects).• Procedures• Assessments• Statistical and power analyses – for each

hypothesis.

Experimental Design Considerations

• Key decisions you made about the research design and your reasoning for making those choices.

• Threats to internal and external validity.• Choice of groups.• Demonstrate your thought process.

Stats and Power• Each aim must have testable hypotheses.

• Explorations are not recommended, especially if they involve adding burden or new participants.

• Each hypothesis must have its own analyses.

• Each analysis must have its own power analysis.

Top Ten Do. . .

1. Call the program officer

2. Get copies of successful and unsuccessful grants.

3. Find a mentor/working group

4. Organize your team to reflect the needs of the study.

5. Consider all mechanisms (even industry).

Top Ten Do. . .

6. Read the RFA/PA.

7. Get reviewers ahead of time (even for pay).

8. Include experimental design considerations.

9. Keep aims to a single page – and order them in terms of impact.

10. Enlist consultants!

Top Ten Don’t. . .

1. Avoid criticism.

2. Rush your grant.

3. Be too ambitious.

4. Assume anything from the reviewers.

5. Avoid writing.

6. Be afraid to change something near the end.

Top Ten Don’t. . .

7. Go it alone.

8. Underestimate the administrative burden.

9. Cover anything up.

Top Ten Don’t. . .

10. DON’T GIVE UP!

Misconceptions with the RO1/RO3

• Only experienced PIs can obtain an RO1– New applicants are provided some latitude but the science must be

sound.

• It is easier to get an RO3 vs. RO1– True if you lack pilot data, but the quality of the science must be solid

for both.

• Preliminary Studies (section) is only important for an RO1– This section is always important, as it describes your familiarity with

research.

• Always ask for 5 years of funding with an RO1– Let the science guide the duration and justify the need.

Common Errors in Training Grants

• Candidate– Limited research productivity in the past (less

then 3 publications generally raises concern).– Large gaps in history where productivity was

low without explanation for this hiatus.– Failure to describe the gap in the candidate’s

training background that requires additional mentored training.

Common Errors in Training Grants

• Training Plan– Lacks detail– Redundant with previous training– Not tied directly to career goals– Dependent on off-site mentors (bad fit to

environment)– Too many mentors; mentors lack clear roles– Unrelated to proposed science– Too many goals

• Science– Too complex or too broad in scope (really an RO1)– Not related to training goals/expertise of the

mentor– Too much overlap with mentor’s research/failure

to define independence from mentor– No preliminary data– Aims lack hypotheses– Analytic plan not tied to the aims– No power analysis (or analysis based on wrong

data)

Foundation Grants

• Opportunity for funding to support large and small projects.

• Can be ideal for junior investigators to obtain pilot data to support NIH grants.

• Competition still high. Review groups similar to NIH.

• Often less indirect costs to home institution, but still an effective way to promote your research and get going!!!