Transcript Proposal Development Office

 To facilitate your success in securing funding
 To share strategies in developing collaborations
 To explore qualities of a competitive application
 What constitutes a competitive grant application?
 What components contribute to success?
 To examine successful proposal strategies
 To offer insights on effective grant-writing
 Why should I apply for a grant? Collaborate?
 NIH support for collaboration
 Features of competitive collaborative applications
 Strategic action to catalyze collaboration
 Mission fit—sponsor priorities and project goals
 Assessing readiness to propose
 Managing external review
 “Communicating” with reviewers
 Goals and objectives
 Rationale
 Approach
 Other key proposal content
Grants allow you to…
 Achieve intellectual or programmatic goals.
 Implement change in your…
 Institution,
 Environment,
 Society.
 Advance your field.
 Travel.
 Obtain resources/assistance w/ current activities.
What is more…grant funding is increasingly
part of the currency of an academic career!
“…the process of knowledge creation has
fundamentally changed.”
 “Teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the
production of knowledge.”
 “…across nearly all fields.”
 “Teams typically produce more frequently cited
research than individuals do….”
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of
Knowledge, Wuchty et al. Science 18 May 2007: Vol. 316 no.
5827 pp. 1036-1039
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136099
Collaborations that cross traditional disciplinary
boundaries can…
 Expand the nature of research questions you ask.
 Leverage synergies across disparate disciplines.
 Address particularly intractable problems.
 Enable far more complex analyses.
 Deepen the final insights generated by a study.
NIH: Increasingly health-related research involves
teams that vary in…size, hierarchy, location of
participants, goals, disciplines, and structures.
Key NIH mechanisms facilitate team science.
 Multi-PD/PI** option…
 Encourages and supports interdisciplinary and other
team science.
 Allows shared responsibility and authority for leading a
project.
 Maximizes PI potential to respond to 21st century
challenges and opportunities.
 Supplements, rather than replaces, the traditional single
PD/PI model.
*National Institutes of Health
**Multiple project directors/principal investigators
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi/
Key NIH mechanisms facilitate team science.
 Collaborative R01…
 Linked group or set of R01s, usually one R01 per
participating PD/PI
 Coordinated and interlocked applications from each
 Common Research Statement section, summary
statement for each PI
 Requirements…
 Rationale for applying as a collaborative study
 Role of each site in the project
 Approach to project management
 Elements unique to any of the sites
Sample Collaborative R01 FOAs
 Collaborative R01s for Clinical and Services
Studies of Mental Disorders and AIDS
(Collaborative R01) - PAR-12-278
 Collaborative Clinical Trials in Drug Abuse
(Collaborative R01) - PAR-10-099
 Investigator Initiated Multi-Site Clinical Trials
(Collaborative R01) - PAR-10-096
Key NIH mechanisms facilitate team science.
 Excerpts from NIH peer review criteria…
 Investigators. If the project is collaborative or multiPD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and
integrated expertise?
 Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to
shift current research or clinical practice paradigms…?
 Environment. Will the project benefit from
unique…collaborative arrangements?
Strong Idea
Strong Evidence
Strong Presentation
Competitive Proposal
Strong Team
Strong Science
To recapitulate—strong idea, strong evidence,
strong science, strong presentation, and…
 Strong collaborative team
 Evidence of complementary expertise that…
 Enables novel insights
 Enables complex approaches
 Documentation of…
 Prior history of collaboration
 Shared planning/proposal development
 Commitments to…
• Collaborate
• Support the work in concrete areas
A truly collaborative proposal engages key
collaborators early in project development efforts!
Success depends heavily on…
 Strong leadership
 The larger the collaboration, the greater the need
for a single leader to provide…
 Authority
 Assessment of core strengths / weaknesses
 Coordination of shared contributions
 External interactions (e.g., external advisory
group, external review)
 Tactical and administrative responsibilities
Success depends heavily on…
 Strong leadership (cont.)
 A strong leader brings the group along:
 Pushes cross-fertilization among disciplines
 Monitors progress
 Manages team responses to new developments
 Focused initiative
 Shared vision of what could be
 Strategic team action to achieve the vision…
 Align strengths optimally
 Address weaknesses
 Solicit external feedback
 React to feedback
Collaborative projects typically develop in one of
two ways…
 Strong collaborative idea/team drives a funding
search for an appropriate grant program.
 Subscription funding databases
 InfoEd SPIN
 Community of Science
 NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts
 Grants.gov
 Intriguing funding opportunity announcement
(FOA) inspires development of a collaboration.
Don’t wait for collaborative opportunities…Act!
 Cross-fertilization—a dynamic strategy to…
 Catalyze exploration of areas of common interest.
 Refine a potential concept with new endpoints, etc.
 Pointed, low-effort strategies that work!
 Set up regular research program meetings (20-min.
slots for each PI presentation).
 Invite others to your meetings.
 Garner invitations to their meetings.
 Set up bi-monthly luncheons.
 Develop hypotheses to share with one another.
 Listen and offer expertise/input!
Structure the approach—facilitate the interactions
through your research development office!
 Safety/Toxicity Assessment of Ceria (A Model Engineered Nanoparticle)
to the Brain, EPA RD-83377201-0, Yokel – pharmaceutical technology,
PI; Butterfield – chemistry, Co-I; Graham – applied energy research, Co-I;
Grulke – chemical and materials engineering, Co-I, subcontract PI medicine
 Diffuse Optical Monitoring of Head and Neck Tumor Therapy, NIH
R01CA149274, Yu – biomedical engineering, PI; Kudrimoti – radiation
medicine, Co-I; Stevens – diagnostic radiology, Co-I
 Geometry of Gene Cophylogenies as Relates to Genome Evolution and
Speciation, NIH R01GM08688, Yoshida – statistics, PI; Jaromczyk –
computer science, Co-I; Schardl – plant pathology, Co-I
 Mechanisms of Wnt/beta-catenin inhibition by resveratrol and its
derivatives, NIH R21CA139359, Liu – cancer biology, PI; Evers – surgery,
Co-I; Watt – analytical chemistry, Co-I
 Genetic Markers Associated with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer and
Hypodontia, NIH R03DE021438, Morford – oral health science, PI;
Desimone – gynecologic oncology, Co-I; Fardo – biostatistics
Keep an eye on less obvious
New grants
outcomes of the collaboration),
New publications
i.e., nurture your long-term
prospects!
 Development of new multifaceted research thrust that
multiplies your…
 Potential for future grant
awards
 Avenues for publication
 Potential to generate new New collaborators
collaborators, emphases
New emphasis
 Network of possibilities from
your expanded scope and the
contacts of your collaborators
The extramural funding scene…
 Huge numbers of potential sponsors—federal
and private grantors—each with…
 Different missions and priorities
 Different programs and funding emphases
 Different funding mechanisms
 Your goal—match your team’s idea to the
right sponsor and the right program!
Sponsors are only interested in your project if it
meets their need or solves their problem!
Mission fit is critically important to funding success!
 Know the sponsor!
 Do your research—review carefully…
 Sponsor web pages
 Mission statement
 History
 Scope of grant-making activity
 Talk extensively with funded investigators.
 Read and reread the funding opportunity
announcement (FOA).
 As you study the FOA, carefully analyze…





Goals/purpose of the specific program
Topics or issues of interest (funding priorities)
Integrative or interdisciplinary priorities/potential
Target populations
Review criteria
 Your project concept and goals
Against…
 Your own professional capabilities
 Expertise and experience
 Collaborative relationships
 Your institutional capacity
 Campus/partner environment/infrastructure
 Human resources/administrative support
Lack of good project/mission fit usually results in rejection!
 Analyze the match (your goals—their needs)
 Why would the sponsor want to “buy” your idea?
 Check the FOA—what kinds of team science is the
sponsor seeking?
 Do my objectives/activities link to sponsor goals?
 What else has the sponsor funded?
 Review abstracts/successfully funded proposals.
 What kinds of collaborating institutions were
represented by the awardees?
 To what degree is team science
represented in funded projects?
 Note key phrases/themes:
 “Collaborative teams of investigators”
 “Approaches which synergistically combine…”
 “Models of collaboration”
 “Integration across domains”
 “Requires multidisciplinary teams”
 Let these “buzzwords” shape…
 Your project concept.
 The make-up of your team of collaborators.
Collaborations can be as simple as…
a multi-PI R21 ($275,000 total for two years)
to highly complex large-scale projects.
Once you target a sponsor…
 Contact the program official listed in the program
solicitation to discuss your project concept.
 Alignment of project with program focus
 Any recommendation for a specific…
 Institute at NIH
 Directorate at NSF
 Program at a private foundation
Email the program contact
to request a time to call.
In the email, identify…
~ Yourself, your expertise,
your institution
~ Your project concept, i.e.,
send a brief abstract or
concept paper
Funding begets funding!
 Build a track record by starting small.
 Each award instills confidence that you can…
 Manage the funds of others responsibly
 Complete a proposed project successfully
 Build on previous work to accomplish even greater
outcomes
Persistence pays!
 Rejection is part of the process.
 Those who succeed submit again and again
and again.
Act on a cardinal rule of grant-seeking: persistence pays!
 NIH success rates by submission status…
FY
New R01 Equivalent
Grants by Submission
No.
Success
Rate
2011 Original (-01)
12.7%
2011 First Amendment (-01A1)
39.2%
http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/index.aspx
A competitive proposal is …
a detailed, step-by-step action plan!
If you find yourself proposing…
 Ideas without processes for implementation
 Potential collaborators with no evidence of commitment
 Several “to-be-named” roles
 Plans to…
 Recruit key collaborators
 Identify gaps or assess needs
 Identify evidence-based methods to carry out the
aims…
…you are probably not yet ready to write the proposal.
 The grant-writing process takes place after
significant planning of the details…
 Gap or needs analysis
 Identification of collaborators and project team
 Collaborator commitments and documentation of
complementary synergistic expertise
 Collection of preliminary data—preferably collaboratively
collected data—to support your rationale
 Extensive project development involving committed
collaborators
Think “shovel-ready” – in short, you have laid
extensive groundwork, and the proposed project is
ready (or almost ready) to launch!
To be an NIH-funded investigator, you must look like one!
(Substitute any sponsor—the game is the same.)
 Let reviewers “recognize” you as someone who knows how
to play the game. This means...
 You (i.e., your grant application) must…
 Reflect your knowledge of NIH conventions.
 Speak the “language” of the agency
 Specific aims (NIH) or objectives (NSF)
 Significance and innovation (NIH) or intellectual merit,
broader impact, integration of research and education
(NSF)
 Follow “the formula”—the layout of a typical NIH application
as specified in the FOA.
 In short, write for an NIH audience.
.
Be “reviewer friendly”, i.e., make specific content easy to find!
 Read and follow the guidelines strictly!
 Use the outline structure provided in
the FOA—you deviate at your own risk!
 Include all specified content.
 Use the sponsor’s section
headings.
 Avoid long, unbroken expanses of text.
 Judicious use of “white space”
 Blank lines between paragraphs
 Short “digestible” blocks of text
Make complex content easy to digest!
 Use the 4-S strategy of audience-centered
communication for discussion points!
 Signpost – Signal upcoming content with subheadings,
boldface or italic type, figures, diagrams, charts.
 State – Open with a key point or topic sentence.
 Support – Cite supporting evidence for each statement.
~ Tell (state) – then show! (support)
 Summarize – Pause periodically to interpret and lead
reviewer thinking.
Clearly convey both collaborative history and potential!
 Team science creates special needs to convince
reviewers because it...
 Transcends traditional boundaries
 Proposes bold new directions
 Uses synergy to create “new” disciplines or alter
approaches within existing ones (e.g.,
neuro-economics)
 You must demonstrate to reviewers that the
collaboration is both appropriate and effective.
Clearly convey both collaborative history and potential!
For example…
 Collaborative R01s require…
 Rationale for multi-site collaboration.
 History of collaboration, particularly as it informs or
drives preliminary…
 Instrument development.
 Data collection.
 PI and his/her environment—complementary and
integrated
 Roles/areas of responsibilities of the PIs
 Justification of collaborative relationship
 Coordination of fiscal and management areas
 Process for decision-making
 Scientific direction
 Allocation of resources
 Team communications
 Publication and intellectual property policies
 Procedures for resolving conflicts
Executive summary, abstract, project summary…
“…a rose by any other name….” (Shakespeare)
 What it is…
 “Summative” conversation with…
 Program officers
 Reviewers
 Public (if funded)
 “Mini” version of the proposal
 Covers each major component
 Captures the essence of the review criteria
~ Do discuss review criteria fully in the narrative!
 Addresses a wide variety of audiences
 Clear goal statements
 Well-defined problem statement or rationale…
 Supported by data
 Most often presented as a “gap” in the field
 Detailed set of project activities…
 Direct alignment of proposal content with review
criteria
 Meaningful evaluation measures
 Carefully justified budget
 Direct link between budget items and narrative
By the end of the Specific Aims page reviewers are either sold on the
project—or not!
The Specific Aims page must…
 Market your idea
 Build a convincing case for funding
 Generate reviewer support for the project concept
Paragraph 1: Set the context/frame the problem
Paragraph 2: Propose a solution.
Paragraph 3: Briefly summarize your approach.
Paragraph 4: Summarize the overall impact.
1) Identify a critical need in highly compelling terms.
 Opening “hook” sentence to begin the flow of logic, orient
reviewers to the context, provide direction
 “Knowns” – the current state of knowledge
 “Unknown” – gap in current state of knowledge
 Problem statement – direct indication of compelling need
2) Outline a solution (idea).
 Project goal (aligned with agency mission)
 Central hypothesis
 Basis for hypothesis (preliminary work + literature)
 Rationale (why?)
3) Lay out the approach.
 Project-specific aims or objectives
 Logically related
 Not dependent on success of other aims/objectives
 Logical step-by-step development of activities to fulfill the
aims/objectives
4) Summarize the overall impact.
 Direct statement of expected results
 Expected benefits/impact of the outcomes…
 Brief mention of Significance
 Brief mention of Innovation
 Goals…
 Indicate overarching long-range direction.
 Provide broad statement of the targeted outcome.
~ Examples:
…to determine the role of changing marriage and family
practices in shaping international migration.
(The Reciprocal Dynamics of Family Transformation through
International Marriage Migration; PI—Cole, University of
Chicago; NSF award 1060807)
…to assess the long-term effect of [intimate partner violence]
during pregnancy on early childhood health.
(Early Childhood Development in Relation to Intimate Partner
Violence During Pregnancy; PI—Chen, Medicine/Dentistry of
New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School, NIH R03 HD058249)
Consensus is critical for team science—write
goals and objectives collaboratively!
 Objectives…
 Break the goal down into smaller units
 Provide specific, measurable actions to achieve
the goal
 Outcome objectives…
 Express intended results or accomplishments
 Focus on changes in policy, a system, the environment,
knowledge, attitudes, or behavior
 Task-based or process objectives…
 Focus on the activities to be completed
 Represent concrete steps in the implementation process
 Outcome objectives…
~ Examples:
…to determine if self-monitoring of daily eating and physical activity
habits using a personal digital assistant (PDA), with or without a
tailored feedback intervention, is superior to using a paper diary in
terms of promoting and maintaining short and long-term weight loss.
(Improving Self-Monitoring in Weight Loss with Technology; PI—Burke,
University of Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh, NIH R01DK071817)
 Task-based
or process objectives…
~ Example:
… to create concerted patient care and clinical research workflow
models, designed to promote awareness, information sharing and
reuse…; establish a standards-based knowledge base of business rules
to support the re-engineered care/research workflow model….
(Developing flexible EHR Plug-Ins to Re-Engineer Clinical Care and
Research Workflow, PI—Bigger, Columbia University Health Sciences,
NIH R01 LM0101815)
…to develop and validate a novel non-contact diffuse optical system for
early hemodynamic assessment of ulcer development in deep tissues.
(Non-contact Diffuse Optical Assessment of Pressure Ulcer and
Therapy, PI—Yu, University of Kentucky, NIH R21AR062356)
 Task-based or process objectives…
~ Example:
…to analyze the network assembly of vascular derivatives in
hydrogels.
(CAREER: Hypoxia and Extracellular Matrix Remodeling in Vascular
Differentiation and Network Assembly; PI—Gerecht, Johns Hopkins
University, NSF award 1054415)
…to characterize (qualitatively and quantitatively) trophic interactions
between major plankton groups in the euphotic zone and rates of, and
contributors to, carbon export [in the Sargasso Sea.]
(Collaborative Research: Plankton Community Composition and
Trophic Interactions; PI—Richardson, University of South Carolina,
NSF award 1030345)
Specific aims or objectives drive the application!
Know where your work is headed! Ensure
your objectives are SMART…
 Specific
 Measurable
 Achievable
 Realistic
 Time-bound
Non-SMART objectives invite reviewer
criticisms…
 The scope is too ambitious.
 It is not clear that the applicant can achieve the
objectives during the project period.
 The objectives are not easily measured and,
thus, the expected outcomes are doubtful.
The discussion of rationale (Why?) helps you sell the project.
 A strong project rationale builds on a…
 Specific problem statement or
 Gap in the current state of the field
 Provides a context or frame of reference for the work
 Underscores the importance of the goals/objectives
 Uses compelling language and statistics to describe…
 Extent/degree of problem
 Need for the project and its urgency
 Impact of leaving the problem unaddressed
 Populations affected
Never leave your reviewers to determine the impact themselves!
Joshua Bell at the metro…
 “By most measures, he was nondescript: a
youngish white man in jeans, a long-sleeved
T-shirt and a Washington Nationals baseball
cap. From a small case, he removed a violin.
Placing the open case at his feet, he shrewdly
threw in a few dollars…and began to play.”
By Gene Weingarten
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
 A competitive proposal…
 Starts with a good idea but develops the
idea into a very detailed action plan.
 Clearly indicates who, what, why, when, and
how…and it does so in highly specific detail.
Good Idea
Action Plan
Position your proposal content as far as possible along the
“Good Idea → Action Plan” continuum by laying out very
specific details of the work.
 Study the review criteria.




Are your responses to the criteria easy to find?
Are the criteria thoroughly addressed?
Are all criteria addressed?
Did you seek outside review of the narrative
“against” the guidelines?
 Evaluate!
 Analyze and interpret data, or evaluate program activities.
 Identify specific tools and measures linked to objectives.
 Identify an expert evaluator—internal or external—but not you!
 Disseminate!



Identify products, outcomes, or findings
Deliver project deliverables.
Share—publish, present, teach, post, reach out.
 Sustain!



Describe future studies, applications, other funding.
Embed within a center, institute, or college.
Conceive the project as a model for others.
What happens when it’s over? Program evaluation matters!
 Identify precise areas of project value
 Merit or quality
 Worth or cost-effectiveness
 Significance or impact
 Determine…






What to evaluate (program and context)
What performance aspects to judge
What standards must be reached
What evidence or indicators to use
What conclusions are justified
How outcomes will drive improvement
http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework.htm
 Sponsors/reviewers increasingly want to see…
 Formal expertise with data analysis and interpretation
 Statistician
 Expert evaluator
 Robust plan for critically analyzing the outcomes
 Formative/summative assessments
 Discussion of statistical measures
 Thoughtful discussion of conclusions to be drawn
 Evidence-based measures appropriate to the standards
of the discipline
 Theoretical underpinnings of the analytical approach
Budget sufficient funds for evaluation, or…
risk undermining your work!
What did you create?
New knowledge? Novel tools? Innovative approaches?
 Identify directly and specifically…
 The products of your work
 The anticipated end users
 The overall benefit
 Address sponsor’s expectations for sharing…





Publication
Presentation
Participation in awardee network
Application or translation to other settings
Foundations for future studies by others
What did all that money buy? Plans to sustain matter!
 Consider ways to sustain the value of your
creation…




Future studies (think research program, not project)
Existing resources to support sustainability
Impact in building capacity or enabling translation
External factors that support continuation
 Lay groundwork for institutional buy-in…
 By senior administrators
 Institutional assurances/commitments
 Other stakeholders or playmakers
External review prior to submission is critical!
 AKA Red Team review
 Pick toughest reviewers you can get…
 People who will give great feedback
 People who are engaged, so easier to keep
engaged
 Set parameters for “guided” review by red team
reviewers.
 Specify the section you wish feedback on.
 Specify 4-5 issues you are struggling with.
 But send the whole draft proposal in as polished a
state as possible.
 AKA Red Team review (cont.)
 External/internal advisors/reviewers (or both) can
“play the heavy,” i.e., deliver the bad news.
 Pressure on team to deliver quality content when
other colleagues will see their work
 Motivation to team to talk, regroup, revise
 “Swap” reviews by collaborators create cohesiveness.
 Within-the-team review
 Inside knowledge of the project concept, so
particularly informed review
 Eye to alignment with the central concept
Successful sample proposals are invaluable!
Identify successful projects—request sample proposals.
Writing Good Goals and Smart Objectives
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/evaluation/resources.htm#5
“All About Grants” Tutorials
(National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases)
http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/
Program Evaluation Toolkit
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
U.S. Department of Agriculture
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/peis/Evaluation/Types.htm
User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97153/start.htm