Transcript COMPONENTS OF A GOOD GRANT PROPOSAL Philip T. LoVerde

COMPONENTS OF
A GOOD GRANT PROPOSAL
Philip T. LoVerde
RESEARCH PLAN
GOOD IDEAS
•OVERALL GOAL
•SPECIFIC AIMS
•PRELIMINARY DATA
•HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN GRANT
–ASK QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF A TESTABLE
HYPOTHESIS
RESEARCH PLAN
•START WITH AN OUTLINE
•INCLUDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION
NEEDED FOR EVALUATION
•GRANT SHOULD STAND ALONE
•BE SPECIFIC AND INFORMATIVE
•TELL THE REVIEWER WHAT YOU ARE
GOING TO DO AND HOW YOU ARE
GOING TO DO IT
RESEARCH PLAN
•WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO?
•WHY IS THE WORK IMPORTANT
(SIGNIFICANCE)?
•WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE?
•HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THE
WORK?
GRANT PROPOSAL
• SPECIFIC AIMS
• BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
• PRELIMINARY DATA
• RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
• LITERATURE CITED
SPECIFIC AIMS
•LIST LONG TERM OBJECTIVES
•WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC RESEARCH THIS
APPLICATION IS INTENDED TO
ACCOMPLISH
•STATE HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED OR
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
•State concisely the goals of the proposed research
and summarize the expected outcome(s),
including the impact that the results of the
proposed research will exert on the research
field(s) involved.
HOST GENETIC CORRELATES IN SCHISTOSOMIASIS
• A. SPECIFIC AIMS: The overall goal of this grant is to define the
contribution of host genetics to the initiation and outcome of infection
with Schistosoma mansoni. To accomplish our goals we will identify
relevant immunological phenotypes by their responses to defined
schistosome antigens and use these phenotypes to identify loci
(genes) involved in determining resistance/susceptibility to re-infection
and the host contribution to different clinical forms of schistosomiasis.
These studies are best performed on subjects from endemic areas,
who are exposed to the parasite under natural conditions of
transmission. Although experimental infections provide important
information, they are not able to reproduce the complex interactions
between genetic, immunological and environmental factors that
determine patterns of disease epidemiology in human populations. The
overall focus of this grant is to develop immunological phenotypes
(variables) involved both in resistance/susceptibility to re-infection and
development of different clinical forms of schistosomiasis and then to
identify the genetic determinants (loci) of these immunological
phenotypes. We will study large well-characterized extended families
from endemic areas to address the following specific aims:
BACKGROUND & SIGNIFICANCE
• OUTLINE THE BACKGROUND
(RATIONALE) LEADING TO THE PRESENT
APPLICATION
• CRITICALLY EVALUATE EXISTING
KNOWLEDGE
• IDENTIFY GAPS THAT THE PROJECT IS
INTENDED TO FILL
• STATE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH
DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION
• RELATE SIGNIFICANCE TO SPECIFIC
AIMS
PRELIMINARY DATA
• SUPPORT THE AIMS OR HYPOTHESES
• DEMONSTRATE EXPERIENCE OR
COMPETENCE OF PI
• DEMONSTRATE ABILITY TO PERFORM
PROPOSED METHODS
• PROVIDE PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED
RESULTS
RESEARCH DESIGN AND
METHODS
• SPECIFIC AIM
• PROVIDE HYPOTHESIS OR RATIONALE
• OVERVIEW OF DESIGN
• TECHNIQUES (METHODS) USED TO TEST
HYPOTHESIS
• HOW WILL DATA BE COLLECTED,
ANALYZED, AND INTERPRETED
RESEARCH DESIGN AND
METHODS
• DISCUSS EXPECTED OUTCOMES
• DISCUSS PROBLEMS, PITFALLS,
LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPOSED
PROCEDURES
• ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
• TENATIVE TIMETABLE FOR PROJECT
OUTLINE
OVERALL GOAL
AIM 1:
AIM 2:
AIM 3:
AIM 1:
HYPOTHESIS
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
PRELIMINARY DATA
IF NONE, DO I NEED TO GENERATE SOME
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
OUTLINE CONTINUED
AIM 1:
HYPOTHESIS
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
PRELIMINARY DATA
IF NONE, DO I NEED TO GENERATE SOME
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
METHODS
CONTROLS
ANALYSIS (STATISTICS, POWER
CALCULATIONS)
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
OUTLINE CONTINUED
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
METHODS
CONTROLS
ANALYSIS (STATISTICS, POWER CALCULATION)
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
IF I PERFORM EXPERIMENT, WHAT WILL
HAPPEN
IS THIS THE BEST APPROACH, LIMITATIONS
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
AIM 2
AIM 3
INSTRUCTIONS
• COVER PAGE
• BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH
– RECENT AND RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS
• BUDGET
– REALISTIC
– JUSTIFICATION
• REFERENCES
– RELEVANT ONES
• LETTERS
– COLLABORATORS
– REAGENT PROVIDERS
FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS
• FONT SIZE
• MARGINS
• SPELL CHECKER AND GRAMMAR
– HELP FROM COLLEAGUE
• PAGE LIMITATIONS (EVERY
GRANT IS DIFFERENT)
OTHER ISSUES
• HUMAN SUBJECTS
– INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB)
– INCLUSION OF WOMEN, CHILDREN,
MINORITIES
• ANIMAL WELFARE
– INSTITUTIONAL ANIMAL CARE AND USE
COMMITTEE (IACUC)
– BIOHAZARDS
• APPENDIX
– SPECIAL FIGURES
– MANUSCRIPTS: IN PRESS
HAVE KNOWLEDGABLE
COLLEAGUES READ
PROPOSAL FOR SCIENCE
AND FOR PROPER
ENGLISH
Research Strategy-NIH
(a) Significance
• Explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress
in the field that the proposed project addresses.
• Explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge,
technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad
fields.
• Describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments,
services, or preventative interventions that drive this field will be
changed if the proposed aims are achieved.
•
• (b) Innovation
• Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current
research or clinical practice paradigms.
• Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation or intervention(s) to be developed or
used, and any advantage over existing methodologies,
instrumentation or intervention(s).
• Explain any refinements, improvements, or new applications of
theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation
or interventions.
RESEARCH STRATEGY
(c) Approach
• Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and
analyses to be used to accomplish the specific aims of
the project. include how the data will be collected,
analyzed, and interpreted as well as any resource
sharing plans as appropriate.
• Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies, and
benchmarks for success anticipated to achieve the aims.
• If the project is in the early stages of development,
describe any strategy to establish feasibility, and
address the management of any high risk aspects of the
proposed work.
• Point out any procedures, situations, or materials that
may be hazardous to personnel and precautions to be
exercised.
Research Project Evaluation Criteria
• Overall Impact. Reviewers will provide an overall
impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood
for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the
research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five
core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable
for the project proposed).
• Core Review Criteria. Reviewers will consider each of the five
review criteria below in the determination of scientific and
technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application
does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to
have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its
nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
• Significance: 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?
• Investigator(s): Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other
researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage
Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate
experience and training? If established, have they
demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that
have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or
multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and
integrated expertise; are their leadership approach,
governance and organizational structure appropriate for the
project?
• Innovation: 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?
• Approach: Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses wellreasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the
project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks
for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of
development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly
risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are
the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and
2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as
the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and
research strategy proposed?
• Environment: Will the scientific environment in which the work will be
done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional
support, equipment and other physical resources available to the
investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project
benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject
populations, or collaborative arrangements?.
funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/aag.aspx
-research priorities and tips on grant writing
http://research.microsoft.com/enus/um/people/simonpj/papers/proposal.html
-useful tips
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/grant_proposals.
html
Research priorities and guide to writing a research proposal
http://www.bioscience.org/current/grant.htm
Tips for writing a grant proposal
http://www.fic.nih.gov/funding/grants_info/index.htm
How to apply for a NIH grant