Transcript Slide 1

“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
The
Young
Puerto Rican
Four
Women
Writing as a Process – 3 stages
Pre-Writing
• preliminary research
• reading literature
• planning project
• making notes
• figuring out the rules/notes
Writing
Revision
re-seeing
rethinking
rewriting
editing
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.
Writing a
draft
Writing the
thesis and
developing a
sketch
Discovering
topic,
audience and
purpose
Gathering
data and
information
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 be
found in the dictionary - it's just a matter
of arranging them into the right
sentences. 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 only
Application 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.
2.
3.
4.
Design
Aims
Experiments
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 the
study section
A point-by point listing of each reviewer
concern
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
Compose the introduction with utmost care.
• Tone
1. Professional
2. Diplomatic
3. Not argumentative
4. Not gushing
5. Not overly apologetic
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
1st level
Study Section – Scientific
Output: Individual Criterion Scores,
• Provides independent outside review
Preliminary Impact Score, and, if
• Evaluates scientific merit, significance
discussed at meeting, Summary
• Recommends length and level of fundingStatement with Overall Impact Score
3 - 7 months
Output: Funding
Recommendations
Advisory Council -- Programmatic
•
•
•
•
2nd level
Assesses quality of study section review
Makes recommendation to Institute staff
Evaluates program priorities and relevance
Advises on policy
1 - 3 months
Output: Funding
Decisions
Institute Director
• Makes final funding decision based on
Council input, programmatic priorities
• Must also Pass Administrative Review
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