Transcript The Proposal Review Process: An Insider’s Look at Federal

The Proposal Review Process:
An Insider’s Look at Federal Review Panels Panel
consisting of faculty from UNO and UNMC who have
served on review panels
 Dr.
Lani (Chi Chi) Zimmerman, UNMC
 Dr. Bill Mahoney, IS&T
 Dr. Matt Germonprez, IS&T
 Dr. Mahadevan Subramaniam, IS&T
Create a checklist

The organizations that offer grants usually publish a lengthy
set of rules and guidelines for grant submission and that is
what you need to review very carefully before any attempt
at writing a grant.

Read the entire application carefully.

Make a list of questions you must answer and materials that
have to be included.

See what buzz words they are using and how they have
defined them.
Don’t sound technical.
 The
best grant proposals are clear,
concise, and understandable.
 Use
good solid English, easily understood
by an average person.
 Avoid
getting too intellectual or too
technical in your writing.
Pay attention to detail.
 Having
the assistance of a good
editor to review your work with a
trained eye will improve your writing
tremendously.
Write a compelling story.
 Use
images that are very dramatic and
show the problems you are going to solve.
 You
want to make the reader feel like they
are right in the middle of the situation, so
that they can imagine what it must be like.
Pretend you’re the funder

(a) the organizations that received funding have many
years of experience in the areas of concern,

(b) the proposals are professionally presented,

(c) the cause is clearly identified,

(d) the parameters of need are expressed clearly, and

(e) there is evidence of past success.
Find a good mentor or grant writing
coach
 Grant
writing, whether it is for yourself or for
others requires a seasoned professional skill
set in order to prepare grants that are
award winning.

A mentor is someone who is very talented
in grant writing that guides you and helps
you improve your skills.
Become great at researching
funding sources

There are international sources, national sources,
regional sources and local sources for grant
funding.

Some of the easier grants to get are the smaller
ones for local purposes.

There are also grants available for a variety of
distinct causes from foundations that have been
set up specifically to support such grants.

The U.S. government is also a major source.
Target a specific project for your
proposal
 The
majority of all grants, given for projects
that help people, are given to specific
cause instead of just general support.
 By
focusing your grant proposal you will
increase your chances of getting funded.
NIHOverall 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 review
criteria, and additional review criteria (as
applicable for the project proposed).
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, or in the early stages of independent
careers, 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
well-reasoned 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?
Additional Review Criteria. As applicable for the project
proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional
items while determining scientific and technical merit and in
providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give
separate scores for these items.

Protections for Human Subjects

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children

Vertebrate Animals

Biohazards

Resubmission

Renewal

Revision