Funding for Academic Environment Presented by: Ronald Braithwaite, Ph.D. Professor Morehouse School of Medicine Departments of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Family Medicine and Psychiatry April 27,
Download ReportTranscript Funding for Academic Environment Presented by: Ronald Braithwaite, Ph.D. Professor Morehouse School of Medicine Departments of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Family Medicine and Psychiatry April 27,
Funding for Academic Environment Presented by: Ronald Braithwaite, Ph.D. Professor Morehouse School of Medicine Departments of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Family Medicine and Psychiatry April 27, 2011 Substance Abuse and HIV/AIDS in Latinos: Linking Research with the Community “Anatomy” of the Grant Process Program Staff Researcher Revision Collaborators Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) RFA or PA Idea Institution Grant Application (R01, R03, R21, K01, K08, etc.) $ Program Staff National Advisory Council CSR Referral and Review Extramural Research NIH has 3 major funding instruments to support extramural research: Grant: Investigator decides the research to be designed or developed and the approach. Contract: Government decides the research to fill their perceived need and establishes detailed requirements. Cooperative Agreement: Similar to grants, but awarding Institute/Center (IC) and recipient have substantial involvement in carrying out the project's activities. NIH Behavioral and Social Research Support in FY 2002 NIMH NIDA NICHD NCI NIA NIAAA NHLBI NINR NIDCD NINDS NCRR NEI NIDDK $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 408.7 377.3 250.2 248.6 243.5 183.1 108.7 98.0 87.9 71.0 54.5 54.2 42.0 NIAID NIDCR OD NIAMS NHGRI NCCAM NIEHS NIGMS FIC NLM NIBIB NCMHD Total $ 33.9 $ 27.5 $ 25.3 $ 22.1 $ 15.7 $ 14.4 $ 12.5 $ 11.3 $ 5.8 $ 1.8 $ 1.0 $ 0.7 $2,399.5 So … What Type of Grant Is Right for Me? Stage of research career? - experience and expertise? Research needs? - mentors or collaborators? - size of project? Talk with staff … They will help you find the right funding mechanism. Funding Mechanisms Graduate Student NRSA F30, F31, R36, T32 Postdoctoral NRSA F32, T32 Transition K01, K08, K23, K12, K22, K99/R00 Early Career R03, R21, R15 Mid-Career R01, K02, P01, K24 Senior Investigator K05 NIH Grant Mechanisms R01 Traditional investigator-initiated grant < $500K/yr, 3-5 yrs. Need approval if more than $500K for any year of the grant R03 Small Grant < $100K for 2 yrs R21 (NCI) Exploratory/Developmental Grant < $275K for 2 yrs R13 Conference Grants amount dependent on score, timeliness, budget, NIH interest Career Development Awards Career Development Programs (K series) K01 Mentored Research Scientist Development Award K08 Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award K22 NCI Transition Career Development Award K23 Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award http://grants1.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm NCI Research Fellowships and Training Funding Opportunities Fellowships (F series) F32 Individual Postdoctoral Fellows F33 Senior Fellows F31 NIH Predoctoral Fellowship Awards for Minority Students Training (T series) T32 Institutional Research Training Grants http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-02-109.html Predoctoral Research Training Partnership Award (TU2) http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/concepts/TU2concept.htm http://grants1.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm Components of a Successful Grant Application – Bottom Line! • Strong Idea • Strong Science • Strong Application Some key considerations Write a clear and concise abstract Never assume that reviewers “will know what you mean” Tell a coherent and consistent story Write for a multidisciplinary audience Place your project in a larger scientific/public health context Create a cohesive application package Pay attention to grammar and spelling!! Conduct a “mock” review with colleagues Before You Start Writing Do your homework! • • • • • Find the right NIH Institute Review the Institute FOAs Find the right funding mechanism Know the review committee(s) Talk to the Program Officer at the Institute Except for deciding on a funding mechanism, there’s no requirement that you do any of these! Concept Development Questions to continually ask yourself: -- What will be learned? -- Why is this research important? Planning Guide for New Applications PLANNING PHASE Months before receipt date 8 7 SUBMISSION PHASE WRITING PHASE 6 5 4 3 2 1 Receipt Date Assess yourself, your field, and your resources Brainstorm; research your idea; call NIH program staff Set up your own review committee; determine human and animal subject requirements Meet institutional deadlines Get feedback; edit and proof read The SCIENCE • Define a fundamental question • Transform idea(s) into an exciting story/ “a scientific journey” • Build confidence and enthusiasm (and sense of importance/relevance of your particular research to the field) Writing -- General Comments • Investigate a significant issue in science • Use clear and concise language • Propose a doable project Writing -- General Comments (cont) • Create interest and build enthusiasm about project • Be very concerned about “packaging” • Never assume your audience will “know what you mean” Title (the “Hook”) Clear and descriptive Abstract (Project Description) Present the big picture Abstract (Project Description) nd 2 … the “Hook” … use it as another important opportunity If the reviewers aren’t excited after reading the abstract……………. The Application 12 pages … to convince reviewers *For RO1s, most Ks and some other grant mechanisms keep abreast of changes by subscribing to the NIH Guide! Key Personnel Justify thoroughly Biographical Sketch Who ARE you? Why are YOU the person to do this? Personal Statement Maximum of 15 publications Consultants/Collaborators Justify thoroughly Duration of Study Justify thoroughly Budget Do not underbudget or overbudget and Justify! Justify!! Justify!!! Specific Aims Summary of your goals What will be the IMPACT! Your best shot! If the reviewers aren’t enthusiastic by the end of the Specific Aims they’re seldom won back. Research Strategy – 4 sections • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Preliminary Studies/Progress Report Significance Why is what you want to do important? How will what you want to do change the field? Innovation What’s new here? Are there novel concepts, approaches, methodologies? Approach • Provide rationales throughout as to why certain methods were selected and why key alternatives were not • Provide timeline – a realistic and wellplanned estimate of start/end times for each experiment • Address potential problems and solutions Approach • Exercise humility – it is far better to identify weaknesses and explain how you will deal with them than it is to hope that the reviewers won’t find them (they always do!) • Highlight strengths of application whenever you can! Approach (Avoid These Criticisms!) • Not enough detail • Methods out of date • Experiments don’t test the hypotheses • What hypothesis/hypotheses? Approach (Avoid These Criticisms!) • Fishing expedition • No place to go if Aim 1 fails • Inappropriate statistical analysis • Insufficient power • Sequence & priorities missing - logic/flow Be ProACTIVE!!! Be PERSISTENT!!! PLAN Ahead!!! And Don’t Forget to talk with your PROGRAM OFFICER!!! “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). 9-Point Scoring System 1st Level Review Standing study section typically has 12-24 members Typically 3 meetings each year face-to-face or electronic Review 60 - 100 applications at each meeting Summary Statement The summary statement contains: Overall Resume and Summary of Review Discussion for applications that are discussed Essentially Unedited Critiques Priority Score and Percentile Ranking, if given Budget Recommendations Information about human subjects and other matters, as needed, and administrative notes NOW WHAT TO DO?! • Read summary statement • Re-read summary statement • Talk with your Program Officer • Talk with your colleagues • If the weaknesses can be fixed, revise and resubmit the application Common Problems in Applications (check prior to submission) Diffuse or unfocused research plan Studies lack cohesiveness Insufficient detail Insufficient evidence of knowledge of relevant literature Unrealistically large amount of work Uncertainty concerning future directions Lack of specific data to show feasibility of approach Common Problems in Applications (Continued) Absence of new or original ideas Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale Insufficient evidence of experience in the essential methodology Outdated methodologies Questionable reasoning in approach Uncritical approach Poor preparation and presentation Common Problems in Applications (Continued) Inadequate consideration of protection for human or animal subjects; absence or problems with data and safety monitoring procedures Missing or inadequate inclusion of Women Minorities Children On-Time Submission Initial submission must have a Grants.gov timestamp on or before 5:00 p.m. local time of submitting organization on the receipt date. My Top Ten Critical Factors Identify the gap in science you will fill Clearly define Hypothesis/Scientific Aims Clearly define design Clearly define primary outcome Link outcomes to specific measures Limitations Section: proactively defuse weaknesses and justify your decisions Have others read it prior to submission Detailed Recruitment and Retention Timeline/Feasibility Pilot Data, Pilot Data, Pilot Data Repeat core Issues at least 3X Explain your rationale/choices Why points are deducted (by me) Design Unclear Schedule of assessment Wrong Control Group Lack of Theoretical Grounding Wrong Statistical Model Insufficient/Incorrect Power Calculations Lack of Pilot Data (RO1 only) Weak/Wrong/Unspecified Measures The “Top Ten” List 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Read and re-read the program announcement Assemble a strong research team Use the strongest study design possible If you have not been on a study section, confer with someone who has Be sure to document the innovations(s) Document strong access to the study population Make sure the writing, organization, & grammar are as tight as possible (write, re-write…read, re-read) Seek reviews before submission Make careful use of the summary statement Persevere and don’t take rejection personally Most Common Problems • • • • • • • • • • Lack of new or original ideas Diffuse, superficial or unfocused research plan Lack of knowledge of published relevant work Lack of experience in the essential methods Uncertainty concerning the future directions Questionable reasoning in methodological approach Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale Unrealistically large amount of work Lack of sufficient methodological detail Uncritical approach Thank You Q&A