Training Grants: Introduction

Read the Program Announcement Read the Program Announcement Read the Program Announcement

Pick most appropriate program Follow directions and organize in

order

Training Grants: Evaluation Who is the reviewer Condition of the Reviewer when

reading your grant This person needs help This person is your advocate in the

committee meeting Tell a compelling story cleanly and

concisely

RESUME: CANDIDATE: CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLAN: TRAINING IN RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH: RESEARCH PLAN: Scientific and Technical Merit (Significance/Approach/Innovation) Relevance to Candidate’s Career Objectives Appropriateness as vehicle for developing research skills Adequacy of children, gender, minority issues MENTOR/CO-MENTORS RESOURCES/ENVIRONMENT/INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTMENT: PROTECTION OF HUMAN/ANIMAL SUBJECTS: GENDER/MINORITIES/WOMEN/CHILDREN: BUDGET:

Training Grants: Applicant Trainee

What makes you a stellar candidate to invest in?

Past scholarly record – consistent with career goals? Level of commitment is measured by past

performance Is past research training reflected in record of

productivity? Publications indicate ability to complete work Will your goals contribute significantly to the aims

of the award

Training Grants: Applicant Career Development section is Critical How does course work extend capabilities – i.e.

development into an independent scientist Progression of coursework Degree granting programs

How does environment support development What does the project accomplish that you

have not already done Required issues – Responsible Conduct of

Research. Human and animal research subject ethics

Training Grants: Mentors

Symbiosis of candidate and mentor – prior papers or other activities

Mentoring plan - formal evaluation feedback and period

Candidate often is active in formulating mentor letter

Same mentor vs. new mentors

Training Grants: Mentors

Core Faculty Focused on trainer’s record and past

trainees Specify why chosen – what does each

contribute NIH funding and their productivity External v Internal Oversight committees Point is – highly productive and

supportive environment for training

Training Grants: Project

Clinical Projects Control of Cohort Diverse vs specific issues and how

overcome Objective vs Subjective Outcomes Quantitative Measurements Statistical methods

Training Grants: Project

Bench Projects Model Considerations – animal v cells

etc Transgenics – will they multiply? Mechanisms Quantitative Methods

Real-time PCR Micro-chip array – RNA and DNA Proteonomics

Training Grants: Project Sequential Aims: dependence on

success of first aim Use of new technologies – only if

relevant and have preliminary data to support your capability

Predict outcomes – provide alternatives

Power Analysis to justify enrollment - especially if human or animal research

Training Grants: Evaluation

Criteria for project evaluation – put in sections for reviewers NIH – Significance, Innovation,

Approach Add a Rationale before each study

Training Grants: Pitfalls

Common Problems Poor demonstration of hypothesis

validity Lack of focus Lack of mechanisms (descriptive v

mechanistic) Smog of Polluted Writing

Editing is an art

If you willteach your childrento give away their thingsyou will at the same time beteaching them to receive the gift of heaven this worldwants so muchto give

Weitzman Ad Agency Annapolis, MD 2007

Editing is an art

If you willteach your childrento give away their thingsyou will at the same time beteaching them to receive the gift of heaven this worldwants so muchto give

Weitzman Ad Agency Annapolis, MD 2007

Training Grants: IRB Meeting

Reviewer as advocate Committee encouraged to discuss

only top 50% of applications Reviewer credibility within

committee Succinctly presents essence of your

application in compelling manner Can not use “F-word”

Training Grants: IRB Meeting

Propelling application to top score Top score from other reviewers Middlin’ score from other reviewers Poor score from others

Training Grants: Preparation

Finish first draft at least two weeks before deadline – send to mentor(s) for revisions.

Budgets - do not wait to the end for this step

Revise slowly with sufficient time to recognize your errors.

Rushed, chaotic applications indicate the applicant’s research style