Funding for Academic Environment
Presented by:
Ronald Braithwaite, Ph.D.Professor
Morehouse School of MedicineDepartments 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 Funding OpportunityAnnouncement (FOA)
RFA or PA
Grant Application(R01, R03, R21,K01, K08, etc.)
NationalAdvisoryCouncil
Program Staff
$
Rev
isio
n
Researcher
IdeaInstitution
CSRReferral
and Review
Collaborators
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 $ 408.7 NIDA $ 377.3 NICHD $ 250.2 NCI $ 248.6 NIA $ 243.5 NIAAA $ 183.1 NHLBI $ 108.7 NINR $ 98.0 NIDCD $ 87.9 NINDS $ 71.0 NCRR $ 54.5 NEI $ 54.2 NIDDK $ 42.0
NIAID $ 33.9 NIDCR $ 27.5 OD $ 25.3 NIAMS $ 22.1 NHGRI $ 15.7 NCCAM $ 14.4 NIEHS $ 12.5 NIGMS $ 11.3 FIC $ 5.8 NLM $ 1.8 NIBIB $ 1.0 NCMHD $ 0.7 Total $2,399.5
So … What Type of GrantIs Right for Me?
Talk with staff … They will help you find the right funding mechanism.
Stage of research career?
- experience and expertise?
Research needs?- mentors or
collaborators?
- size of project?
Funding Mechanisms
Graduate StudentNRSA F30, F31, R36, T32
PostdoctoralNRSA F32, T32
TransitionK01, K08, K23, K12, K22, K99/R00
Mid-CareerR01, K02, P01, K24
Senior InvestigatorK05
Early CareerR03, R21, R15
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.htmhttp://grants1.nih.gov/training/
careerdevelopmentawards.htm
Components of a SuccessfulGrant 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 WritingDo 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
8 4567 23 1Months before
receipt date
PLANNING PHASE WRITING PHASESUBMISSION
PHASE
Receipt Date
Meet institutional deadlines
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
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 (andsense of importance/relevance of yourparticular research to the field)
Writing -- General Comments
• Investigate a significant issuein 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)
… the 2nd “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 mechanismskeep 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
Justify! Justify!! Justify!!!
Do not underbudget or overbudget
and
Specific Aims
Summary of your goals
What will be the IMPACT!
Your best shot! If the reviewers aren’t enthusiasticby 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 well-planned 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 howyou will deal with them than it is tohope that the reviewers won’tfind them (they always do!)
• Highlight strengths of application whenever you can!
Approach
• Not enough detail
• Methods out of date
• Experiments don’t test the hypotheses
• What hypothesis/hypotheses?
(Avoid These Criticisms!)
Approach
• Fishing expedition
• No place to go if Aim 1 fails
• Inappropriate statistical analysis
• Insufficient power
• Sequence & priorities missing - logic/flow
(Avoid These Criticisms!)
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 orproblems with data and safety monitoringprocedures
Missing or inadequate inclusion ofWomenMinoritiesChildren
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. Read and re-read the program announcement2. Assemble a strong research team3. Use the strongest study design possible4. If you have not been on a study section, confer with
someone who has5. Be sure to document the innovations(s)6. Document strong access to the study population7. Make sure the writing, organization, & grammar are as
tight as possible (write, re-write…read, re-read)8. Seek reviews before submission9. Make careful use of the summary statement10. 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
Top Related