Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Grantsmanship
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Grantsmanship

238

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
238
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Grant WritingGrant Writing John Chae, MDJohn Chae, MD Case Western Reserve UniversityCase Western Reserve University MetroHealth Medical CenterMetroHealth Medical Center 2007 Annual Meeting of the AAP2007 Annual Meeting of the AAP
  • 2. DisclaimerDisclaimer  I’ve never taken a “class” onI’ve never taken a “class” on grantsmanshipgrantsmanship  I’ve only written 5 unique NIH grants inI’ve only written 5 unique NIH grants in my career (R29, three R01s and K24)my career (R29, three R01s and K24)  However, each, except one, wasHowever, each, except one, was funded the first timefunded the first time  ““School of hard knocks”School of hard knocks”
  • 3. OverviewOverview  NIHNIH  PeoplePeople  Types of GrantsTypes of Grants  K and R award StructureK and R award Structure  Review criteriaReview criteria  Comments on other mechanismsComments on other mechanisms  Review ProcessReview Process  What’s really important…What’s really important…
  • 4. NIHNIH  Part of the Department of Health and Human ServicesPart of the Department of Health and Human Services  Consists of 20 Institutes and 7 Centers: Each are allocated aConsists of 20 Institutes and 7 Centers: Each are allocated a budgetbudget  Institutes:Institutes: -Each institute has an identified domain and receives funding-Each institute has an identified domain and receives funding to support research in these domainsto support research in these domains -Each institute make final funding decisions-Each institute make final funding decisions -Intramural and Extramural research-Intramural and Extramural research  CentersCenters -Several function similar to an Institute-Several function similar to an Institute -Several provide infrastructure predominantly-Several provide infrastructure predominantly -Several do both-Several do both
  • 5. NIHNIH Institutes of InterestInstitutes of Interest  National Institute on AgingNational Institute on Aging (NIA)(NIA)  National Institute of ArthritisNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skinand Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)Diseases (NIAMS)  National Institute of BiomedicalNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringImaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)(NIBIB)  National Institute of ChildNational Institute of Child Health and HumanHealth and Human Development (NICHD)Development (NICHD)  National Institute ofNational Institute of Neurological Disorders andNeurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)Stroke (NINDS) Centers of InterestCenters of Interest  Center for Scientific ReviewCenter for Scientific Review (CSR)(CSR)  National Center forNational Center for Complementary andComplementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)  National Center for ResearchNational Center for Research Resource (NCRR)Resource (NCRR)  NIH Clinical Center (CC)NIH Clinical Center (CC)  Comment: National Center forComment: National Center for Medical RehabilitationMedical Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR)Research (NCMRR)
  • 6. PeoplePeople  Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)-Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)- Review group specificReview group specific  Program Officers-Institute specificProgram Officers-Institute specific  Grants manager-Institute specificGrants manager-Institute specific
  • 7. Types of GrantsTypes of Grants ““Mechanisms”Mechanisms”  R: Field or investigator initiated research grantsR: Field or investigator initiated research grants -R03: Small grants (2-yrs, $100K, 10 p research-R03: Small grants (2-yrs, $100K, 10 p research plan)plan) -R21: Exploratory grants (2-yrs, $350K, 15 p-R21: Exploratory grants (2-yrs, $350K, 15 p research plan)research plan) -R01: Traditional research grants (3 to 5-yrs, no $-R01: Traditional research grants (3 to 5-yrs, no $ limit, 25 page research plan)limit, 25 page research plan)  K: Career awards (5-yrs, salary + $25-50K/yr, 50 p)K: Career awards (5-yrs, salary + $25-50K/yr, 50 p)  T: Training grantsT: Training grants  F: FellowshipsF: Fellowships  P: Program Project or Center grantsP: Program Project or Center grants
  • 8. K-Award (K23)K-Award (K23) Section I: Administrative DataSection I: Administrative Data  Face pageFace page  Description, performance sites, keyDescription, performance sites, key personnelpersonnel  Table of contentsTable of contents  BudgetBudget  Biographical sketchesBiographical sketches  Other support (for mentors)Other support (for mentors)  ResourcesResources
  • 9. K-Award (K23)K-Award (K23) Section II: Specialized InformationSection II: Specialized Information 1.1. The candidate (25 pages)The candidate (25 pages) A.A. Candidate backgroundCandidate background B.B. Career goals and objectives: ScientificCareer goals and objectives: Scientific biographybiography C.C. Career development/training activityCareer development/training activity during award periodduring award period D.D. Training in the responsible conduct ofTraining in the responsible conduct of researchresearch
  • 10. K-Award (K23)K-Award (K23) 2. Statement by Sponsor, Co-Sponsor(s),2. Statement by Sponsor, Co-Sponsor(s), Consultants and ContributorsConsultants and Contributors 3. Environment and Institutional Commitment3. Environment and Institutional Commitment to Candidateto Candidate A.A. Description of Institutional EnvironmentDescription of Institutional Environment B.B. Institutional commitment to candidate’sInstitutional commitment to candidate’s research career development: 75%research career development: 75% protected research timeprotected research time
  • 11. K-award (K23)K-award (K23) 4. Research Plan4. Research Plan A.A. Specific AimsSpecific Aims B.B. Background and SignificanceBackground and Significance C.C. Preliminary studies/progress reportPreliminary studies/progress report D.D. Research design and methodsResearch design and methods E.E. Human Subjects ResearchHuman Subjects Research F.F. Vertebrate AnimalsVertebrate Animals G.G. Select Agent ResearchSelect Agent Research H.H. Literature CitedLiterature Cited I.I. Consortium/contractual arrangementsConsortium/contractual arrangements J.J. Resource SharingResource Sharing A-D: 25 pages
  • 12. K23 Review CriteriaK23 Review Criteria  Candidate:Candidate: -Quality of the candidate’s academic and clinical record-Quality of the candidate’s academic and clinical record -Potential to develop as an independent clinical researcher-Potential to develop as an independent clinical researcher focusing on patient oriented research (POR)focusing on patient oriented research (POR) -Commitment to a career in POR-Commitment to a career in POR  Career Development Plan:Career Development Plan: -Likelihood that the plan will contribute substantially to the-Likelihood that the plan will contribute substantially to the scientific development of the candidatescientific development of the candidate -Appropriateness of the content and duration of the proposed-Appropriateness of the content and duration of the proposed didactic and research phases of the awarddidactic and research phases of the award -Consistency of the career development plan with the-Consistency of the career development plan with the candidate’s career goals and prior research experiencecandidate’s career goals and prior research experience -Quality of the proposed training in responsible conduct of-Quality of the proposed training in responsible conduct of researchresearch
  • 13. K23 Review CriteriaK23 Review Criteria (cont’)(cont’)  Research Plan:Research Plan: ““Reviewers recognize that an individual with limitedReviewers recognize that an individual with limited research experience is less likely to be able toresearch experience is less likely to be able to prepare a research plan with the breadth and depthprepare a research plan with the breadth and depth of that submitted by a more experiencedof that submitted by a more experienced investigator. Although it is understood that K23investigator. Although it is understood that K23 applications do not require the level of detailapplications do not require the level of detail necessary in regular research grant applications, anecessary in regular research grant applications, a fundamentally sound research plan must befundamentally sound research plan must be provided. In general, less detail is expected withprovided. In general, less detail is expected with regard to research planned for the later years of theregard to research planned for the later years of the award, but the application should outline theaward, but the application should outline the general goals of these years.”general goals of these years.”
  • 14. K23 Review CriteriaK23 Review Criteria (cont’)(cont’)  Research Plan (cont’)Research Plan (cont’) -Appropriateness of the plan to the stage of research-Appropriateness of the plan to the stage of research development and as a vehicle for developing the research skillsdevelopment and as a vehicle for developing the research skills as described in the career development planas described in the career development plan -Scientific and technical merit of the research question, design-Scientific and technical merit of the research question, design and methodologyand methodology -Relevance of the proposed research to the candidate’s career-Relevance of the proposed research to the candidate’s career objectivesobjectives -Adequacy of the plan’s attention to including both genders and-Adequacy of the plan’s attention to including both genders and minority subjects in projects involving human subjectsminority subjects in projects involving human subjects -Adequacy of plans for including children as appropriate for-Adequacy of plans for including children as appropriate for scientific goals of the research, or justification for exclusionscientific goals of the research, or justification for exclusion
  • 15. K23 Review CriteriaK23 Review Criteria (cont’)(cont’)  MentorMentor -Appropriateness of mentor’s research qualifications in the area of-Appropriateness of mentor’s research qualifications in the area of applicationapplication -Quality and extent of mentor’s proposed role in providing guidance-Quality and extent of mentor’s proposed role in providing guidance and advice to the candidateand advice to the candidate -Previous experience in fostering the development of researchers-Previous experience in fostering the development of researchers -History of research productivity and support-History of research productivity and support  Environment and Institutional SupportEnvironment and Institutional Support -Institution’s commitment to the scientific development of the-Institution’s commitment to the scientific development of the candidatecandidate -Adequacy of facilities and the availability of appropriate educational-Adequacy of facilities and the availability of appropriate educational opportunitiesopportunities -Quality and relevance of the environment for scientific and-Quality and relevance of the environment for scientific and professional developmentprofessional development -Institution’s commitment to an appropriate balance of research and-Institution’s commitment to an appropriate balance of research and clinical responsibilitiesclinical responsibilities
  • 16. K23 Review CriteriaK23 Review Criteria (cont’)(cont’)  Budget: Evaluate the justification ofBudget: Evaluate the justification of the requested budget in relation tothe requested budget in relation to career development goals andcareer development goals and research aimsresearch aims  Human Subjects: Assess risks andHuman Subjects: Assess risks and benefits and data and safetybenefits and data and safety monitoring planmonitoring plan  Gender/Minority/Children inclusionGender/Minority/Children inclusion
  • 17. R AwardsR Awards  Same as K-award but without the Candidate sectionSame as K-award but without the Candidate section  Primary focus in the research plan:Primary focus in the research plan: A.A. Specific AimsSpecific Aims B.B. Background and SignificanceBackground and Significance C.C. Preliminary studies/progress reportPreliminary studies/progress report D.D. Research design and methodsResearch design and methods E.E. Human Subjects ResearchHuman Subjects Research F.F. Vertebrate AnimalsVertebrate Animals G.G. Select Agent ResearchSelect Agent Research H.H. Literature CitedLiterature Cited I.I. Consortium/contractual arrangementsConsortium/contractual arrangements J.J. Resource SharingResource Sharing A-D: 25 pages
  • 18. R-award CriteriaR-award Criteria  Significance:Significance: -Does this study address an important-Does this study address an important problem?problem? -If the aims are achieved, how will scientific-If the aims are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced?knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? -What will be the effect of these studies on-What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies,the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventivetreatments, services, or preventive interventions that drive the field?interventions that drive the field?
  • 19. R-award Criteria (cont’)R-award Criteria (cont’)  Approach:Approach: -Are the conceptual or clinical framework,-Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequatelydesign, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-reasoned and appropriatedeveloped, well-reasoned and appropriate to the aims of the project?to the aims of the project? -Does the applicant acknowledge potential-Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternativeproblem areas and consider alternative tactics?tactics?
  • 20. R-award Criteria (cont’)R-award Criteria (cont’)  Innovation:Innovation: -Is the project original and innovative?-Is the project original and innovative? -Does the project challenge existing-Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address anparadigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier toinnovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field?progress in the field? -Does the project develop or employ a novel-Does the project develop or employ a novel concept, approaches, methodologies, tools,concept, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?or technologies for this area?
  • 21. Other MechanismsOther Mechanisms  R03: Small grantR03: Small grant -$50K/yr, 2 yrs-$50K/yr, 2 yrs -Pilot studies, 10 page Research Plan-Pilot studies, 10 page Research Plan -Preliminary study not needed-Preliminary study not needed  R21: Exploratory grantR21: Exploratory grant -$350K over 2 yrs-$350K over 2 yrs -High risk, potential high yield-High risk, potential high yield -Preliminary study not needed-Preliminary study not needed -15 page Research Plan-15 page Research Plan
  • 22. Review ProcessReview Process Dual level processDual level process  Scientific ReviewScientific Review -Received by the-Received by the Center for Scientific ReviewCenter for Scientific Review (CSR)(CSR) -CSR assigns the grant to a-CSR assigns the grant to a Scientific Review Groups (SRG)Scientific Review Groups (SRG), AKA, AKA “Study Section”“Study Section” *Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation*Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation *Function, Integration, Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee*Function, Integration, Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee -Each SRG managed by a-Each SRG managed by a Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) -Most SRG are not aligned with an Institute, but some are-Most SRG are not aligned with an Institute, but some are -Peers, independent investigators for the most part-Peers, independent investigators for the most part  Council ReviewCouncil Review -Institute specific-Institute specific -Peers, program officers-Peers, program officers
  • 23. Review ProcessReview Process  1-5 (1=outstanding)1-5 (1=outstanding) -No specific instructions on how to weigh each-No specific instructions on how to weigh each criterioncriterion -Reviewer’s overall impression-Reviewer’s overall impression  Priority score: Rating of intrinsic scientific merit ofPriority score: Rating of intrinsic scientific merit of the proposed research (100-500)the proposed research (100-500)  Percentile: the relative rank of each priority scorePercentile: the relative rank of each priority score (along a 100.0 percentile band) among the scores(along a 100.0 percentile band) among the scores assigned by a particular study sectionassigned by a particular study section  Streamlining: Up to half of proposals are unscoredStreamlining: Up to half of proposals are unscored (bottom half of applicants, ~priority score 3.0 or(bottom half of applicants, ~priority score 3.0 or higher)higher)
  • 24. What really matters…What really matters… I will assume that you have a greatI will assume that you have a great  ideaidea  mentormentor  institutioninstitution
  • 25. What really matters…What really matters… Communicate!Communicate!  Write in EnglishWrite in English  Learn to write!Learn to write!  Use correct grammarUse correct grammar  Use correct spellingUse correct spelling  Keep it simple andKeep it simple and clearclear  Don’t try to impressDon’t try to impress  Write to a scientistsWrite to a scientists who is not in your fieldwho is not in your field Remember, theRemember, the reviewers are:reviewers are:  Spending 6-10 hrs perSpending 6-10 hrs per K-award applicationK-award application  FatiguedFatigued  Grumpy and irritableGrumpy and irritable  Not easily impressedNot easily impressed  Poorly paidPoorly paid  Working above andWorking above and beyond their regularbeyond their regular workwork
  • 26. What really matters…What really matters… FormatFormat  Remember, reviewers are spending hrsRemember, reviewers are spending hrs reviewing grants, their eyes are red andreviewing grants, their eyes are red and glassy and they are fatiguedglassy and they are fatigued  They need to see!They need to see!  Follow instructionsFollow instructions  Watch marginsWatch margins  Arial 11 or largerArial 11 or larger  Include pictures and diagrams; a sea ofInclude pictures and diagrams; a sea of letters tend to merge into a blurletters tend to merge into a blur
  • 27. What really matters…What really matters… Read other people’s grants:Read other people’s grants:  Knutson R21:Knutson R21: 153, 11%153, 11%  Chae single site R01Chae single site R01 -Initial submission:-Initial submission: 273, 49.4%273, 49.4% -A1:-A1: 170, 16.7%170, 16.7% -A2:-A2: 130, 1.0%130, 1.0%  Chae multi-site R01:Chae multi-site R01: 135, 3.1%135, 3.1%
  • 28. What really matters…What really matters… Start earlyStart early  Give yourself at least 4-mo to write aGive yourself at least 4-mo to write a R-award (~2 hrs/day)R-award (~2 hrs/day)  For a K-award, start earlier to identifyFor a K-award, start earlier to identify a mentor, establish a training plan,a mentor, establish a training plan, research plan etcresearch plan etc  Get it done earlyGet it done early
  • 29. What really matters…What really matters… Have others read your applicationHave others read your application  Independent investigators with a track record ofIndependent investigators with a track record of successsuccess  Members of study sectionsMembers of study sections  Remember, it takes approximately 8 hrs to review aRemember, it takes approximately 8 hrs to review a K-awardK-award  Don’t give it to your colleague last minute; giveDon’t give it to your colleague last minute; give them at least 2-wksthem at least 2-wks  Have a thick skin; they are trying to help you, notHave a thick skin; they are trying to help you, not humiliate youhumiliate you  Take their feedback seriouslyTake their feedback seriously
  • 30. What really matters…What really matters… After you receive your score…After you receive your score…  Review your summary statement with yourReview your summary statement with your mentormentor  Follow up with your program officerFollow up with your program officer  Determine whether you’re in the fundableDetermine whether you’re in the fundable rangerange  Determine whether the grant has merit forDetermine whether the grant has merit for resubmissionresubmission  Try, try again…Try, try again…
  • 31. SummarySummary  NIH structureNIH structure  People to knowPeople to know  Types of GrantsTypes of Grants  K and R Award StructureK and R Award Structure  Review criteriaReview criteria  Comments on other mechanismsComments on other mechanisms  Review ProcessReview Process  How to write…How to write…

×