pearls to get your grants funded
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

pearls to get your grants funded

on

  • 242 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
242
Views on SlideShare
242
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    pearls to get your grants funded pearls to get your grants funded Presentation Transcript

    • Pearls to get your grants funded Steven Kornblau
    • NCI Grant Allocations 2011 Career Awards $74 million Research Awards $1.63 Billion 62% 10% 9% 0% 4% 0% 4% 3% 8% RO1 P01 RFA R03 R21 R33 SBIR/STTR Program Evaluation Other $414 to new grants
    • 2012 Data • Funding applications up, # funded way down • Success rate • P01 21 of 96 awarded 22% 43 mil • R01 661 of 4583 14% 256 mil • R21 228 of 2322 10% 46 mil • U01 29 of 243 16% 29 mil – RO1 7% or better all funded. Virtually none >18% – R21 8% all -12% down to 50% get funded • What is currently funded – 1711 RO1 – 52 P01 – 41 U01 – U54 24
    • How does the NCI Score ? • 9 point scale 1= outstanding….9 Abysmal • 5 factors, all not weighted equally • 2012 range for funded – Significance 1.4-3.6 – Investigator 1.4-2.5 – Approach 2-3.3 – Innovation 2.4-4.8 – Environment 1.4-2.1
    • What score do I need to get funded? • RO1 – 7% or lower all got funded. – 8% or higher, 60, 40, 20% virtually none >18% • R21 – 8% or lower all got funded – Down to 12%, 50% get funded, nil >12%
    • Significance • Must be relevant to Human cancers • Will it advance the field ?
    • Investigator • Not much variation among the funded grants, so it can’t help but can hurt you • Use the personal statement in the Biosketch to really sell yourself – Why you are the right person for this research – That you have enough (unique!) expertise
    • Approach • They like hypothesis driven – They hate Fishing expeditions • Must have supporting preliminary data • How will you verify? • Include “enough” methodology details – The goldilocks point is hard to define – Just because a method is standard they need to see that • YOU can do it • It works in your setting • Address pitfalls – Don’t assume it will work – What will you do if it doesn’t work? • Maintain FOCUS • Include a timeline
    • Innovation • Novel technology? – Novel application of existing technology? • Conceptually novel? • Novel reagents? • Check the literature to make sure that what you are proposing wasn’t already published – If it was, then you better have a really convincing argument of why your study is needed • Check the NCI website to make sure that they have not already funded something similar
    • Environment • There is not a lot of variation in the environment score among funded grants – It can’t help you but it can sure hurt you! • Make sure you have letters of support from your : – Institution – document that you have resources – Collaborators, Consultants
    • Write for your reviewers • Assume they know very little about your area • Think about when they will read your grant – After hours, weekends, on the plane to a conference, distracted by family, TV etc, • They are tired, possibly ignorant & maybe had a drink or two – Guess what will happen if you try to make them read something scientifically obtuse! • Therefore – Use simple sentence structure – GRAMMAR COUNTS in exceedingly large amounts – Make ideas clear and easy to absorb – Tell then clearly what you want them to learn form each sentence or figure, don’t make (let) them draw the conclusions for themselves – Figures must be SIMPLE, CLEAR, READABLE don’t use tiny fonts – afa
    • Some strategies • Only 1 resubmit- so don’t submit prematurely • Local review – Bounce the ideas off others in your dept or area. – Show them prelim data and Specific aims before you write. – Take their advice • If they see holes, so will the reviewer • If they say an aim is weak, believe them • Follow all rules – Page limits: Write as much as you need first. Make sure you get all the ideas down, then trim to fit. Otherwise you will omit key details. – Dates: Make sure you leave enough time for your institution to process it. Don’t wait until the last • Grammar and style review – Does your institution provide it? If not pay for one. • Local peer review- preferably someone unfamiliar with your area. – If they can’t understand it you are in trouble • Don’t fall in love with what you wrote, be willing to accept criticism m e
    • Pre-Contact with the NCI/NIH • Pick a study section that you think is right for your grant – DO NOT GO IN BLIND – Look at what they are funding, does yours fit? – Look at the SS roster. Do you know people on it? • looking for experts in your arena • Not looking for friends, they will have to leave anyway. – NIH/NCI will usually honor your request • Call the program officer or science officer when you have the idea – Is this the right SS for you? – Do they have suggestions?
    • Cover letter • Suggest the center/institute • Identify – Any conflicts in the study section roster – Areas of expertise needed by the reviewer for a fair review of your grant – Special situations • DO NOT suggest who should review your grant