A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application (2020)

A Tactical (Practical) Approach to
Preparing Your Grant Application
William Parks, PhD
Department of Medicine
Cedars-Sinai and UCLA

Topics
• Emphasis on an NIH R01 Submission
• Preparation and Timelines
• Reviewers and Review Criteria
• Investigator Criterion – Preparing Your Biosketch
• Presentation Tips

My Central Recommendations
• Read other grants – both successful and unsuccessful
• Become familiar with the grant-submission process, rules, and deadlines
Both NIH and Institutional
• Give yourself plenty of time
• Get as much admin stuff – letters, budget, forms etc. – done or lined up early
• Get feedback from your mentor, committee, other faculty, your peers, and this
workshop

How to Submit your Application
1. Be familiar with NIH forms, etc.
2. Identify your group’s grant administrator
3. Tell this person that you plan to submit an R01 for Feb 2021
•Do this 2-3 months – if not longer – ahead of the due date
•Important: You are not the only one submitting a grant
4. Email your documents to your grant admin person
• Get the easy stuff done early (coming up)
5. Grant admin uploads components and builds application
6. Institution uploads to grants.gov.

Grant Preparation: NIH Things to do Well in Advance
• Familiarize yourself with NIH grants, forms, instructions, and due dates
• All grants: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm
• NIH Forms: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm
• Page Limits: http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/page_limits.html
• Due Dates: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
• Know what Institute to target and what they are in interested in
• RFA, Program announcements, etc. : http://www.grants.gov/
• By Institutes: http://www.nih.gov/icd/
• Know your competition
• RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools): http://report.nih.gov/
• Database of all NIH grants, success rates, and much more
Good video on some grant preparation tips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAOGtr0pM6Q

Instructions
Download Research Instructions: Version F
Go here: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html
Other Useful Sites
• How to apply videos: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/video/index.htm
• Portal to lots of info: https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding
• Fellowship kiosk: https://researchtraining.nih.gov/programs/career-development

Current Forms, PA, Review Criteria, etc. – A Useful Site
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm
All Grants:

NIH Dates for New (A0) R01s in 2021
Feb 5 Jan 29 June Sept Dec
June 5 (7) Jun 1 Oct Jan Apr
Oct 5 Sept 28 Feb May July
• OCGA* (UCLA) or ORA** (CS) submits your application to Grants.gov
• Your submission deadline to them is 5 (UCLA) or 3 (CS) days before
the NIH due date.
*Office of Contract and Grant Administration, **Office of Research Administration
NIH Due Dates
NIH
Submission
Due Date
UCLA
Due Date
Study
Section
Review
Council
Review
Funding
Begins
UCLA Due Dates

NIH Dates for Resubmitted (A1) R01s in 2021
Mar 5 Feb 26 June Sept Dec
Jul 5 (6) Jun 29 Oct Jan Apr
Nov 5 Oct 29 Feb May July
NIH
Submission
Due Date
UCLA
Due Date
Study
Section
Review
Council
Review
Funding
Begins

Timeline for a Feb 5, 2021 Deadline
Dec
2021
Funded!
Good
Score
Submit Reviewed
Think
Plan
Data
Write
Feedback
Re-write
Admin Stuff
Feb (Jan)
2021
Summer/Fall
2020
Oct to Jan
2020/21
Jun
2021

Timeline for a Feb 5, 2020 Deadline
Oct
2021
Feb
2022
Jul
2022
Funded!
Fair
Score
Resubmit
Re-
reviewed
Realistically a 2-year + Process
Good
Score
Submit
Think
Plan
Data
Write
Feedback
Re-write
Admin Stuff
Critique
2-3 weeks later
Reviewed
Feb (Jan)
2021
Summer/Fall
2020
Oct to Jan
2020/21
Jun
2021

Grant Preparation - Things to do Well in Advance
• Give yourself plenty of time
• Formulate your ideas and think
• Testable hypothesis that advances a field
• Present your ideas and aims to your colleagues
• Do this more than once
• Know the literature & be critical
• Issues and controversies
• What gaps will your work fill
• Generate preliminary data
• Support all hypotheses
• Confirms feasibility
• Publish
• The importance of this cannot be stressed enough
• Read successful applications!
• Seek advice
• Enlist collaborators, consultants
• Special reagents, techniques, advice
• Obtain letters
• Take care of the administrative stuff
• Budgets
• Human subjects, animals, biohazards, etc.

R01 Grant Sections
• Face Page
• Table of Contents
• Performance Site
• Project Information
• Project Description: Abstract
• Project Narrative: 2 sentences
• Facilities and Other Resources
• Equipment
• Key Personnel
• Biosketches
• Budget (all years)
• Budget Justification
• Cover Page Supplement
• Introduction
(resubmission only)
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance, Premise
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary Data
• Research Plan
• Protection of Human Subjects
• Women & Minorities
• Planned Enrollment Table
• Children
• Vertebrate Animals
• References Cited
• Multiple PI Plan
• Letters of Support
• Resource Sharing
• Authentication of Key
Biological and/or Chemical
Resources
• Checklist

R01 Grant Sections You Prepare
• Face Page
• Equipment
• Key Personnel
• Biosketches
• Introduction
(resubmission only)
• Specific Aims
• Innovation
• Approach
• Research Plan
• Children
Resources
• Checklist

R01 Grant Sections Easy or Boilerplate
• Face Page
• Equipment
• Key Personnel
• Biosketches
• Introduction
(resubmission only)
• Specific Aims
• Innovation
• Approach
• Research Plan
• Children
Resources
• Checklist

Grant Review Process
How Your Application is Evaluated
What Matters to the Reviewers

All NIH Institutes Review Grant Applications
Office of the Director
National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism
National Institute
of Arthritis and
Musculoskeletal
and Skin Diseases
National Cancer
Institute
National Institute
of Diabetes and
Digestive and
Kidney Diseases
National Institute
of Dental and
Craniofacial
Research
National Institute
on Drug Abuse
National Institute
of Environmental
Health Sciences
National Institute
on Aging
National Institute
of Child Health
and Human
Development
National Institute on
Deafness and Other
Communication
Disorders
National Eye
Institute
National Human
Genome Research
Institute
National Heart,
Lung, and Blood
Institute
National Institute
of Mental Health
National Institute
of Neurological
Disorders and
Stroke
National Institute
of General
Medical Sciences
National Institute
of Nursing Research
National Library
of Medicine
Center for
Information
Technology
Center for
Scientific Review
National Center
for Complementary
and Alternative
Medicine
National Institute
of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases
Fogarty
International
Center
National Center
for Research
Resources
Clinical Center
National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging
and Bioengineering
National Center on
Minority Health and
Health Disparities
NIH Institutes
http://www.nih.gov/icd/
No funding
authority
But CSR does the
bulk of reviews

The Fate and Evaluation of Your Proposal
Pretty dull and needlessly long video of this topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuuAGROm_1Q&feature=relmfu
Your can influence this process
Institute Assignment
Study Section
Assignment
You ➜ ➜ ➜ CSR ➜ ➜ Reviewers ➜ Back to You
• Suggest Institute assignment
• Suggest Study Section
• Identify conflicts
• Identify areas of needed expertise
• Special situations
• Do not recommend specific reviewers
Cover Letter
(optional)
Project
Information
OCGA
ORA
Grant
Admin

Who Do You Call?
• Institute based
• Before submission
• After initial (study section)
review
• Has influence on funding
• Tracks progress
Program Officer (PO) Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
• CSR (mostly) or institute based
• During initial review stage
• Has no influence on funding
PO SRO
Submit
to NIH
Grant Preparation
Resubmit
to NIH
2nd
Review
Funded
1st
Review
PO

CSR and Study Sections
• CSR: Center for Scientific Review
• 70-80,000 applications per year
• Study Sections (>220): Organ, disease,
scientific-based expertise
• ~24 members per study section, essentially all from academia
• 40-90 applications per Study Section meeting
• 3 reviewers per applications
• 10-12 applications per member
• Information at the CSR web site
• Study section scope and policies
• Roster of reviewers
• Schedules
• Study sections are advisory - they do not fund applications.

Review Process - Before the Meeting
• Applications available about 6 weeks before meeting (all via web)
• Scores and critiques are uploaded 1 week before study section
• Each criterion is given a score: 1, 2, 3…9 (outstanding to really bad)
• These are not discussed at the Study Section
• But they are included in the Summary Statement you will get
• Each reviewer gives each application an overall Impact Score (1-9)
• Impact Score is not the mean of the criteria scores
• Impact score is key and the only score discussed
• Initial scores and critiques become available to all committee members

Scored Review Criteria
Scored Criteria for
R-series Proposals
• Significance
• Investigator
• Approach
• Innovation
• Environment
Overall
Impact
Overall Impact or
Criterion Strength
Score Descriptor
High
1 Exceptional
2 Outstanding
3 Excellent
Moderate
4 Very Good
5 Good
6 Satisfactory
Low
7 Fair
8 Marginal
9 Poor
!
• Criterion Score
• Whole numbers: 1-9
• 1 (exceptional); 9 (well let’s just hope you never get a 9)
• Given by reviewers but not discussed at study section
• Provided in Summary Statement of all applications
• Overall Impact Score
• Not the mean of the criteria scores
• Different criteria are weighted by each reviewer
• Final Impact Score, Percentile
• Mean of all scores x 10 ➤ 10 – 90
• Percentiled against R01s applications across 3 meetings

Where and When Do Reviewers Review Grant Applications?
• At the last minute - and thus a bunch in one sitting
• Hence, reviewers can be stressed, anxious, and
not terribly sympathetic
• Do not make the reviewer read
papers or go to the internet
• Do not make the reviewer think!
• Do not tick off the reviewers!
Don’t let the reviewer become…
or Bored
Baffled,
Bitter,

The Review Process - at the Meeting
Good video of a mock Study Section
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBDxI6l4dOA
• Review Grants - random order
• Assigned reviewers state their scores: 1, 2, 3…9
• 1˚ reviewer, 2˚, 3˚, then open for discussion
• All members vote (score)
• Final Impact Score = (Mean of all scores) x 10
• Expressed as a % of all scores over 3 meetings
• Lower 50% are not discussed
• 15-20 min per application
• Begin at 8 am EST (i.e., 5 am PST)
• Cramped room full of laptops and several
jet-lagged reviewers
• Now virtual

Current Forms, PA, Review Criteria, etc. – A Useful Site
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm
All Grants:
Read these sections
R01

Scored Review Criteria
Individual Training
F-series Grants
• Candidate
• Career development plan
Career goals and objectives
Plan to provide mentoring
• Research Plan
• Mentor(s), consultants, collaborators
• Environment &
Institutional commitment
Career Development
K-series Grants
Investigator Initiated
R-series Grants
• Significance*
• Investigator*
• Approach*
• Innovation
• Environment
Focus on training potential Focus on the science and you
*Most important
• Candidate
• Training Potential
• Research Plan
• Mentor(s), consultants, collaborators
• Environment &
Institutional commitment

Review Criteria for R Applications
• Overall Impact
• Scored Criteria
• Significance
• Investigator
• Innovation
• Approach
• Environment
• Additional Review Criteria
• Human Subjects, Inclusion
• Biohazards
• Resubmission
• Additional Review Considerations
• Select Agents
• Resource Sharing Plan
• Authentication of Key Biological…
• Budget
Affects
Impact
Score
Yes
Yes
No
Affects
Criterion
Scores
No
Yes
No

R01 Grant Sections That Reviewers Care About
• Face Page
• Equipment
• Key Personnel
• Biosketches
• Introduction
(resubmission only)
• Specific Aims
• Innovation
• Approach
• Research Plan
• Children
Resources
• Checklist

R01 Grant Sections That Reviewers Really Care About
• Face Page
• Equipment
• Key Personnel
• Biosketches
• Introduction
(resubmission only)
• Specific Aims
• Innovation
• Approach
• Research Plan
• Children
Resources
• Checklist

Biosketch
• Important to show what you have done
• Keep the Personal Statement succinct (300 words)
• Education and Training only
• Month and year
OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 03/2020 Approved Through 02/28/2023)
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Provide the following information for the Senior/key personnel and other significant contributors.
Follow this format for each person. DO NOT EXCEED FIVE PAGES.
NAME:
eRA COMMONS USER NAME (credential, e.g., agency login):
POSITION TITLE:
EDUCATION/TRAINING (Begin with baccalaureate or other initial professional education, such as nursing,
include postdoctoral training and residency training if applicable. Add/delete rows as necessary.)
INSTITUTION AND LOCATION
DEGREE
(if applicable)
Completion
Date
MM/YYYY
FIELD OF STUDY
A.Personal Statement
“Briefly describe why you are well-suited for your role(s) in the project
described in this application...”
B.Positions and Honors
Positions and Employment
Past to current.
Do not duplicate what’s above under Education.
Other Experience and Profession Memberships
Societies, committees, etc.
Honors
Nothing from high school.
C.Contribution to Science
• Experience, training and career goals
• 1st person
• 4 publications, preprints and/or research products**
• Gaps in training
• No figures, graphs, tables
FAQs: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/faq_biosketches.htm#
Forms: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/biosketch.htm

Biosketch
OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 03/2020 Approved Through 02/28/2023)
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Provide the following information for the Senior/key personnel and other significant contributors.
Follow this format for each person. DO NOT EXCEED FIVE PAGES.
NAME:
eRA COMMONS USER NAME (credential, e.g., agency login):
POSITION TITLE:
EDUCATION/TRAINING (Begin with baccalaureate or other initial professional education, such as nursing,
include postdoctoral training and residency training if applicable. Add/delete rows as necessary.)
INSTITUTION AND LOCATION
DEGREE
(if applicable)
Completion
Date
MM/YYYY
FIELD OF STUDY
A. Personal Statement
This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is
what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what
300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300
words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words
looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks
like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like.
what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what
300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300
words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words
looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks
like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like.
what 300 words looks like. This is what 300 words looks like.
**Research Products
• Audio or video products
• Meeting abstracts, posters, or other presentations
• Patents
• Data and research materials
• Databases
• Educational aids or curricula
• Instruments or equipment
• Models; protocols; and software or netware.

Biosketch
• Briefly describe up to five of your most
significant contributions to science
• 1-4 publications and/or preprints*
• Do not need to list 5 areas.
• DO NOT include abstracts as Publications
• Up-to-date (no “In press…2018”)
• Full citations: all authors, accepted journal abbreviations
• Consistent format*
• Name changed? Let us know
• Must match what we see at PubMed
• Some leeway is OK
• OK to include manuscripts submitted and in preparation
• OK to add a section for abstracts, other products
(e.g., Presentations)
* Your name in the order of authors
Year published
Journal
C. Contributions to Science
1. Discovered DNA. Blah blah blah ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––blah.
a. Pub
b. Pub
c. Pub
d. Pub
2. Cured Cancer. Blah blah blah ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––blah.
e. Pub
f. Pub
g. Pub
h. Pub
3. Other Big Thing.
4. Yet Another Fascinating Accomplishment.
5. Abstracts/Presentations.
Complete List of Published Work:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/your.name/bibliography/
D. Research Support
Ongoing Research Support
Grant NumberPI’s Last Name (PI)Start-End Date
Grant/project Title
Brief description of project (1 sentence will do)
Role: Your Role
Completed Research Support
*Reporting Preprints and Other Interim Research Products

Review Criteria - Investigator
• Early Stage Investigators (ESI)
• More emphasis on experience and training
• Publications are important but not critically so
• ESIs get a bit of break with productivity
– but just a bit
• Quality and relevance of publications
are important criteria
• Reality: Numbers and quality do matter.
Your competition may have more.
• Pay line handicap varies by institute
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-101.html
https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/index.htm
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/new-investigators
• New Investigator
• Never had an RPG
• No age limit
• Few institutes support this
• NIAID
• Established Investigators
• Track record
• Productivity
• Accomplishments
• Early Established Investigators (EEI)
• Within 10 yr of 1st R01
• Only 1 grant and at risk of losing it

ESI Handicap ➞ Equal Success Rates
New
Established
No difference by gender

Review Criteria - Investigator
• Not a review criterion
• Does not affect scoring
• Cannot even be discussed
NIH/CSR Rules
Independence
Reality
• However, it is in the reviewer’s mind
• If you remain associated with your mentor, include a letter
from him/her confirming your independence
• My Advice: Do not include your mentor as key personnel
• Do not say your lab space is in their lab space
• Get a letter from your chair indicating commitment to you

Formatting
• For all sections you prepare
• MS Word.docx
• 0.5-in margins
• 11 pt Arial
• No header or footer
• Submit to grant admin as PDFs
Guide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html#format
Fonts: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/format-and-write/format-attachments.htm
Page Limits: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/format-and-write/page-limits.htm
• Introduction (resubmission only)
• Specific Aims
• Human Subjects pages
• Authentication of Key Biological and/or
Chemical Resources

Presentation and Style
• Paragraphs and spaces
• Don’t make it look dense or cluttered
• Flow
• Logical transitions from sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph
• Do the work for your reader
• Use some system (bold, numbers) to outline sections and
subsections
•Again, read successful applications
• Zero tolerance for tpyos
• Avoid excessive use of abbreviations
• Avoid vague terms: e.g., ‘affects’, ‘influences’
• Avoid pleonasms: “…has been shown to…”
• Clean, concise English
• Active voice is better than the passive voice

Good Luck!
bill.parks@cshs.org

A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application (2020)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application (2020)

Similar to A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application (2020) (20)

More from UCLA CTSI

More from UCLA CTSI (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application (2020)