William Parks, PhD, speaks on the topic of "A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application" at the R Award Workshop on November 09, 2017 at UCLA.

1. William Parks, PhD
Department of Medicine
Cedars-Sinai and UCLA
Strategies and Tips
for Preparing a Successful Grant Application

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

3. Evolving to the Next Grant Mechanism
P
RK
F
MD, PhD

4. My Central Recommendation
• Read other grants – both successful and unsuccessful

5. Another Recommendation
• Or you can pay for advice from
people with little to no experience

6. Preparation and Timelines

7. NIH Dates for R01s
Submission Review Council Funded
Feb 5 June Sept Dec
June 5 Oct Jan Apr
Oct 5 Feb May July
Note: Your institution submits the grant to Grants.gov.
Thus, your submission deadline is likely to be
days before the NIH due date.

8. Timeline for a Feb 5, 2018 Deadline
Dec
2018
Funded!
Good
Score
Feb
2018
Summer
2017
Nov to Jan
2017-18
June
2018
Think
Plan
Data
Write
Feedback
Re-write
Admin Stuff Submit Reviewed

9. Timeline for a Feb 5, 2018 Deadline
Oct
2018
Feb
2019
July
2019
Funded!
Fair
Score
Resubmit
Re-
reviewed
Realistically a 2-year + ProcessRealistically a 2-year + Process
Good
Score
Submit Reviewed
Think
Plan
Data
Write
Feedback
Re-write
Admin Stuff
Critique
2-3 weeks later
Feb
2018
Summer
2017
Nov to Jan
2017-18
June
2018

10. 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.
Important: Be well aware of your
institution’s rules, deadlines, etc.
Important: Be well aware of your
institution’s rules, deadlines, etc.

11. Grant Preparation: NIH Things to do Well in Advance
• Familiarize yourself with NIH forms, instructions, and due dates
• 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
Good video on some grant preparation tips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAOGtr0pM6Q

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

13. 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

14. Who’s Responsible for Review of Your Application?
F Series
CSR
K Series
Institutes
RPGs
(R01s, R21s)
CSR
Big Grants
Centers, T32,
Program Projects
Institutes
• All use the same mechanism and structure
• Peer-review at a Study Section
Training/Career Grants
Institute Specific Councils $$

15. 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
Cover Letter: • Suggest Institute assignment
• Suggest Study Section
• Identify conflicts
• Identify areas of needed expertise
• Special situations
• Do not recommend specific reviewers
Institute Assignment
Study Section
Assignment
You ➜ Grant Office ➜ CSR ➜ ➜ Reviewers ➜ Back to You

16. 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

17. 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.

18. Most Reviewers are Established Investigators

19. 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 (best 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
• 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

20. Where and When Do Reviewers Review Grant Applications?
• At home or on a plane
• 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,

21. The Review Process - at the Meeting
Good video of a mock Study Section
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBDxI6l4dOA
• Lower 50% are not discussed
• 15-20 min per application (shorter is best)
• Go to 6-7 pm
• Repeat next day
• Begin at 8 am EST (i.e., 5 am PST)
• Cramped room full of lap tops and several
jet-lagged reviewers
• Review Grants in order - best to less best
• State scores
• 1˚ reviewer, 2˚, 3˚, then open for discussion

22. Review Criteria

23. 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

24. Grant Sections
• Face Page
• Table of Contents
• Performance Site
• Project Description
(i.e., Abstract)
• Public Health
Relevance Statement
• Facilities
• Equipment
• Key Personnel
• Biosketches
• Clinical Trial
• Modular Budget/Budget
• Budget Justification
• List of Research Attachments
• Introduction
(revised only)
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• 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
• Authentication of Key
Biological and/or Chemical
Resources
• Resource Sharing
• Checklist

25. Grant Sections that Reviewers Care About
• Face Page
• Table of Contents
• Performance Site
• Project Description
(i.e., Abstract)
• Public Health
Relevance Statement
• Facilities
• Equipment
• Key Personnel
• Biosketches
• Clinical Trial
• Modular Budget/Budget
• Budget Justification
• List of Research Attachments
• Introduction
(revised only)
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• 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
• Authentication of Key
Biological and/or Chemical
Resources
• Resource Sharing
• Checklist

26. Grant Sections that Reviewers Really Care About
• Face Page
• Table of Contents
• Performance Site
• Project Description
(i.e., Abstract)
• Public Health
Relevance Statement
• Facilities
• Equipment
• Key Personnel
• Biosketches
• Clinical Trial
• Modular Budget/Budget
• Budget Justification
• List of Research Attachments
• Introduction
(revised only)
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• 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
• Authentication of Key
Biological and/or Chemical
Resources
• Resource Sharing
• Checklist

27. Review Criteria – Investigator: Biosketch

28. Review Criteria – Investigator: Biosketch
Spatial Information

29. Review Criteria – Investigator: Biosketch
Tips
• Important to show what you have done
• Keep the Personal Statement succinct
• ESI: Experience, training and career goals
• 4 publications
• Gaps in training
• Dirty Secret: Hardly anyone read these!
OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 10/15 Approved Through 10/31/2018)
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
• Education and Training only
• Month and year
• Positions ≠ Training
http://public.csr.nih.gov/aboutcsr/NewsAndPublications/
PeerReviewNotes/Pages/Peer-Review-Notes-Jan-
2016Part3.aspx
CSR Biosketch Dos and Don’ts

30. Review Criteria – Investigator: Biosketch
Tips
• Do not need to list 5 areas.
• DO NOT include abstracts as Publications
• Up-to-date (no “In press…since 2009”)
• 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 for ESIs
• OK to include manuscripts submitted and in preparation
• OK to add a section for abstracts (e.g., Presentations)
C. Contribution to Science
Briefly describe up to five of your most significant contributions to science.
For each of these contributions, reference up to four peer-reviewed publications.
Also provide a URL to a full list of your publicly available published work
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
* Your name in the order of authors
Year published
Journal

31. 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
• Early Established Investigators (EEI)
• Within 10 yr of 1st R01
• Only 1 grant and at risk of losing it
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

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

33. 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

34. Presentation

35. Presentation and Style
• 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
• Simple, clear language

36. Presentation and Style

37. Presentation and Style
• Paragraphs and spaces
• Don’t make it look dense or cluttered
• 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

38. Which Would You Rather Read?

39. 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

40. Good Luck!
bill.parks@cshs.org