CTSI R Workshop: How to Craft the "Significance” & "Innovation" Sections of a Grant Application. Scott G. Filler, MD Professor of Medicine at Lundquist Institute/Harbor-UCLA and UCLA Leader, CTSI Pilot Translational and Clinical Studies Program Co-Leader, CTSI KL2 Institutional Development Core

1. Significance
and Innovation
Scott G. Filler, M.D.
Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation
at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
sfiller@ucla.edu

2. Review Criteria
• Factor 1 : Importance of the Research
• Significance, Innovation
• Scored 1 - 9
• Factor 2 : Rigor and Feasibility
• Approach (also includes Inclusion and Clinical Trial (CT) Study
Timeline )*
• Scored 1 - 9
• Factor 3 : Expertise and Resources
• Investigators, Environment
• Evaluated as appropriate or gaps identified; gaps require explanation
• Considered in overall impact; no individual score
*Usually drives the overall score

3. Additional Review Criteria
that may affect overall score
• Human Subject Protections (for HS and CT)
• Vertebrate Animal Protections
• Biohazards
• Resubmission/Renewal/Revisions

4. Additional Review Criteria
that will NOT affect overall score
• Authentication of Key Biological and/or
Chemical Resources
• Budget and Period of Support

5. Significance
• Why is the research important?
• Is there a strong premise?
o Literature
o Preliminary data
• What are the deliverables?
• What will be the overall impact?

6. Goals of Significance Section
• Emphasize importance of the research and gaps in
current knowledge
o How your proposed research will fill these gaps
o How knowledge gained can be applied to other systems
• Provide essential background information for an
uninformed reader
o Must support the premise
• Get reviewer interested

7. Key Points
• Don’t assume the reviewer will read every word
• Reviewer may or may not have expertise in your area of
research
• Make sure that your statements are factually correct
• Try to describe broad overall impact
• This is the sale pitch for your grant

8. Things to avoid
• Jargon and abbreviations
• Dense, hard to understand writing
• Potential pitfalls of the proposed research
• Criticisms of others’ work

9. Strategic Points
• Do not directly criticize previous work
• Consider citing the work of potential reviewers and
influential researchers in the field
• Consider a diagram illustrating the system you are
studying and the goals of your research
• Avoid red-green color schemes—use blue and yellow
if possible

10. Innovation
• Does the application challenge and seek to shift current
research or clinical practice paradigms?
• Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions novel?
• Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of
theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

11. Innovation
• Two types of innovation:
o Innovative technology—applying new tools to an old question
o Innovative hypothesis—applying standard tools to a new
question
• Optimal to have new tools and an innovative
hypothesis

12. Caveats
• Avoid using standard tools to answer well-
researched topics:
• Does the research have the potential to have a broad,
sustained impact on the field?

13. Writing the Innovation Section
• One paragraph
• Some use bullet points
• Avoid prolonged rehash of the proposed
research
• Describe overall impact on the field