William Parks, PhD, speaks on the topic of "How to Craft the "Significance” & "Innovation" Sections of a Grant Application" at the R Award Workshop on November 09, 2017 at UCLA.

1. Bill Parks
Significance and Innovation

2. Scored Review Criteria
Investigator Initiated
R-series Grants
• 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 (um, 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

3. Innovation
• New concepts, challenges existing paradigms or dogma
• New reagents, assays, technologies, etc.
• New approaches
• However, proposals do not need to be innovative
• Thus, not a major review criteria – but can be a big plus
• No special breaks for ESIs

4. Innovation
Applicant’s
Assessment
of their
Innovative
Strengths
Reviewers’
Assessment
of the
Innovative
Strengths

5. Innovation
• Keep it short
• Be realistic
B. Innovation
Conceptually, our project will demonstrate that macrophages are not
necessarily bad players in fibrotic disease and will further the idea,
which we were among the first to propose, that MMPs function
primarily to effect the behavior of immune cells.

6. Significance (& Background)
• 1-1.5 pages
• Critically review the literature and provide a clear
premise
• No limit on number of citations
• Original, timely papers over reviews
• Point out gaps and flaws
• Do not be afraid to say you disagree with something
(but explain why and how you will correct this travesty)
• Be diplomatic
• Provide graphics (cartoon, model, pathways, etc.)
• Limit discussion to things (pathways, diseases, molecules, etc.)
you will study
• Show (tempered) enthusiasm
• Know your audience
• Get reviewwer interested
• Process (good) vs. specific interaction
Pet Peeves
• Needlessly long
• Not focused
• Not timely nor scholarly
• Reliance on reviews
• Uses the word “exciting” more than
once
• Poorly developed premise

7. How is Significance Evaluated?
• Not related to the disease or cellular process you are studying
• After all, all diseases are significant
• Basic science research can have an impact
• Rather, if the aims are achieved, will scientific knowledge, technical
capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?
• Does the project address an important problem or critical barrier to
progress in the field?
• Will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods,
technologies, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
• Note: relevance to human disease is not required for significance (or
impact)

8. Common Misconception
• Significance only means translational science, clinical importance, and/or
disease related
• Not true: basic research can have a great an impact
• “NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and
behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to
enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.”
• An application does not necessarily have to show the potential for clinical
or timely impact – if the applicant doesn’t make such claims.
• Basic research often takes time to pay off…Absence of an effect on public
health does not necessarily constitute a weakness in basic science.

9. How is Significance Evaluated?
• Supported by a strong scientific premise
• A proposal that is descriptive or derivative or will gather correlative
information will not be significant
• No special breaks for ESIs

10. Significance – Scientific Premise
• Basically, a retrospective assessment of the foundation for the project.
• Describe the general strengths and weaknesses of prior research and data
– both yours and others (I guess) – used in support of your proposal.
• Describe how your research will address any weaknesses or gaps.
• Scientific premise is reviewed as part of the Significance criterion.
• A weak premise or the failure to address scientific premise adequately, will
affect the overall impact score.

11. Significance vs. Impact
Impact
• Likelihood of making a sustained,
powerful influence on the field
• Rationale for the impact score
given
• Integrates the 5 scored criteria
• Not the mean of the 5 criteria
Significance
• Focus on relevance and likelihood
of making a meaningful advance
• Addresses an important problem or
critical barrier to progress
• Premise thing
• Topic ≠ Significance

12. New Things the NIH Wants You to Address
http://grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/index.htmhttp://grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/index.htm