Funding for Academic Environment Presented by: Ronald Braithwaite, Ph.D. Professor Morehouse School...
-
Upload
jewel-miller -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Funding for Academic Environment Presented by: Ronald Braithwaite, Ph.D. Professor Morehouse School...
Funding for Academic Environment
Presented by:
Ronald Braithwaite, Ph.D.Professor
Morehouse School of MedicineDepartments of Community Health and
Preventive Medicine, Family Medicine and Psychiatry
April 27, 2011
Substance Abuse and HIV/AIDS in Latinos: Linking Research with the Community
“Anatomy” of the Grant Process“Anatomy” of the Grant Process
Program StaffProgram Staff Funding OpportunityAnnouncement (FOA)
RFA or PA
Funding OpportunityAnnouncement (FOA)
RFA or PA
Grant Application(R01, R03, R21,K01, K08, etc.)
Grant Application(R01, R03, R21,K01, K08, etc.)
NationalAdvisoryCouncil
NationalAdvisoryCouncil
Program Staff Program Staff
$
Rev
isio
nR
evis
ion
Researcher
IdeaInstitution
Researcher
IdeaInstitution
CSRReferral
and Review
CSRReferral
and Review
CollaboratorsCollaborators
Extramural Research
NIH has 3 major funding instruments to support extramural research:
Grant: Investigator decides the research to be designed or developed and the approach.
Contract: Government decides the research to fill their perceived need and establishes detailed requirements.
Cooperative Agreement: Similar to grants, but awarding Institute/Center (IC) and recipient have substantial involvement in carrying out the project's activities.
NIH Behavioral and Social Research Support in FY 2002
NIMH $ 408.7 NIDA $ 377.3 NICHD $ 250.2 NCI $ 248.6 NIA $ 243.5 NIAAA $ 183.1 NHLBI $ 108.7 NINR $ 98.0 NIDCD $ 87.9 NINDS $ 71.0 NCRR $ 54.5 NEI $ 54.2 NIDDK $ 42.0
NIAID $ 33.9 NIDCR $ 27.5 OD $ 25.3 NIAMS $ 22.1 NHGRI $ 15.7 NCCAM $ 14.4 NIEHS $ 12.5 NIGMS $ 11.3 FIC $ 5.8 NLM $ 1.8 NIBIB $ 1.0 NCMHD $ 0.7 Total $2,399.5
So … What Type of GrantIs Right for Me?
Talk with staff … They will help you find the right funding mechanism.
Stage of research career?
- experience and expertise?
Research needs?- mentors or
collaborators?
- size of project?
Funding Mechanisms
Graduate StudentNRSA F30, F31, R36, T32
PostdoctoralNRSA F32, T32
TransitionK01, K08, K23, K12, K22, K99/R00
Mid-CareerR01, K02, P01, K24
Senior InvestigatorK05
Early CareerR03, R21, R15
NIH Grant Mechanisms
R01 Traditional investigator-initiated grant < $500K/yr, 3-5 yrs. Need approval if more
than $500K for any year of the grant
R03 Small Grant < $100K for 2 yrs
R21 (NCI) Exploratory/Developmental Grant < $275K for 2 yrs
R13 Conference Grantsamount dependent on score, timeliness, budget,
NIH interest
Career Development Awards
Career Development Programs (K series)
K01 Mentored Research Scientist Development Award
K08 Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award
K22 NCI Transition Career Development Award
K23 Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awardhttp://grants1.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm
NCI Research Fellowships and Training Funding Opportunities
Fellowships (F series) F32 Individual Postdoctoral Fellows F33 Senior Fellows F31 NIH Predoctoral Fellowship Awards for Minority
Students
Training (T series) T32 Institutional Research Training Grants http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-02-109.html
Predoctoral Research Training Partnership Award
(TU2) http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/concepts/TU2concept.htmhttp://grants1.nih.gov/training/
careerdevelopmentawards.htm
Components of a SuccessfulGrant Application – Bottom Line!Components of a SuccessfulGrant Application – Bottom Line!
• Strong Idea
• Strong Science
• Strong Application
• Strong Idea
• Strong Science
• Strong Application
Some key considerations Write a clear and concise abstract Never assume that reviewers “will know
what you mean” Tell a coherent and consistent story Write for a multidisciplinary audience Place your project in a larger scientific/public
health context Create a cohesive application package Pay attention to grammar and spelling!! Conduct a “mock” review with colleagues
Before You Start WritingBefore You Start Writing
Do your homework!
• Find the right NIH Institute
• Review the Institute FOAs
• Find the right funding mechanism
• Know the review committee(s)
• Talk to the Program Officer at the Institute
Do your homework!
• Find the right NIH Institute
• Review the Institute FOAs
• Find the right funding mechanism
• Know the review committee(s)
• Talk to the Program Officer at the Institute
Except for deciding on a funding mechanism, there’s no requirement that you do any of these!
Except for deciding on a funding mechanism, there’s no requirement that you do any of these!
Concept DevelopmentConcept Development
Questions to continually ask yourself:
-- What will be learned?
-- Why is this research important?
Questions to continually ask yourself:
-- What will be learned?
-- Why is this research important?
Planning Guide for New Applications
8 4567 23 1Months before
receipt date
PLANNING PHASE WRITING PHASESUBMISSION
PHASE
Receipt Date
Meet institutional deadlines
Assess yourself, your field, and your resources
Brainstorm; research your idea; call NIH program
staff
Set up your own review committee; determine
human and animal subject requirements
Get feedback; edit and proof read
The SCIENCEThe SCIENCE
• Define a fundamental question
• Transform idea(s) into an exciting story/“a scientific journey”
• Build confidence and enthusiasm (andsense of importance/relevance of yourparticular research to the field)
• Define a fundamental question
• Transform idea(s) into an exciting story/“a scientific journey”
• Build confidence and enthusiasm (andsense of importance/relevance of yourparticular research to the field)
Writing -- General CommentsWriting -- General Comments
• Investigate a significant issuein science
• Use clear and concise language
• Propose a doable project
• Investigate a significant issuein science
• Use clear and concise language
• Propose a doable project
Writing -- General Comments (cont)Writing -- General Comments (cont)
• Create interest and build enthusiasm about project
• Be very concerned about “packaging”
• Never assume your audience will “know what you mean”
• Create interest and build enthusiasm about project
• Be very concerned about “packaging”
• Never assume your audience will “know what you mean”
Title (the “Hook”)Title (the “Hook”)
Clear and descriptiveClear and descriptive
Abstract (Project Description)Abstract (Project Description)
Present the big picturePresent the big picture
Abstract (Project Description)Abstract (Project Description)
… the 2nd “Hook” … use it as another important opportunity
If the reviewers aren’t excited after reading the abstract…………….
… the 2nd “Hook” … use it as another important opportunity
If the reviewers aren’t excited after reading the abstract…………….
The ApplicationThe Application
12 pages… to convince reviewers
12 pages… to convince reviewers
*For RO1s, most Ks and some other grant mechanismskeep abreast of changes
by subscribing to the NIH Guide!
*For RO1s, most Ks and some other grant mechanismskeep abreast of changes
by subscribing to the NIH Guide!
Key PersonnelKey Personnel
Justify thoroughlyJustify thoroughly
Biographical SketchBiographical Sketch
Who ARE you?
Why are YOU the person to do this?
Personal Statement
Maximum of 15
publications
Who ARE you?
Why are YOU the person to do this?
Personal Statement
Maximum of 15
publications
Consultants/CollaboratorsConsultants/Collaborators
Justify thoroughlyJustify thoroughly
Duration of StudyDuration of Study
Justify thoroughlyJustify thoroughly
BudgetBudget
Justify! Justify!! Justify!!!Justify! Justify!! Justify!!!
Do not underbudget or overbudget
and
Do not underbudget or overbudget
and
Specific AimsSpecific Aims
Summary of your goals
What will be the IMPACT!
Your best shot! If the reviewers aren’t enthusiasticby the end of the Specific Aims they’re
seldom won back.
Summary of your goals
What will be the IMPACT!
Your best shot! If the reviewers aren’t enthusiasticby the end of the Specific Aims they’re
seldom won back.
Research Strategy – 4 sectionsResearch Strategy – 4 sections
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary Studies/Progress Report
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary Studies/Progress Report
SignificanceSignificance
Why is what you want to do important?
How will what you want to do change the field?
Why is what you want to do important?
How will what you want to do change the field?
InnovationInnovation
What’s new here?
Are there novel concepts, approaches,
methodologies?
What’s new here?
Are there novel concepts, approaches,
methodologies?
ApproachApproach
• Provide rationales throughout as to why certain methods were selected and why key alternatives were not
• Provide timeline – a realistic and well-planned estimate of start/end times for each experiment
• Address potential problems and solutions
• Provide rationales throughout as to why certain methods were selected and why key alternatives were not
• Provide timeline – a realistic and well-planned estimate of start/end times for each experiment
• Address potential problems and solutions
ApproachApproach
• Exercise humility – it is far better to identify weaknesses and explain howyou will deal with them than it is tohope that the reviewers won’tfind them (they always do!)
• Highlight strengths of application whenever you can!
• Exercise humility – it is far better to identify weaknesses and explain howyou will deal with them than it is tohope that the reviewers won’tfind them (they always do!)
• Highlight strengths of application whenever you can!
ApproachApproach
• Not enough detail
• Methods out of date
• Experiments don’t test the hypotheses
• What hypothesis/hypotheses?
• Not enough detail
• Methods out of date
• Experiments don’t test the hypotheses
• What hypothesis/hypotheses?
(Avoid These Criticisms!)(Avoid These Criticisms!)
ApproachApproach
• Fishing expedition
• No place to go if Aim 1 fails
• Inappropriate statistical analysis
• Insufficient power
• Sequence & priorities missing - logic/flow
• Fishing expedition
• No place to go if Aim 1 fails
• Inappropriate statistical analysis
• Insufficient power
• Sequence & priorities missing - logic/flow
(Avoid These Criticisms!)(Avoid These Criticisms!)
Be ProACTIVE!!!
Be
PERSISTENT!!! PLAN
Ahead!!!And Don’t Forget to
talk with your PROGRAM
OFFICER!!!
“OVERALL IMPACT”
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
9-Point Scoring System
1st Level Review
Standing study section typically has 12-24 members Typically 3 meetings each year face-to-face or electronic Review 60 - 100 applications at each meeting
Summary Statement
The summary statement contains:
Overall Resume and Summary of Review Discussion for applications that are discussed
Essentially Unedited Critiques Priority Score and Percentile
Ranking, if given Budget Recommendations Information about human subjects
and other matters, as needed, and administrative notes
NOW WHAT TO DO?!NOW WHAT TO DO?!
• Read summary statement
• Re-read summary statement
• Talk with your Program Officer
• Talk with your colleagues
• If the weaknesses can be fixed, revise and
resubmit the application
• Read summary statement
• Re-read summary statement
• Talk with your Program Officer
• Talk with your colleagues
• If the weaknesses can be fixed, revise and
resubmit the application
Common Problems in Applications(check prior to submission)Common Problems in Applications(check prior to submission)
Diffuse or unfocused research plan
Studies lack cohesiveness
Insufficient detail
Insufficient evidence of knowledge of relevant
literature
Unrealistically large amount of work
Uncertainty concerning future directions
Lack of specific data to show feasibility of approach
Diffuse or unfocused research plan
Studies lack cohesiveness
Insufficient detail
Insufficient evidence of knowledge of relevant
literature
Unrealistically large amount of work
Uncertainty concerning future directions
Lack of specific data to show feasibility of approach
Common Problems in Applications (Continued)Common Problems in Applications (Continued)
Absence of new or original ideas
Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale
Insufficient evidence of experience in the
essential methodology
Outdated methodologies
Questionable reasoning in approach
Uncritical approach
Poor preparation and presentation
Absence of new or original ideas
Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale
Insufficient evidence of experience in the
essential methodology
Outdated methodologies
Questionable reasoning in approach
Uncritical approach
Poor preparation and presentation
Common Problems in Applications (Continued)
Inadequate consideration of protection for human or animal subjects; absence orproblems with data and safety monitoringprocedures
Missing or inadequate inclusion ofWomenMinoritiesChildren
On-Time Submission
Initial submission must have a Grants.gov timestamp on or before 5:00 p.m. local time of submitting organization on the receipt date.
My Top Ten Critical Factors
Identify the gap in science you will fill Clearly define Hypothesis/Scientific Aims Clearly define design Clearly define primary outcome Link outcomes to specific measures Limitations Section: proactively defuse
weaknesses and justify your decisions Have others read it prior to submission Detailed Recruitment and Retention Timeline/Feasibility Pilot Data, Pilot Data, Pilot Data Repeat core Issues at least 3X Explain your rationale/choices
Why points are deducted (by me)
Design Unclear
Schedule of assessment Wrong Control Group
Lack of Theoretical Grounding Wrong Statistical Model Insufficient/Incorrect Power Calculations Lack of Pilot Data (RO1 only) Weak/Wrong/Unspecified Measures
The “Top Ten” List
1. Read and re-read the program announcement2. Assemble a strong research team3. Use the strongest study design possible4. If you have not been on a study section, confer with
someone who has5. Be sure to document the innovations(s)6. Document strong access to the study population7. Make sure the writing, organization, & grammar are as
tight as possible (write, re-write…read, re-read)8. Seek reviews before submission9. Make careful use of the summary statement10. Persevere and don’t take rejection personally
Most Common Problems
• Lack of new or original ideas• Diffuse, superficial or unfocused research
plan• Lack of knowledge of published relevant work• Lack of experience in the essential methods• Uncertainty concerning the future directions• Questionable reasoning in methodological
approach• Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale• Unrealistically large amount of work• Lack of sufficient methodological detail• Uncritical approach
Thank You
Q & A