Grantspersonship Beth A. Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
Transcript of Grantspersonship Beth A. Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,...
Grantspersonship
Beth A. Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,USA
Survival Skills and
Ethics Program
www.pitt.edu/~survival
Topics include
• Writing research articles
• Making oral presentations
• Obtaining advanced training
• Teaching
• Job hunting
• Managing personnel
• Obtaining funding
Acknowledgments
• Lillian Pubols (NINDS)
• Miner, Miner & Griffith – Proposal Planning and Writing
• Ogden and Goldberg – Research Proposals: A Guide to Success
• ...and many others
Types of grants
objective• training/career
– fellowship– career award
• research• conference• equipment• infrastructure
form• investigator-initiated
– individual– groups
• “set-aside” grants• contracts
Types of grants
objective• training/career
– fellowship– career award
• research• conference• equipment• infrastructure
form• investigator-initiated
– individual– groups
• “set-aside” grants• contracts
Availability of grants
Other• government• non-government organizations• philanthropic foundations• health voluntaries• corporations• private individuals
Why don’t people get funded?
Why people don’t get funded
• because it is too hard?
Why people don’t get funded
• because it is too hard?
• already accomplished harder tasks
Why people don’t get funded
• inadequate concept
Why people don’t get funded
• inadequate concept
A good idea is necessary, but not sufficient.
Why people don’t get funded
• inadequate concept
• poor presentation
Why people don’t get funded
• inadequate concept
• poor presentation
• poor understanding of process
Why people don’t get funded
• inadequate concept
• poor presentation
• poor understanding of process
• lack of persistence
Why people don’t get funded
• inadequate concept
• poor presentation
• poor understanding of process
• lack of persistence
Good grants are not funded, excellent ones are
GrantspersonshipPreparing
1. establish frame of mind
2. develop concept
3. identify funding source
4. inform your institution
5. refine concept
Writing
6. think like a reviewer
7. outline, write, edit
8. get feedback & revise
Submitting
9. get approvals
10. obtain assignment
11. submit application
12. provide add’l material
13. ensure receipt
Responding
14. await review
15. study report
16. respond to report
GrantspersonshipPreparing
1. establish frame of mind
2. develop concept
3. identify funding source
4. inform your institution
5. refine concept
Writing
6. think like a reviewer
7. outline, write, edit
8. get feedback & revise
Submitting
9. get approvals
10. obtain assignment
11. submit application
12. provide add’l material
13. ensure receipt
Responding
14. await review
15. study report
16. respond to report
Think ahead and plan backwards
Grantspersonship
1. establish frame of mind
2. develop concept
3. identify funding source
4. inform your institution
5. refine concept
6. think like a reviewer
7. outline, write, edit
8. get feedback & revise
9. get approvals
10. obtain assignment
11. submit application
12. provide add’l material
13. ensure receipt
14. await review
15. study report
16. respond to report
0 d
2-60d
2 m 2 m
>3 m
Phase I: Preparing
1. establish frame of mind
2. develop concept
3. identify funding source
4. inform your institution
5. refine concept
Establish frame of mind
• often: little enthusiasm
Establish frame of mind
• often: little enthusiasm
• better: a wonderful opportunity
General points to keep in mind
• proposal in contrast to research manuscript– read by many fewer– likely to have much greater impact
• material can be recycled– from previous ms– into future ms
Develop a Concept
That FITS
Develop a concept that FITS
• Fills a gap in knowledge
Develop a concept that FITS
• Fills a gap in knowledge
• Important to– the field– funding agency– you
Develop a concept that FITS
• Fills a gap in knowledge
• Important
• Tests a hypothesis
Develop a concept that FITS
• Fills a gap in knowledge
• Important
• Tests a hypothesis
• Short-term investment in long-term goals
Identify Funding Source
Identify funding source
• select agency
Source of information
• internet
• reference books
• colleagues
• acknowledgements on papers
• office of research at your institution
• libraries
Identify funding source
• select agency
• improve odds: match objectives
Identify funding source
• select agency
• improve odds: match objectives– research interests
Identify funding source
• select agency
• improve odds: match objectives– research interests– personal characteristics
• career phase• gender• developing nation
Identify funding source
• select agency
• improve odds: match objectives
• communicate with program staff
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding
– percentage– level (amount, years)
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding
– percentage– level (amount, years)
• characteristics of– strong proposals– weak proposals
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding
– percentage– level (amount, years)
• characteristics– strong proposals– weak proposals
• appendix material– ok?– when, to whom?
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding
– percentage– level (amount, years)
• characteristics– strong proposals– weak proposals
• appendix material– ok?– when, to whom?
• pre-review possible
Contacting program staff
• in their offices– phone– email– letter– in person (by appointment)
• at professional meetings
Inform Your Institution
Inform your institution
• departmental chairperson
• office of research
• secretarial assistant
• fiscal assistant
• people to give feedback
Develop Concept
Develop ConceptRefine
Refine your concept
• review current literature
Refine your concept
• review current literature
• talk with colleagues
Refine your concept
• review current literature
• talk with colleagues
• think hard
Refine your concept
• review current literature
• talk with colleagues
• think hard
• think harder
Phase II: Writing the proposal
6. think like a reviewer
7. outline, write, edit
8. get feedback & revise
Think like a reviewer
What do they want to know?
Think like a reviewer
What do they want to know?
Time spent reading proposal
• primary reviewer (writes report) 7-8 hr
• reader (no report) 1 hr• discussion at study section 20 min
Survey by Janet Rasey
Proposals reviewed were NIH R01
Write for the reviewer
• use standard organization
• provide clear, and very visible answers to review criteria
• anticipate reviewer's questions and provide answers
• state relation to funder’s mission
Write for the reviewer, part 2
• use standard organization
• provide clear, and very visible answers to review criteria
• anticipate reviewer's questions and provide answers
• state relation to funder’s mission
Phase II: Writing the proposal
6. think like a reviewer
7. outline, write, edit
8. get feedback & revise
Think like a reviewer
Stock the sections
• Research plan– Specific Aims– Background and Significance– Preliminary Data– Research Design and Methods
• Budget and Justification
• References
Outline, Write, and Edit
Outline, Write, and Edit
• being with a full outline
Outline, Write, and Edit
• being with a full outline
• write initial draft without editing
Outline, Write, and Edit
• being with a full outline
• write initial draft without editing
• edit thoroughly
Outline, Write, and Edit
• being with a full outline
• write initial draft without editing
• edit thoroughly
Editing
• avoid vague qualifiers
• use active voice
General organization
• have a table of contents
• make it easy to find key points– bold face headings and terms– cross references– some redundancy
Appearance
Appearance
• select good type face
Appearance
• select good type face good
Times Roman
Century Schoolbook
Appearance
• select good type face good never!
Times Roman courier
Century Schoolbook Helvetica
Appearance
• select good type face good never!
Times Roman courier
Century Schoolbook Helvetica
– size > 11 pt
Appearance
• select good type face good never!
Times Roman courier
Century Schoolbook Helvetica
– size > 11 pt
– occasionally use special fonts
bold face
italics
Appearance
• select good type face
• write in paragraphs
Appearance
• select good type face
• write in paragraphs– 1 major idea per paragraph– topic sentences– use headers frequently
Appearance
• select good type face
• write in paragraphs
• let your text – indent paragraphs– skip line between paragraphs
A. Background and SignificanceThe importance of training in "survival skills:" Success in
science requires a solid background in a specific scientificdiscipline as well as extensive laboratory experience. However,for individuals to develop into accomplished professionals, theymust acquire survival skills, that is, they must be able tocommunicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtainemployment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, andbehave responsibly (1,2,3).This has always been the case and isbecoming even more true as our doctoral and postdoctoraltrainees need to be prepared for a variety of vocations (3, 4)
In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of ourtrainees will ultimately find themselves doing research inindustry, teaching in 4-year colleges, or serving in someadministrative capacity. Others will combine their PhDs withprofessional degrees in medicine or law and become clinicalresearchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the theformulation of public policy. With many of these new vocations,extra-laboratory skills become even more essential (3).
Traditionally, higher education in the sciences has focusedalmost exclusively on the content of the scientific disciplineand on research methodology. Indeed, individuals employed inresearch and related fields often complain that although theiracademic training provided them with a sound foundation in their
A. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
The importance of training in "survival skills." Success in sciencerequires a solid background in a specific scientific discipline as well asextensive laboratory experience. However, for individuals to develop intoaccomplished professionals, they must acquire survival skills, that is, theymust be able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtainemployment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, and behaveresponsibly (Bloom 1992; Bird 1994; National Academy of Sciences 1995).This has always been the case and is becoming even more true as ourdoctoral and postdoctoral trainees need to be prepared for a variety ofvocations (National Academy of Sciences 1995; Varmus 1995).
In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of our trainees willultimately find themselves doing research in industry, teaching in 4-yearcolleges, or serving in some administrative capacity. Others will combinetheir PhDs with professional degrees in medicine or law and become clinicalresearchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the formulation of public
Follow-up survey
Participants from our 1995, 1996, and 1997 trainer-of-trainersworkshops were recently sent a survey to see what they had done to providetraining in survival skills and ethics at their institution. (The 1995 workshopwas made possible by an earlier grant.) Thusfar, slightly more than half of all formerparticipants have responded. Even if oneassumes that none of the non-respondents didnot implement any instruction at all (unlikely),the results of this survey still provide a clearindication of the impact of our program.
Instruction implemented by participants:The total number of hours of instruction insurvival skills and ethics that was provided in1997-98 by former participants was comparedwith the instruction offered in the year prior to their attendance (Figure 1).The number of students taught in new or preexisting (but expanded) coursesincreased by an average of 25 hr per year among the respondents.
Figure 1
Implementation
0
200400
600800
1000
1995 1996 1997
Workshop participant
inst
ruct
ion
prov
ided
(h
r)
before '97-98
Appearance
• select good type face
• write in paragraphs
• let your text b r e a t h
• conform to instructions!- type size - margins
- # pages - sections
Check photocopy quality
Get Feedback
Asking for help
Yes– program staff– former reviewer– colleague
NO!– current reviewer
Get feedback
• establish mentors early
Get feedback
• establish mentors early
• provide clear instructions– what– when
Get feedback
• establish mentors early
• provide clear instructions
• take no for an answer
Get feedback
• establish mentors early
• provide clear instructions
• take no for an answer
• remind gently
Get feedback
• establish mentors early
• provide clear instructions
• take no for an answer
• remind gently
• show appreciation
Get Feedback and Revise
Phase III: Submitting
9. get approvals
10. obtain assignment
11. submit application
12. provide additional material
13. ensure receipt
Get approvals
Get approvals• use of subjects
– human (IRB)– animals (IACUC)
• safety• agreements
– collaborators– consultants– university administrators
Get approvals• use of subjects
– human (IRB)– animals (IACUC)
• safety• agreements
– collaborators– consultants– university administrators
Allowenough
time!
Obtain Assignment
Obtain the right assignment
• program relevance
• availability of funds
• sympathetic review
• competent reviewers
Clues for assignment officer
• title
• abstract
• list of key words
• specific aims
• cover letter
• input from program staff
Submit Application
Submit application
• know the deadline– postmark versus arrival– absolute or flexible
Submit application
• know the deadline
• anticipate problems– bad weather– equipment failures– holidays– sickness
Submit application
• know the deadline
• anticipate problems
• give yourself extra time (everything takes longer than you think)
Submit application
• know the deadline
• anticipate problems
• give yourself extra time
• what if you are late?
Submit application
• know the deadline
• anticipate problems
• give yourself extra time
• what if you are late?– call and ask– there often is a grace period
Submit application
• know the deadline
• anticipate problems
• give yourself extra time
• what if you are late?– call and ask– there often is a grace period– sometimes there isn’t
Submit application
• know the deadline
• anticipate problems
• give yourself extra time
• what if you are late?
• also send copy to program officer
Ensure Receipt
Provide Additional Material
Phase IV: Responding
14. await review
15. study report
16. respond to report
Await Review
What will be happening
1. assignment
What will be happening
1. assignment
2. evaluation– staff– peers
• sitting panel• external reviewers
– site visit (rare)
What will be happening
1. assignment
2. evaluation
3. prep of report, which may– not be available– need to request– take 2-3 mo– be incomplete– contain contradictions
Study Report and Respond
Possible outcomes
• scored– high– “gray area”– low
Possible outcomes
• scored– high– “gray area”– low
• rejected
Possible outcomes
• scored– high– “gray area” funding?– low
• rejected
Reasons for rejection: Research proposals
• unoriginal ideas
• diffuse, superficial
• lack of knowledge• uncertain future
directions
• inadequate rationale
• poor reasoning
• unrealistic workload
• lack of expt’l detail
• uncritical approach
Reasons for rejection: Fellowships
• weak candidate– productivity– letters– training
• poor mentor– research– funding– experience
• inadequate proposal– quality of research– relevance to training
• weak institution– colleagues– support
If budget is reduced
• estimate what can be accomplished
• renegotiate– objectives– experiments
• save rest for future application
If score is in “gray zone”
• talk to program officer
• consider providing additional material– rebuttal– evidence of feasibility
If funding is not provided
• quit
If funding is not provided
• quit
application MUST have merit if
you followed previous steps
If funding is not provided
• quit
• same application with rebuttal
If funding is not provided
• quit
• same application with rebuttal
• revised application– some changes– some rebuttal
If funding is not provided
• quit
• same application with rebuttal
• revised application– some changes– some rebuttal
• request new reviewers
Persistence pays
> 50% NIH applicants funded
Behave responsiblythroughout
Behave responsibly
• source of material– text– ideas– data
Behave responsibly
• source of material
• adequacy of methods
Behave responsibly
• source of material
• adequacy of methods
• collaborations
Behave responsibly
• source of material
• adequacy of methods
• collaborations
• pilot data
Behave responsibly
• source of material
• adequacy of methods
• collaborations
• pilot data
• budget
Behave responsibly
• source of material
• adequacy of methods
• collaborations
• pilot data
• budget
• biosketch
Behave responsibly
• source of material
• adequacy of methods
• collaborations
• pilot data
• budget
• biosketch
General principle:Do not misrepresent anything.
Advice to junior investigators
Timeline for NIH proposal:From application to funding
Date Step Feb 1, 2001 application Jun – Jul, 2001 review Aug – Sep, 2001 summary statement Nov 1, 2001 revised application Feb – Mar 2002 review May – Jun, 2002 council meets July 1, 2002 funding begins
Assume approximately 18 months.
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded as soon as possible– funding track record helps get more $– jobs, promotions easier with grant– proposals often not funded first time
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP
• starting small is fine– amount– time
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP
• starting small is fine
• make sure previous work published
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP
• starting small is fine
• make sure previous work published
• every proposal should be excellent
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP
• starting small is fine
• make sure previous work published
• every proposal should be excellent
• letters from others can help
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP
• starting small is fine
• make sure previous work published
• every proposal should be excellent
• letters from others can help
• don’t stop ‘till you have more than enough
Components of an Application
Components
• title• abstract• research plan
– objectives– significance– preliminary data– research design,
methods
Components
• title• abstract• research plan
– objectives– significance– preliminary data– research design,
methods
• budget • budget justification• biosketches• approvals• letters• appendix
Components
• title• abstract• research plan
– objectives– significance– preliminary data– research design,
methods
• budget • budget justification• biosketches• approvals• letters• appendix
Title
• mini-abstract
• accurate statement of long-term goals
• conform to guidelines
• include key words
Abstract
• background• specific aims• unique features• methodology• expected results
• method of evaluation
• generalizability• relation to field• broad impact
Contents
Abstract• accurate
• simple
• interesting
• not provocative
• key words
Research plan
• Specific aims
• Background & Significance
• Preliminary Data
• Research Design & Methods
Research plan
• state objectives
Research plan
• state objectives
• provide background– general literature
– your work
– reviewer’s work
Research plan
• state objectives
• provide background
• be hypotheses-driven
Research plan
• state objectives
• provide background
• be hypotheses-driven
• highlight strengths– ideas
– methods
Research plan
• state objectives
• provide background
• be hypotheses-driven
• highlight strengths
• emphasize practicality– methods– preliminary data– time & skills
Research plan
• state objectives
• provide background
• be hypotheses-driven
• highlight strengths
• emphasize practicality– methods– preliminary data– time & skills
• discuss outcomes, have contingencies
Methods
• tell why your method is best
Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details
– methodology– controls– instruments to be used– information to be collected: value & limitations– precision of data– procedures for data analysis – interpretation
Methods
• explain why your method is best
• provide details
• identify pitfalls, how will overcome
Methods
• explain why your method is best
• provide details
• identify pitfalls, how will overcome
• specify alternative method if yours fails
Methods
• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome• specify alternative method• list sources of unique materials
– reagents– materials– populations
Methods
• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome• specify alternative methods • list sources of unique materials• consider input from statistician
– methods for data analyses– amt data to collect
Approximate Timeline (in years)
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5
Impact of GDNF on
cell death
Signaling underlying effects of GDNF
Molecular basis of neuroprotection
Timeline
Project evaluation(included in proposal)
• specify who will conduct– internal– external
• relate measures to objectives
• include evaluation instrument if available
Personnel
Personnel
• name individual when possible
• indicate selection procedures
Collaborators & consultants
• add skills, expertise
• add credibility
Biographical sketches
• include for critical personnel– Principal Investigator (PI)– Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI)– Co-Investigators (Co-I)– Collaborators– Consultants– Research assistants
Biographical sketches
• include for critical personnel
• highlight relevant accomplishments
Biographical sketches
• include for critical personnel
• highlight relevant accomplishments
• ensure accuracy– training, experience– publications– grant support
Budget
• reasonable– for the project– for the agency
• inflationary increases
• new costs in subsequent years
Budget
• service/maintenance costs
• insurance
• shipping
• training to use new equipment
justify all equip carefully
Budget
• reasonable
• justify all requests– amounts– time
Justification
• personnel – % effort on project– responsibilities
Justification
• personnel
Ben Aster, Ph.D., 20% effort. Dr. Aster is responsible for program evaluation.
Justification
• personnel
Ben Aster, Ph.D., 20% effort. Dr. Aster is responsible for program evaluation. He develops evaluation instruments, administers surveys, compiles and analyzes the data, initiates follow-up inquiries, and writes evaluation reports.
Justification
• animals– quantity– cost at age– days housed– cost of housing
Budget
• reasonable
• justify all requests• amounts• time
• explain appearance of overlap
Budget• reasonable
• justify requests
• explain appearance of overlap
• new NIH format: modular budgets
• cost-share when possible– funds– services– equipment
Construction of budget
salaries 50,000
supplies 25,000
equipment 15,000
Construction of budget
• fringe benefits salaries 50,000
fringe benefits (20%) 10,000
supplies 25,000
equipment 15,000
Construction of budget
• fringe benefits• direct costs
salaries 50,000
fringe benefits (20%) 10,000
supplies 25,000
equipment 15,000
DC 100,000
Construction of budget
• fringe benefits• direct costs• indirect costs
salaries 50,000*
fringe benefits (20%) 10,000*
supplies 25,000*
equipment 15,000
DC 100,000
IDC 42,500
Total Award $142,500
Resources and environment
• to document resources available– equipment– space– facilities– support staff
Equipment grants
• relation to existing resources
• value added to research – in your research unit– outside research unit
• benefits for students
• implications of not having equipment
Subject welfare
• know, adhere to guidelines
• get appropriate approvals
Human subjects
• characteristics of subjects, population• recruiting methods• criteria for selection• consent procedures• potential risks• how risks will be minimized• benefits to subjects and community• inclusion of women and minorities
Vertebrate animals
• detail proposed use
• justify species and number
• veterinary care
• minimizing stress, discomfort
• justification for method of euthanasia
Letters
• letters of agreement– obtain from collaborators, consultants– to document
• type, level of involvement• access to special
– reagents, equipment– methods– populations
– improve by providing sample
Letters• letters of agreement
• letters of recommendation– may be required– could be optional– could be inconspicuous
Supplementary materials: Some examples
• color or enlarged figures
• reprints of your work
• updated information– results– other accomplishments
Supplementary material
• find out if, when, where
• never use to circumvent page limits!!
Summary
• there is money available
Summary
• there is money available
• getting it takes– a good idea– a proper match– good grantspersonship– persistence
Summary
• there is money available
• getting it takes– a good idea– a proper match– good grantspersonship– persistence
• it is hard work
Summary
• there is money available
• getting it takes– a good idea– a proper match– good grantspersonship– persistence
• it is hard work
• it is so worth it!