Basics in Grantsmanship and
Ethical Conduct of Research (MIR 510) Session 1
February 27, 2015
Tools of the trade of grantsmanship
Milestones
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Courses
Qualifying Exam
Research
Milestones
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Qualifying Exam
Gain familiarity with:
• Anatomy of scientific research grant
• Techniques in effective grant writing
• Peer-review process for federal grant applications
Faculty
Sharon Evans PhD, Immunology Joseph Skitzki MD, Surgical Oncology
Scott Abrams PhD, Immunology Brahm Segal, MD, Immunology
Kristopher Attwood, PhD, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics
Judith Epstein MS, Director, Grants and Foundation Office
Adam Kisailus PhD, Education
Long-term:
Provide toolbox for
successful applications
Short-term:
Pass QE!
Outline
Basic introduction to grant process
Qualifying exam requirements
Tips for successful grant writing
Nuts and bolts of grant application
Sources of Health Research Funding
http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2013/09/24/one-nation-in-support-of-biomedical-research/
Sally Rockely, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research
Francis Collins, NIH Director
Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD
NIH Budget FY15
“…Well, certainly, everybody's hoping
that we might turn the corner in what has been
a pretty difficult 12 year period. ….I'm
encouraged by the president's putting out this
$1 billion increase, 3.3%..... I'm guardedly
optimistic, because the one thing that both
houses and in both branches seem to agree is
that medical research is really important.
It's our best hope for answering many of the
difficult challenges we have with health, and it's
about the best way to stimulate our economy at
the same time. …. We are at historically low
levels of success for grand applicants actually
getting funding…. And if you're a young
investigator now trying to get your lab up and
going, you're facing this one chance in six that
your application might get funded...”
Chronicle of Higher Education
February 11, 2015
Comments from NIH Director
- Take home message: many good
proposals won’t get funded - higher
stakes to be competitive.
Outline
Basic introduction to grant process
Qualifying exam requirements
Tips for successful grant writing
Nuts and bolts of grant application
Qualifying Exam Schedule
Step 1: June - July (Year 1): Preparation 1
Select research laboratory
Step 2: July – September (end of Year 1): Preparation 2
Student receives their seminar date from the Department.
Selection of Thesis committee
Step 3: January-March (Year 2): Thesis Committee Meeting
Broadly discuss scope of project and aims (further delineation of aims
will occur after QE seminar)
Qualifying Exam Seminar
“Thank you for that fascinating presentation. Who would like to be the first to trash it?”
Step 4: March-June (Year 2):
Goals:
• Evaluate student’s ability to clearly
present and defend the rationale,
hypotheses and Specific aims of
proposal in oral format.
• Enable thesis committee and
qualifying exam committee member to
evaluate the proposed Specific Aims.
Qualifying Exam Seminar
Guidelines:
• The Specific Aims page must be provided to the qualifying exam
committee 1 week prior to the scheduled seminar.
• Student presents departmental seminar on their proposed research
topic to entire department.
• Seminar will encompass background information and broadly based
specific aims.
• Thesis committee and a member of the qualifying exam committee will
meet following the seminar to discuss the student’s performance and
will award a pass/fail for this stage. This meeting will also include a
detailed evaluation of the Specific Aims with the goal of helping the
student to improve and/or modify them.
See Immunology graduate handbook for additional details
Qualifying Exam Schedule
Step 5: Revision of Specific Aims
• The student will be given 1 week from their seminar date to
modify/finalize their specific aims and will provide the thesis
committee with a “Specific Aims” page for approval.
• This page will be a single page and will contain a brief
intro/background section and the specific aims. The committee will
vote to accept or not accept the aims.
Step 6: Proposal Preparation:
• Once the Specific Aims page is approved, the student will be given
4 weeks to prepare a proposal.
• The proposal will be written according to the modified NIH
guidelines (7 page limit excluding references).
Qualifying Exam Schedule
Step 7: Oral Examination
(Completed by September of
3rd year):
• Oral exam is scheduled by the
student and chair of the QE at
least 1 week, but no more than 2
weeks after the committee and a
member of the qualifying exam
committee receives the final draft
of the proposal.
• Exam is a closed session and
will cover areas of general
immunology and the proposal.
Qualifying Exam Schedule
Step 7: Oral Examination
• This exam will not include a
formal seminar, however the
student can present an
abbreviated seminar (3-4 slides
maximum) summarizing overall
scope of the project, rationale,
impact, and Specific Aims.
• The committee will vote to pass
or fail the student based on this
exam.
• In some cases students will be required to take an oral retest (and in some
cases rewrite the proposal) if their performance is deemed unacceptable.
An additional QE committee member will participate in the retest. The
student must pass the retest to remain in the graduate program.
Outline
Basic introduction to grant process
Qualifying exam requirements
Tips for successful grant writing
Nuts and bolts of grant application
Things to Keep in Mind
Writing successful grant
applications is a long process
that begins with an idea.
Money begets money!
Individuals awarded grants in the past are more competitive
and thus more likely to receive funding in the future.
Preparation of QE Written Proposal
Professional grant writing OR
Grant writing as a profession!
www.CartoonStock.com
Magic Formula for Success
Work hard at it!
www.CartoonStock.com
The Big Picture
Is it new, not me-too?
Is it practical?
Can you do it?
Is it fundable?
What Boosts an
Application?
Originality
Clarity of message & approach
Your credentials
Clear and testable hypothesis
Potential for impact on field: fill a gap!
Presubmission review
Understanding the criteria for evaluation
What Sinks an
Application?
Lack of originality and/or significance
Poor knowledge base
Lack of clear hypotheses and
approaches
Essential expertise and/or resources not
demonstrated
Inadequate communication
Preparing the Proposal
Write
Submit
Outline project
Draft proposal
Submit
Get feedback (lab meeting)
Identify strengths/weaknesses
Revise
Get feedback
Identify strengths/weaknesses
Revise
Know Your Target Audience
Assume you are addressing a
colleague who is knowledgeable in the
general area, but who does not
necessarily know the details about your
research question.
Most readers are ‘lazy’ (overloaded)
and will not respond well to a poorly
organized, poorly written, or confusing
proposal.
Remember that reviewers learn a lot
about you from your application.
Clear Communication is Critical
Abraham Lincoln believed in
extensive editing and being concise.
– 272 words in Gettysburg Address
Need exciting, accessible, cohesive
narrative to generate enthusiasm
Spend more time on application
strategy before writing.
Make everything as simple as possible,
but not simpler. – Albert Einstein
Beginning to Write
Allow enough time
Make a schedule for each section
– stick to it!
Set a timeline - Choose a grant deadline
- March 12th at midnight (for example)
- Count backward to create initial deadlines
- (A) start specific aims and review with mentors
- (B) begin first draft
- (C) first full draft and seek criticism
- (D) begin work on final draft
- (E) mentor review of final draft
Total MINIMUM time – 5 months
deadline A 4 wks
B 4 wks
C 2 wks
D 4 wks
E 4-6 wks
Pay Attention to Format
ALWAYS write from carefully
crafted outline (topic sentence!!)
Use subheadings – function as
‘mini-headline’
Make sure there’s lots of white
space – don’t overcrowd the page
Make sure figures large enough to
be legible with concise legends
Grab the Reviewer’s
Attention Up Front
Find creative ways to separate
your proposal from the pack
Keep the Reader Interested
A successful proposal reads like
a detective novel
The reviewer should want to
keep reading and is led to an
‘aha’ moment when he/she is
convinced that this is the most
important thing to do next.
Context, Context, Context
It is essential to frame ideas in the
context of current dogma
Demonstrate knowledge, expertise;
be wary of jargon, cookie-cutter
narrative
Express your individuality &
personality
The Proposal at the Formative Stage
Gut–check:
What is the topic? Why is it
important?
What are your hypotheses?
What are your research
methods?
Get Feedback and Revise
The best writing is re-writing.
E.B. White
Establish Mentor Relationships
If you are seeking a mentored
grant (eg Predoc grant, K award),
- you will need a mentor
- or mentors
If you are seeking an
independent investigator award,
- you will need a mentor
- or mentors
- Mentor should be well-funded
- Mentor should be senior (tenured at least)
- Mutual benefit
- you need your mentor
- you benefit your mentor
- Shared space
- Shared resources
- Must be willing to take time with you
- to give criticism
- to help with grants
Good Mentor Relationships
Steps to Success
HAVE SOMEONE ELSE READ THE GRANT before you
send it in (give them time)
Start early
Work off a preliminary budget – sure fire way to prevent
‘expansiveness’
Determine early who you need to help
Use the reviews to make yourself better (even if grant is
funded)
Outline
Basic introduction to grant process
Qualifying exam requirements
Tips for successful grant writing
Nuts and bolts of grant application
Grant Writing Wisdom
Impact, impact, and impact………
Essence of success
NIAID Funding News
Impact – the likelihood that a project will have a
sustained and powerful influence on the field.
Evaluation Criteria Guide What
Makes it Into the Proposal
SIGNIFICANCE
INVESTIGATOR
INNOVATION
APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
Nuts and Bolts of the Proposal
TITLE – never under-estimate
its importance – sets up
proposal; don’t be too specific
ABSTRACT – provides readers with first
(and last) impression of your project
Should explicitly explain key elements:
(1) the purpose, (2) specific goals,
(3) research design, (4) methods, and
(5) significance (contribution and rationale)
Research Plan (for 6 p proposal)
Specific Aims (1 p)
Significance (1 - 2 p)
Innovation (½ p)
Approach (3 - 4 p)
Specific Aims
The MOST important page of Research
Plan (1 p limit)
New focus on impact of results on the field
This page sells grant (including study
design) to non-assigned reviewers – may
be only page they read
Specific Aims
Creates focus for application
Conveys big picture – impact, significance,
innovation
Conveys relevance to public health
Explains why you chose the project
Milestone-driven objectives that will
provide useful data whether outcome is
positive and negative
Grab reviewer’s attention
Goal that test hypotheses
Specific exploratory aims may be used, but should be
explained
Achievable during the grant funding period
Specific Aims are the foundation of any grant
Define Specific Aims
Specific Aims
Common pitfalls:
Lack of original or innovative idea
Specific Aims
Common pitfalls:
Too ambitious
Specific Aims
Common pitfalls:
Fishing expedition
Specific Aims
Common pitfalls:
Endpoints not quantitative
Incremental advances in knowledge
Not achievable during funding period
No significant impact (even if aims
achieved) on the field
Too many aims (> 1/y)
The universe is vast – why would it matter if you completed
the proposed studies?
Significance
“Explain importance of problem or critical
barrier to progress in field being addressed”
NIH description
Significance
“Explain how project will improve scientific
knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical
practice”
NIH description
Significance
“Describe how concepts, methods,
technologies, treatments, services, or
preventive interventions that drive this field will
be changed if proposed aims are achieved”
NIH description
Significance
Establish significance through review of
published/unpublished data in field
(including own)
Identify gaps in current knowledge
Justify hypotheses & approach
Clearly state public health implications
Suggested length: 1 – 2 p
NIH description
Significance
Common pitfalls:
Inappropriate, incomplete or haphazard
use of literature
Limited rationale for proposal (no evidence
that data obtained will be new or fill gaps)
Uncertainty regarding future direction of
significance of results
Insufficient or missing discussion of
relevant published literature
Innovation
Innovation
Innovation
“Explain how application challenges and
seeks to shift current research or clinical
practice paradigms”
“Describe any novel theoretical concepts,
approaches, methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions to be
developed or used and any advantage
gained”
NIH description
Innovation versus Significance
Significance is why the work is important
to do
Innovation is why the work is different
(better than) what has been done before
Innovation
Demonstrate the potential gains are not merely
incremental
Explain why concepts & methods are novel to your field
Summarize (without detailed data) novel findings to be
presented as preliminary results in Approach
Innovation
Focus on innovation in study design & outcomes
Spell it out - give reviewer talking points for discussion
Suggested length: ½ p
Adhesion &
Transmigration
IL-6
DC FRC
sIL-6R/gp130
AP1 IRE Inflammation Immune
Surveillance
Aim 1
Aim 2
Aim 3
Icam1
HEC
P P
Innovation
Common pitfalls:
No novelty in concept or methods
Innovation
Common pitfalls:
No novelty in concept or methods
No measurable impact on
biomedical research and/or clinical
care
No ‘paradigm shift’
Too similar to other funded or
published research
Approach
Approach
Develop well designed game-plan to describe overall
strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to
accomplish specific aims.
Approach Steps to Success
Do the last experiment first
They give you money to do what you already have done
You write a grant to give your ‘friends’ a reason to give
you money
Be visible in your field – publications & presentations
Make your first submission the best you can (first
impressions matter) even if it means holding up a cycle
Approach
Preliminary studies/data intercalated
throughout to demonstrate experience &
establish feasibility
“Describe how data will be collected,
analyzed, and interpreted”
“Delineate strategy to establish feasibility
& address management of any high-risk
aspects of work”
Publication record is critical – shows that
you can deliver “NIH description”
Approach
Anticipate problems &
include Plan B – illustrate
decision tree branching to
next steps
Suggested length: 3 - 4 p
www.CartoonStock.com
Plan A
Plan B
Approach
Common pitfalls:
Diffuse, superficial, unfocused design
Methods do not test hypothesis or achieve
specific aims
Lack of experience/publications in essential
methodology
Unrealistic timeline
No difficulties anticipated, no solutions
proposed
Inadequate attention to data analysis,
interpretation, and/or application
Emphasize unique resources, equipment
RPCI – NCI-designated Cancer Center
Support Grant
Immunology Program – NIH/NCI T32
Predoctoral Training Program
Unique features of training program,
opportunities (regional/national meetings;
embedded in cancer institute)
Intellectual environment – 24 faculty focused
on tumor immunology,
Environment
Session 2 – Review Process Evans, Abrams, Skitzki,
Discuss review process
Watch 20-30’ video of study section meeting;
watch how dynamics can change during live
review at committee meeting
Review handout on guidelines for study
section review; emphasize importance of
getting significance, impact, innovation up
front in review criteria
Grantsmanship Resources
Cambronero JG et al, Writing a first grant
proposal. Nature Immunol 13:105, 2012.
Preparing Competitive NIH Applications for
Enhanced Peer Review (NIAID)
http://writedit.wordpress.com/grantsmanship-downloads/
Mike T Lotze, MD, University of Pittsburgh
Kenneth M Blumenthal, PhD, Associate Dean for
Research & Education, University of Buffalo
http://medicine.buffalo.edu/faculty_and_staff/nih_grant.html
Market Your Science LLL, 601D W Main St,
Carrboro, NC 27510, Morgan Giddings;
Implement the “Bucket brigade’ in your proprosal.
Grantsmanship Resources
The Chronicle of Higher Education: Manage
Your Career, David A Stone http://chronicle.com/article/How-Your-Grant-
Proposal/47471/
Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!), U
North Carolina E:\Sharon\Class\MIR 510 Basics in Grantsmanship\Kisailus
grantsmanship materials\Grant Proposals.mht
American Cancer Society (statistics)
Cancer Education Consortium, NIH
Grant Writers’ Seminars and Workshops,
The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook,
Stephen W. Russell and David C. Morrison Terry Turski has this workbook on reserve
NIH Grantsmanship Resources
Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship
– writedit.wordpress.com
– writedit.wordpres.com/nih-paylines-resources/
NIH Grant Cycle Explained & Grant Tutorials
– www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/cycle/default.htm
– www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/default.htm
NIH Grant Basics
– grants.nih.gov/grants/grant_basics.htm
Clinical Research Toolbox – www.nia.nih.gov/Researchinformation/CTtoolbox/
Changes in peer review/applications
– enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/
– grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm