funding for academic environment

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

Program Staff Funding OpportunityAnnouncement (FOA)

RFA or PA

Grant Application(R01, R03, R21,K01, K08, etc.)

NationalAdvisoryCouncil

Program Staff

$

Rev

isio

n

Researcher

IdeaInstitution

CSRReferral

and Review

Collaborators

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 Grants

amount 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 Award

http://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!

• 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 WritingDo 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!

Concept Development

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 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)

Writing -- General Comments

• Investigate a significant issuein science

• Use clear and concise language

• Propose a doable project

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”

Title (the “Hook”)

Clear and descriptive

Abstract (Project Description)

Present the big picture

Abstract (Project Description)

… the 2nd “Hook” … use it as another important opportunity

If the reviewers aren’t excited after reading the abstract…………….

The Application

12 pages… to convince reviewers

*For RO1s, most Ks and some other grant mechanismskeep abreast of changes

by subscribing to the NIH Guide!

Key Personnel

Justify thoroughly

Biographical Sketch

Who ARE you?Why are YOU the person to do this?

Personal Statement

Maximum of 15 publications

Consultants/Collaborators

Justify thoroughly

Duration of Study

Justify thoroughly

Budget

Justify! Justify!! Justify!!!

Do not underbudget or overbudget

and

Specific 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.

Research Strategy – 4 sections

• Significance

• Innovation

• Approach

• Preliminary Studies/Progress Report

Significance

Why is what you want to do important?

How will what you want to do change the field?

Innovation

What’s new here?

Are there novel concepts, approaches,methodologies?

Approach

• 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

Approach

• 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!

Approach

• Not enough detail

• Methods out of date

• Experiments don’t test the hypotheses

• What hypothesis/hypotheses?

(Avoid These Criticisms!)

Approach

• Fishing expedition

• No place to go if Aim 1 fails

• Inappropriate statistical analysis

• Insufficient power

• Sequence & priorities missing - logic/flow

(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?!

• 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)

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)

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