Grants for Lunch:Recycling your Grant Proposal

William J Calhoun MD FACP FCCP FAAAAISealy and Smith Distinguished Professor of Internal Medicine

Director: Division of Allergy, Pulmonary,Immunology, Critical Care, and Sleep [APICS]

Topics

Grant strategy – avoiding the need to recycle!

Grant review process – what you need to know

Reading the critique (‘pink sheets’), and reading between the lines

Composing your response

Grant Strategy - 1

Keys to NIH grant successOutstanding science

Make sure your ideas are up-to-date Novelty gets you some points Scientific rigor is essential

Grant Strategy - 2 Keys to NIH grant success

Clear written presentation Specific Aims page is the centerpoint

Start with Aims Develop crisp, specifically testable hypothesis Refine Aims Keep Aims structurally simple

Background must highlight the ‘holes’ in current knowledge (which your grant will fill)

Strong and relevant preliminary data Feasibility Proof-of-concept

Methodology description Time line Overall strategies Specific methodologic details Statistics Organize – “Make the reviewers’ job easy”

Grant Strategy - 3

Perseverance

Grant Strategy – Do’s and Don’ts

Do Involve a senior investigator early in the process Get the adminstrative and budget information completed early! Get critical feedback often during the process Read your own grant as if you were a disinterested reviewer Avoid typographical errors and misspellings Use figures and tables appropriately to augment the text Write a story Make the reviewers’ job easy!

Grant Strategy – Don’ts

Don’tUse fine print Include superfluous dataAbuse appendicesGo it alonePresume too muchForget statistical analysis, power and sample

size calculations?

Grant Review Process

The Review Branch Role of the Executive Secretary The Study Section

Process Scores “Unscoring” Critiques

The Council

The Critique

Scored or Unscored Priority Score Critiques

Reviewers 1, 2 (?3)Summary Statement

Reading between the lines – interpreting the code words

Now, the ball is in your court!

Appeal / AdviceWas the critique fair?Was there factual error in the critique?

Submission ApproachRespond/amend (three strike rule)New application

Revise, or Start Over (#1) ?

Critique of first submission Is the overall critique favorable or unfavorable? Are there signals of lack of enthusiasm in the critique? What is the priority score, or was it unscored? Can you substantively address the points raised in the critique

with additional background, or additional preliminary data? Are the criticisms structural (investigators, environment,

resources), scientific (experimental design, statistical analysis,etc), or philosophical?

How does your mentor / senior collaborator interpret the tone of the critique?

Default position is to revise and resubmit!

Revise, or Start Over (#2) ?

Critique of second submissionAll points of first submission are relevantWas the second round of critique consistent,

or inconsistent, with the first round?Are there recurring concerns?Does the tone of the critique invite, or

discourage resubmission?Default position is to Revise

Composing Your Response - 1

Response to Critique – 3 Pages Tone

Respectfulness, without obsequiousness Common desire for the best science Give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt Use areas of difference of opinion as an opportunity to

reinforce your views Depersonalize!

Structure Point-by-point, reviewer-by-reviewer (generally best) Thematic response

Composing Your Response - 2

Content of Response Scientific concerns

Strong new data are the best Alternative interpretations Alternative methodologies Alternative scientific strategy

Structural concerns – address with specific changes YOU! Collaborators Environment Resources

Philosophical Concerns!

Composing Your Response - 3

Differentiate new and old content in the body of the grant Don’t use underlining, shadowing, or bolding! Don’t use color (NIH duplicates with B&W photocopiers) Consider use of alternative font (serif / san-serif) Consider use of margin highlights “Make the reviewers’ job easy”

Make sure that ALL new material in the body of the grant is referenced in the 3 page response Judicious duplication of important material is OK Conveys ‘responsiveness’ and collegiality to the reviewers “Make the reviewers’ job easy”

Composing Your Response - 4

Take advantage of new material New preliminary data New publications New ideas

Consistent with original – extensions Inconsistent with original – ‘refining’

New collaborators New institutional resources

Integrate new material seamlessly with existing grant application

Recognize that THIRD SUBMISSION is an up or down vote!