NIH – CSR and ICs

The Academic Gerontocracy

Response to the Crisis

• Early investigator status: first real grant application.

• K awards, R13s etc don’t discount your status, but participation in a P01 does.

• Institute specific payline softening.• Status maintained as you resubmit.• Encourage earlier R01 submission: push

funding to the first cycle.

RO1s : Gaming the system

• Choose your title carefully: this directs it to a particular review group.

• Write the abstract clearly and carefully.• Check the review panel and identify conflicts.• If rejected, you can appeal-rarely successful.• Respond politely to the reviewers: don’t argue

the toss ( usually) and never get verbally annoyed.

RO1s – Secular Trends• Shorter 6 page grants – focus on hypothesis and

preliminary data. Less on exhaustive description of methodology.

• Track record more relevant• Expanded scale – avoid clustering? 30 is the new

150?• Higher success on resubmissions. Approaching 30%.• Faster pasting of review. • ARRA impact on payline as challenge grants spill over.• T-RO1s, Pioneer Awards.

New Critiques

• Bullet points on overall impact, significance, investigators, innovation, approach, environment.

• Also: human subjects, women and minority inclusion, vertebrates, biohazards.

• And comments on – resub, renewal, revision.• And – foreign orgs, select agents, resource sharing

, budget and period of support• http://cms.csr.nih.gov/• http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/Qu

ickLinks-AnswersforApplicants.htm

New Scoring System

• High• 1• Exceptional• Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses • 2• Outstanding• Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses • 3• Excellent• Very strong with only some minor weaknesses

• Medium• 4• Very Good• Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses • 5• Good• Strong but with at least one moderate weakness • 6• Satisfactory• Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses

• Low• 7• Fair• Some strengths but with at least one major weakness • 8• Marginal• A few strengths and a few major weaknesses • 9• Poor• Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses

RO1; Budgets , resources

• Justify everything in detail – personnel, equipment, supplies, mice, volunteer payments , recruitment costs, consortia

• May take modular approach if <$250k• Describe resources and environment – feasibility and

compliance• IRB and IAUCC – just in time. • 3 or 5 years• Effort – 50% on first

Focus and Persistence

• Clear and novel hypothesis. Is it important?• Evidence of feasibility: don’t distract with fluff.• Take advantage of your critical mass – seek pre-review.• Abstract and figures in preliminary data are the keys.• Be responsive and polite on resubmission.• Commonly asked questions at CSR website…• http://cms.csr.nih.gov/nr/rdonlyres/60b2d32e-ae00-

4358-8c51-2e11cc46eac8/15100/insiderguideapplicantsfinal.pdf

MATURING YOUR STRATEGY

• Some grants require a minimum of 20% effort. Otherwise, scale back and redistribute

• Shuffle your application dates – stay out of phase

• Mix your portfolio. 2 RO1s and a PPG• Non-NIH sources increasingly important

A WALTZ WITH MEPHISTO

IDENTITY IS THE BALANCE BETWEEN INTEGRITY AND ADAPTABILITY

• Maintain your intellectual and fiscal independence• Balance your portfolio• Guard authorship and the right to publish• State and have managed your conflict of interest• The best service you can provide is to tell the truth,

even painful truths

STAY TRUE TO YOUR COLORS