yolonda l. colson md, phd associate professor of surgery brigham and women’s hospital harvard...
TRANSCRIPT
Yolonda L. Colson MD, PhDAssociate Professor of SurgeryBrigham and Women’s Hospital
Harvard Medical School
2011 AATS Grant Writing Workshop
WRITING A REVISION:
Formulation Your Response and Rebuttal
“PINK SHEETS”
Reading your Summary Statement
Summary Statements
Anger, Denial and Despair
are a normal part of reading a
critical review of your “perfect”
grant…© Henry T. Kaiser/Photolibrary & www.avantipress.com
The 2nd Stage of Reading Your Summary Statements ..
Let’s agree to respect each others views,
no matter how wrong yours may be …
© Ashleigh Brillant on despair.com
Summary Statements: Acceptance
Before you can write a successful revision and make
your grant better,
you must accept the criticism as constructive and address each
point.
Parts of a Summary Statement
Summary of DiscussionDescription (rephrasing what
you said)Public Health Relevance3-4 Reviewer Critiques with
scores for each of 5 criteria (scale of 1-9)
The Reviewer Critique
Summary of Strengths and WeaknessOverall ImpactIndividual Scores in Each of 5 Criteria:
- Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment
Other Critical Areas that must be addressed:
- Protection of Human Subjects, Vertebrate Animals, Biohazard, Resubmission (response to prior critique), Budget and period of support, Resource Sharing Plan
Understanding your ScoreImpact Score Descriptor
Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses
High
1 ExceptionalExceptionally strong with essentially no
weaknesses
2 Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
3 ExcellentVery strong with only some minor
weaknesses
Medium
4 Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses
5 GoodStrong but with at least one moderate
weakness
6 SatisfactorySome strengths but also some moderate
weaknesses
Low
7 FairSome strengths but with at least one major
weakness
8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses
9 PoorVery few strengths and numerous major
weaknesses
Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact
Impact/Overall Priority Score: Mean score from all eligible members' impact/priority scores x 10. Final overall impact/priority scores range from 10 (high impact) through 90 (low impact). *.* means not scored, generally rank in the lower half of all submitted applications.
REALITYREALITYOne Chance to Revise a
Grant and Raise The Score Into the “Fundable”
Range
• How Significant & Innovative is your proposal -- really?
• Identify Critical Strengths and Weaknesses
•What areas can and cannot be improved?
• Can you address the criticisms scientifically without using the word “Idiot”?
• Get Advice from your Program Officer
Critically Evaluate Your Grant
Critically Assess Likelihood of a Revised Grant Getting
FundedDid the Reviewers –
• Like the Overall Concept?
•Agree with Significance and Innovation?
•Identify Discrete “Fixable” Items that will yield Major Improvements?
•Identify Any Fatal Flaws?
Can You Improve Your Grant
Enough to Get it Funded ?
It does not matter if you improve the score on your RO1 from the 50th to the 25th percentile – neither is fundable
It will likely matter significantly, however, if you can improve your score from the 18th to the 14th percentile, especially if you are a new investigator.
LISTENLISTENThere is value in what
the Reviewers are saying to you
Set Your Ego Aside and Listen
Make a worksheet that outlines the REVIEWERS Opinion …
The Important Clinical Problem Addressed
Strengths and WeaknessesAreas/Questions NOT addressedNew Experiments RequiredFatal Flaws in Design or Concept
Common “Fixable” ProblemsPoor writingSignificance not clearFeasibility of approach not clear Insufficient information in
experimental details, preliminary dataFailure to discuss alternatives and
obstacles as part of research designToo Ambitious – Cut Aims,
Experiments
More Difficult Issues
• Reviewers question significance - Rarely benefit from change in Study Section
• Hypothesis not supported or not credible
•Work previously described - (i.e. nothing new)
•Methods or experimental design are inaccurate or not appropriate for hypothesis
WRITING A WRITING A REVISION: REVISION:
Giving your Grant a Second Chance!
Writing a Grant Revision
Highlight Strengths Use reviewer’s own words
Address Weaknesses Direct positive responses
Answer Questions Respectful, factual data
Risky to Add Unrequested New Ideas/Aims
Seek Advice of “Experts” and Mentors
Befriend an Experienced Mentor
Show your Reviews and a draft of your response to an NIH-funded investigator• Talk about what you can/cannot fix and how• Have you answered the reviewers’ criticisms?
• How much difference is it likely to make in your score?
Remember they have been through this themselves … learn from their mistakes and experience
Example of Grant RevisionIntroduction (1 page ):The proposal received many favorable reviews from the Study
Section, including comments such as: “The local drug delivery approach they propose to understand and develop is at the cutting edge of materials science and therapy.”; “The proposed work could have very significant impact …”; “They have a clear vision for taking the science through to the translational research.”; “The idea of creating a scaffold that delivers drugs and must serve some mechanical function is challenging, and their solution to this is innovative.”…“Well-articulated proposal, with very few weaknesses.”; “The PI has a strong publication record… and significant preliminary data.”; “…experimental design is excellent, with logical progression ….”; ”Choice of models and imaging methods using dual labels …are excellent aspects of the experimental design.”; “… and innovation is high.”
The reviewers made insightful comments and provided valuable feedback on areas that have now been improved. Our responses are summarized below and new text in the proposal is highlighted by a * at the nearest paragraph indent. In addition, our first paper demonstrating prevention of tumor recurrence following resection in vivo is in press and was highlighted as a work of special interest to this field (Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2009, Epub Dec. 3).
Example of Grant RevisionDetailed Responses to Reviewers (included in 1-page intro):
Q: “it is not clear that this will prevent reoccurrence.”A: Our preliminary data show that we can prevent local recurrence after resection in a murine model (see section 3.3.2.3) using the paclitaxel loaded films. Although metastatic disease was not prevented given the aggressive nature of the LLC model, the longest surviving recipients all received drug-eluting copolymer films.
Q: “Biggest weakness of the proposed work (which overall is excellent) is their proposed mechanical characterization. The two big issues are (1) Cyclic loading is inherent to this application and a thorough test plan is not included, and (2) the fluidic environment and degradation will have a huge impact….”A: We have included a test plan and will evaluate film performance in a fluid environment using an Instron equipped with a fluid chamber located in the BioInterface Technologies (BIT) center at BU.
Revised Grant
• Entire revised grant application + 1-page introduction
• Make clear what changes were made in answer to reviewers questions
• Incorporate new changes into grant proposal - “Free-standing” proposal with new
improved science
• Mark changes in grant text - Sidebar marks, parentheses, or underline
PUBLICATIONS One of the most important
things you can do to support your revised grant is to publish papers supporting your grant hypothesis etc.
Peer-review in a high impact journal is very powerful
•Builds Basic Science Reputation – Credibility
If at First you Don’t Succeed
Remember---
You Have to Just Keep Trying!
We Have All Been There --
Because Eventually You Succeed!!
© Stuart Crossett & www.avantipress.com