NIH 101: What You Need to Know! Daniel Sklare, PhD, NIDCD Lana Shekim, PhD, NIDCD Peggy McCardle, PhD, NICHD ASHA LfS

1
NIH 101 What You Need to Know!Daniel Sklare,
PhD, NIDCDLana Shekim, PhD, NIDCDPeggy
McCardle, PhD, NICHDASHA LfS 08 Conference
2
NICHD Mission in Research on Human Communication
NIH Two-Tiered Review Operations Who are your
reviewers and what transpires at study section?
AndThe Funding Decision How Does it Happen?
3
NICHD Mission in Research on Human Language and
Communication

• To more fully understand and to translate to
  practice (clinical, educational, and in parental
  guidance)
• Typical language development (oral, signed,
  bilingual)
• Shared interests with NIDCD include sign language
  acquisition, lg acq in hard of hearing/deaf
  children with cochlear implants gestural
  development in deaf children 
• Atypical language development (other than studies
  exclusively focused on SLI) language
  difficulties related to developmental
  disabilities and syndromes
• Shared with NIDCD language development,
  characterization, tx for autism, SLI, lg
  disorders in children speaking Black English/
  bilingual /ELL

4
NICHD Mission in Research on Human Language and
Communication (Contd)

• Speech perception and normative processes in
  speech development
• Some overlap with NIDCD as it supports and is
  studied in conjunction with speech disorders
• Cognitive and developmental cognitive
  neuroscientific bases of human language and
  communication
• Reading, writing and related learning disabilities

5
Who are they? Peers and experts

• Reviewers must be recognized authorities in their
  field
• Now or formerly, a principal investigator on a
  research project comparable to those being
  reviewed 
• Dedicated to high quality, fair reviews
• Not have a conflict with the application being
  reviewed!
• Panels must have diversity with respect to the
  geographic distribution, gender, race and
  ethnicity of the membership. 

6
What about mentors, coauthors, and colleagues?

• CONFLICTS of INTEREST are taken very seriously.
  Certain people will be excused from the review
• Anyone from your institution
• Partner, Spouse, Significant Other, coauthor,
  collaborator, etc.
• Anyone with a vested interest in the outcome
• Anyone who feels they cannot be objective

7
Which Panel will review my proposal?

• A study sectionthere are a couple hundred
• You can choose, but do so wisely with help from
  your program official
• Which study section depends on
• Scientific content and methodology
• Mechanism (e.g., R01, R03, F32, K01 . . .)
• Which Institute proposal goes to
• Whether responding to RFA

8
What an applicant gets after review

• A score
• A percentile (usually, depending on review)
• Detailed written comments from at least 2
  reviewers
• Even if your application is unscored
• An opportunity to talk to a program official
  about your options!

9
How do I know whos on the review panel?

• Check the CSR Web site on Peer Review
• http//cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/
• For meeting dates, descriptions of review groups,
  and panel rosters
• BUT panels change with 25 rotating off each
  year and temporary members added as needed for
  expertise

10
Are all review panels in CSR?

• R01s and many other grant types are reviewed by
  CSR.
• There are ALSO review divisions in each Funding
  Institute at the NIH.
• They review RFAs and for some Institutes special
  grant types (e.g., at NICHD program projects,
  small grants and many training grants are
  reviewed in house)
• Reviews are organized and conducted by Scientific
  Review Officers (different from Program Officials)

11
Five review criteria

• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Investigator
• Environment
• Reviewers also must consider human subjects
  protection and diversity

12
What R01 reviewers are told about evaluating new
researchers

• Approach More emphasis on demonstrating
  feasibility of techniques/approaches than on
  preliminary results
• Investigator More emphasis on training and
  research potential than on number of publications
• Environment Evidence of institutional
  commitmentresources, time to perform research

13
How is scoring done?

• Priority score assigned
• Numerical ratingScientific merit of proposed
  research relative to "state of the science"
• 100-150 Outstanding
• 151-200 Excellent
• 201-250 Very good
• 251-300 Good
• 300-500 Unscored (usually)
• Assigned reviewers recommend a range of scores,
  but all reviewers at the table score each
  application! Your score is the average.

14
What do the scores mean?

• 100-500 lower is better! Think Golf, not
  basketball.
• Percentiles are reversed again, lower is
  better.
• Unscored triage of those in the lower half not
  a death warrant.

15
How many tries?

• Three strikes and youre out01, 01-A1, 01-A2.
• On each revision, 3-page intro outlining your
  responses to the concerns (R01 R15 for R03 and
  R21 its limited to 1 pg)
• Mark your changes when you can
• An extra month for submission (revisions have
  different submission deadline)

16
What if Im out?

• Read your summary statement
• Talk to your PO
• Think about new grant type (mechanism smaller
  or larger, high innovation) or new approach
  (new version)
• (Think about other funders)
• Try, try again!

17
Evaluation of scientific merit is separate from
funding decisions

• Evaluation of scientific merit
• Run by Scientific Review Officer
• Decision whether to fund
• Program Officials
• Advisory council
• Institute director

18
What Determines Which Awards Are Made?
Scientific merit (the score and percentile)
Program Considerations Availability of funds
19
Whats the Current Funding Climate?

• Constrained but not impossible (tighter paylines)
• Strategies
• Smaller grants (dont exceed maximums)
• Research teams with programmatically coordinated
  grants
• Leverage collaborations and funds/ funding
  sources
• Be creative

20
Consider ALL Funding Sources

• Grants,Gov sponsored by HHS but covering all of
  US Govt, http//www.grants.gov/
• National Science Foundation http//www.nsf.gov/
• US Dept of Education
  http//www.ed.gov/
• The Foundation Center
  http//fdncenter.org/

21
Environment of the Research Scientist Competing
for NIH Funding
22
How the trip can feel if you read the rules,
know the system, and stay the course!
23
NICHD Extramural Research Language Development
Program Contact

• Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., MPH
• Chief, Child Dev. Behavior Branch, NICHD
• Tel [phone]
• Email PM43Q_at_NIH.GOV
• CDB Branch website
• http//www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/crmc/cdb/
• Center for Scientific Review website
• http//cms.csr.nih.gov/