Title: Crafting An Outstanding NIH Grant Application An insider
1Crafting An Outstanding NIH Grant ApplicationAn
insiders perspective
- Martin Padarathsingh, Ph.D.
- Referral Officer Scientific Review
Administrator - Center for Scientific Review/NIH
- Research Proposal Consultant, H. Lee Moffitt
Cancer Center Research Institute
2Outline
- NIH Peer Review Process
- Grantsmanship Guidelines
- Study Section Actions
- Application - Revision
3REVIEW PROCESS FOR A RESEARCH GRANT
Review Process for a Research Grant
National Institutes of Health
School or Other Research Center
Center for Scientific Review
Assign to
IC and IRG
Scientific Review Group
Initiates Research Idea
Submits application
Review for
Scientific Merit
Institute
Evaluate for
Relevance
Advisory Council or Board
Recommend
Action
Allocates Funds
Institute Director
Conducts Research
4Receipt DeadlinesR01 Applications
Receipt Deadlines R01/Fellowship Applications
- NEW
- February 5
- June 5
- October 5
- REVISED
- (Competing)
- March 5
- July 5
- November 5
- FELLOWSHIP
- April 8
- August 8
- December 8
5Applications Submitted to NIH
6Duties of Referral Officers
Applications
Funding Institutes
SRA/Study Section CSR, Institutes
- Assignment to Funding Institutes
- Assignments to Study Sections
Reviewers Study Section Meeting
7Assignment of Applications
- The applications are first examined by Asst.
Chiefs in the Division of Referral and Review
they are forwarded to the appropriate Referral
Officer based on the area of proposed research.
Referral Officers ensure that the applications
are assigned to the appropriate Initial Review
Groups (IRGs). - There are about 23 IRGs, specializing in
Oncology, Cell Biology, Immunology, Neurology
etc. Each IRG has multiple study sections
8Applications Related to Cancer
- There are 17 study sections within the ONC IRG.
They cover a wide spectrum of cancer research
ranging from basic biology, drug discovery,
translational sciences and clinical trials. - Each application is assigned to a specific study
section based on the type of studies proposed.
This assignment is determined by the Referral
Officers and the SRAs of the ONC IRG. - Some applications will be assigned to a Special
Emphasis Panel based on certain criteria.
9Presubmission Preparation
- Interact with NIH staff Colleagues
- Scientific Review Administrator
- - Identify study session
- Program Director
- - Specific research areas
- - RFAs, PAs, special initiatives
- Seek the advice of colleagues at your home
institution
10Other Types of Awards
- MERIT Awards
- Provides extended funding period for outstanding
competing renewal RO1 applications - Shannon Awards
- Provides funding for grants from new
investigators who are marginally outside the
payline applications - Minority Supplements
-
11When Preparing Your Application
- Read Instructions PHS 398/SF424
- Attention to Administrative Details
- Font Size Font Size
- Animal and Human Studies
- Letters from Collaborators
- Appendices Manuscripts
- Mentor (Fellowship)
12When Preparing Your Application Cont.
- Never assume that the reviewers will know what
you mean - CLARITY - Refer to the literature thoroughly
- State rationale of proposed investigation
- Present an organized, lucid write-up
- Include well-designed tables and figures
- Obtain pre-view from colleagues - in essence an
internal pre-review before submission to the NIH
13Review Criteria
- Significance
- Approach
- Innovation
- Investigator
- Environment
- Budget is not considered in the scientific
evaluation
14Significance
- Important area of research
- Target sites breast, lung, prostate, skin
- Carcinogenesis mechanisms
- Development of new reagents, methodology,
treatment - Convince the reviewers that the proposed work is
important
15Approach
- Hypothesis and Mechanism
- Preliminary Data - should be strong and
convincing - Specific Aims
- Experimental Design - questions
- Results, impact, future directions
- Potential Pitfalls and Alternatives
16Potential Pitfalls and Alternatives
- A substantial weakness is a serious lack of
potential problems and alternative possible
results, and consequent alternative approaches
which will be utilized. This imparts the
impression that the success of the proposal is
absolutely dependent on achieving the expected
results.
17Innovation
- Novel concepts and approaches
- Project challenges existing paradigms and/or
introduces new paradigms - Original and innovative aims
- Innovative use of existing technologies
- Development of new reagents, models,
methodologies and technologies
18Investigator
- Appropriate training and expertise
- Productivity track record
- Collaborators and consultants
- Network
19New Investigator
- A person who has never been a pi on a NIH RO1
grant - Check new investigator box (2) on PHS 398 face
page - Productivity
- Independence, resources
- Letters of support from collaborators and
chairperson - Period of award
- Paylines special treatment (?)
20Environment
- Intellectual and physical environment
- Unique features facilities, resident experts
- Does the scientific environment contribute to the
probability of success?
21Streamlining Pre-study Section Action
- Divide applications into upper and lower halves
- Unscore applications in lower half
- Decision to unscore MUST BE UNANIMOUS
- Unscored applications are not discussed.
Applicants receive unedited critiques from the
reviewers in their Summary Statements
22Scientific Review Group or Study Section Actions
- Scored, Scientific Merit Rating priority scores
- Unscored unanimous decision
- Deferred
23Priority Scores
- Outstanding 1.0 1.5
- Excellent 1.5 2.0
- Very Good 2.0 2.5
- Good 2.5 3.5
- Acceptable 3.5 5.0
- Unscored applications fall in the range of 3.0
-5.0 they are not without scientific merit!
24Outstanding Application
- Proposed studies are highly significant
- Addresses important questions
- Potential for providing valuable insights
- Solid foundation for proposed studies
- Novel concepts
25Options If Not Funded
- Revise and Resubmit (2 Chances)
- Funding Outside the Payline
- Exception, Shannon, Private Foundations,
Supplementary Support (Competing Renewal) - Program Directors Advice
- Scientific Review Administrators Advice
- Give up (I hope not!)
26Revision
- Introduction 3 pages
- Diplomacy thank the reviewers
- State concerns fully and provide response
27Introduction Format
- Concerns by Reviewers and Response
- Reviewer 1
- - Concern 1
- - Response 1
- Reviewer 2
- - Concern 1
- - Response 1
28Other Funding Organizations
- Other Government Agencies Cancer Research
- Department of Defense Funding Initiatives
- Office of Orphan Products Development (FDA)
- Veterans Health Administration
29Private Foundations
- American Cancer Society
- Burroughs Wellcome Fund
- The Charlotte Geyer Foundation
- Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
30Summary
- NIH/NCI Grant Funding is becoming highly
competitive - Applications should be prepared with utmost
diligence and insight - The help and advice of SRAS at CSR, program
officers at the institutes, and colleagues at
your institution who have been successful will
provide an added advantage in crafting an
outstanding application
31Questions Answers
Martin Padarathsingh, Ph.D. Referral Officer
Scientific Review Administrator Center for
Scientific Review/NIH Research Proposal
Consultant, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center
Research Institute