Grantsmanship: The Review Process Presentation to 6th Annual Conference on Research in Communication Sciences

1
Grantsmanship The Review ProcessPresentation
to 6th Annual Conference on Research
inCommunication Sciences DisordersLessons for
Success Developing the Emerging ScientistMarch
27-29, 2008Rockville, Maryland

• Edward G. Conture
• Vanderbilt University
• Dept. Hearing Speech Sciences
• Nashville, TN 37232
• 
  Scusset Beach Blues
  Background Photo by Patricia Kenyon
• 
  Grantsmanship_ReviewProcess_Conture_Feb09_200
  8FINAL.ppt

2
Outline

• Theory of grantsmanship Good idea, good science,
  good application
• Slides 3-9
• Practice of grantsmanship Overview of study
  section review process
• Slides 10-22
• Conclusions
• Slide 23

3
I cannot forecast to you the action of
Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery
inside an enigma. Winston Churchill (1939) No
one can forecast the actions a specific study
section will take with your proposal however, we
can try to explain some basic aspects of the
grant review process to help you view it as
something other than a riddle wrapped in a
mystery inside an enigma.
4
Grantsmanship 101

• THEORY
• Good Idea, Good Science, Good Application (GISA)
  A hypothetical example
• PRACTICE
• From Study Section Meeting to Study Section
  Reviews, and the important steps in between
• The practice portion of this presentation
  owes a great deal of thanks to Dr. Kim Oller,
  whose materials/outline from the 2005 L4S were
  adapted/used and significantly guided me in the
  development of this section. I do, of course,
  accept sole responsibility for any errors and/or
  misrepresentations contained herein.

5
Three basic modes of appeal/ persuasion

• Logos The PIs logical persuasion
• A causes B, C is essentially identical to A,
  therefore, C likely to cause B (syllogistic
  reasoning, where possible)
• Ethos The PIs personal persuasion
• The PI has been very productive, particularly in
  the area where funding is sought
• Pathos The PIs emotional persuasion
• From PIs presentation, it is clear that America
  needs this knowledge and needs it now!

6
Good idea (investigated using) good science
(described in a) good application

• Good Idea Leaf shape of trees is dictated by
  prevailing winds more than does soil and climate
• Less than Good Idea Leaf shape tells us a lot
  about trees.

Thats right, those are my principles. And if
you dont like them, I have others. Groucho Marx
7
Good Idea but so what?

• Compelling motivation Logos used to clarify and
  support the ethos believability/character of
  the PI and the PIs ideas/theory/methods, with
  ethos made salient by appropriate appeals to
  pathos compassion (for our ideas/approach)
• Logos Trees are crucial for soil and water
  conservation, for the quantity and quality of our
  water supply. Often taken for granted, trees
  remove harmful pollutants from the air and are a
  natural resource vital to our survival. It
  behooves us, therefore, to better understand
  trees. Ethos Results of the PIs published
  empirical studies make apparent that such an
  understanding would help us increase the growth
  rate, number and viability of these
  environmentally-helpful resources. Pathos And
  in so doing increase our chances of survival as
  well as quality of life.

8
Good Science Like the pigs in Animal Farm, some
approaches are more equal than others reduce the
differences, as much as possible, down to the one
of import, for example, group classification

• Better science Date palm and sugar maple trees
  two trees with radically different leaf
  structure will be subjected to the influence of
  controlled degrees of wind as light, soil and
  water conditions are held constant. Leaf and limb
  loss and growth as well as tree growth,
  destruction and damage will serve as dependent
  variables.
• Really less than better science During the same
  winter, spring, summer and fall months, sugar
  maple trees will be studied in Burlington and
  date palms studied in Aruba. They will be studied
  systematically

9
Good Application Reviewers are not clairvoyant
the PI must clearly explicate his/her idea(s),
motivations for same and science idea/science
must be readily accessible to reviewers

• Good application We will employ the wind shear
  model of leaf shape (see p. 17 for details), and
  some of its testable assumptions, to help address
  specific questions raised by our preliminary
  findings and theorizations
• Does duration and speed of wind result in
  differences in leaf damage to tropical versus
  temperate clime trees (Question 1, Proposed Study
  1)?
• Less than good application We will study trees
  during different climatic conditions to answer
  the following questions
• (1) How do trees respond to wind?

10
From theory (GISA) to practice (Study Section)

• Nature of study section
• Composition of members
• Composition of staff
• How grant gets into hands of study section
• Assignment of grant to particular study section
• Primary/secondary/tertiary assignments
• What happens after initial assessment
• Priority score
• Triage
• Preliminary Judgments
• How study section processes potentially fundable
  grants
• Presentation
• Discussion
• Voting to establish priority score
• Assignment of percentile ranking
• When the reviews come out
• What to expect
• What to think/do
• What next?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Mark Twain.
11
Nature of an NIH study section Member
composition

• Consists of individuals inside and outside your
  area of interest/expertise
• Approx 10-20 members/study section, smaller
  groups convened for ad hoc reviewing
• Study section membership listed online
• Do not hesitate to request the study section you
  believe is most appropriate
• Study section and institute (e.g., NIDCD)
  selection are largely independent

12
Nature of an NIH Study Section Staff
composition

• Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) key
  individual in the review process
• SRA shepherds entire process of review
• Institute staff may (or may not) be present at
  review
• SRA together with designated Chair of the Study
  Section conducts the review session

13
How your grant gets into the hands of a study
section Assignment to particular study section

• An office largely independent of SRA makes
  assignment
• Title/abstract large factors in both institute
  as well as study section assignment last thing
  written (Abstract) first thing read (Abstract)
  word to the wise spend the time with Abstract to
  get it right, try to make it reflect good idea,
  science and application.
• You may request both institute as well as study
  section assignment but request should be in
  keeping with title and abstract

14
How your grant gets into the hands of a study
section Primary, secondary tertiary reviewer
assignments

• SRA/perhaps other staff assign proposal to 2-3
  study section members Usually individuals with
  most extensive background in area of proposal
• These individuals required to carefully
  read/review the grant and write up their review
  Key individuals
• An ad hoc reviewer may be requested, and may not
  be physically present (e.g., communicates with
  study section by speaker phone at the time of
  grant review) typically happens when grant
  doesnt readily map onto areas of expertise of
  study section members
• Each of these reviewers assigned other grants to
  review (perhaps 3 to 7 in total) and write
  critiques for however, any member of the study
  section can comment on any other proposal
  assigned to study section

15
What happens once grant is initially assessed
Understanding the Priority score rating scale

• 1 to 5 bigger score is not better
• Scored typically in increments of 0.1 1.4
  would be great while a 2.2 might be encouraging,
  but not fundable
• Scores multiplied by 100, so a 140 would be
  great while a 2.2 encouraging, but unlikely to be
  funded
• Scores above 300 are not seen by the
  investigator, these are lower half scores and
  are not computed

16
What happens once a grant is initially scored
Triage

• Lower half established at beginning of study
  section these triaged grants are not reviewed
  but still generate full reviews
• Triaged grants not necessarily end of the line
  for the grant, depends on the content of the
  reviews
• Very carefully listen to and try to understand
  the reviewers, but dont leave your critical
  faculties at the door when assessing their
  critiques.
• Respect their opinions, carefully consider same
  but also listen to yourself
• Having a grant triaged does not require one to
  roll over and play dead but it does require a
  clear-eyed view of reality and how to best adjust
  to same given your understanding of your
  idea/science/ability to clearly communicate both
  in a written document
• The triage process allows the study section to
  focus its attention on those grants that have a
  reasonable chance of funding in their current
  form

• A successful person is one who can lay a firm
  foundation with the bricks that others throw at
  him or her. David Brinkley.

17
How study section processes potentially fundable
grants Preliminary judgments

• After lower-half (triaged) grants designated, SRA
  and chair establish order of review for grants to
  be openly discussed
• As each grant proposal comes up for review, the
  assigned reviewers give it a preliminary
  priority score
• Preliminary scores spoken without comments and
  oral reviews then begin

18
How study section processes potentially fundable
grants Presentation

• Primary reviewer speaks first, many times
  reading from written reviews brought to study
  section
• Secondary and then tertiary reviews speak in
  turn, sometimes in direct response to primary
  and/or each other
• Points of agreement/disagreement are highlighted
  and openly discussed/debated
• The more reviewers can be enthusiastic about a
  grant and champion it, the better the review
  goes for the grant

19
How study section processes potentially fundable
grants Discussion

• After assigned reviewers have spoken, the entire
  study section may enter the discussion
• No time limit per se is set for discussion of
  each grant, but the SRA/Chair keenly aware of the
  need to expeditiously and fairly review all
  grants, that is, the discussion of each grant is
  allowed to proceed but in a timely fashion
• Differences of opinion among the key reviewers
  may be noted/discussed by other members of study
  section
• Occasionally a non-assigned study section member
  will read, review and write up comments,
  significant additional comments when this
  happens, which is rare, this reviewer will most
  likely be asked to submit his/her written
  comments to the PI given that these additional
  comments can influence the final score

20
How study section processes potentially fundable
grants Establishment of your priority score

• Chair/SRA calls discussion to a close
• Key reviewers voice final score, a score usually
  modified by previous discussion
• With exception of staff, everyone on study
  section votes in writing AND
• Your priority score average of all votes
• Key reviewers scores are weighted equally with
  all others but their opinions typically the only
  basis other reviewers have for making their
  judgments

21
How study section processes potentially fundable
grants Assignment of percentile rank

• All proposals that come to study section for
  particular round of review are pooled
• Pool divided up by budgeted subgroups (i.e., R01s
  do not compete with R03s)
• Percentile ranks established within subgroups
• How many proposals submitted, the quality of
  these proposals, amount of money available, all
  influence the payline, more or less

22
When you receive the reviews What to
expect/what to think

• Focus on the content of the 3 or so reviewers
  critiques skim them initially and then return
  when emotionality has subsided
• Careful reading, studying of the main points made
  by the reviewers especially points brought up
  by two or more reviewers is crucial
• No one can make you inferior without your
  consent. Eleanor Roosevelt.

23
When you receive the reviews cont What to
expect/what to think

• Separate out their main from minor concerns,
  organize them on paper share, if at all
  possible, the reviews and your organized
  boil-down of the comments with an experienced
  NIH investigator
• Seek opinions of such investigators about what
  the reviewers are AND are not saying about the
  proposal
• Above all, persevere if the score and content of
  the reviews are encouraging if you arent
  getting grants rejected/sent back for revisions,
  you arent getting grants!!

Why, a four-year-old could understand this
report. Run out and find me a four-year-old
child. I cant make head or tail of it.
Groucho Marx.
24
Conclusions

• GISA. Keep the GISA scaffold in mind, from the
  Abstract, through the Specific Aims, etc.
• Explicate dont (covertly) cogitate. Assume as
  little as possible, reviewers arent clairvoyant,
  what is in your head is not necessarily in theirs
• Strive for excellence do not obsess with
  perfection. Understand the review process but do
  not obsess over it instead, focus on your
  project and fully addressing the various elements
  of the NIH grant outline

25
Conclusions cont

• Trust, learn and respond. The process is
  challenging but as fair as it can be made listen
  to, trust and learn from the reviewers
• Keep on keeping on. Above all, persevere if at
  first you dont succeed, try - after listening
  to, learning from and responding to the reviews -
  try again for it is a truism, that every grant
  not submitted is a grant not funded!
• The only thing I knew how to do was to keep
  on keeping on Bob Dylan