Title: Grantsmanship: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive!
1GrantsmanshipThe Good, the Bad and the Ugly!or
How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive!
- Jerry Heindel, Ph.D.
- Scientific Program Administrator
- Division of Extramural Research and Training,
NIEHS - heindelj_at_niehs.nih.gov
-
- .
- NIH/DHHS/NIEHS
2I am from the Government and I am here to help
you!
3Overview
- Problems first time (and other) applicants
make.. - What to do about it!
- Principles of grantsmanship-
- Grants.gov and electronic submissions
- Start With the End in Mind!
4Elements of Grant Success
Good Ideas
Good Reviewers
Good Timing
Good Luck
Good Grantsmanship
5NIH GRANT
Formula for Grant Success
6Good Luck
- The consequence of
- Good Ideas
- Good Presentation
- Good Timing
- Good Reviewers
- Good Grantsmanship
7NIH GRANT
Formula for Grant Success
8Grant writing is a learned skill
- Writing manuscripts that get published in peer
reviewed journals is a learned skill. - Writing grant applications, is also a learned
skills.
Grantsmanship is a full time job. Knowing the
Science is not enough!
9Common Problems with Applications
- Overly ambitious
- Lack of innovation
- Lack of linkage to human health problem
- Lack of focused/mechanistic hypothesis
- Lack of focused aims that will prove and only
prove the hypothesis - Unfocused research plan that does not test
feasibility - Questionable reasoning in approach
- Lack of experimental detail
- Lack of experience with methods
10What to do..
- Start early!
- Learn to move from lab experiments to the big
picture. - Learn to think in terms of hypotheses to test and
how to test them.even in everyday lab work. - Develop a specific niche research area of your
ownyou need to be known as an expert in a
specific areathink long term not just one
application. - Focus on specific aims page.
- Think salesmanship/grantsmanship.
- Get help reviewing drafts and working through the
entire process ( Mentor and Granting
Organization).
11Start Planning Early!!!!!
12Applying for Funding
NIH
13Talk to Someone at NIH Who to talk to, When and
About What!
- Start talking to agency representative before
start writing. - Be sure agency is interested in idea.
- Check out possible review panels.
- Get grantsmanship training.
- Information on budgets and financial matters.
- Information on patent rights..
14THE NIEHS EXTRAMURAL TEAM !
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
GRANTS MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ADMINISTRATOR
15Scientific Program Administrator
- Develop program initiatives
- Provide guidance and assistance to applicants
- Attend Scientific review group (SRG) meetings as
program resource person(s) - Communicate results of review to applicants
- Make funding recommendations
- Monitor progress during the award period
16Scientific Review Administrator
- Review administrators setup and conduct
scientific and technical reviews of grant
applications to identify those of highest
scientific and technical merit in their
respective discipline and disease areas.
17Grants Management Specialist
- Grants Management Officials ensure that business
management actions for NIH programs and awards
are performed correctly, efficiently, and in
accordance with pertinent grant policies and good
business practices, including responsibility for
maintaining official grant files.
18When to Interact with Various Staff Members
- Scientific Program Administrator
- Prior to submission
- After the review is complete
- Prior to the award
- During the progress of the research
- Grants Management Official
- Fiscal or Administrative questions prior to
submission or award and throughout award - Scientific Review Administrator
- After Submission
- Prior to Summary Statement
19Assistance (Grant) Mechanisms
- Regular Research Grant-R01
- Others
- Small grants - R03
- http//grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm
- New Investigator-K99/00
- http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-06
-133.html - Exploratory R21
- http//grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r21.htm
- Academic Research Enhancement Award
- (AREA) - R15
- http//grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/area.htm
20 Principles of Grantsmanship Preparing
an R01(R03, R21) Application
- Title
- Abstract (200 words)
- Research Plan
- Specific Aims ( 1 page)
- Significance ( bkg) (2-3 pages)
- Preliminary Studies
- Experimental Methods/Approach
- Budget/Timeline
- References
21It is not the will to win thats important.
Everyone wants to win! It is the will to prepare
to win that makes the difference. Bobby Knight
22Important Point to Remember
- There is an art to writing applications!
- TIP MELD SCIENCE, SALESMANSHIP
- AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS
23Grantsmanship General Preparation
- Assess the field.know state of field and
opportunities. - Check out the competition.
- Brainstorm ideas.match them to NIH.
- Novel, innovative, impact
- Check with NIH program directors.
- Give yourself plenty of time.3-6 mo!
- Start with the end in mind !
24Grantsmanship
- Start With the End in Mind!
- Receipt and Referral ( Institute and Study
Section) - Review System
- Study Sections
- Reviewers
- Review Criteria
- Overall goal To make everyone involved in the
process happyto make their job easier.
25(No Transcript)
26The key to success in grant writing is to
engender enthusiasm in the reviewer---who then
becomes an advocate for the proposal!
27GrantsmanshipStart With The End in Mind
1. Know your Audience!
- The Reviewers
- Accomplished, dedicated, fair
- Overly committed, tired, inherently skeptical,
overly critical - General understanding only
- Used to reviewing R01 applications
28Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria
- SIGNIFICANCE
- Does this study address and important problem?
- If the aims are achieved, how will scientific
knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? - What will be the effect of these studies on the
concepts, methods, technologies, treatments,
services or preventative interventions that drive
the field?
29Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria
- INNOVATION
- Is the project original and innovative?
- Does the project challenge existing paradigms or
clinical practice address an innovative
hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the
field? - Does the project develop or employ novel
concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools or
technologies for this area of research?
30Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria
- APPROACH
- Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design,
methods, and analyses adequately developed, well
integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the
project? - Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem
areas and consider alternative strategies?
31Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria
- INVESTIGATOR
- Is the Principal Investigator capable of
coordinating and managing the proposed work ? - Is the work proposed appropriate to the
experience level of the Principal Investigator
and other researchers, including consultants and
subcontractors (if any)? - Are the relationships of the key personnel to the
University and to other institutions appropriate
for the work proposed?
32Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria
- ENVIRONMENT
- Is there sufficient access to resources (e.g.,
equipment, facilities)? - Does the scientific and technological environment
in which the work will be done contribute to the
probability of success? - Do the proposed experiments take advantage of
unique features of the scientific environment or
employ useful collaborative arrangements?
33Start with the End in Mind!3.Selling Yourself
and Your Ideas!
- Knowing the Science is not enough.
- Scientist
- Spokesperson
- Communicator ( writer speaker)
- Salesperson
34Grantsmanship A Research Focus
- The Scientist as a Salesperson
- You are a Business Big Business
- CEO Scientific Director Sales Representative
- Sell yourself and your ideas
- Use Your Communication skills
- Written and Oral
35Grantsmanship Sell yourself and your ideas!
- What are you selling?
- Why is it important?
- Impact (who will benefit)
- How will you do it?
- Advantages/strengths/limitations
- Track record (can you do it?)
- And put it in the proper form !
36Principle of Successful Selling
- Make people like youdevelop rapport
- Find out what they need or want
- Get the other person point of view
- Know your product
- Show advantages of your product
- Develop a desire for your product
- Get people saying YES
37 Principles of Grantsmanship Preparing
an R01(R03, R21) Application
- Title
- Abstract (200 words)
- Research Plan
- Specific Aims ( 1 page)
- Significance ( bkg) (2-3 pages)
- Preliminary Studies
- Experimental Methods/Approach
- Budget/Timeline
- References
38ABSTRACTStated Guidelines
- State the applications broad, long term
objectives and specific aims. - Make reference to the health-relatedness of the
project. - Describe concisely the research design and
methods for achieving goals. - Discuss potential for innovation.
- Avoid summaries of past accomplishments and the
use of first person. - Do not exceed 200 words.
39Grantsmanship ABSTRACT
- IDENTIFY PROBLEM
- What is the problem addressed? ( Must be public
health problem!!) - Who cares
- SOLUTION
- Hypothesis/goal/product
- PLAN
- Approach
- Specific aims/milestones
- Techniques/methodologies used
- BENEFITS
- Expected results
- Application/benefit
40Grantsmanship The Heart of The Application
- Specific Aims
- Background and Significance
- Preliminary Studies
- Research Design/Methods
- Literature Cited
Research Plan
Specific Aims
Hypothesis
Abstract
41DO NOT write the application for the
SpecialistYou MUST convince the entire review
committee
42Jargon Be careful what you say..
- One reason some branches of government have
trouble operating jointly is that they dont
speak the same language. - Goal Secure a Building
- Air Force
- Army
- Marines
- Navy
43Grantsmanship Specific Aims Section (One Page)
- Introductory Paragraph
- Statement of long term health-related goal (1
sentence) - Background/significance of problem (1-2
sentences) - Preliminary data/state of the art (2-3
sentences) - Data gaps/controversy (1-2 sentences)
- Clearly defined hypothesis/specific goal
- ( 1-2 sentences)
- The flow of logic must be compelling!!!
44Specific Aims (Contd)
- Specific Aims/Milestones
- 2-5 aims ( One sentence each)
- Specifically focused to prove hypothesis/develop
product - Logical order with no dead ends
- To characterize, To determine the, To relate...
- Focus on scientific goal not technology
- Summary Statement
- Emphasize novel product and innovative approach
and impact on field ( 2-3 sentences)
45The aims should be endpointsso it can be easily
determined if they have been met!!Aim 1. To
determine iforAim 1. To characterize
46Idea and Hypothesis. NOVEL!!!
- New, innovative and novel ideasparadigm
shifters. - You need to be first.we dont fund followers!
- We dont fund gap filling.
- We dont fund verification/repetition.
- Why is this application special.what singles out
this application?
47Hypothesis
- We hypothesize that calcium causes reproductive
dysfunction by interfering with pituitary
gonadotropin secretion, testosterone synthesis
and secretion, androgen metabolism in target
organs and sex steroid hormone receptor binding
in the neuroendocrine system and in the
reproductive organs.
48Hypothesis
- We hypothesize that estrogen-like endocrine
disruptors alter uterine growth by altering HOX
gene expression via disruption of estrogen
stimulation of HOX gene cis regulatory DNA
elements. - Our overall hypothesis is that TCDD exerts its
effects on ovarian steroidogenesis by binding to
the AhR and specifically inhibiting P450
aromatase gene expression.
49(No Transcript)
50(No Transcript)
51Background and Significance
- Goal To convince the reviewers that you are
familiar with the field and to justify need for
proposed study. - Logical development of background information
that forms basis of proposal. - Critical evaluation of current knowledge. show
how proposed work builds on previous work. - Identification of data gaps, conflicts, needs,
whats new and novel and innovative. - Importance of research and how it will fill need.
- Thus these studies demonstrate the importance of
this area. - These studies provide important background for
this study in. - The proposed project will build on this previous
work.by. - Public health benefit.significance paragraph to
frame current status of work in the field and
explain how the proposed project will make a
contribution.
52Preliminary Data
- Goal To establish your experience and competence
in the area of application. - Convince reviewers you are familiar with and have
done all the techniques proposed including data
analysis and interpretation - that the work is feasible
- that suitable groundwork has been done
(preliminary data). - Simple graphs and tables with descriptive
legends. - No extraneous or irrelevant data.
- Black and white.
53Experimental Methods/Research Plan
- For Each Aim/Milestone
- Rationale for approach
- Experimental Design in detail including data
analysis and interpretation - Potential Difficulties/Limitations
- Alternative approaches
- Justify everything including number of animals,
assays, statistical analysis, timetable and that
you have experience and expertise needed.
54General Issues
- Attention to details
- Layout and format
55(No Transcript)
56(No Transcript)
57(No Transcript)
58(No Transcript)
59(No Transcript)
60(No Transcript)
61(No Transcript)
62NIH Support of New Investigators
- ImplementationReview groups received
orientation during the 1998 review round . They
are reminded each review round. - Reviewers are informed of the New investigator
definition and honor the guidelines. - Review groups are provided with a list of
first-time applicants with review assignments and
at review.
63Common Problems with Applications
- Overly ambitious
- Lack of innovation
- Lack of linkage to human health problem
- Lack of focused/mechanistic hypothesis
- Lack of focused aims that will prove and only
prove the hypothesis - Unfocused research plan that does not test
feasibility - Questionable reasoning in approach
- Lack of experimental detail
- Lack of experience with methods
64Grantsmanship Guidance at NIH
- http//www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/default.htm
- http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir_policy.
htm - http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbirgrantsma
nship.pdf - http//niaid.nih.gov/ncn/sbir/advice/advice.pdf
65What is Grants.gov?
- The Federal governments single, online portal
for any person, business, or State, Local and
Tribal government to electronically - Find Grant Opportunities
- Apply for Grants
- A cross-agency initiative involving
- 900 grant programs
- 26 grant-making agencies
- Over 350 billion in annual awards
66Posting Funding Opportunity Announcements on
Grants.gov
- Funding opportunities will continue to be posted
in the NIH Guide and Contracts as usual. - NIH will continue to use RFAs and PAs, but all
solicitations will be referred to as funding
opportunity announcements in Grants.gov. - They will simultaneously be posted to Grants.gov
by OER staff along with the appropriate
application package.
67NIHs Electronic Receipt Goal
- By the end of May 2007, NIH plans to
- Require electronic submission through Grants.gov
for all NIH grant applications - Transition from the PHS 398 application form to
SF424 family of forms data set - SF424 Research and Research-Related (SF424 (RR))
-
Announced in the NIH Guide, Aug. 19, 2005
http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NO
T-OD-05-067.html
68Electronic Receipt How it works
- Applying for Grants at Grants.gov
- After finding the grant opportunity on
Grants.gov - Step 1 Download the grant application package.
(PureEdge Software required to view.) - Step 2 Complete the application.
- Step 3 Submit the application to Grants.gov.
(Processed through Authorized Organizational
Representative (AOR)). - Step 4 Track the status of the submitted
application package you are notified it has been
retrieved by NIH.
69Electronic Receipt How it works
- Step 5 eRA software checks the application
against NIH business rules. - Step 6 NIH notifies PI and Signing Official via
email to check the eRA Commons for results of NIH
rule checking. - Step 7 If the application passes NIH rules,
SF424 (RR)-based grant image appears. - Principal Investigator (PI) and Signing Official
(SO) review application. - If acceptable, the application is accepted in 24
hrs in Commons. - If not, the PI or SO rejects the application in
Commons, makes changes and resubmits via
Grants.gov
70Electronic Receipt How it works
- Apply for Grants (cont.)
- Step 8 If application does not pass NIH rules,
errors and warnings are listed. - Fix errors and resubmit to Grants.gov
- Step 9 After verification, data and grant image
are saved and application begins getting
processed by NIH staff.
71NIH Timeline
NIH Timeline Submission of Grant Applications
through Grants.gov Using SF424 Family of Grant
Application Forms
Submit R03, R21 R33 via Grants.gov (6/1/06)
Submit R01 via Grants.gov (2/1/07)
2006
2007
APR
FEB
MAY
JUN
AUG
SEP
NOV
DEC
JAN
JUL
MAR
JUL
OCT
MAY
JUN
AUG
APR
SEP
72APPLICATION, REVIEW, and AWARD
National Institutes of Health
University Researcher
Submits Grant Application
Applicant Initiates Research Idea
2-3 months after submission
2-3 months after review
Conducts Research
Institute Director