Grantsmanship: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive! - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 71
About This Presentation
Title:

Grantsmanship: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive!

Description:

Title: SBIR: Training the Trainers Author: HEINDELJ Last modified by: UTMB Created Date: 1/14/2002 1:58:32 PM Document presentation format: On-screen Show – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:616
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 72
Provided by: HEI119
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Grantsmanship: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive!


1
GrantsmanshipThe 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

2
I am from the Government and I am here to help
you!
3
Overview
  • 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!

4
Elements of Grant Success
Good Ideas
Good Reviewers
Good Timing
Good Luck
Good Grantsmanship
5
NIH GRANT

Formula for Grant Success




6
Good Luck
  • The consequence of
  • Good Ideas
  • Good Presentation
  • Good Timing
  • Good Reviewers
  • Good Grantsmanship

7
NIH GRANT

Formula for Grant Success




8
Grant 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!
9
Common 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

10
What 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).

11
Start Planning Early!!!!!
  • Planning Schedule..

12
Applying for Funding
NIH
13
Talk 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..

14
THE NIEHS EXTRAMURAL TEAM !
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
GRANTS MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ADMINISTRATOR
15
Scientific 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

16
Scientific 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.

17
Grants 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.

18
When 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

19
Assistance (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

21
It 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
22
Important Point to Remember
  • There is an art to writing applications!
  • TIP MELD SCIENCE, SALESMANSHIP
  • AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS

23
Grantsmanship 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 !

24
Grantsmanship
  • 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)
26
The key to success in grant writing is to
engender enthusiasm in the reviewer---who then
becomes an advocate for the proposal!
27
GrantsmanshipStart 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

28
Start 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?

29
Start 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?

30
Start 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?

31
Start 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?

32
Start 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?

33
Start with the End in Mind!3.Selling Yourself
and Your Ideas!
  • Knowing the Science is not enough.
  • Scientist
  • Spokesperson
  • Communicator ( writer speaker)
  • Salesperson

34
Grantsmanship 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

35
Grantsmanship 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 !

36
Principle 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

38
ABSTRACTStated 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.

39
Grantsmanship 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

40
Grantsmanship The Heart of The Application
  • Specific Aims
  • Background and Significance
  • Preliminary Studies
  • Research Design/Methods
  • Literature Cited

Research Plan
Specific Aims
Hypothesis
Abstract
41
DO NOT write the application for the
SpecialistYou MUST convince the entire review
committee
42
Jargon 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

43
Grantsmanship 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!!!

44
Specific 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)

45
The aims should be endpointsso it can be easily
determined if they have been met!!Aim 1. To
determine iforAim 1. To characterize
46
Idea 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?

47
Hypothesis
  • 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.

48
Hypothesis
  • 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)
51
Background 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.

52
Preliminary 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.

53
Experimental 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.

54
General 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)
62
NIH 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.

63
Common 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

64
Grantsmanship 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

65
What 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

66
Posting 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.

67
NIHs 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
68
Electronic 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.

69
Electronic 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

70
Electronic 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.

71
NIH 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
72
APPLICATION, 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com