What makes a good
grant?
A good idea
A good approach
Good writing
Pre-submission
Planning
Allow 3 months for conception and writing.
Bounce your ideas off colleagues.
Develop long-term objective and 5 year aims.
Formulate strategy regarding other grants.
Identify potential IRG.
The Review Process
Your grant arrives in Bethesda along with
~30,000 others. Then what?
Your grant is scanned to a pdf format.
Referral officers act as traffic cops.
• Review group (CSR or IC)
• Institute
SRAs (Exec secs) work for CSR.
Program Director’s work for Institutes.
SRA assign’s reviewers to your grant.
The Review Panel
IRG (“Study Section”) is ~30 scientists + SRA.
IRG members receive CD with all grants
~2 months before meeting.
Usually 3 reviewers/grant, but may be more.
Your reviewers receive paper copies of
your grant.
Reviewers share decisions regarding “triage,”
critique and scores with IRG before meeting.
IRG’s meet for 1-2 days, in Bethesda area.
IRG’s review ~80 grants/meeting.
Primary reviewer reads Description & critique.
Secondary reviewers elaborate upon critique.
You should check the composition of the
IRG after your grant is assigned.
Communicate with your Program Director
after you have identified your IRG.
THE FIVE REVIEW CRITERIA
FOR NIH APPLICATIONS (As of 12-04)
1. SIGNIFICANCE
Does this project address an 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, or
preventative interventions that drive this field?
2. APPROACH
Are the methods appropriate to the aims?
Does the applicant acknowledge potential
problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
Review criteria (cont)
3. INNOVATION
Is the project original and innovative? Does the
project challenge existing paradigms or introduce
an innovative hypothesis in the field?
Does the project develop or employ novel concepts
or approaches for this area?
(Novelty is less important if significance is high.)
4. INVESTIGATORS
Are the experience and training of the PI and
other researchers appropriate for the project?
Does the investigative team bring complementary
and integrated expertise to the project?
Review criteria (cont)
5. ENVIRONMENT
Does the environment in which the work will be
done contribute to the probability of success?
Do the proposed studies benefit from unique
features of the scientific environment, or subject
populations, or employ useful collaborative
arrangements?
Is there evidence of institutional support?
Questions?
Break
Writing the Grant
"I know some very great writers, writers you
love who write beautifully and have made a
great deal of money, and not one of them sits
down routinely feeling wildly enthusiastic and
confident. Not one of them writes elegant
first drafts. All right, one of them does, but
we do not like her very much. We do not
think that she has a rich inner life or that God
likes her or can even stand her.”…Anne
Lamott
Writing the Grant
Follow instructions.
(They change frequently.)
Appearance matters!
Be concise.
Target the writing/content to the reviewers.
Use correct grammar and spelling.
Let it age, then reread and revise.
Ask a colleague to critique both the
science and the writing.
Stating Your Objective
The “Background and Significance” section
should set the stage for your objective.
Your objective (hypothesis) should be…
•
Recognizably significant
•
Experimentally tractable
•
Concisely stated
Writing the Description
The Description should be understandable by IRG members
and should cover the points requested in the Instructions.
The Description affects the trafficking of your grant.
Be sure to distinguish between
the long-term objective and the
immediate aims.
The most recent guidelines also ask for a 2-3 sentence
summary of relevance to public health. You should write this
as a short paragraph separated from the remainder of the
Description.
Writing the Specific Aims
Limit to 3-5 aims per project period.
State each aim in one sentence.
Supplement each aim with a two or three
sentence summary of approach.
Each aim should…
…be experimentally feasible.
…have a realistic time frame.
…have a definitive outcome.
State as a question to be answered.
Do not propose to “study” something.
Help the reviewer explain to the IRG…
…why the aim is important.
…what is novel.
…what is controversial.
Specific Aims
(see p 30)
White space!!!
“A grant in a page” encourages the reviewer
to structure the review around this page.
Writing the Preliminary
Results/Progress Report
Preface with a one page summary.
Summarize major findings concisely.
Document with references to publications.
If not published, describe status.
Detailed report should parallel the summary.
A Progress Report Summary
Your reviewer will begin his/her review with
a summary of your preliminary results/progress.
(see p22 and Ref. 27)
A Progress Report
Detailed report should parallel the Summary.
Reference publications prominently!
(27)
Writing the Research Plan
Organization of the research plan should
parallel specific aims and be easy to follow.
Document extensively with figures, etc.
Demonstrate ability of PI to execute methods.
Demonstrate awareness of problems.
Include multiple (alternative) strategies.
Provide chronology/time frame.
The Research Plan
Explain to the reviewer how the Research Plan is organized.
Begin each section of the Research Design
and Methods by reiterating the question.
White space is an important part of the written grant!
The Research Plan
“A picture is worth a thousand words.”
Figures should appear on the page where first cited.
The Research Plan
Alternative approaches increase the likelihood of success.
Help the reviewer find
information elsewhere
in the grant.
Bios, Resources, Co-PIs
Collaborators, etc.
Bio-sketch should emphasize training,
experience and publications relevant to
the proposed research.
Resources should document the presence
of all equipment, facilities, infra-structure
essential to the proposed research.
Pick co-PIs, collaborators, etc. with care
and advanced discussion of expectations.
The Most Common
Mistakes
SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION
Not significant or novel.
Lack of compelling rationale for experiments.
Incremental or low impact research.
APPROACH
Lack of clear, strong hypotheses or questions.
Too ambitious.
Unfocused aims, unclear goals.
Too much unnecessary experimental detail.
Not enough detail.
Not enough preliminary data.
Feasibility not shown.
Correlative or descriptive data.
Experiments not directed towards
mechanisms.
No discussion of alternative
models/hypotheses.
No discussion of potential pitfalls.
Common Mistakes
(cont.)
INVESTIGATOR
No demonstration of expertise.
Low productivity.
Needed collaborators not recruited.
Letters from collaborators missing.
ENVIRONMENT
Little evidence of institutional support.
Little or no start up package.
Necessary equipment not available.
In >20 years of reviewing, during which time
I have seen >1000 RO1’s, the most common
shortcoming I have seen has been poor
writing, the result being it is difficult to
discern what the applicant plans to do!
Does and Don’ts of
Communicating with the
NIH
Do not contact the SRA or any IRG member!
Do contact your Program Director.
Include a cover letter with your application.
Responding to the Critique
The reviewer is (almost) always right!
If not, be tactful.
Solicit input from your Program Director.
The best response is results!!