East Stroudsburg University
Grants Writing Workshop
February 27, 2015
Jeanne M Manson, PhD,
MSCE
Topics Covered
• Federal Grants; Part I (grants.nih.gov)
• Private Foundation Grants, Part II
(http://foundationcenter.org
Federal Grants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Department of Homeland Security
National Endowment for the Arts
Department of State
Department of Labor
National Endowment for Humanities
Department Veterans Affairs
National Institute of Health
National Science Foundation
Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
NIH Institute Centers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
National Eye Institute ((NEI)
National Heart, Lung Blood (NHLBI)
National Human Genome Research Institute ((NHGRI)
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering ((NIBIB)
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
National Institute on Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive/Kidney Disease (NIDDK)
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NIH Institute Centers
• National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
• National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH
• National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
(NIMHD)
• National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
• National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
• National Library of Medicine (NLM)
• Center for Information Technology (CIT)
• Center for Scientific Review ((CSR)
• National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
• National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
• NIH Clinical Center
26 Institute Centers with intramural and extramural programs
Develop a Strategy
• Planning on your own: It can take a significant
amount of time to get organized, refine your ideas,
collect preliminary data, write the grant application,
obtain institutional approval for your budget, and
approval for working with human subjects or animal
subjects, etc.
• Develop a realistic timeline that includes draft
application deadlines, and give yourself enough time
to meet them.
• Plan for 3 months from start to finish, and 3 drafts of
the application.
Develop a Strategy
• Planning within your organization: Plan your
timeline to ensure you get your application to your
Office of Sponsored Research on time, especially
when collaborating investigators are involved.
• Find someone at your institution who can assist you
in understanding all the steps necessary to complete
your application. This person may be in a central
grants office, another investigator, a departmental
administrator, or a mentor.
• Select the right type of grant application:
Types of Funding Opportunity Announcements
Type
Receipt
Date
Money Set
Aside
Peer Review
Specificity
of Topic
Advantage
Parent
Standard
Announcement receipt dates
(Jan 25,
May 25,
Sept 25)
None
Standing
committees in
CSR
Investigator
initiated
unsolicited
research
May submit
any topic
within the
breadth of the
NIH mission
Specific
Standard
Program
receipt dates
Announcement
(PA)
None
Standing
committees in
CSR
Often broadly
defined or a
reminder of a
scientific need;
Competition
tied mainly to
the IC's overall
payline
Request for
Applications
(RFA)
Specifies funds
and targets
number of
awards
Same review
committee
(Special
Emphasis Panel)
for all
applications
convened on a
one-time basis
NIHRequested
Research;
Well-defined
scientific area
Competition
depends on
number of
applicants and
dollars set aside
Single
Research Grants
Type of
Grant
Purpose
Utilization by Institute
Centers
Funding Levels
R01
Used to support discrete,
specified, circumscribed research
projects
NIH’s most commonly
used grant program
No specified dollar
amount; generally
awarded for 3-5 yrs
R03
Limited funding for a short period
of time to support a variety of
projects, including: pilot or
feasibility studies, collection of
preliminary data, secondary
analysis of existing data, etc
Utilized by more than
half of Institute Centers
(IC)
Limited to 2 yrs
funding; direct costs up
to $50,000
R13
Used to support conferences and
scientific meetings
Requires advanced
permission from the IC
Support for up to 5 yrs
possible; amounts vary
R15
Support small research projects in
the biomedical and behavioral
sciences in schools that have not
been major recipients of NIH
research grant funds
No preliminary data
necessary; most ICs
utilize
Direct cost limited to
$300,000 over entire
project period ; limited
to 3 yrs
Research Grants
Type of
Grant
Purpose
Utilization by Institute
Centers
Funding Levels
R21
Encourages new, exploratory
research projects by providing
support for the early stages of
project development. Sometimes
used for pilot and feasibility
studies.
No preliminary data
necessary; most ICs
utilize
Limited to 2 yrs funding
up to $275,000 direct
costs
R41/42
Small business technology
transfer; assists small business
and research communities in
commercializing innovative
technologies
Utilized by more than
half of Institute Centers
(IC)
I, feasibility study 1 yr
$150,000; II full R&D
effort $1,000,000; III,
commercialization
phase no NIH funding
R43/44
Small business innovative
research
Utilized by most IC
Same as above
R56
High priority, short-term project
award
Will fund for 1-2yrs
high-priority new or
competing renewal R01
applications with
priority scores that fall
just outside the funding
limits of IC.
Investigators may not
apply for R56 grants;
decisions made by IC
Research Grants
Type of
Grant
Purpose
Utilization by Institute
Centers
Funding Levels
U01
Research project cooperative
agreement; supports discrete,
specified, circumscribed projects
to be performed by investigator(s)
in an area representing their
specific interests and
competencies
Used when substantial
programmatic
involvement is
anticipated between the
awarding Institute and
Center
No specified dollar
amount
K99/R00
Pathway to independence award;
candidates have clinical or
research doctorates with no more
than 5 yrs of postdoctoral training
Recipient will be
expected to compete
successfully for an R01
award during the career
transition period
Provides up to 5 yrs
support; 1-2 years of
mentored support for
postdoctoral research
scientists; up to 3 yrs
independent support
contingent on obtaining
an independent research
position
Program Project/Center Grants
Type of
Grant
Purpose
Utilization by Institute
Centers
Funding Levels
P01
Research program project grant
Support for integrated,
multi-project research
projects involving a
number of independent
investigators who share
knowledge and common
resources
Dollar limit unspecified
P20
Exploratory grants used to support
planning activities associated with
large program project grants
Utilized by most IC
Dollar limit unspecified
P30
Center core grants used to support
resources and facilities for program
project grants
Integrated into the
program project/center
grant but funded
independently from them
Dollar limit unspecified
P50
Specialized center supports
multidisciplinary attack on a specific
disease entity or biomedical problem
area.
Centers serve as regional
or national resources for
special research purposes
Dollar limit unspecified
Resource Grants
Type of
Grant
Purpose
Utilization by Institute Centers
Funding Levels
R24
Resource related research
grants
Provide resources for problems where
multiple expertise is needed to focus
on a single complex problem in
biomedical research or to enhance
research infrastructure
Dollar limit
unspecified
R25
Education projects
Promote interest in biomedical
Dollar limit
research, provide additional training in unspecified
specific areas, and develop ways to
disseminate scientific discovery into
public health and community
applications
X01
Resource access programs
Eligible institutions to seek access to
NIH research resources
Dollar limit
unspecified
P50
Specialized center supports
multidisciplinary attack on a
specific disease entity or
biomedical problem area.
Centers serve as regional or national
resources for special research
purposes
Dollar limit
unspecified
Writing the Application: Get Prepared
• Carefully read the funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for any
special instructions.
• Solicit feedback from colleagues and/or mentors on your research idea
while it is still in the concept state.
• Prepare an outline following the application framework and structure
described in the application guide.
• Make sure you have adequate preliminary data, if necessary.
• Develop a feasible timeline with draft application deadlines. Be
realistic about the time it can take to write and revise the application.
• Ask your colleagues or your Office of Sponsored Research for copies
of successfully completed NIH grant applications. Examine them
closely.
• Make sure that your institution will allow you enough time to
accomplish the research, if funded.
• Become familiar with the NIH peer review criteria; reviewers will use
them to rate your application
Is your idea original?
• Check the literature to verify that the exact project you
are considering has not been done before. Search the
literature and the NIH RePORTER database to minimize
overlap with similar studies.
• Assess the competition. See which projects in your field
are being funded, and consider turning competitors into
collaborators to improve the strength of your proposal.
• Carve out a niche that will allow you to significantly
advance knowledge in your respective field.
Peer Review Process
• Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
-responsible for ensuring applications receive an objective and fair review
-Recruits qualified reviewers (2 per application)
-Evaluates any conflicts of interest between reviewers and applicants
-an excellent contact person to interpret the process and goals of the
program
• Reviewers
-Identify reviewers from the SRO
-Determine most likely reviewers of your application (do not contact
reviewers)
-Make recommendations concerning the scientific and technical merit of
applications under review, in the form of final written comments and
numerical scores.
NIH Peer Review Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
Overall Impact. Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect
their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful
influence on the research field(s) involved.
Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to
progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific
knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?
Investigator(s). Are the PD/PI well suited to the project? If Early Stage
Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have
they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their
field(s)?
Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or
clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?
Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and
appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems,
alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the
early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will
particularly risky aspects be managed
NIH Peer Review Process
• Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work is to be
done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support,
equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators
adequate for the project proposed?
• Additional review criteria. Protections for Human Subjects, Inclusion of
Women, Minorities, and Children, Vertebrate Animals, Biohazards,
Resubmission, Renewal,
Revision
• Scoring. The NIH utilizes a 9-point rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor)
for all applications. Before the SRG meeting, each reviewer and discussant
assigned to an application gives a separate score for each of the five review
criteria. For each application that is discussed at the meeting, a final impact
score is given by each committee member; scores are then averaged.
• Appeals. Investigators may request reconsideration of the initial review
results if, after consideration of the summary statement, they believe the
review process was flawed (get advice before doing this).
Start Writing
• Abstract: write this section at the very end. It should be clear, concise and
compelling
• Specific Aims: Limit to no more than 4. Be sure the first objective is
readily obtainable.
• Background and Significance: Review of the literature; highlight what is
known and where critical data gaps exist; stress the significance of your
proposed work. Generate an hypothesis on how you will address critical
data gaps.
• Preliminary Results: Demonstrate mastery of technology proposed.
• Research Design and Methodology: Be specific!
• Anticipated Results; Be compelling, talk about benefits rather than
process
Common Mistakes in Grant Writing
• Problems with Significance
– Not significant nor exciting new research; lack of compelling rationale;
incremental and low impact research
• Problems with Approach
– Too ambitious, too much work proposed;
– Unfocused aims, unclear goals;
– Limited aims and uncertain future directions;
– Too much unnecessary experimental detail;
– Not enough detail on approaches, especially untested ones;
– Not enough preliminary data to establish feasibility;
– Feasibility of each aim not shown;
– Little or no expertise with approach;
– Lack of appropriate controls;
– Not directly testing hypothesis;
– Inadequate consideration of power;
– Experiments not directed towards mechanisms;
– No discussion of alternative models or hypotheses;
– No discussion of potential pitfalls;
– No discussion of interpretation of data.
Common Mistakes in Grant Writing
•
•
•
Problems with Innovation
– Not clearly addressed in application;
– Not innovative
Problems with Investigator
– Inadequate demonstration of expertise or publications in approaches;
– Low productivity, few recent papers;
– No collaborators recruited or no letters from collaborators;
– Need a more senior collaborator
Problems with Environment
– Little demonstration of institutional support;
– Little or no necessary equipment;
– Little evidence of effective collaboration among institutions, if applicable.
What to Do If you Are not Funded
• Read your summary statement carefully to answer two questions: Are the
application's problems fixable? Was it reviewed by the right study section?
• Contact the Program Officer to help you understand your summary
statement and possibly give you more insights into the review meeting.
• Connect with senior colleagues, mentors, or other investigators at your
institution to get their opinion on the reviewers' critiques and advice on
how to proceed.
• Maybe you were assigned to the wrong study section: Did the reviewers'
expertise fit your topic? Were they knowledgeable about your methods?
Did they understand the rationale for your research?
• The following problems are either not fixable or nearly impossible to
correct; low-impact research topic; philosophical issues, e.g., the reviewers
do not think the work is important; hypothesis is not sound or not supported
by the data; work has already been done; methods proposed were not
suitable for testing the hypothesis. If these problems exist, start over with a
new topic.
• If these problems do not exist, revise and resubmit your application as
soon as possible.