The Panel
Demystifying
„ Margarita
Alegria,
Alegria, PhD
„ Francis Chesley,
Chesley, MD
„ Willard Manning, PhD
„ Ming TaiTai-Seale, PhD
Federal Grant Review
Process
2
1
Research Grants for Young
Investigators
The Agenda
„
„
„
„
„
„
Grants for young investigators
Review criteria and reviewer
expectations
How to write a proposal
Responding to Study Section’
Section’s
Concerns
Views from AHRQ
Questions and Answers
„
Small grant
„ R03: up to 2 years
„ total
„
direct cost $50,000/yr
Exploratory/developmental grant
„ R21: 2 years
„ total
„ up
„
DC $275,000
to $200,000/yr
R34: 3 years
„ total
„ up
3
DC $450,000
to $225,000/yr
4
Career Development Grants for
Young Investigators
„
„
„
„
„
„
„
R34 dissertation grant
F31 minority prepre-doc
F32 postpost-doc
K01 Mentored career development award
K02 Independent scientist career development award
K08 Mentored clinical scientist development award
…
5
6
1
Responding to Study Section's Concerns
Responding to
Study Section's Concerns
„
„
„
„
Willard Manning
Harris School of Public Policy
Studies
University of Chicago
„
„
„
Expect a second (or third) submission of your
proposal
Very few proposals funded first time unless oneoneshot announcement
Prepare for a critical review
Reviewers doing the review "cold"
Reviewers work under pressure of short deadline
while still teaching, seeing patients, etc.
Reviewers do not have benefit of lengthy
discussions with research team
Reviewers do not have time to read the proposal
over and over again
8
7
Facts about Review & Reviewers (cont'd)
Facts about Review and Reviewers
„
„
„
„
„
„
Reviewers may not be from same discipline or
specialty
„
Check the section roster, then PubMed/Google
PubMed/Google
Many reviewers will have trouble with jargon
„ Your technical terminology is unintelligable jargon to
me unless explained
„ "Collective efficacy" means what?
„ "Diff"Diff-n-diff" means what?
HSR is multidisciplinary
Unless the study section has many from your
discipline, you must talk to a wider audience
„
„
„
Basic Reviewing Principle
Burden of proof of idea and approach is on
the proposer
If they cannot find what they need easily,
they often will treat it as missing or
inadequately described
Reviewer's language is often very frank!
But remember reviewers are:
„
„
Looking for problems
Trying to help, esp. if they see some merit in
proposal
9
10
Initial Response to “Pink”
Pink” Sheets
„
Sulking is normal
„
Do not take it personally
„
Get advice from agency staff ASAP
„
GET SENIOR HELP TO INTERPRET COMMENTS
„
„
Leave plenty of time to
„
„
Reserve a "cold reviewer" to react to draft
resubmission
„
„
Responding to "Pink" Sheets
„
Preferably with study section or area experience
„
Plan to resubmit unless "fatally flawed"
11
Overhaul in response to study section and agency
staff comments
Solicit reaction to revised submission from cold
reviewer, preferably with study section or area
experience
Respond accordingly
Do not rush to resubmit (July 1st after receiving
June 6th)
12
2
Revising the Proposal
„
„
Outrage is OK for a personal reaction but never in a
response!
Take the feedback seriously as indicative of
„
„
„
„
„
„
„
Revising the Proposal (cont'd)
Gaps in exposition or logic
Overly terse in key areas
Organizational issues
„
„
„
Identify common themes across reviewers
Respond to all concerns in "Response" as well as in
text
Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments
Apologize for inadequacy of …
„
Even if you are "right," clean up the exposition to
make the logic more transparent
Revise the whole proposal if needed
Ask research team, senior colleague, cold reviewer
for reaction
Revise again
„
For substance
„
For ease of reviewers to evaluate
13
14
Common problems
„
Specific Aims
„
„
„
„
„
Not specific
Largely rhetorical
Process aims rather than hypothesishypothesis-driven
„
Has literature but no synthesis
Conceptual framework unclear
ValueValue-added unclear
„
„
„
„
„
Preliminary studies section lacks
Pilot data
Exploratory analysis
Experience with these or similar data or methods
„
„
„
Research design and methods lack
„
Background
„
„
Common problems (cont'd)
„
„
Conceptual framework -- A flow chart is useful but
inadequate
Alternative approaches not considered
Weak or no link to hypotheses
Research design flaws or weak design
Failure to address reliability and validity of data
Questions of internal or external validity
Wrong sample for research question, esp. if using a
convenient sample you happen to have
15
16
Common problems (cont'd)
„
„
„
Not feasible as constituted
Budget too large or too small
Budget lacks adequate justification for
„
„
„
„
Common problems (cont'd)
Length of grant
Level of effort
Scope too broad
Research team lacks appropriate qualifications
„
„
„
„
PI is too junior, not enough senior involvement
„
Project full of 5 percenters
„
Lacks sense of own limitations
„
Substantial data analysis but no
statistician/econometrician
Economic analysis but no economist
Large clinical component but no clinician
17
Errors or omissions in human subjects, minority,
gender areas
18
3
Questions & Answers
Panel
19
20
Resources
„
„
„
R34 PA: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pahttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pafiles/PARfiles/PAR-0606-248.html
R21 PA: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pahttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pafiles/PAfiles/PA-0606-181.html
R03 PA:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm
21
22
4