Demystifying the Federal
Grant Review Process for
C
Career
D
Development
l
t
Awards
AcademyHealth ARM
June 28
28, 2009
K Awards
 Assist transition from clinical or research
doctoral work to independent researcher
 Variety of Ks available from different
funding agencies
 Involve career development and
research development
 Allow flexibility
Panel Overview
 Writing a successful K proposal - Diane
Martin
 Responding to the Pink Sheets – Will
Manning
 Views from AHRQ – Francis Chesley
 Views from NCI – Dorkina Myrick
 Questions
Q
ti
and
d Answers
A
Writing a Successful K
Application
Diane Martin
Dept.
p of Health Services
University of Washington
K with Legs
g
 Select an important
p
topic
p
 Build knowledge
g and skills
 Sequence
q
of studies contributing
g
answers to
t a topic
t i
 Eventually
E
t ll lleads
d tto an RO1
 Resubmission,
R
b i i
th
then submit
b it R18
R18, R21
Start 6 Months in Advance
 Choose K that is best fit:
– type of K funding mechanism
– funding branch and study section
– research
h priorities
i iti & iinstructions
t ti
 Read solicitation instructions carefully
 Construct application calendar & K timeline
that incorporates career development and
research
 Conduct personal SWOT analysis
Obtain Information
 Innovation and nonnon-duplication
p
– CRISP (Computer Retrieval of Information
on Scientific Projects)
– HSRProj – AcademyHealth database
 Use g
grant writing
g tip
p sheets
 Establish ERA Commons account
 Obtain copies of successful Ks funded by
target branch
 Obtain
Obt i admin.
d i supportt for
f budget,
b d t IRB
IRB,
environment; know internal deadlines
Plan a Mentored K
 Outline 3
3--5 page integrated summary
of career and research development
 Discuss
Di
with:
ith
– Faculty at home & experts elsewhere
– Federal officials in target branch
– Successful K awardees
– Two external reviewers for later draft
 Process is iterative
Develop a Mentorship Team
 Primary
Pi
mentor
t iis kkey; mustt h
have titime




for mentoring
Identify expertise of each person
Specify time you need from each
Meet as a group prior to writing,
commitment to review drafts
Ask for letters of support early
Consider the Reviewer
 Make application easy for reviewers to
understand
 Give overview, then explain detail
Know Review Criteria for K
 Candidate
 Career development plan
 Research plan
 Mentors
 Environment
E i
t and
d iinst’l
t’l commitment
it
t
 Budget
 Human subjects protection
 Inclusion of women and minority
subjects; AHRQ priority pops.
Candidate
 Describe
D
ib your b
background:
k
d education,
d
ti
research, life experiences
 Persuade reviewers you have potential to
be an independent, productive researcher
& how K will help
 Tell a story, let your passion show
 Give big picture, integrate career
development & research plan
Career Development
p
Plan
 Coherent rationale for y
your p
plan
– Provide details of research experience and
level of formal coursework
– Identify what you need for a successful
research project and career
 Propose a specific career development
plan explaining depth of training and how
it will
ill contribute
t ib t tto your research
h
 Describe roles and interactions with
mentors
Research Plan
 Discuss how research will build your
skills & knowledge and aid you in
becoming an independent researcher
 Provide
P id preliminary
li i
work,
k acquisition
i iti off
data, letters from organizations
 Ensure that work matches g
grant p
period
Specific
p
Aims (VIP)
(
)
 Aims testable
testable, stated clearly in
unambiguous language
 Use parallel construction throughout
application: aim 1
1, aim 2
2, aim 3
 For each aim: hypotheses, methods,
analysis and use of potential findings
Background
g
 Synthesize and integrate previous
research; briefly summarize
 Identify gap your research will fill
 Discuss how your research will build on
past strengths and overcome
limitations
 Describe
D
ib th
the conceptual
t l fframework
k
you will use
Justify
y Significance
g
 Why is the problem important?
 How will your results advance
scientific knowledge?
 How will your study contribute to
improved methods?
 What
Wh t is
i iinnovative?
ti ?
 How
o will you
your results
esu s likely
e y be used to
o
change practice and policy?
Motivate Methods
 Specify
p
y detailed methods for each aim
 Describe study design and target




population & sample
Describe interventions, comparisons
Clearly define measures,
measures choice of
variables
I l d analytic
Include
l ti model,
d l statistical
t ti ti l
techniques & mock tables
A k
Acknowledge
l d potential
t ti l problems,
bl
provide alternate strategies
Editing
g
 Clear concise writing: keep related ideas




together, shorten long sentences,
eliminate redundancy
Don’t assume reviewers will know jargon,
methods
Edit administrative parts of appl.
R
Respond
d tto critique
iti
b
by 2 external
t
l
reviewers
P f d carefully
Proofread
f ll
Application
pp
Submission
 Approval by department
department, school
 Approval by OSP, University/Org.
 Allow time for e
e--submission
 Correct any ee-submission errors
Relax
and Keep
p Your Fingers
g
Crossed
Responding to
Study Section's
Concerns
in the Pink Sheets
Willard Manning
Harris School of Public Policy Studies
University of Chicago
Responding
p
g to Study
y Section
 Expect making a second submission of your
proposal.
Very few proposals funded the first time
unless
l
one-shot
oneh t announcement.
t
 Prepare for a critical review. Language will be:
– Frank,
Frank and
– Not overly enthusiastic
Facts about Review and
Reviewers
 Reviewers may not be from same discipline or




specialty.
Check the section roster, then PubMed/Google
Many reviewers will have trouble with jargon
– Your technical terminology may be unintelligible
jargon to me unless explained
 "Collective efficacy" means what?
 "Diff
"Diff--n-diff" means what?
HSR is multidisciplinary and reviews reflect this! ! !
Unless the study section has many from your
di i li
discipline,
you mustt talk
t lk to
t a wider
id audience
di
Facts about Review
(cont’d)
(cont
d)
Remember how reviews are done:
– 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.
Facts about Review ((cont’d))
Basic Reviewing Principles
 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.
described
 But remember reviewers are:
– Looking for problems
problems.
– Trying to help, esp. if they see some merit in
proposal.
proposal
Initial Response
p
to “Pink” Sheets
 Sulking is normal.
 Do
D not take
k iit personally.
ll
 Get advice from agency staff ASAP.
 GET SENIOR MENTOR/COLLEAGUE’S
HELP TO INTERPRET COMMENTS AND
FRAME RESPONSE
RESPONSE.
 Plan to resubmit unless “fatally flawed”
 Reserve a "cold
cold reviewer"
reviewer to react to draft
resubmission
– Preferably with study section or area
experience
i
Responding
p
g to "Pink" Sheets
 Leave plenty of time to
– 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 to internal “cold”
reviewers comments.
 Do not rush to resubmit (e.g., by July 1st after
receiving pink sheets on June 6th).
Revising
g the Proposal
p
 Outrage is OK for a personal reaction but never in a





response!
Take the feedback seriously as indicative of
– Gaps
p in exposition
p
or logic
g
 Underdeveloped educational plan.
 Too sketchy on some research aspect.
– Overly
O l terse
t
in
i key
k areas.
– Organizational issues.
Identify common themes across reviewers.
Respond to all concerns in "Response," as well as
text.
Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments
comments.
Apologize for inadequacy of …
Revising the Proposal
(cont'd)
(cont d)
 Even if you are "right
right," clean up or expand the
exposition to make the logic more transparent.
 Revise the whole proposal if needed
needed.
 Ask coco-researchers, mentors / senior
colleagues and a cold reviewer for reactions.
colleagues,
reactions
 Revise again
– For substance.
– For ease of reviewers to evaluate.
Common problems
p
K’s
K
s are not about
– 5 years of support
– 75 percent buyout
b
– $$$
– Those matter to your Dept. Chairman,
but not to AHRQ or NIH.
It Is About
 Mentored
 Clinical or Research Scientist
 Development
It Is About ((cont’d))
 It does require real mentoring
mentoring.
 It is about career development for
researchers:
– Not just about more education.
– Not just about doing preliminary
studies.
– Must have both!
 Don’t
o co
confuse
use K’s
s with se
series
es o
of R03’s.
03 s
Disconnected Mentor
 Mentor
Mentor’s
s letter not closely tied to content
of proposal.
 Mentor
Mentor’s
s letter written by proposer and it
looks like it.
 Mentor approached with proposal with
only week left before due date.
– Little
Littl impact
i
t on proposal.l
– Worse if proposal is naïve.
Distant Mentor
 Always very hard to sell
sell.
 Study section distrusts supposed level of
commitment by mentor.
 Esp.
p if p
plans for linkage,
g , visiting
g vague.
g
Who is in charge?
g
 PI + mentor must be primary
primary.
 Instead, proposal has:
– Too many other mentors.
– No strong primary mentor
mentor.
– Nobody appears to have oversight
responsibility.
responsibility
Career Development
p
Plan Weak






Lacked compelling case for a K, instead of series of R03’s,
R21’s.
R21
s.
Did not explain why additional training and mentored
research work necessary for successful R01 and
subsequent career.
Educational elements too vague.
– Visiting Prof. Jones T times per year, where T is small.
– Plan to see him/her at annual meeting
meeting.
Lack of specificity. Needed concrete details on courses
and experiences necessary to conduct future work.
Not clear depth of training or courses
courses. Needs to be at
research training level, preferably at PhD or MS level, not
MPH level.
Formal course work preferred.
– if a good match for needs.
– if level appropriate.
D
Demystifying
tif i the
th Federal
F d
l Grant
G
t
Process: K Awards at AHRQ
Francis D. Chesley, Jr., M.D.
Director Office of Extramural Research
Director,
Research,
Education and Priority Populations
June 28,, 2009
AHRQ’s
Q Mission
Improve the quality
quality, safety
safety,
efficiency and effectiveness of
health care for all Americans
The Q
Quality
y Challenge
g
What Is Quality?
y
The Right
Care
For The
Right Person
At The
Right Time
A Quality Disconnect
Health care
costs up 6.7%
per year
Health care
quality up
2.3%
AHRQ Research Focus:
H
How
it Diff
Differs
 Patient
Patient--centered,
centered not diseasedisease-specific
 Dual Focus -- Services + Delivery Systems
Effectiveness research focuses on actual daily
practice, not ideal situations (“efficacy”)
 AHRQ mission includes p
production and use of
evidence--based information
evidence
AHRQ
Q FY 2009 Funding
g
 $372 million
– $37 million more than FY 2008
– $46 million more than the president’s
president s
request
 FY 2009 appropriation includes:
– $50 million for comparative effectiveness
research, $20 million more than FY 2008
research
– $49 million for patient safety activities
– $45 million for health IT
Training
g Opportunities
pp
 Pre and Postdoctoral Training
– NRSA Institutional Training Programs (T32)
– NRSA Predoctoral Fellowships for
Underrepresented Minority Students (F31)
– NRSA Postdoctoral Fellowships (F32)
– Dissertation Grants (R36)
 Career Development Awards
– Mentored Clinical Scientist Awards (K08)
– Mentored Research Scientist Development
Award (K01)
– Independent Scientist Awards (K02)
Mentored Research Scientist
Awards ((K01))
 Audience – research trained
doctorates (e.g., Ph.D., Sc.D., Dr.P.H.)
who require mentoring and have
potential to develop into independent
investigators
 Duration -- 3 to 5 years
years,
nonrenewable
 Level of Support -- $90,000
annually, plus fringe benefits and
research development support up to
$25 000
$25,000
Mentored Clinical Scientist
Awards ((K08))
 Audience -- clinical doctorates
(including those in patientpatient-oriented research)
who require mentoring and have
potential to develop into independent
investigators
 Duration -- 3 to 5 years
years,
nonrenewable
 Level of Support -- $90,000
annually, plus fringe benefits and
research development support up to
$25 000
$25,000
Independent Investigator Awards
((K02))
 Audience -- promising new clinical and
nonclinical investigators who are out of
training 5 years or less, with demonstrated
need of intensive research focus
 Duration -- 3 to 5 years, nonrenewable
 Level of Support -- $90,000 annually, plus
fringe benefits, travel, justified educational
expenses
2009 Priorities for K Award
Funding
 PAR
PAR--09
09--087 Mentored Research
Scientist Research Career Development
Award (K01)
 PAR
PAR--09
09--086 Independent Scientist
Award (K02)
 PAR
PAR--09
09--085 Mentored Research
Scientist Research Career Development
Award (K08)
Research Opportunities
pp
 Health IT Funding Opportunities
PAR-08
PAR08--270 Utilizing Health Information
Technology (IT) to Improve Health Care
Quality
Q lit (R18)
PAR-08
PAR08--269 Exploratory and Developmental
Grant to Improve Health Care Quality
through Health Information Technology (IT)
(R21)
PAR--08
PAR
08--268 Small Research Grant to
Improve Health Care Quality through
Health Information Technology (IT) (R03)
Research Opportunities
pp
 PA
PA--09
09--071 AHRQ Health Services Research
Demonstration and Dissemination Grants
(R18)
 PA
PA--09
09--070 AHRQ Health Services Research
Projects (R01)
 PAR
PAR--08
08--136 Researching
g Implementation
p
and
Change While Improving Quality (R18)
 PA
PA--06
06--448
448AHRQ
AHRQ Small Research Grant
Program (R03)
Future Opportunities!
pp
 New Career Development Mechanisms
 American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act
Tips
p for Success
 Know Electronic Application Process




(424 R&R)
Know the Funding Agency and Staff
Understand Agency Budget &
Research Priorities
Know the Grant Mechanisms
Know the Grant Process and Key
Changes
Contact Information
AHRQ WEBSITE
www.ahrq.gov
qg
F
Francis
i D
D. Ch
Chesley,
l
JJr., M
M.D.
D
(301) 427427-1521
Francis.Chesley@ahrq.hhs.gov
Questions
?
Research Training and Career
Development Opportunities
D ki Myrick,
Dorkina
M i k M.D.,
M D Ph.D.
Ph D
Medical Officer
C
Cancer
ffor C
Cancer T
Training
i i
National Cancer Institute
June 28, 2009
http://www.cancer.gov/researchandfunding/training
301 496 8580
301-496-8580
56
Cancer Prevention,
Control Behavioral,
Control,
Behavioral and Population
Sciences Research Portfolio
Predominant Focus Areas:
Prevention and Early Detection
Cancer Control
Etiology
Etiolog
Surveillance
Quality
Quality of Life and Patient Care
Survivorship
Education and Communication
57
National Cancer Institute Mechanisms of Support
Cancer Prevention, Control, Behavioral,
and Population Sciences
Individual Awards
 Mentored Career Award in Cancer Prevention, Control,
Behavioral, and Population Sciences (K07)
 Transition Career Development Award (K22)
 Established Investigator Award (K05)
Institutional Awards
 Cancer Education and Career Development Program
(R25T and R25E)
58
Mentored Career Award in Cancer Prevention,
Control, Behavioral, and Population Sciences (K07)
Goal:
Provide mentored career development experiences in cancer prevention,
control behavioral
control,
behavioral, and population sciences (may be clinical or patient
oriented)
Eligibility:
US citizen or permanent resident at award
Ph.D. or M.D. cancer prevention, control, behavioral, and population sciences
No evidence of current or pprior independent
p
research support
pp
(R01, R29, P01, P50 or other similar non-NIH independent awards)
Essential Components:
p





75% minimum effort
3-5 years of salary (100K) and research support (30K)
Mentor, Career development plan, Strong institutional commitment
E i
Environment
t
Non-renewable
59
Transition Career Development Award (K22)
Goal:
Independent award in cancer prevention,control, behavioral, and
population sciences (may be clinical or patient oriented)
Eligibility:
US citizen or permanent resident at award
M.D. or Ph.D.
Postdoctoral or new junior faculty, also NIH intramural scientists
No evidence of current or prior independent research support
(R01, R29, P01, P50 or other similar non-NIH independent awards)
Applicant may hold K07 award
Essential Components:





75% minimum effort
3 years of support - R01 application must be submitted by end of 2nd yr
Mentor, Career development plan, Strong institutional commitment
Environment
Transferable, non-renewable, no institutional affiliation needed
60
Established Investigator Award (K05)
Goal:
Independent award in cancer prevention, control, behavioral, and
population sciences (may be clinical or patient oriented)
Eligibility:
US citizen or permanent resident at award
a ard
Senior investigator
History of prior independent research support
Essential Components:
 Protected time for research
 25 – 50% minimum
i i
effort
ff t




5 years of salary and research support
Mentoring plan
Environment
Five years – once renewable
61
Cancer Education and
Career Development Program (R25T)
Goal:
Institutional award in cancer prevention, control, behavioral, and
population sciences
Eligibility for appointment:
Pre-doctoral or post-doctoral candidate with commitment to pursue
career in cancer prevention, control, behavioral, and population sciences
Essential Components:
5 years of support at <500K
Mentoring plan and career development plan
Multi and trans-disciplinary
trans disciplinary award
Advisory committee
Environment
62
Cancer Education Program (R25E)
Goals:
Short-term training experiences and courses in cancer research for innovative
education programs and research dissemination projects, specifically to:
Motivate students to ppursue cancer research-related careers
Examine new scientific methods, technologies and discoveries
Provide training in evidence-based cancer prevention and control
approaches
Translate discovery into delivery
Eligibility for appointment:
Biomedical/health science pre-doctoral, post-doctoral, clinician, community
health candidates in a variety of cancer-focused fields
Essential Components:
Institutional Award
5 years of support at <300K
M t i plan
Mentoring
l andd career development
d l
t plan
l
Multi and trans-disciplinary award
Advisory committee
Environment
63
National Cancer Institute Mechanisms of Support
Cancer Prevention,, Control,, Behavioral,,
and Population Sciences
Individual Awards
 Mentored Career Award in Cancer Prevention, Control,
Behavioral and Population Sciences (K07)
Behavioral,
 Transition Career Development Award (K22)
 Established Investigator
g
Award ((K05))
Institutional Awards
 Cancer Education and Career Development Program
 ((R25T and R25E))
64
Questions?
Dorkina Myrick, M.D., Ph.D.
Medical Officer
Cancer Training Branch
National Cancer Institute
6116 Executive Boulevard / Room 7033
Rockville, Maryland 20852-8346
Telephone: 301-496-8580
E-Mail: myrickd@mail.nih.gov
y
@
g
65
Questions & Answers
Resources
 Information on different K grant mechanisms
http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmenta
wards htm
wards.htm
 Instructions on how to prepare your
application
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs39
8 html
8.html
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm