Why Do Funded Research?
We want/need to understand our world
Why seek funding?
Understanding costs money
Private and government sponsors have historically funded the
costs
Funded projects have led to big impact
Why seek funding?
Research is expensive
•
•
•
•
Subject payments
tests and forms, copy costs, equipment
Biomarkers, neuroimaging, etc
Money for conferences, networking
• The less obvious reasons
– Indirect costs to your employer
• Marketability, job security, etc
Developing a Programmatic
Line of Research
Developing a Program of Research
Research something that is feasible.
Research something you like as long as it satisfies #1.
A program of research begins as a correlation
You decide whether to move toward mechanism or treatment.
Developing a Program of Research
Focus on simple experiments
Collaborate with experts
Become an expert on something
Rely on yourself for the promotion of your work
Publish your findings
Tie it all Together
Think of your research as a narrative.
Spend time thinking about theoretical issues.
Continue to look for new inspiration.
Treat your program of research like a new business.
Evolution of Specific Aims
Specific Aims
• Purpose of the study
• Brief introduction – “mind the gap”
• Brief mention of team and/or preliminary studies.
• Overall goal of the study
Aims
• Be concise
• Highlight sentences that can be read alone.
• Make aims more general and hypotheses more
specific.
• Limit the number of aims – less is more!
• Not too much detail, but don’t leave anything out.
Strategies for Developing a
Successful Grant
Background and Significance
• Sets the stage for the study.
• Follows your outline.
• Provides justification for this as the next logical
step.
• Here is where you test your sequence of studies.
– We usually want to do the study that is three ahead of
where we are at in readiness.
Background and Significance
• Outline key points that set the stage for the study.
• Use these as headings for this section.
• Not a dissertation!
– Don’t overwrite this section.
• Again, highlight sentences.
• Summary at end, repeat aims and hypotheses.
• Define the big picture impact.
Preliminary Studies
• Justification for your research team and
environment.
• Outline your team and their expertise – including
you.
• Outline what techniques, abilities, and data are
needed to set the stage for the proposed study.
Preliminary Studies
• These are not all pilot data.
• You are part of a team.
• Preliminary data demonstrate ability – feasibility,
not proof of concept.
• Pilot data present proof of concept.
• Both are needed!
Methods
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Largest part of the grant.
Starts with an overview.
Experimental design considerations section.
Participants (not subjects).
Procedures
Assessments
Statistical and power analyses – for each
hypothesis.
Experimental Design Considerations
• Key decisions you made about the research design
and your reasoning for making those choices.
• Threats to internal and external validity.
• Choice of groups.
• Demonstrate your thought process.
Stats and Power
• Each aim must have testable hypotheses.
• Explorations are not recommended,
especially if they involve adding burden or
new participants.
• Each hypothesis must have its own
analyses.
• Each analysis must have its own power
analysis.
Top Ten Do. . .
1. Call the program officer
2. Get copies of successful and unsuccessful
grants.
3. Find a mentor/working group
4. Organize your team to reflect the needs of the
study.
5. Consider all mechanisms (even industry).
Top Ten Do. . .
6.
7.
8.
9.
Read the RFA/PA.
Get reviewers ahead of time (even for pay).
Include experimental design considerations.
Keep aims to a single page – and order them in
terms of impact.
10. Enlist consultants!
Top Ten Don’t. . .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Avoid criticism.
Rush your grant.
Be too ambitious.
Assume anything from the reviewers.
Avoid writing.
Be afraid to change something near the end.
Top Ten Don’t. . .
7. Go it alone.
8. Underestimate the administrative burden.
9. Cover anything up.
Top Ten Don’t. . .
10. DON’T GIVE UP!
Misconceptions with the RO1/RO3
• Only experienced PIs can obtain an RO1
– New applicants are provided some latitude but the science must be
sound.
• It is easier to get an RO3 vs. RO1
– True if you lack pilot data, but the quality of the science must be solid
for both.
• Preliminary Studies (section) is only important for an RO1
– This section is always important, as it describes your familiarity with
research.
• Always ask for 5 years of funding with an RO1
– Let the science guide the duration and justify the need.
Common Errors in Training Grants
• Candidate
– Limited research productivity in the past (less
then 3 publications generally raises concern).
– Large gaps in history where productivity was
low without explanation for this hiatus.
– Failure to describe the gap in the candidate’s
training background that requires additional
mentored training.
Common Errors in Training Grants
• Training Plan
–
–
–
–
Lacks detail
Redundant with previous training
Not tied directly to career goals
Dependent on off-site mentors (bad fit to
environment)
– Too many mentors; mentors lack clear roles
– Unrelated to proposed science
– Too many goals
• Science
– Too complex or too broad in scope (really an RO1)
– Not related to training goals/expertise of the
mentor
– Too much overlap with mentor’s research/failure
to define independence from mentor
– No preliminary data
– Aims lack hypotheses
– Analytic plan not tied to the aims
– No power analysis (or analysis based on wrong
data)
Foundation Grants
• Opportunity for funding to support large and small
projects.
• Can be ideal for junior investigators to obtain pilot
data to support NIH grants.
• Competition still high. Review groups similar to
NIH.
• Often less indirect costs to home institution, but
still an effective way to promote your research and
get going!!!