NIH RO-3 Grant 101
Sampath Parthasarathy, Ph.D., MBA, FAHA
Florida Hospital Chair in Cardiovascular Sciences
Associate Director-Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences
University of Central Florida
Why do researchers submit grant proposals?
Right reasons:
1)Feel grant submission as one of the objectives of their career.
2) Feel the study will advance science and fill gap in knowledge.
3) Universities require researchers to maintain certain percent of their salaries
from grant funding. Summer time salary support for many comes from grants.
4) Being a Principal investigator of a grant offers scientific independence,
opportunities to manage finance, personnel, contracts, and resources.
5) Successful grants bring peer acceptance.
6) Successful grants bring emotional satisfaction, stability in life, and a better
future prospects.
7) It is the right way to exercise the mind and bring bright ideas and creative
solutions together.
Wrong reasons:
1) Feel pressured to do so when not ready.
2) Think that they have an idea that could be submitted for funding, without
adequate thinking and planning.
3) Someone told him/her that there is funding for “that type” of work.
4) “Just send and see if it clicks” attitude.
5) Need to support summer salary.
6) Expect that he/she is entitled to grant monies.
7) Superiors, friends, and others “promised” grant money.
Overview of NIH Grants
• The NIH offers a number of different types of
grants.
• NIH has many institutes and Centers. No two
institutes or centers of NIH offer the same
mechanisms. You need to be aware of the
topic, scope, and other procedural
requirements of the funding mechanisms.
• Not all grant mechanisms are well known.
Types of Scientific Review Groups
Scientific Review Groups
(SRG)
CSR
• Regular Study Sections
• Special Study Sections
• Special Emphasis Panels
Institutes
• Scientific Review Groups
• Contract Review
Committees
Applications Reviewed
• Research Project Grant
• Academic Research Enhancement
Awards
• Postdoctoral Fellowships
• Small Business Innovation
Research
• Shared Instrumentation
• Program Projects
• Centers
• Institutional Training Grants
•
•
•
•
•
Contracts
RFA’s
Conference Grants
Career Awards
Some Small Grants
Why do faculty fail as scientists/researchers and find it hard to sell their ideas
for grant money?
• Not an original thinker of ideas that could be funded.
• Out of touch with current science and technology, despite ideas.
• Does not pay attention to NIH rules and changes.
• Great thinker but poor planner. Does not act.
• Caught up with teaching, administration, and other tasks.
• Spends too much time traveling and outside consulting.
• Works in an area that is not mainstream, Works in an area that is “seasonal”,
Works in an area that is highly competitive.
• Does not think research is his/her priority.
•Hired as faculty too soon and without experience .
• Hired as faculty to satisfy the needs of his/her supervisor without going through
the rigors of the hiring process.
• Poor writing/communication skills. Great ideas need great grantsmanship.
• Many beat a dead horse!
•“I bring enough money-why should I write more grants”, “this position does not
require me to write grants”,
• Antagonized the scientific community.
• Has poor credibility-tainted research-scientific and financial misconduct.
• Works in an environment/department/division with no commitment/support for
research.
•Just wore out of the grant business. Ready to quit/retire.
Common Mistakes
• Low productivity, few recent papers
• No collaborators recruited or no
letters from collaborators
• Inadequate institutional support
• Not significant nor exciting nor new
research
• Lack of compelling rationale
• Incremental and low impact
research
• Too ambitious, too much work
proposed
• Unfocused aims, unclear goals
• Limited aims and uncertain future
directions
• Inappropriate level of experimental
detail
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Feasibility of each aim not shown
Little or no expertise with approach
Lack of appropriate controls
Not directly testing hypothesis
Correlative or descriptive data
Experiments not directed towards
mechanisms
No discussion of alternative models
or hypotheses
No discussion of potential pitfalls
No discussion of interpretation of
data
No demonstration of expertise or
publications in approaches
NCI BY AWARD TYPE
R-Series
• R-Series has many different types of grants. R03,
Small Research Grants, Small grants provide research
support, specifically limited in time and amount, for
activities such as pilot projects, testing of new
techniques, or feasibility studies of innovative, high-risk
research, which would provide a basis for more
extended research.
• R21, Exploratory/Developmental Grants, To
encourage the development of new research activities in
categorical program areas. (Support generally is
restricted in level of support and duration.)
R03
R21
2 yr
2 yr
Up to $50/yr
Up to $175k/yr
Purpose: The R03 grant mechanism supports different
types of projects including:
•Pilot or feasibility studies
•Secondary analysis of existing data
•Small, self-contained research projects
•Development of research methodology
•Development of new research technology
Research plan is restricted to six pages.
Preliminary data are not required, particularly in
applications proposing pilot or feasibility studies.
(But always preliminary data helps.)
Application Characteristics
• You may request a project period of up to two years and a
budget for direct costs of up to two $25,000 modules or
$50,000 per year.
• The R03 cannot be renewed
• One resubmission (A1) is allowed
• Introduction required for a resubmission is limited to one
page.
• No preliminary data are required but may be included if
available.
• The Research Strategy may not exceed 6 pages.
• A doctoral student may not apply for an R03 grant to
support thesis or dissertation research. An R03 award may
be used to assist students who are pursuing dissertation
studies when the work is within the scope of the R03
award.
Additional Characteristics
• In contrast, R21-Maximum two-year award, $275K in directs
total (no more than $200K in any one year) (Six-page app).
• Applications for R21 awards should describe projects distinct
from those supported through the traditional R01
mechanism. For example, long-term projects, or projects
designed to increase knowledge in a well-established area,
will not be considered for R21 awards.
• Applications submitted under this mechanism should be
exploratory and novel.
• These studies should break new ground or extend previous
discoveries toward new directions or applications.
• Projects of limited cost or scope that use widely accepted
approaches and methods within well established fields
are better suited for the R03 small grant mechanism.
New NIH Scoring System
• Funding Decisions. The new scoring system
may produce more applications with identical
scores (“tie” scores). Thus, other important
factors, such as mission relevance and portfolio
balance, will be considered in making funding
decisions when grant applications are considered
essentially equivalent on overall impact, based on
reviewer ratings.