Shared Instrumentation
Grant Workshop
Northwestern University
Office for Research
Speakers:
Phil Hockberger, Director of Core Facilities, OR
Teng-Leong Chew, Director of Imaging Resources,
OR
Bill Hendrickson, Director of Research Resources,
UIC
NIH Instrument Grant Proposals
NU policies and procedures
Voucher Program
Institutional Letters of Support
Internal proposal process
NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution
NIH Instrument Grant Proposals
NU policies and procedures
Voucher Program
Institutional Letter of Support
Internal proposal process
NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution
NU policies and
procedures
• Priority given to instruments placed in NU
core facilities
• Proposals from groups of PIs is possible but
must be clearly justified through OR
• All proposals must be approved by OR
NIH Instrument Grant Proposals
NU policies and procedures
Voucher Program
Institutional Letters of Support
Internal proposal process
NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution
Voucher Program
•
•
•
•
Started in Jan. 2010
Sponsored by OR
Proposal must be funded by NIH
Provides $10K to core facility for PI use of
that instrument - not Co-I(s)
NIH Instrument Grant Proposals
NU policies and procedures
Voucher Program
Institutional Letters of Support
Internal proposal process
NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution
Institutional Letter of Support
• Required of all proposals (section F)
• Describes infrastructure available or planned
for the instrument (space, technical support)
• No cost sharing required but can solicit
support from departments, schools and
institutes (e.g. for service contracts or space
renovation)
• Letter template available on OR website
NIH Instrument Grant Proposals
NU policies and procedures
Voucher Program
Institutional Letters of Support
Internal proposal process
NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution
Internal Proposal Process
• Internal intent notification of ORD – Jan. 6
(ad hoc thereafter; duplication reconciled
by OR)
• Internal confirmation – Jan. 25 (ad hoc
thereafter; no duplication thereafter)
• NIH deadline – March 21
NIH Instrument Grant Proposals
NU policies and procedures
Voucher Program
Institutional Letters of Support
Internal proposal process
NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution
NIH Changes due to NCRR
Dissolution
• All instrumentation grant programs (SIG,
HEI) will be handled through NIH Office of
the Director
• James Anderson will manage programs – he
is the former director of core facilities at UNC
• He reports to Larry Tamack, DeputyDirector
of NIH – he is former director of proteomics
at Univ. of Rochester
Goal:
Get a final IMPACT SCORE of less than 20
No percentile given for SIGs
SIG score card for the reviewers
The 5 categories in your grant that
determine the final Impact Score
Justification of Needs
Technical Expertise
Research Projects
Administration
Institutional Commitment
The 5 categories in your grant that
determine the final Impact Score
Justification of Needs
Technical Expertise
Research Projects
Administration
Institutional Commitment
Justification of Needs
What is the requested instrument?
Why is this instrument needed?
Any similar equipment available at the institution?
How many NIH-funded grants (or PIs) will be
affected?
Justification of Needs: Tips
Describe the capability of the instrument - highlights its
importance; e.g.:
replacing a heavily used, aging instrument
enhanced capabilities
lack of instrumentation at the institution
Do not say “we need this because others have it”
Do not shy away from addressing the availability of similar
instruments at the institution. Do not underestimate the
reviewers’ ability to investigate
Justify the configuration of the instruments
Why this particular model?
Do you need every module in the proposed instrument?
Use a table to highlight which PIs will use which functionality
of the system
The 5 categories in your grant that
determine the final Impact Score
Justification of Needs
Technical Expertise
Research Projects
Administration
Institutional Commitment
Technical Expertise
Will the instrument be properly operated?
Will the appropriate level of technical support and
training be provided to the users?
Technical Expertise: Tips
The biggest error: Choosing the wrong instrument
Second biggest error: Complaining that previously bought
instrument does not deliver
Third biggest mistake: Sending to all the major users a
template to discuss their experiments (and with wrong
information)
Highlight the technical expertise of the team: from core
personnel to major users
Do you need to hire a new technical person?
The 5 categories in your grant that
determine the final Impact Score
Justification of Needs
Technical Expertise
Research Projects
Administration
Institutional Commitment
Research Projects
The mission of SIGs: to fund instruments that will
enhance the currently NIH funded project.
Therefore: must show how current projects will be
enhanced
Must sync your message in “Research Projects” with
that in “Justification of Needs”
Watch out for research projects that may cause you
points in “Technical Expertise”
Research Projects: Tips
Start early. You are relying on a lot of very busy people
Provide preliminary data. Do whatever it takes! If the
manufacturer cannot demo the instrument on site, go to their
site or ship your samples
List all NIH grant numbers for each PI that will benefit from the
instrument. Discuss the impact by referring to the grant
specific aims, not in vague general terms
Cautionary note: do not say the grant is hampered without the
instrument (unless you are requesting to replace old
instrument). The PIs should not have been funded if they
cannot perform their experiment because of a non-existent
instrument
Be prepared to do significant editing
The 5 categories in your grant that
determine the final Impact Score
Justification of Needs
Technical Expertise
Research Projects
Administration
Institutional Commitment
Administration
Will the scope be properly managed?
Who will do the training?
Will the team continue to operate the scope after the
initial years while under warranty?
Is there an outreach program to increase usage?
Is there a committee to manage user conflict?
Is safety issues addressed?
Administration: Tips
Calculate capacity usage. Make sure major users will use at
least 75% of the capacity
Calculate anticipated hourly rate – is this close to the national
average?
Discuss how instrument time will be divided between
major/other users
Present a projected budget, showing that you will be able to
handle the operation of the instrument financially
Have a steering committee
Discuss your reservation/billing mechanisms
Discuss how you handle safety issues (include letters)
The 5 categories in your grant that
determine the final Impact Score
Justification of Needs
Technical Expertise
Research Projects
Administration
Institutional Commitment
Institutional Commitment
Is the institution committed to ensure the successful
operation of the instrument?
Is there a historical trend of institutional support to the
team/unit?
Has the institution committed space/renovation cost if
needed?
Will the institution step in to support the service
contract if the recharge revenues falls short of
expectation?
Institutional Commitment: Tips
List historical support from the institution (every source) to
your unit (extremely important!)
List institutional support specific to this particular grant
extra personnel
space/renovation
Highlight the types of support the institution has given you
Instrumentation upgrade/purchase?
Operational cost support?
Planned or occasional support?
Make sure you get institutional support letter. Work with the
NU internal system – start early. This is a bottom-up approach
Department > School/Center > University