NIH Grants:
Strategies to Get Funded
Silvia da Costa, Ph.D.
Director of Faculty Research Relations
Office of Research
Research Grants
Competing Applications and Awards
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Research to address the needs of the funding institute
CRISP RePORTER
Early Stage Investigator
Choosing the right study section
Grant Sections
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
The NIH Peer Review Process
Application received
Assignments made
Initial peer review
Scientific Review Group
(Study section)
Scientific Review Officer
Funding considerations
Institutes or Centers (ICs)
(Duals possible)
Program Officer
Second level of review
Council
Funding decision
IC Director
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
Award!
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
The NIH is not interested in funding good science
The NIH is interested in funding good science
that meets the needs of the of the funding institute
“Small business” mentality
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
To which Institute should you submit your grant?
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
Awards by Institute
sorted by average number
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
2010 Funding Success Rate per NIH IC
Success Rate 2010
Award Amount (‘000s)
NCI
NIAID
NHLBI
NIGMS
NIDDK
NINDS
NIMH
NICHD
NIDA
NIA
NEI
NIAMS
NIBIB
NIEHS
NIAAA
NIDCR
NIDCD
OD
NHGRI
NCCAM
NINR
NCRR
NLM
NIMHD
FIC
0%
20%
40%
60%
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
80%
NCI
NIAID
NHLBI
NIGMS
NIDDK
NINDS
NIMH
NICHD
NIDA
NIA
NEI
NIAMS
NIBIB
NIEHS
NIAAA
NIDCR
NIDCD
OD
NHGRI
NCCAM
NINR
NCRR
NLM
NIMHD
FIC
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
NIH RePORT
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
http://report.nih.gov/reports.aspx
Institute Strategic Plan
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
http://report.nih.gov/reports.aspx
Institute Strategic Plan
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
http://report.nih.gov/strategicplans/index.aspx
Institute Strategic Plan
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
Institute Strategic Plan
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
IC Area of Interest
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
http://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html
Any Questions
Research to address the needs of
the funding institute
The NIH Peer Review Process
Application received
Assignments made
Initial peer review
Scientific Review Group
(Study section)
Scientific Review Officer
Funding considerations
Institutes or Centers (ICs)
(Duals possible)
Program Officer
Second level of review
Council
Funding decision
IC Director
Award!
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
CRISP RePORTER
CRISP RePORTER
CRISP RePORTER
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
CRISP RePORTER
Keyword “Cancer”, first few pages of search…
NCI
NIBIB
NIA
NIGMS
NIMHD
NINR
NHGRI
NIAMS
NCCAM
NIEHS
NIAID
NCATS
OD
National Cancer Institute
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
National Institute on Aging
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
National Institute of Nursing Research
National Human Genome Research Institute
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Office of the Director
CRISP RePORTER
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Choosing the right study section
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Who will be reviewing your grant?
Identifying potential members of your
Scientific Review Group
Choosing the right study section
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Choosing the right study section
http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx/
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Choosing the right study section
http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Page
s/default.aspx
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Choosing the right study section
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Choosing the right study section
Any Questions
Choosing the right study section
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Early Stage Investigator
NIH Priority: Continued Focus
on New Investigators
• New Investigator is an NIH research grant applicant who has
not yet competed successfully for a substantial, NIH research
grant.
• Example: a PI who has previously received a competing NIH R01
research grant is no longer considered a New Investigator.
However, a PD/PI who has received a small grant (R03) or an
Exploratory, Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) retains
his or her status as a New Investigator.
Early Stage Investigator
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/inve
stigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649
NIH Priority: Continued Focus
on New Investigators
• Early Stage Investigators: ESIs are New Investigators who
are within 10 years of completing their terminal research degree or
within 10 years of completing their medical residency at the time
they apply for R01 grants.
Early Stage Investigator
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/inve
stigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649
Funding Policy for NIs & ESIs
• Applications from ESIs, like those from all New Investigators, are
given special consideration during peer review and at the time
of funding.
• Peer reviewers are instructed to focus more on the proposed
approach than on the track record, and to expect less
preliminary information than might be provided by an established
investigator.
• Applications will be clustered during initial peer review to the
extent possible.
Early Stage Investigator
Special Programs for NIs & ESIs
• Pathway to Independence Award (K99-R00) provides
support as a postdoctoral scholar transitions from a training position
to a faculty position
• Director’s New Innovator Award (DP2) provides support to
highly innovative research approaches
Early Stage Investigator
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/inve
stigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649
How does the NIH Recognize NIs & ESIs?
NI and ESI status is determined automatically by the
functionality built into eRA Commons, based on the
investigator’s record of receiving NIH grants and the date of their
terminal degree and/or completion of medical residency.
Make sure you are correctly designated as an ESI
Verify your degree completion date in your
NIH Commons Profile (eRA Commons)
Early Stage Investigator
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/inve
stigator_policies_faqs.htm#2649
Loss of ESI Status
Status applies only to R01s
If you are applying for an R01 with another non-ESI, the
proposal will not be reviewed as an ESI application. If
awarded, you will lose your ESI status.
Need to balance use of experienced collaborator with
loss of ESI status.
Early Stage Investigator
Strategies to Improve Your Competitiveness
Grant sections
Good Grantsmanship
Grant writing is a learned skill!
Grant sections
Approach: Restructured Research Plan
Previous Application
New Application
Background and Significance a. Significance
b. Innovation
Research Design and
c. Approach
Methods
• Preliminary Studies
Preliminary
for New Applications
Studies/Progress Report
• Progress Report for
Renewal/Revision
Grant sections
Important to differentiate between the two!
Significance (1/2 page)
•
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the
field?
•
If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical
capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?
•
How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods,
technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Innovation (1/2 page)
•
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice
paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions?
•
Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel
to one field of research or novel in a broad sense?
•
Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Grant sections
Biographical Sketch
• Personal Statement –what experience and
qualifications make the applicant particularly wellsuited for the project.
• Limited to 4 pages (per person)
• Publications limited to 15
–5 most recent
–5 best
–5 most relevant to the application
Grant sections
Biosketch: Include the PMCID
Example
Varmus H, Klausner R, Zerhouni E, Acharya T,
Daar A, Singer P. 2003. PUBLIC HEALTH:
Grand Challenges in Global Health. Science
302(5644): 398–399. PMCID: PMC243493
Grant sections
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/citation_methods.htm
Specific Aims Page - Outline
Background information
Relevance (medical/clinical)
Gap in knowledge/Current knowledge
Long-term goal (of your lab)
Objective of the proposal
Hypothesis - Basis for hypothesis
Rational for study
Specific Aims
Hypothesis
How it will be tested
Expected Results
Why proposal is innovative
Significance
PI / Environment
Positive Impact
“Payoff” for the Institute/Foundation
Grant sections
Specific Aims Page – Target Audience
Grant sections
Specific Aims – Diagrams
Diabetic conditions
TGF
Aim 1
Aim 2
XXX
YYY
abc
WW
WSWS
CVCV
Aim 3
Diabetic Neuropathy
Hypothesis:
text text text text text text text text text
text text text text text text text text text text text text
text text text text text text text text text text text text
Grant sections
Specific Aims Page
Your job is to make the reviewer’s work easier!
Background information
Relevance (medical/clinical)
Gap in knowledge/Current knowledge
Long-term goal (of your lab)
Objective of the proposal
Hypothesis - Basis for hypothesis
Rational for study
Specific Aims
Hypothesis
How it will be tested
Expected Results
Why proposal is innovative
Significance
PI / Environment
Positive Impact
“Payoff” for the Institute/Foundation
Grant sections
What is not known is …
It is relevant because…
The objective of the proposal is..
The rational is based on the need to…
This proposal is innovative because…
The research is significant because..
It will have a positive impact due to…
Our unique research environment
specializing in XYZ will assure the success
of the proposed project…
It helps the XX institute fulfill it’s
mission towards… or is in line with
the goals of the institute in that…
Specific Aims Page
Grant sections
Abstract
Experimental Design
Old format:
New format:
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Rationale
Rationale
Preliminary Data
Experimental approach
Experimental approach
Methods
Methods
Interpretation of results
Interpretation of results
Potential pitfalls
Potential pitfalls
Alternatives
& Preliminary Data
Significantly reduced
Alternatives
Go/No-Go & Milestones
Grant sections
Innovation
Significance
Timeline
Preliminary
data
Alternatives & Pitfalls
Quantitatable data
Milestone (M1);
Hypothesis
Strengthened
Milestone (M1)
Hypothesis
Go
Assay 1
Expected Results
Assay 2
Go/No-Go
No-Go
Assay 3
Associated to M1,
not necessarily to
individual
assays.
Alternatives
&
Pitfalls
No need for extensive detail
Assay 4
Grant sections
Alternative
Assays
Alternatives & Pitfalls
Demonstrate to the reviewer that you have thought of, and
planned for, all possibilities.
Alternatives
&
Pitfalls
Alternative
Assays
Grant sections
Anticipated Results and Alternative
Approaches:
“There are no perceived obstacles to completing this
aim with results as predicted.”
Summarize with the Timeline
Aim
1
Timeline
Assay 1 & 2
Yr.1
Yr.2
Yr.3
x
x
2
Go/No-Go
Yr.5
x
x
M2
M3
x
Assay 3
Milestones
Yr.4
M1
Gi
Gii
M1: text, text, text;
M2, text, text text
Go/No-Go identified in
Alternatives & Pitfalls
Milestones identified
either in the main text
or with the Table
Your entire proposal summarized
in one Table and one Figure
Grant sections
Grant Proposal Cover Letter
Application title
FOA # and title
Request:
Place SRG & IC review requests on separate lines
Place positive & negative requests on separate lines
Include name of IC or SRG, followed by a dash and acronym
Provide explanations for each request in a separate paragraph
You can ask for a specific study section but it is not necessarily
guaranteed…
• Check eRA Commons regularly to see confirm to where it was assigned.
• Contact the PO immediately if it was not assigned to the section you
wanted - they usually will try to accommodate your request
•
•
•
•
•
Choosing the right study section
Response to Reviewers
Q: What if you know that you are “Right” and the reviewers
are “Wrong”, is it appropriate to argue your position in
your resubmission?
A: NO!
Never be Argumentative !
Never be Abrasive !
Do not do long term damage to
yourself
Always address all comments and
critiques
Thank the reviewer for their effort
Remind them of the good
comments
Choosing
the right
study section
Grant
sections
Response to Reviewers
How to shoot yourself in the foot…
The reviewer’s comments regarding the proposed mode of action of XXX
are frankly astonishing and somewhat disturbing as they suggest a view
biased in favor of the more conventional mode of action for antibody.
Clearly this reviewer is not familiar with the anti-inflammatory
properties of XXX and apparently did not read the background sections
on ‘Antibody prophylaxis and therapy’ (section 3.3) and ‘Antiinflammatory Activity of XXX’ (section 3.4) in which XXX mechanisms
of action were discussed.
Choosing
the right
study section
Grant
sections
Any Questions
Grant sections
Word Reduction & Editing Suggestions
Early Stage Investigator
Methods – Keep it Brief
The power of parenthesis…
A total of 1 x 107 cells in 0.4
ml of serum-free RPMI
1640 medium was
transfected with 2 g of the
reporter plasmid, 0.5 g of
the Renilla luciferase
control vector (pRL-TK;
Promega), and 30 g of the
expression vector by
electroporation (250V and
950 F). Following
electroporation, cells were
incubated for 10 minutes at
room temperature and then
transferred into growth 10
ml of medium and cultured
at 37 C and 5% CO2 for 40–
48 hours.
A total of 1 x 107 cells in 0.4
ml of serum-free RPMI
1640 medium was
transfected with 2 g of the
reporter plasmid, 0.5 g of
the Renilla luciferase
control vector (pRL-TK;
Promega), and 30 g of the
expression vector by
electroporation (250V and
950 F). Following
electroporation, cells were
incubated for 10 minutes
at room temperature and
then transferred into
growth 10 ml of medium
and cultured at 37°C and
5% CO2 for 40–48 hours.
Cells (1 x 107 in 0.4 ml of serum-free
RPMI 1640 medium) were
transfected with the reporter
plasmid (2 g), Renilla luciferase
control (0.5 g, pRL-TK; Promega),
and expression vectors (30 g), by
electroporation (250 V, 950 F),
incubated (10 min, room
temperature), transferred into
growth medium (10 ml) and
cultured (37 C, 5% CO2, 40 - 48 h).
78 to 58 words…
Methods – Keep it Brief
Cells (1 x 107 in 0.4 ml of
serum-free RPMI 1640
medium) will be
transfected with the
reporter plasmid (2 g),
Renilla luciferase control
(0.5 g, pRL-TK;
Promega), and expression
vectors (30 g), by
electroporation (250 V,
950 F), incubated (10
min, room temperature),
transferred into growth
medium (10 ml) and
cultured (37 C, 5% CO2, 40
- 48 h).
Cells (1 x 107 in 0.4 ml of
serum-free RPMI 1640
medium) will be
transfected with the
reporter plasmid (2 g),
Renilla luciferase control
(0.5 g, pRL-TK;
Promega), and expression
vectors (30 g), by
electroporation (250 V,
950 F), incubated (10
min, room temperature),
transferred into growth
medium (10 ml) and
cultured (37 C, 5% CO2,
40 - 48 h).
Cells will be transfected by
electroporation with the
reporter plasmid, Renilla
luciferase control and
expression vector, then
transferred into growth
medium and cultured (40 48 h).
58 to 23 words…
Figure Legends… Keep it brief
Figure 2. (A) The spots of
proteins in the 2-D gels: DR0099,
DR2340 and DRA0346: SsB,
RecA and PprA, respectively. (B)
The spots of proteins in the 2-D
gels: DR0307 and DR1082:
elongation factor G and lightrepressed protein A, respectively.
(C) The spots of proteins in the 2D gels: DR1473 and DR2128:
phage shock protein A and DNAdirected RNA polymerase alpha
subunit, respectively.
(D) Relative protein expression
levels of proteins.
Figure 2. Protein spots in 2-D gels
for (A) DR0099, DR2340 and
DRA0346: SsB, RecA and PprA,
respectively; (B) DR0307 and
DR1082: elongation factor G and
light-repressed
protein
A,
respectively and (C) DR1473 and
DR2128: phage shock protein A and
DNA-directed RNA polymerase
alpha subunit, respectively.
(D) Relative protein expression levels
Protein expression was
calculated as described in
experimental procedures.
(see Experimental Procedures)
The values are the mean ±
standard deviation
(mean ± SD)
of four independent experiments
repeated twice each.
(n=4, in duplicate)
94 to 58 words…
Spell-check
First: Go to EDIT on the Word tool bar, choose SELECT ALL
Then: Go to TOOLS, LANGUAGE, SET LANGUAGE
Choose English
Uncheck “Do not check spelling or grammar”
Then click OK
“What is written without effort is,
in general, read without pleasure.”
Samuel Johnson
Question marks from Stock images