version 052809 ka
Departmental Grant Writing Retreats: A Strategy for Obtaining and Maintaining
Successful Research Funding in Clinical Departments
Kurt H. Albertine, Ph.D.,1,2 James F. Bale, Jr. M.D.,1 J. Michael Dean, M.D., M.B.A.,1 and Gary
C. Schoenwolf, Ph.D.1,2
1
2
Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84158
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132
Running Title: Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
Key Words: Physician-scientists, career development, research funding
Address correspondence to:
Kurt H. Albertine, Ph.D.
Department of Pediatrics
Division of Neonatology
University of Utah Health Sciences Center
Williams Bldg
Salt Lake City, Utah 84158
TEL:
(801) 581-5021
FAX: (801) 585-7395
E-Mail: kurt.albertine@hsc.utah.edu
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
ABSTRACT
This report describes a unique strategy for preparing junior faculty and fellows in clinical
departments for the rigors of applying for grant support.
Since 2002, the Department of
Pediatrics at the University of Utah has conducted biannual weekend retreats that cover key
elements of successful grantsmanship for departmental junior faculty and fellows. The goal of
the retreat is to provide tools for strengthening each attendee’s grant-writing skills through a
combination of didactic discussions, detailed one-on-one critiques of each application, and
hands-on guidance in the reshaping of each application. The retreat emphasizes the main
components of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-templated grant applications. A series of
brief, focused didactic sessions on specific aims, background and significance, preliminary
studies, research design and methods, statistical framework, budget, key personnel, and
protection of human subjects and experimental animals are presented. The majority of attendees’
time is spent revising the sections of their grant application, after obtaining detailed critiques
from experienced senior faculty investigators. The retreat ends with a mock study section that
provides each applicant with a glimpse into the process of grant review, as well as providing
them with hands-on experience in critiquing grant proposals, again under the guidance of senior
faculty members. Since 2002, sixty attendees have submitted 131 proposals to intramural or
extramural foundations, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or industry. Of 23
applications submitted by attendees to the NIH, 12 have been funded, including three K08s, two
K23s, one K24, one R03, two R21s, and three R01s. Based on our experience, we suggest that
departmental grant writing retreats are an effective strategy for improving the research portfolios
of clinical departments.
2
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
INTRODUCTION
Submitting successful grant applications remains one the most important measures of
scholarly activity in academic departments 1. For tenure-track faculty, receiving extramural
grant support is usually a major criterion for judging a candidate’s suitability for promotion and
tenure. Moreover, the granting process supports scientific discovery into human disorders.
Although department chairs and faculty recognize the importance of successful grant
applications, few departments allocate specific resources to this process beyond the traditional
“three years” of protected time given to new faculty recruits. Moreover, pediatric fellowships
infrequently provide focused training in the process of applying for grants.
In 1990, the Department of Pediatrics conducted a weekend retreat for junior faculty to
develop grant applications as part of a faculty development grant in general pediatrics. Since
2002, the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Utah has resurrected biannual weekend
retreats for its junior faculty and fellows. During the two and one-half days of the retreat,
experienced senior faculty investigators lead brief, focused didactic discussions on the parts of a
grant application, using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) application as the template.
Major topics include specific aims, background and significance, preliminary studies, research
design and methods, statistical framework, budget, key personnel, and protection of human
subjects and experimental animals. Attendees devote the majority of their time revising their
grant proposal. Senior faculty members provide one-on-one critiques throughout the weekend,
emphasizing the importance of well-conceived and well-written sections that “sell” the science.
A major goal of the retreat is to encourage talented faculty that it is feasible and possible
to write successful grant applications, despite the competitive nature of the process. The overall
success of the grant writing retreats can be measured by the success of the submitted grant
3
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
applications. Of 23 NIH applications submitted by Department of Pediatrics attendees, 12 have
been funded to date.
RETREAT OVERIEW
Venue and Logistics
Grant writing retreats are held in November and April at a local ski resort during the "off
season", enabling low rates with a charming setting. The dates, selected, in part, to correspond to
grant cycles for the Primary Children’s Medical Center Foundation, allow attendees ample lead
time to prepare applications for the traditional February and June cycles of the NIH. The dates
also allow the Department to take advantage of reduced rates during the low-occupancy seasons
at Utah’s ski resorts.
The venue is arranged much like study section: a series of tables set up in a rectangle to
provide a comfortable writing space and to allow ample interaction of attendees with faculty and
their peers. The venue provides wireless access to the internet, and attendees have access to
power outlets for laptop computers; a laser printer is provided for group use. Also included
among the teaching aids are textbooks on writing and graphic arts.
Each attendee is relieved of clinical responsibilities for the weekend (Friday-Sunday) of
the retreat. This requires the support of division chiefs, especially in small or busy divisions that
rely heavily on faculty or fellows for clinical coverage.
Each attendee is provided a
condominium room at the lodge. Although attendees are required to be at all of the didactic
sessions, attendees may use their rooms for additional quiet-writing space. However, nearly all
4
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
attendees prefer to remain with the group to take advantage of the one-on-one interactions with
senior faculty.
Each attendee may bring their family members, including children, and rely upon his or
her spouse or significant other for child care during the retreat. This strategy reinforces the
concept that grant writing requires protected time, but also acknowledges that this process occurs
in the context of a faculty member’s life and responsibilities. Meals are provided at lunch and
dinner on Friday, breakfast and lunch on Saturday, and breakfast on Sunday.
Attendees,
families, and senior faculty eat together, cafeteria-style, a strategy that promotes ongoing
discussion among attendees and senior faculty. The on-your-own dinner on Saturday night
provides an opportunity for smaller groups of attendees, faculty, and families to enjoy a meal
together at neighboring restaurants and helps bond attendees and faculty in a research
community.
Schedule
The weekend schedule is constructed around the sections of the NIH application and
includes a mock study section on the final morning. The typical schedule is shown in Table 1.
Didactic time is limited to key elements so that the majority of the attendee’s time is used for
writing, feedback, and revision.
Published Resources
The retreat uses several published resources 2-5, including the classic Elements of Style by
Strunk and White 6 and Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers by Zeiger 7, to teach
effective writing techniques. Attendees learn to avoid passive voice, nominalization, run-on
5
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
sentences, noun clusters, dangling participles, and the like. Attendees leave understanding why
“We found that…” or “The drug increases…” are more powerful than “It was found that…” or
“The drug results in a change…” Although such concepts were undoubtedly learned in high
school or college, years of hurriedly writing patient-care notes undermine the writing skills of
most physicians.
CONTENT
Introduction to Grant Writing
The intent of this didactic session is to welcome attendees to the retreat, introduce the
attendees and senior faculty to one another, provide an overview of the mechanics of the retreat
and venue, and emphasize that research is a critical mission of the Department of Pediatrics. In
regards to the latter, research and grant proposal writing are stressed as high priority for the
department, and that senior faculty are committed to helping junior faculty and fellows succeed
in this process and their career development. The retreat faculty emphasize that the first
impediment to be overcome is the junior faculty member's perception that obtaining a grant is
impossible. Because the weekend involves intensive criticism of each attendee’s grant proposal,
the introductory session emphasizes that the objective of the intensive criticism is to help each
attendee write the best possible application, not to criticize for the sake of criticism, and that the
senior faculty are willing to work constructively with each attendee to achieve this goal.
Specific Aims
The intent of this didactic session is to emphasize the importance of having a good idea to
explore in a grant proposal, and to “sell” the significance of this idea to the grant review panel 1,
6
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
8, 9
. This session includes a discussion of what is a hypothesis and how one goes about directly
testing this hypothesis. Typically, most of the weekend focuses on the re-crafting of this section
based on the idea that the Specific Aims page provides “the bait on the hook” because this
section of the proposal is its cornerstone. If the bait does not lure the reviewer, the grant
proposal is unlikely to be recommended with enthusiasm and thus unlikely to be funded. This
quintessential function is also shared with the Abstract section 10. An adage that we use for the
Abstract section is “you get only one opportunity for a first impression, so don’t blow it!” The
Abstract should stand alone from the rest of the grant proposal, including the Specific Aims
section, and emphasize the importance of the proposal.
Background and Significance
The intent of this didactic session is to provide a roadmap for composition of the
“Background and Significance” section. The notion conveyed is that the applicant is a story
teller whose responsibility is to bring readers to a common level of knowledge so that they
understand the focus of the proposal and how the proposal will impact the field 1, 8, 9. To provide
focus, attendees are guided to use key words in the context of the specific aims of their proposal
to sell the hypotheses that will be directly tested in the “Research Design and Methods” section.
By so doing, the applicant shows her/his familiarity with the field by highlighting the relevant (as
opposed to all) literature and understanding its meaning. Thus, the flow of this section is from
context, to knowns, to unknowns and/or controversies. By identifying the relevant unknowns
that the proposal will address, the applicant will be in a better position to identify the utility of
their results for advancing the field. In this regard, essential questions to be answered in this
7
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
section are: “does the proposal address an important problem”, and “how will the answer(s)
move the field forward?”
Preliminary Studies
This didactic session conveys that the “Preliminary Studies” section’s purpose is to
demonstrate feasibility of completing the specific aims, as developed in the “Research Design
and Methods” section of a grant application 1, 8, 9. In other words, this section sells the Principal
Investigator and the environment. Recommendation is made to include schemas, cartoons,
pathways, etc., because of the economy gained by a picture. However, the picture must be clear
11
! Another benefit of inclusion of graphic artwork is that it breaks up the monotony of text, text,
text 4. In this context, the attendees are reminded that reviewers, too, are tired, have bad days,
and have lives outside the workplace. Therefore, reviewers appreciate when an applicant
provides informative, accurate pictures from which reviewers “get” what the applicant proposes
to pursue. Demonstrating feasibility is a key goal of this section, for each specific aim! To
attain that goal, the applicant should demonstrate that they have the tools and reagents to obtain
the intended results, and that the applicant and investigative team have the necessary expertise to
conduct the proposed studies. As a general rule, new investigators or investigators moving into a
new field will find that more preliminary data are helpful. As another general rule, the greater
the ambitiousness of a proposal, more preliminary data are needed. This didactic session
concludes with the notion that the “Preliminary Studies” section will be stronger if it provides
balance and parallel construction with the “Specific Aims” section (each Specific Aim, in the
same order), “Background and Significance” section (importance of the proposal’s results to the
8
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
field), and “Research Design and Methods” section (to support the feasibility of performing the
proposed experiments).
Research Design and Methods, and Statistics
One goal of this didactic session is to provide guidance for composing the “Research
Design and Methods” section of a grant application. This section, unlike the “Background and
Significance” and “Preliminary Studies” sections, is written in future tense because the applicant
is asking for support for studies that will be performed. In contrast, the previous two sections are
written in past tense (active past tense, preferably) because the studies and results that are
described in the grant application have been performed. Key elements to include in this section
are (1) provide a big-picture overview of the study and its design, (2) copy and paste the Specific
Aims so that reviewers do not have to hunt for them, (3) for each Specific Aim, provide an
overview of the experimental design and its value, anticipated results, and pitfalls, limitations
and alternative approaches, (4) statistics, (5) time table, (6) a brief impact summary, and (7)
finish with detailed procedures 1, 8, 9. A helpful inclusion in the big-picture element is to provide
a flow diagram or cartoon. Advice to gain economy of space to cite methods that the
investigative team has published. If the applicant and investigative team do not have expertise or
reagents, the applicant is encouraged to recruit collaborators and include their letters of support
in the application. The rationale for considering pitfalls, limitations, and alternative approaches
is that reviewers understand that no study design is perfect. Therefore, reviewers look for signs
of competency, which are reflected by self-critical evaluation, and problem-solving ability.
Another goal of this didactic session is to review the essential elements of protection of
human subjects and welfare of experimental animals. The attendees are reminded that they are
9
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
obligated to comply with approval requirements because without them, a grant application may
become derailed, even if ranked as meritorious by study section. Another topic that is discussed
is inclusion of women, children, and minority/ethnic groups, and how to write about limitations
of inclusion.
The final goal of this didactic session is to provide an overview of statistical
considerations. Most importantly, the attendees are encouraged to engage a statistician during
the design phase of a research project so that topics such as power analysis and identification of
appropriate study design for valid statistical analysis do not become issues during review.
Career Development Awards
The didactic sessions conclude with a discussion of career development awards,
especially the K series awards available from the NIH. This session provides information
regarding the types of K awards and their eligibility requirements 12. During the discussion,
attendees learn that key elements in this process include the selection of mentors, attention to the
career development plan, and the importance of the departmental commitment to their grant and
their careers. Attendees, especially those with advanced scientific training, are encouraged to
utilize a “gap-based” approach to their career development by identifying their critical areas of
need and how the award will fill the gaps and facilitate their development as leaders in scientific
investigation.
Mock Study Section
The purpose of this interactive session is to help the applicants “see” how their
application may be judged by a review panel - an eye-opening experience for most junior faculty
10
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
and fellows. Using only the Specific Aims page of each application, primary and secondary
reviewers are assigned from the pool of attendees. Each attendee serves as an applicant for one
grant proposal, a primary reviewer for one of their peer’s proposals, a secondary reviewer for
another of their peer’s proposals, and a panel member for each proposal. The applicant remains
in the room when his/her proposal is reviewed, but reviewers are not allowed to directly address
comments or questions to the applicant, and the applicant is not allowed to participate in the
discussion. The primary reviewer has 5 minutes to present the application to the panel and to
critique it. The secondary reviewer has 3 minutes for follow up, and the panel discussion occurs
for an additional 5 minutes or so.
MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
An important goal of the retreat is its emphasis on overcoming the writer’s block that
affects many physician-investigators.
Although medical school, residency, and fellowship
training provide superb clinical preparation, most physicians do not leave these segments of their
training with adequate writing skills. Ironically, writing ability and motivation to write are not
directly assessed when new faculty are recruited.
The more than 100 grant applications
submitted by 60 attendees of our grant-writing retreat since 2002 suggests that this goal has been
achieved by providing protected time to initiate this activity in a cloistered setting free of typical
daily interruptions.
An important measure of the success of a grant writing retreat is its return on investment.
Since 2002, nearly 60 junior faculty or fellows of the Department of Pediatrics have attended the
grant writing retreats. Of these, 38 junior faculty or fellows subsequently submitted 131 grant
proposals to a foundation, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or industry. Of
11
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
the 131 applications, 25 were submitted to the Primary Children’s Medical Center (PCMC)
Foundation. This Foundation provides up to $25,000 per award per year as a means to support
the beginning research careers of junior faculty or fellows. Sixteen of the 25 applications (64%)
were funded, corresponding to direct costs of $371,381. The PCMC foundation, recognizing the
benefit of the grant writing retreats, now underwrites the cost of the retreats and requires that
applicants attend the retreat before submitting their proposals.
Ninety-six grant proposals have been submitted by attendees to funding agencies other
than the PCMC Foundation. This includes 27 proposals to the NIH since 2002. Of these, 12
were funded (including three K08s, two K23s, one K24, one R03, two R21s and three R01s).
The funded awards correspond to >$6,000,000 in direct costs. Given that the retreats cost
approximately $12,000/retreat, the return on investment during the 5 years of the retreats (nine,
to date) is nearly 60:1.
SUMMARY
Based on our experience, we conclude that the departmental grant writing retreats are an
effective strategy for improving the research portfolio of our department. From the attendees’
perspective, they gain knowledge that they should write for the readers/reviewers
1, 8, 9
. The
attendees also learn to write concisely, format and edit thoughtfully and carefully, and to use
figures that enliven what can become deadly wastelands of endless text. Furthermore, they learn
that having trusted, knowledgeable colleagues read one’s grant application is an important step in
avoiding embarrassing technical mistakes or typographical errors. Attendees learn that such
mistakes should not be found at study section, especially given the current exceedingly
competitive funding environment.
12
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
The retreat requires an ongoing supply of attendees. In this regard, the Department of
Pediatrics at the University of Utah has grown the number of departmental fellows from 10
fellows in 1995 to >40 in 2009. During the same period, the faculty growth increased from
approximately 106 faculty members to nearly 240. Most fellows attend at least one grant writing
retreat during their fellowship training, in addition to attending their required fellows’
curriculum, which emphasizes research ethics, statistical design, and scientific communication
skills.
The retreats also require a critical mass of experienced senior faculty committed to
mentoring and young investigator career development. The senior faculty must set aside their
own activities in favor of mentoring their colleagues and successors. We have found that an
optimum ratio is about 1-2 attendees (junior faculty, fellows) per senior faculty; this necessitates
limiting the number of attendees to 12-14. This high senior faculty-to-attendee ratio enables
senior faculty to critique proposals one-on-one with each attendee.
This process enables
attendees to overcome another block in effective grantsmanship: one’s ego regarding personal
writing style. By experiencing several critiques during the course of the weekend, attendees gain
a sense of what constitutes clear writing in the eyes of the reader, as well as the effort required to
compose a meritorious grant application.
Each attendee leaves with the clear understanding that “you will never get a grant if you
don’t apply”.
13
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Edward B. Clark, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of Pediatrics, for
the foresight and commitment to improve the competitive position of junior faculty and fellows
in our department. We also thank Primary Children’s Medical Center Foundation for the
financial support that makes the biannual retreats possible. Thanks are also extended to our
colleagues in the department who give their time and effort to serve as retreat faculty, including
Robert H. Lane, M.D., Carrie Byington, M.D., Amy Donaldson, M.S., and Jackie Hinton. We
thank Kathy Boyer, Jan Johnson, and Sheri Carp for organizational support for the workshop.
14
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Todd RF, 3rd, Miller DM, Silverstein RL. Hematology grants workshop-2001.
Hematology American Society and Hematology Education Program. 2001:507-521.
Browner W. Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research: Williams & Wilkins; 1999.
Zinsser W. On Writing Well. Third ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1988.
Gitlin L, Lyons K. Successful Grant Writing. Second ed: Springer Publishing Company;
2004.
Truss L. Eats, Shoots & Leaves. Vol 1. first ed. New York: Gotham Books; 2003.
Strunk W, White EB. The Elements of Style. third ed. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon;
1979.
Zeiger M. Essentials of Writing Biomedical Rsearch Papers. Second ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 2000.
Inouye SK, Fiellin DA. An evidence-based guide to writing grant proposals for clinical
research. Ann Intern Med. Feb 15 2005;142(4):274-282.
Chung KC, Shauver MJ. Fundamental principles of writing a successful grant proposal.
Journal of Hand Surgery [Am]. Apr 2008;33(4):566-572.
Bordage G, Dawson B. Experimental study design and grant writing in eight steps and 28
questions. Med Educ. Apr 2003;37(4):376-385.
Briscoe MH. Preparing Scientific Illustrations. Second ed. New York: Springer; 1996.
Bodine DM. Hematology grants k08 and k23. Hematology American Society of
Hematology Education Program. 2005:538-542.
To be added:
McCabe LL, McCabe ERB. How to succeed in academics.
American Medical Association. Manual of Style. 9th edition, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore,
1998. (ISBN 0-683-40206-4).
15
Albertine et al., Departmental Grant Writing Retreats
Table 1: Typical Schedule
Day
Hour
Activity
Friday
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
11:00 AM
Noon
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
5:00 PM
Check-in
Introduction to the weekend’s format
Introduction to grant writing and “Specific Aims” didactic session
Writing and revising time
Lunch with families
“Background and Significance” didactic session
Writing and revising time
Dinner with families
Saturday
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
Noon
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
4:00 PM
Breakfast
“Preliminary Studies” didactic session
Writing and revising time
Lunch with families
“Research Design and Methods”, and statistics didactic session
Writing and revising time
Submitting an NIH grant, including budget guidance and writing
career development plans for K’s, didactic session
Dinner and free time with families
6:00 PM
Sunday
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
11:00 AM
Noon
Breakfast
Mock Study Section
Wrap-up
Check-out
16