MSPH Doctoral Committee and Office of Research Resources Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University

MSPH Doctoral Committee and Office of Research Resources Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University

Introduction Preparing an Application F31 awards: Integrating all the elements Review process Importance of grantwriting groups Q and A

Dr. Leslie Davidson Professor of Epidemiology and Pediatrics at CUMC Director of Doctoral Programs in Epidemiology

Institutional Training Grants (T32) Personal Funds School Scholarships Other Sponsored Scholarships Individual Predoctoral Fellowships Parent and Diversity F31Training Grants: Many Institutes R36 Dissertation Grants: AHRQ and some institutes NIH Office of Intramural Training and Education fellowships

National Cancer Institute (NCI) National Eye Institute (NEI) National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) National Institute on Aging (NIA) National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) National Institute Child Health Human Development (NICHD) National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) National Institute on Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHDS) National Library of Medicine (NLM (http://www.nlm.nih.gov) National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives, Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP)

Skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Project Director/Principal Investigator Citizen or a non-citizen national of the U.S. lawfully admitted for permanent residence At dissertation research stage of their training Evidence of high academic performance in the sciences and substantial interest in a research area of high priority to the participating Institutes. Enrolled in a PhD or equivalent research degree at a domestic or foreign research institution.

Link to announcement: PA-16-309 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/pa-16-309.html Podcast http://grants.nih.gov/podcasts/all_about_grants/epi sodes/f_series_june_2012.mp3 Doctoral student can receive up to 5 years of funding in aggregate from NRSA F31 awards often limited to 2-3yrs funding Not all institutes participate Standard deadlines 3 times yearly on standard dates with specific dates for diversity Must pursue research and training full time Must address priorities of the institute Individual eligibility: must be at dissertation research stage of doctoral career 12

Link to announcement: PA-16-308 https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/pa-16-308.html Up to 5 years of funding aggregate from NRSA Fellowship may be limited to 2-3 years (check Institute) Many institutes participate Specific deadlines, week later than for parent F31s Requires letter on institutional stationery with official signature certifying eligibility Must pursue research and training full time Applicants do not need to be at the dissertation research stage of their doctoral program 13

Individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups The following racial and ethnic groups have been shown to be underrepresented in biomedical research: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders. In addition, it is recognized that under-representation can vary from setting to setting and individuals from racial or ethnic groups that can be convincingly demonstrated to be underrepresented by the grantee institution are eligible for support under this program (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showpub.cfm?topid=2&subid=27). Individuals with disabilities Allowed to make the case for underrepresentation Individuals from socially, culturally economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds that have inhibited their ability to pursue a career in healthrelated research- these are not usually awarded past the undergraduate level 14

Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 F30 $1,215,913 $1,527,853 $1,864,752 $2,254,972 $3,016,882 $3,720,575 $4,715,285 $5,471,693 $6,227,095 $7,262,517 $9,317,342 $12,843,011 F31 $12,592,574 $15,182,943 $16,727,887 $21,909,345 $25,796,400 $30,084,619 $33,832,418 $35,668,413 $39,085,839 $41,115,964 $41,017,503 $42,278,259 F32 $54,530,570 $67,630,039 $66,622,489 $69,452,195 $71,436,894 $72,838,163 $72,598,477 $76,513,573 $76,972,492 $71,497,366 $72,056,660 $66,087,098 F33 $490,855 $848,753 $555,611 $832,790 $578,906 $1,018,091 $826,283 $785,565 $595,247 $813,426 $700,701 $444,613 F34 $125,847 $148,886 $143,428 $78,946 $87,445 $135,891 $94,517 $86,527 $44,110 $44,110 $24,030 T32 $322,729,394 $383,036,992 $406,751,603 $444,921,883 $497,424,833 $549,907,107 $569,191,273 $575,344,879 $560,609,687 $577,967,599 $573,025,996 $580,933,718 T34 $17,430,204 $20,076,070 $21,935,584 $24,031,592 $25,411,858 $25,049,860 $24,303,241 $23,962,495 $22,601,835 $21,975,701 $19,942,735 $21,818,852 T35 $6,174,952 $7,243,693 $7,295,450 $7,818,793 $7,959,251 $9,107,591 $9,359,119 $9,618,065 $8,864,103 $8,681,193 $7,505,582 $7,053,139 T36 $1,646,187 $1,526,173 $3,114,722 $4,563,809 $5,769,410 $5,148,213 $6,204,846 $6,223,143 $6,717,167 $6,736,252 $9,315,770 $8,420,849 T90 $3,335,479 $4,076,003 $6,937,845 $6,722,582 $7,234,290 $2,345,392 TL1 $3,215,140 $7,628,021 $11,011,851 $11,798,229 TU2 $201,918 $205,391 $208,189 $75,137 $191,432 Total Funding $416,981,710 $497,221,402 $525,011,526 $575,864,325 $637,481,879 $697,212,028 $724,666,329 $737,958,545 $731,945,697 $750,636,163 $751,152,460 $754,023,160

Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 F30 $15,253,640 $15,697,225 $16,316,709 $17,609,649 $19,249,794 F31 $40,341,205 $41,335,183 $42,468,078 $44,650,964 $44,627,322 F32 $70,010,439 $70,338,146 $70,331,404 $69,376,170 $69,827,752 F33 $89,619 $108,646 $474,695 $215,702 $104,014 F34 T32 $577,320,176 $570,189,349 $556,708,314 $529,315,730 $525,284,218 T34 $22,544,118 $22,400,781 $21,960,058 $21,000,075 $17,159,859 T35 $6,339,119 $6,315,948 $6,859,469 $6,415,969 $6,532,553 T36 $8,534,336 $9,186,074 $9,733,709 $9,025,715 $8,730,325 T90 $1,451,524 $4,066,103 $6,331,709 $5,419,846 $6,124,679 TL1 $12,212,793 $11,630,583 $10,952,513 $12,975,664 $10,502,370 TU2 Total Funding $754,096,969 $751,268,038 $742,136,658 $716,005,484 $708,142,886

Year # reviewed # awarded Success Rate (%) 2000 551 285 52 2001 698 408 59 2002 729 389 53 2003 972 414 43 2004 1227 478 39 2005 1425 446 31 2006 1651 500 30 2007 1611 552 34 2008 1500 518 35 2009 1377 499 36 2010 1561 480 31 2011 1498 487 33 2012 1770 505 29 2013 ~1800 ~550 ~30

NIH Institute/Center # reviewed # awarded Success Rate (%) Total Funding NCCAM 3 1 33.3% $43,270 NCI 349 109 31.2% $3,907,028 NEI 8 1 12.5% $34,394 NHGRI 9 0 0.0% $0 NHLBI 48 17 35.4% $613,743 NIA 120 25 20.8% $922,507 NIAAA 63 28 44.4% $1,040,953 NIAID 67 25 37.3% $859,694 NIAMS 62 6 9.7% $206,797 NIBIB 47 13 27.7% $481,792 NICHD 80 16 20.0% $578,294 NIDA 109 35 32.1% $1,324,079 NIDCD 77 21 27.3% $761,331 NIDCR 33 14 42.4% $540,366 NIDDK 51 15 29.4% $490,924 NIEHS 4 2 50.0% $73,230 NIGMS 80 24 30.0% $834,660 NIMH 233 54 23.2% $1,922,921 NINDS 370 96 25.9% $3,581,999 NINR 73 29 39.7% $1,105,942 Total 1,886 531 28.2% $19,323,924

Ph.D. Field of Study Total Number of 2011 Ph.D.s NIH-Supported Ph.D. Recipients % of Total Supported by the NIH Health Sciences 2,124 216 10.2% Environmental Health 56 2 3.6% Epidemiology 315 75 23.8% Gerontology 15 4 26.7% Health Sciences, General 41 1 2.4% Health Sciences, Other 83 10 12.0% Health Systems/Services Administration 86 5 5.8% Kinesiology/Exercise Science 198 5 2.5% Medicinal/Pharmaceutical Sciences 275 22 8.0% Nursing Science 532 36 6.8% Oral Biology/Oral Pathology 22 3 13.6% Public Health 270 28 10.4% Rehabilitation/Therapeutic Services 60 5 8.3% Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology 111 14 12.6% Veterinary Sciences 60 6 10.0% Social Sciences & Psychology 6,538 235 3.6% Psychology 3,297 179 5.4% Clinical Psychology 1,236 67 5.4% Cognitive Psychology and Psycholinguistics 203 13 6.4% Counseling 432 3 0.7% Developmental and Child Psychology 218 24 11.0% Experimental Psychology 146 12 8.2% Human Development and Family Studies 146 8 5.5% Personality Psychology 23 2 8.7% Physiological/Psychobiology 78 18 23.1% Psychology, General 230 5 2.2% Psychology, Other 210 9 4.3% Psychometrics and Quantitative Psychology 35 5 14.3% School Psychology 112 1 0.9% Social Psychology 228 12 5.3% Social Sciences 3,241 56 1.7% Anthropology 555 7 1.3% Area/Ethnic/Cultural/Gender Studies 111 1 0.9% Criminal Justice and Corrections 80 1 1.3% Criminology 103 2 1.9% Demography/Population Studies 30 1 3.3% Economics 1,096 10 0.9% Linguistics 272 1 0.4% Public Policy Analysis 223 6 2.7% Social Sciences, Other 115 3 2.6% Sociology 656 24 3.7%

Median Time to Degree for Trainees* 6.3 years Completion Rate for Trainees* 80.1% Median Age at Ph.D. 30 Post-Graduation Plans Definite Plans for a Post-doc 46.2% Definite Plans for Employment 11.2% Indefinite 25.2% Other 17.4% Gender Female 53.6% Male 46.4% Race/Ethnicity American Indian/Alaska Native 0.3% Asian 11.3% African American 5.9% Hispanic 7.9% White 69.8% Other (including Multi-racial) 4.0% Unknown 0.7% Disability Status No Disability 93.2% Disability 3.4% Unknown 3.4% Percent Married at Ph.D. Female 42.8% Male 46.4% Percent with Children at Ph.D. Female 17.0% Male 18.9%

NIH Institute/Center # reviewed # awarded Success Rate (%) NCCAM 17 5 29.4 NEI 13 6 46.2 NHLBI 37 11 29.7 NIAID 58 12 20.7 NIDDK 31 9 29.0 NIEHS 4 1 25.0 NIGMS 72 20 27.8 NINR 78 24 30.8

Receipt Cycle 1 Application Receipt Date April 8 Diversity April 13 (AIDS/AIDS-related: May 7) Initial Review Date Council Review Date Earliest Possible Start Date June/July Sept/Oct December Receipt Cycle 2 Receipt Cycle 3 August 8 Diversity August 13 (AIDS/AIDS-related: September 7) December 8 Diversity Dec. 13 (AIDS/AIDS-related: December 7) Oct/Nov Jan/Feb April Feb/March May/June July

Determine which NIH institute is the best fit for your project (discuss with mentor). See Table of IC-specific Information, Requirements and Staff Contacts in PA-16-309 or PA-16-308 Check NIH Reporter for funded F31s by that Institute Does your project fits into current Institute priorities? Does your mentor have grants funded by that institute? Contact fellowship program officer (PO) at the Institute(s) by phone to discuss proposal and fit with the Institute s scientific goals Contact Info http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/contacts/parent_f31.html http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/contacts/parent_f31_diversity.html Refer to the conversation and the PO by name in application Cover Letter 27

Steps: 1. Find appropriate PO at your institute 2. Send brief email asking to set up a time to discuss your proposal Attach a 1-page specific aims or a brief description training goals, sponsors, and research idea 3. On the phone, briefly review your project and training goals 4. Ask specific questions about your project: Is research in line with the Institute s priorities? (read website first) Advice about the training aims? (E.g., Do they support projects that use CBPR? Qualitative vs. quantitative approaches?) Any unique issues or concerns about your project (e.g., sponsor/cosponsor)? Any other advice?

Training grant F31 (not R36) Training is a central component Training dictates Mentors (who provide training) Research project (uses the new skills, methods, literature, etc. in which you are getting trained) Must provide concrete areas for training. For example: Methods (meta-analysis, structural equation modeling, qualitative coding, CBPR); new literatures. How do you obtain this training? Coursework: check out summer courses (e.g., Michigan s ICPSR, Columbia s Epidemiology & Population Health Summer Institute) Mentorship Seminar series: CPRC, HIV Center grand rounds, etc. Research project must use training specified E.g., must be a meta-analysis if you get training in that area Cannot be training already offered as part of your program. 29

Goals for NRSA Fellowship Training and Career 1 page Activities planned under the award (e.g., research, coursework, teaching) 1 page Tables can be a good way of showing this information Selection of co-sponsors and institution 1 page 30

Sponsor is the Senior/Key Person 1 (Sponsor). Must include: her/his information (up to 6 pages) and biosketch. You may have to assist in preparing this material. Sponsor must be: Active investigator in area of research training Committed to your training and Supervising the proposed research Must document availability of research support and facilities These must map onto your training plan and activities as well as research If sponsor is a junior faculty member, you might benefit from a Co-Sponsor (tenured faculty member with relevant research and training experience - funded by that institute) May want a mentoring team (sponsor is the lead) to cover all training and research needs 32

As soon as you have identified a mentor, you should reach out to your mentor s grants administrator for guidance on submitting the application through Columbia s Sponsored Projects Administration (SPA) office. SPA submits all grant proposals to extramural funding agencies, and are required to review the application for compliance and completeness. SPA deadlines for grants must be met. The grant administrator will be responsible for filling out much of the NIH application, and coordinating the review process to ensure that you have met all the requirements of the RFA and all internal requirements have also been addressed. The application will be submitted to SPA as a final document for submission to the agency. While fellowship applications are much smaller in scope than standard NIH research applications, the administrative review process is the same.

Things to keep in mind: Check how many business days SPA requires to receive drafts of the application before the agency deadline, which means you must have a complete budget, finalized biosketches, and letters of support submitted to your grants administrator 12-15 business days prior to the agency deadline to allow time for review and compilation. A final copy of all components of the research and training section is due to SPA 5 business days before the agency deadline, so should be submitted to your grants administrator 7-8 business days prior to the agency deadline to allow time for review and compilation.

Things to keep in mind: You will need to have completed a financial conflict of interest (FCOI) disclosure and completed training courses for HIPAA and human subjects research in RASCAL (TC0019 and TC0087). Your mentor will also be expected to have these courses completed and an up-to-date FCOI on file. Even though faculty mentors do not receive salary support from these grant applications, Columbia requires that we obtain approval from the faculty member s administrative home department for their proposed mentorship. This means that, at minimum, we will need to obtain approval from their Department Administrator in RASCAL, and we might also need to submit an in-kind letter for their support, depending on the proposed time commitment.

Budgets are straightforward. See: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not- OD-12-033.html (note: updated 2/2014) Standard NIH stipend in FY 2016 is $23,376 (Notice Number: NOT-OD-16-047) Tuition and Fees (60% of level requested up to $16,000); In other words, NIH will cover up to a maximum of $16,000 Institutional allowance: health insurance, research supplies, equipment, books, travel to meetings ($4,200) No indirect costs for the institution No funds for research expenses (data collection, etc.)

NOT mentor/sponsor (since s/he writes statement about your qualifications in the grant) Usually the Departmental chair, cluster director (if applicable), Director of Doctoral Program, thesis committee member who is not a sponsor, or faculty research collaborator Choose someone who knows you well, who likes you, and for whom you have done good work Must use fellowship-specific form and be submitted electronically: https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/reference/submitref ereeinformation.jsp 37

Research Support Available [Attach] tailor to specific needs Previous Trainees [Attach], want record of prior mentorship Training Plan, Environment & Research Facilities [Attach] # of Trainees Supervised During Fellowship [Attach] (not too many) Applicant s Qualifications and Potential for Research Career [Attach] (this is critical) 39

4 pages Personal statement What goes into a personal statement How does it support the goals of the research How do the other components support the personal statement Review biosketch examples from successful applicants

4 pages Personal statement What goes into a personal statement How does it support the goals of the research How does it support the mentor role Specific to application and applicant mentee How do the other components support the personal statement Review mentor biosketches

Feasibility of the plan Develop design and problem solve issues Outline the whole structure One paragraph/major idea Complete the whole draft before editing Edit and edit and make the format highlight the key ideas Don t pack the page Leave time to polish the writing

Although the binding of peperoni (Pe) to pizza (Pi) has been well established, the nature of the binding cite (BS) remains elusive, as does the relation between Pe binding and the reward experienced by ingesting food. In this study we sought to explore both of these issues. Our hypothesis is that Pe will bind to Pi and the nature of that binding will affect the reward value of the product. First, will will determine the binding characteristics of Pe and other ligands (LIG) to Pi. We will explore several variable including (a) which Pi surface is exposed, (b) the method of target preparation, and (c) nature, concentration, and size of the ligands. Second, we will use a quantitative structureactivity model and show that there is a strong relation between Pi conformation and reward value. We will use a rodent model to examine how variables explored in our first aim impact on the reward value of the product. From Fischer BA and Zigmond MJ. An Introduction to Grant Writing. 2008

Although the binding of pepperoni (Pe) to pizza (Pi) has been well established, the nature of the binding site remains elusive, as does the relation between Pe binding and the reward experienced by the individual who is ingesting the food. In this study we sought to explore both of these issues. Hypothesis: Pe will bind to Pi at a single site and the affinity of that binding for a given Pi substrate will be inversely related to the reward value of the product, reward being defined in an animal model as the number of level presses an animal will make to obtain a Pe-Pi pellet Aim 1: To determine the binding characteristics of Pe and other ligands to Pi. We will explore several variables including (a) which Pi surface is exposed (dorsal versus ventral), (b) the method of target preparation (including baking and boiling), and (c) nature, concentration, and size of the Pe ligands. Aim 2: To use a quantitative structure-activity model to determine the relation between Pi conformation and reward value. We will use a rodent model to examine how variables explored in Aim 1 impact on the reward value of the product, with reward defined in terms of rate of lever pressing.

1. Intro (1 page, only included in resubmissions) 2. Specific Aims (1 page) 3. Research Strategy (6 pages) a. Significance b. Innovation (only if specified in FOA or by Institute) c. Approach (Research Design & Methods) Overall strategy, methodology, analyses Potential problems, alternative strategies, benchmarks for success If developmental, describe strategy to establish feasibility Mention any hazards and discuss precautions (if applicable) Include courses you plan to take to support the research training 4. Human Subjects and Inclusion etc. 45

Graduate program in which enrolled, structure of the program, Required milestones and their usual timing courses, teaching commitments, qualifying exams, etc. Average time to degree over the past 10 years. Describe the frequency and method by which the program monitors and evaluates student progress. Describe the progress/status of the F31 applicant in relation to the program's time line. Include the name of the individual providing this information at the end of the description. Check if your department has provided boilerplate language for this section. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-14-094.html#sthash.c1wvhdgw.dpuf Upload in Other Attachments

F31s are training, not research grants Reviewers focus on Applicant fellow Potential for a productive career Need for the proposed training Degree to which the research training proposal, the sponsor, and the environment will satisfy applicant s needs.

Fellowship applicant Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants Research Training Plan Training Potential Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training Additional criteria (among others) Human subjects, budget, training in responsible conduct of research

Only top half of all applications are discussed All receive a score All receive a written critique Priority Score (1 to 9) (see handout) 1 to 3 High Impact 4 to 5 Moderate Impact Very good - good 7 to 9 Low Impact Note: 9-point system effective Jan 2009 Percentile: Varies (percentile of all applications in current and two previous rounds)

10-12 Members Standing committee or Special Emphasis Panel Reviewers Primary and Secondary: read grant, write critiques, present application to group Tertiary: reads grant, writes brief critique, adds additional comments as necessary Discussion (all members) Attempt at consensus ; dissenting opinions Assignment of score (all members) Reviewers are blind to final score and funding decisions 51

era Commons notifications via email Assignment to Scientific Review Group (SRG)/Study Section Review of applications Notification Priority Score, percentile (not always calculated) Posting of summary statement reviews (critiques) may take several weeks Advisory Council 52

Scientific merit Program priorities Availability of funds Rare to receive funding at first submission so build need for resubmission into your timeline 53

Get feedback! Speak to program officer Carefully address reviewers comments Address comments in resubmission Resubmissions usually go to same review group, but not always to same reviewers Can make request: there was no one with public health expertise on the panel. They were all laboratory scientists. Talk with the program officer Persistence pays Don t get discouraged

NIH Mock Study Section Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbdxi 6l4dOA&feature=youtu.be

If there is enough interest, set up small grant writing groups (4-5 members) Members would bounce ideas and text off each other, and critique R 2 facilitate groups

Dr. Leslie Davidson or your lead for doctoral programs Office of Research Resources Craig Kandell ckk7@columbia.edu 212-305-3615 Dr. Pam Factor-Litvak prf1@columbia.edu 212-305-7851