Grantspersonship Beth A. Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,USA
Survival Skills and Ethics Program www.pitt.edu/~survival Topics include Writing research articles Making oral presentations Obtaining advanced training Teaching Job hunting Managing personnel Obtaining funding
Acknowledgments Lillian Pubols (NINDS) Miner, Miner & Griffith Proposal Planning and Writing Ogden and Goldberg Research Proposals: A Guide to Success...and many others
Types of grants objective training/career fellowship career award research conference equipment infrastructure form investigator-initiated individual groups set-aside grants contracts
Types of grants objective training/career fellowship career award research conference equipment infrastructure form investigator-initiated individual groups set-aside grants contracts
Availability of grants Other government non-government organizations philanthropic foundations health voluntaries corporations private individuals
Why don t people get funded?
Why people don t get funded because it is too hard?
Why people don t get funded because it is too hard? already accomplished harder tasks
Why people don t get funded inadequate concept
Why people don t get funded inadequate concept A good idea is necessary, but not sufficient.
Why people don t get funded inadequate concept poor presentation
Why people don t get funded inadequate concept poor presentation poor understanding of process
Why people don t get funded inadequate concept poor presentation poor understanding of process lack of persistence
Why people don t get funded inadequate concept poor presentation poor understanding of process lack of persistence Good grants are not funded, excellent ones are
Grantspersonship Preparing 1. establish frame of mind 2. develop concept 3. identify funding source 4. inform your institution 5. refine concept Submitting 9. get approvals 10. obtain assignment 11. submit application 12. provide add l material 13. ensure receipt Writing 6. think like a reviewer 7. outline, write, edit 8. get feedback & revise Responding 14. await review 15. study report 16. respond to report
Grantspersonship Preparing 1. establish frame of mind 2. develop concept 3. identify funding source 4. inform your institution 5. refine concept Submitting 9. get approvals 10. obtain assignment 11. submit application 12. provide add l material Think ahead and plan backwards 13. ensure receipt Writing 6. think like a reviewer 7. outline, write, edit 8. get feedback & revise Responding 14. await review 15. study report 16. respond to report
Grantspersonship >3 m 1. establish frame of mind 2. develop concept 3. identify funding source 4. inform your institution 5. refine concept 9. get approvals 10. obtain assignment 11. submit application 12. provide add l material 13. ensure receipt 2-60d 0 d 2 m 6. think like a reviewer 7. outline, write, edit 8. get feedback & revise 14. await review 15. study report 16. respond to report
Phase I: Preparing 1. establish frame of mind 2. develop concept 3. identify funding source 4. inform your institution 5. refine concept
Establish frame of mind often: little enthusiasm
Establish frame of mind often: little enthusiasm better: a wonderful opportunity
General points to keep in mind proposal in contrast to research manuscript read by many fewer likely to have much greater impact material can be recycled from previous ms into future ms
Develop a Concept That FITS
Develop a concept that FITS Fills a gap in knowledge
Develop a concept that FITS Fills a gap in knowledge Important to the field funding agency you
Develop a concept that FITS Fills a gap in knowledge Important Tests a hypothesis
Develop a concept that FITS Fills a gap in knowledge Important Tests a hypothesis Short-term investment in long-term goals
Identify Funding Source
Identify funding source select agency
Source of information internet reference books colleagues acknowledgements on papers office of research at your institution libraries
Identify funding source select agency improve odds: match objectives
Identify funding source select agency improve odds: match objectives research interests
Identify funding source select agency improve odds: match objectives research interests personal characteristics career phase gender developing nation
Identify funding source select agency improve odds: match objectives communicate with program staff
Ask program staff is concept relevant
Ask program staff is concept relevant current instructions
Ask program staff is concept relevant current instructions who reviews
Ask program staff is concept relevant current instructions who reviews what are criteria
Ask program staff is concept relevant current instructions who reviews what are criteria funding percentage level (amount, years)
Ask program staff is concept relevant current instructions who reviews what are criteria funding percentage level (amount, years) characteristics of strong proposals weak proposals
Ask program staff is concept relevant current instructions who reviews what are criteria funding percentage level (amount, years) characteristics strong proposals weak proposals appendix material ok? when, to whom?
Ask program staff is concept relevant current instructions who reviews what are criteria funding percentage level (amount, years) characteristics strong proposals weak proposals appendix material ok? when, to whom? pre-review possible
Contacting program staff in their offices phone email letter in person (by appointment) at professional meetings
Inform Your Institution
Inform your institution departmental chairperson office of research secretarial assistant fiscal assistant people to give feedback
Develop Concept
Refine Develop Concept
Refine your concept review current literature
Refine your concept review current literature talk with colleagues
Refine your concept review current literature talk with colleagues think hard
Refine your concept review current literature talk with colleagues think hard think harder
Phase II: Writing the proposal 6. think like a reviewer 7. outline, write, edit 8. get feedback & revise
Think like a reviewer
What do they want to know?
Think like a reviewer
What do they want to know?
Time spent reading proposal primary reviewer (writes report) reader (no report) discussion at study section 7-8 hr 1 hr 20 min Survey by Janet Rasey Proposals reviewed were NIH R01
Write for the reviewer use standard organization provide clear, and very visible answers to review criteria anticipate reviewer's questions and provide answers state relation to funder s mission
Write for the reviewer, part 2 use standard organization provide clear, and very visible answers to review criteria anticipate reviewer's questions and provide answers state relation to funder s mission
Phase II: Writing the proposal 6. think like a reviewer 7. outline, write, edit 8. get feedback & revise
Think like a reviewer
Stock the sections Research plan Specific Aims Background and Significance Preliminary Data Research Design and Methods Budget and Justification References
Outline, Write, and Edit
Outline, Write, and Edit being with a full outline
Outline, Write, and Edit being with a full outline write initial draft without editing
Outline, Write, and Edit being with a full outline write initial draft without editing edit thoroughly
Outline, Write, and Edit being with a full outline write initial draft without editing edit thoroughly
Editing avoid vague qualifiers use active voice
General organization have a table of contents make it easy to find key points bold face headings and terms cross references some redundancy
Appearance
Appearance select good type face
Appearance select good type face good Times Roman Century Schoolbook
Appearance select good type face good never! Times Roman courier Century Schoolbook Helvetica
Appearance select good type face good never! Times Roman courier Century Schoolbook Helvetica size > 11 pt
Appearance select good type face good never! Times Roman courier Century Schoolbook Helvetica size > 11 pt occasionally use special fonts bold face italics
Appearance select good type face write in paragraphs
Appearance select good type face write in paragraphs 1 major idea per paragraph topic sentences use headers frequently
Appearance select good type face write in paragraphs let your text indent paragraphs skip line between paragraphs
A. Background and Significance The importance of training in "survival skills:" Success in science requires a solid background in a specific scientific discipline as well as extensive laboratory experience. However, for individuals to develop into accomplished professionals, they must acquire survival skills, that is, they must be able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtain employment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, and behave responsibly (1,2,3).This has always been the case and is becoming even more true as our doctoral and postdoctoral trainees need to be prepared for a variety of vocations (3, 4) In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of our trainees will ultimately find themselves doing research in industry, teaching in 4-year colleges, or serving in some administrative capacity. Others will combine their PhDs with professional degrees in medicine or law and become clinical researchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the the formulation of public policy. With many of these new vocations, extra-laboratory skills become even more essential (3). Traditionally, higher education in the sciences has focused almost exclusively on the content of the scientific discipline and on research methodology. Indeed, individuals employed in research and related fields often complain that although their academic training provided them with a sound foundation in their
A. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE The importance of training in "survival skills." Success in science requires a solid background in a specific scientific discipline as well as extensive laboratory experience. However, for individuals to develop into accomplished professionals, they must acquire survival skills, that is, they must be able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtain employment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, and behave responsibly (Bloom 1992; Bird 1994; National Academy of Sciences 1995). This has always been the case and is becoming even more true as our doctoral and postdoctoral trainees need to be prepared for a variety of vocations (National Academy of Sciences 1995; Varmus 1995). In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of our trainees will ultimately find themselves doing research in industry, teaching in 4-year colleges, or serving in some administrative capacity. Others will combine their PhDs with professional degrees in medicine or law and become clinical researchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the formulation of public
Follow-up survey Participants from our 1995, 1996, and 1997 trainer-of-trainers workshops were recently sent a survey to see what they had done to provide training in survival skills and ethics at their institution. (The 1995 workshop was made possible by an earlier grant.) Thus far, slightly more than half of all former participants have responded. Even if one assumes that none of the non-respondents did not implement any instruction at all (unlikely), the results of this survey still provide a clear indication of the impact of our program. Instruction implemented by participants: The total number of hours of instruction in survival skills and ethics that was provided in 1997-98 by former participants was compared Figure 1 Implementation with the instruction offered in the year prior to their attendance (Figure 1). The number of students taught in new or preexisting (but expanded) courses increased by an average of 25 hr per year among the respondents. instruction provided (hr) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 before '97-98 1995 1996 1997 Workshop participant
Appearance select good type face write in paragraphs let your text b r e a t h conform to instructions! - type size - margins - # pages - sections
Check photocopy quality
Get Feedback
Asking for help Yes program staff former reviewer colleague NO! current reviewer
Get feedback establish mentors early
Get feedback establish mentors early provide clear instructions what when
Get feedback establish mentors early provide clear instructions take no for an answer
Get feedback establish mentors early provide clear instructions take no for an answer remind gently
Get feedback establish mentors early provide clear instructions take no for an answer remind gently show appreciation
Get Feedback and Revise
Phase III: Submitting 9. get approvals 10. obtain assignment 11. submit application 12. provide additional material 13. ensure receipt
Get approvals
Get approvals use of subjects human (IRB) animals (IACUC) safety agreements collaborators consultants university administrators
Get approvals use of subjects human (IRB) animals (IACUC) Allow safety enough agreements time! collaborators consultants university administrators
Obtain Assignment
Obtain the right assignment program relevance availability of funds sympathetic review competent reviewers
Clues for assignment officer title abstract list of key words specific aims cover letter input from program staff
Submit Application
Submit application know the deadline postmark versus arrival absolute or flexible
Submit application know the deadline anticipate problems bad weather equipment failures holidays sickness
Submit application know the deadline anticipate problems give yourself extra time (everything takes longer than you think)
Submit application know the deadline anticipate problems give yourself extra time what if you are late?
Submit application know the deadline anticipate problems give yourself extra time what if you are late? call and ask there often is a grace period
Submit application know the deadline anticipate problems give yourself extra time what if you are late? call and ask there often is a grace period sometimes there isn t
Submit application know the deadline anticipate problems give yourself extra time what if you are late? also send copy to program officer
Ensure Receipt
Provide Additional Material
Phase IV: Responding 14. await review 15. study report 16. respond to report
Await Review
What will be happening 1. assignment
What will be happening 1. assignment 2. evaluation staff peers sitting panel external reviewers site visit (rare)
What will be happening 1. assignment 2. evaluation 3. prep of report, which may not be available need to request take 2-3 mo be incomplete contain contradictions
Study Report and Respond
Possible outcomes scored high gray area low
Possible outcomes scored high gray area low rejected
Possible outcomes scored high gray area funding? low rejected
Reasons for rejection: Research proposals unoriginal ideas diffuse, superficial lack of knowledge uncertain future directions inadequate rationale poor reasoning unrealistic workload lack of expt l detail uncritical approach
Reasons for rejection: Fellowships weak candidate productivity letters training poor mentor research funding experience inadequate proposal quality of research relevance to training weak institution colleagues support
If budget is reduced estimate what can be accomplished renegotiate objectives experiments save rest for future application
If score is in gray zone talk to program officer consider providing additional material rebuttal evidence of feasibility
quit If funding is not provided
If funding is not provided quit application MUST have merit if you followed previous steps
If funding is not provided quit same application with rebuttal
If funding is not provided quit same application with rebuttal revised application some changes some rebuttal
If funding is not provided quit same application with rebuttal revised application some changes some rebuttal request new reviewers
Persistence pays > 50% NIH applicants funded
Behave responsibly throughout
Behave responsibly source of material text ideas data
Behave responsibly source of material adequacy of methods
Behave responsibly source of material adequacy of methods collaborations
Behave responsibly source of material adequacy of methods collaborations pilot data
Behave responsibly source of material adequacy of methods collaborations pilot data budget
Behave responsibly source of material adequacy of methods collaborations pilot data budget biosketch
Behave responsibly source of material adequacy of methods collaborations pilot data budget biosketch General principle: Do not misrepresent anything.
Advice to junior investigators
Timeline for NIH proposal: From application to funding Date Step Feb 1, 2001 application Jun Jul, 2001 review Aug Sep, 2001 summary statement Nov 1, 2001 revised application Feb Mar 2002 review May Jun, 2002 council meets July 1, 2002 funding begins Assume approximately 18 months.
Advice to junior investigators get funded as soon as possible funding track record helps get more $ jobs, promotions easier with grant proposals often not funded first time
Advice to junior investigators get funded ASAP starting small is fine amount time
Advice to junior investigators get funded ASAP starting small is fine make sure previous work published
Advice to junior investigators get funded ASAP starting small is fine make sure previous work published every proposal should be excellent
Advice to junior investigators get funded ASAP starting small is fine make sure previous work published every proposal should be excellent letters from others can help
Advice to junior investigators get funded ASAP starting small is fine make sure previous work published every proposal should be excellent letters from others can help don t stop till you have more than enough
Components of an Application
Components title abstract research plan objectives significance preliminary data research design, methods
Components title abstract research plan objectives significance preliminary data research design, methods budget budget justification biosketches approvals letters appendix
Components title abstract research plan objectives significance preliminary data research design, methods budget budget justification biosketches approvals letters appendix
Title mini-abstract accurate statement of long-term goals conform to guidelines include key words
Abstract Contents background specific aims unique features methodology expected results method of evaluation generalizability relation to field broad impact
accurate simple interesting not provocative key words Abstract
Research plan Specific aims Background & Significance Preliminary Data Research Design & Methods
state objectives Research plan
Research plan state objectives provide background general literature your work reviewer s work
Research plan state objectives provide background be hypothesesdriven
Research plan state objectives provide background be hypothesesdriven highlight strengths ideas methods
Research plan state objectives provide background be hypothesesdriven highlight strengths emphasize practicality methods preliminary data time & skills
Research plan state objectives provide background be hypothesesdriven highlight strengths emphasize practicality methods preliminary data time & skills discuss outcomes, have contingencies
Methods tell why your method is best
Methods explain why your method is best provide details methodology controls instruments to be used information to be collected: value & limitations precision of data procedures for data analysis interpretation
Methods explain why your method is best provide details identify pitfalls, how will overcome
Methods explain why your method is best provide details identify pitfalls, how will overcome specify alternative method if yours fails
Methods explain why your method is best provide details identify pitfalls, how will overcome specify alternative method list sources of unique materials reagents materials populations
Methods explain why your method is best provide details identify pitfalls, how will overcome specify alternative methods list sources of unique materials consider input from statistician methods for data analyses amt data to collect
Timeline Approximate Timeline (in years) Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 Impact of GDNF on cell death Signaling underlying effects of GDNF Molecular basis of neuroprotection
Project evaluation (included in proposal) specify who will conduct internal external relate measures to objectives include evaluation instrument if available
Personnel
Personnel name individual when possible indicate selection procedures
Collaborators & consultants add skills, expertise add credibility
Biographical sketches include for critical personnel Principal Investigator (PI) Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) Co-Investigators (Co-I) Collaborators Consultants Research assistants
Biographical sketches include for critical personnel highlight relevant accomplishments
Biographical sketches include for critical personnel highlight relevant accomplishments ensure accuracy training, experience publications grant support
Budget reasonable for the project for the agency inflationary increases new costs in subsequent years
Budget service/maintenance costs insurance shipping training to use new equipment
justify all equip carefully
Budget reasonable justify all requests amounts time
Justification personnel % effort on project responsibilities
Justification personnel Ben Aster, Ph.D., 20% effort. Dr. Aster is responsible for program evaluation.
Justification personnel Ben Aster, Ph.D., 20% effort. Dr. Aster is responsible for program evaluation. He develops evaluation instruments, administers surveys, compiles and analyzes the data, initiates follow-up inquiries, and writes evaluation reports.
Justification animals quantity cost at age days housed cost of housing
Budget reasonable justify all requests amounts time explain appearance of overlap
Budget reasonable justify requests explain appearance of overlap new NIH format: modular budgets cost-share when possible funds services equipment
Construction of budget salaries 50,000 supplies 25,000 equipment 15,000
Construction of budget fringe benefits salaries 50,000 fringe benefits (20%) 10,000 supplies 25,000 equipment 15,000
Construction of budget fringe benefits direct costs salaries 50,000 fringe benefits (20%) 10,000 supplies 25,000 equipment 15,000 DC 100,000
Construction of budget fringe benefits direct costs indirect costs salaries 50,000* fringe benefits (20%) 10,000* supplies 25,000* equipment 15,000 DC 100,000 IDC 42,500 Total Award $142,500
Resources and environment to document resources available equipment space facilities support staff
Equipment grants relation to existing resources value added to research in your research unit outside research unit benefits for students implications of not having equipment
Subject welfare know, adhere to guidelines get appropriate approvals
Human subjects characteristics of subjects, population recruiting methods criteria for selection consent procedures potential risks how risks will be minimized benefits to subjects and community inclusion of women and minorities
Vertebrate animals detail proposed use justify species and number veterinary care minimizing stress, discomfort justification for method of euthanasia
Letters letters of agreement obtain from collaborators, consultants to document type, level of involvement access to special reagents, equipment methods populations improve by providing sample
Letters letters of agreement letters of recommendation may be required could be optional could be inconspicuous
Supplementary materials: Some examples coloror enlarged figures reprints of your work updated information results other accomplishments
Supplementary material find out if, when, where never use to circumvent page limits!!
Summary there is money available
Summary there is money available getting it takes a good idea a proper match good grantspersonship persistence
Summary there is money available getting it takes a good idea a proper match good grantspersonship persistence it is hard work
Summary there is money available getting it takes a good idea a proper match good grantspersonship persistence it is hard work it is so worth it!