Grantsmanship and Navigating through the NIH Bill Parks Center for Lung Biology Data on grants and federal budget Demographics and funding trends Grant preparation And after lunch, the review process
What s the Big Deal with NIH Grants? The major source of research dollars in US 2003: $27.1 billion 2004: $28.0 billion (+3.1%) 2.7% 2005: $28.6 billion (+2.2%) 3.4% 2006: $28.6 billion (-0.2%) 3.2% 2007: $29.2 billion (+2.1%) 2.9% 2008: $29.2 billion (0%) 4.0% 2009: $30.4 billion (+4.1%) -1.3% 2010: $31.0 billion (+2%; +6.2%) The gold standard of extramural funding Essential for advancement and promotion Your salary support Inflation Rate Most important: Indirect Costs: $1 = $0.52
Top Recipients of Taxpayers Largesse * 2816 institutions/companies/organizations ranked #2814 ($1): New York City Technical College Stillman College, AL South Bank University, London *~2,000 Submitted
Top Recipients 2007
NIH Funds at UW 50% of Research Funds at UW Come from the NIH 2008 $1,037 - Total grants and contracts $ 760 - Federal funding $ 277 - Non-federal funding
Most Research Funds Go to the SOM Desperate for more information on UW research funding? Go here: www.washington.edu/research/statistics.html
Funds from NIH at UW - Tracks with NIH Budget
With Inflation, Funding Value at UW has Decreased
National Institutes of Health US Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sabelius - H&HS The Boss Francis Collins, MD PhD a former Darwinist and atheist www.darwinism-watch.com
The Bulk (~85%) of the NIH Budget Supports Extramural Research & Training FY2009 President s Budget Request Total NIH Budget Authority $29.2 Billion* Research Mgmt. & Support 3.9% Training 2.7% All Other 5.5% Other Research (Including K Awards) 5.9% Research Centers 9.9% Research Project Grants 52.9% $15.5 Billion R&D Contracts 9.6% Intramural Research 9.7% *~3 days in Iraq
NIH Structure Office of the Director National Institute on Aging National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases National Cancer Institute National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases National Institute on Drug Abuse National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences National Eye Institute National Institute of General Medical Sciences National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National Human Genome Research Institute National Institute of Mental Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke National Institute of Nursing Research National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Fogarty International Center National Center for Research Resources National Library of Medicine National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities NIH Institutes http://www.nih.gov/icd/ Clinical Center Center for Information Technology Center for Scientific Review No funding authority
Appropriations Cancer Heart, Lung & Blood Diabetes, Digestive, Kidney Neurol. Disorders & Stroke Allergy & Infectious Dis. General Med. Sci. Child Hlth. & Human Dev. Deafness & Communication Disorders Research Resources Office of the Director
Bye-bye Growth Change in NIH Appropriations, FY 1995-2007 30 18% 16% 25 14% 20 12% Appropriations Billions $ 15 10% Percent Change 8% 10 6% 4% 5 2% 0 1995 Pre-Doubling 1996 1997 1998 Period of Doubling 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Post Doubling 2005 2006 2007* 0% Fiscal Year
Growth Wasn t That Great Anyway $30 $25 Billions $20 $15 Current Dollars Constant Dollars $10 $5 $0 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977
More Applications + Flat Budget = Reduced Paylines
NIH Award Mechanisms
Award Mechanisms for You Training Awards (Apr 8, Aug 8, Dec 8) F32 (NRSA): 0-7 yrs post MD or PhD Salary support + ~$5K (which UW keeps) Several others Career Development Awards (K s) (Feb 12, Jun 12, Oct 12) K01: Mentored Research Scientist (Ph.D.) K08: Mentored Clinical Scientist (M.D., M.D./Ph.D.) K23: Mentored Patient-Oriented Research 75% effort ($75K cap on salary) + $25K supplies K99/R00: Pathway to Independence K: 2 yr, $90K/yr R: 3 yr, $249K/yr Info: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/pa-06-133.html Several others Institute-specific rules Loan Repayment: http://www.lrp.nih.gov/
Success Rate of F32 (NRSA) Applications Similar for MDs and PhDs
Percent of Fellowships by Institutes - 2007 10% 8% Percent of Awards 6% 4% 2% 0% NIGMS NINR NIEHS NIDCR NIMH NIDCD NICHD NIDDK NHLBI NIBIB NIAMS NCCAM NIAAA NIDA NIA NINDS NCI NIAID NEI NHGRI NCRR Par/cipa/ng NIH Ins/tutes and Centers
Success Rates - K08s
K08 Applications and Awards by NIH Institute - 2007 Number of Applica/ons/Awards Applica/ons Awards Par/cipa/ng NIH Ins/tutes and Centers
More Entry Level Career Awards K08: Mentored Clinical Scientist K23: Mentored Patient-Oriented Research K01: Mentored Research Scientist K25: Mentored Quantitative Research Developmen K99: Pathway to Independence
Grant Preparation Read other applications Seek advice and input Be scholarly Be fastidious Guide your readers by the hand Useful sites for planning: Lots of info and links: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm Find and apply: http://www.grants.gov/ Really good site Detailed, multilevel checklist: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/charts/checklists.htm Electronic submission: http://era.nih.gov/electronicreceipt/ Due Dates: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm CRISP (Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects) Database of all NIH grants Know your competition http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generate_screen
Grant Preparation Formulate your ideas Testable hypothesis that advances a field Generate preliminary data Supports all hypotheses Confirms feasibility Not so critical for F32 (typically comes from the mentor) Publish a paper The importance of this cannot be stressed enough Read successful applications!
Grant Preparation (cont) Training potential New directions and technology Develop relationships outside of your immediate lab Mentoring Advisory committee Seek advice Enlist collaborators, consultants Special reagents, techniques, advice Obtain letters Evidence of enhanced training potential Courses and Compliance (if and as needed) Research ethics Biostatistics Animal training & regulation, HIPAA, etc. Specialized courses
Think Know the literature & be critical Issues Controversies Unfounded dogma What gaps will your work fill? Give yourself plenty of time Don t submit until ready Grant Preparation (cont) Know what Institute to target and what they are in interested in RFA, Program announcements, etc. By Institutes: http://www.nih.gov/icd/ Total NIH search and more: http://www.grants.gov/
Grant Preparation (cont) Take care of the administrative stuff Budget and budget justification Human, animal, biohazards approvals (Just in Time) Resources Your statement, experience, transcripts Mentor s statement Experience as a mentor Funding Training plan and career development Co-mentor? Supporting letters (at least 3) Biosketch Separate abstracts/reviews from peer-reviewed, original papers, please. Complete references
Grant Preparation (cont) Be aware of the review criteria Candidate (i.e., you) Scholastic performance Research and/or clinical experience Career goals Publications Recommendations Sponsor (mentor) and Training Environment Mentor s track record and funding Make up of the lab (other postdocs, students, etc.) Classes, seminars, journal clubs Collaborators and other labs Tools Research Training Proposal Training Potential Grant sections - Pages: 10 [F32], 15 [K], 25 [R01] Specific Aims Background and Significance Preliminary Data Experimental Plan References, Human subjects, Animals, Letters, etc. Appendix Each section a separate PDF
Specific Aims: 1 page Introductory paragraphs State purpose and importance Concise summary of key findings A clearly stated hypothesis: My hypothesis is Be clear and mechanistic Don t be obvious or tautological: the cytoskeleton is important for cell structure. Relate how aims will address the big picture (long-term goals) and advance the field List of aims (3-4) Importance for Reviewers Many say this is the most important section
Background and Significance: 2-5 pages Critically review the literature No limit on number of citations Original papers over reviews Do not be afraid to say you disagree with something (but explain why and how you will correct this travesty) Question dogma Limit discussion to things (pathways, diseases, molecules, etc.) you will study Justify your overall experimental approaches and models Provide graphics (cartoon, model, pathways, etc.) What are the gaps in our knowledge? What new information will your work provide? Don t be shy Use first-person pronouns (I, we) Show your enthusiasm Know your audience CSR database (see review section below)
Preliminary Data: 1-8 pages Summarize relevant experience and contributions OK to use data from mentor s - but give appropriate credit Provide interesting data Demonstrate your ability to do things Demonstrate feasibility of doing new things Critically interpret your own data - say what it means Thus, these data indicate Do not expect your reviewers to make your conclusions! Make figures clear Number the figures Embed figures near text Include legends (but not overly detailed) Do not rely on materials in the appendix
Experimental Plan: 5+ pages This is the meat More narrative than technical For each aim, provide: Rationale Approach Experiments Expected results and interpretation Potential pitfalls and alternative strategies Future directions (short) Quantification and statistics Methods Justify selection of techniques Detailed methods are boring, but Give priority to new or difficult methods Kit Rule Aim Description YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C Priorities Time line at the end of this section Logical flow from aim to aim Caution: do not make an aim dependent on a preceding aim Role of matrilysin in ischemia-reperfusion repair Neutrophil activation in vivo Neutrophil binding to KC/syndecan-1 complexes Requirement of syndecan-1 shedding Syndecan-1 association with integrins Binding sites of KC:syndecan-1 interaction Neutrophil activation with disrupted KC/syndecan-1. Inhibit KC/syndecan-1 interaction in vivo
Presentation and Style Clean, concise English Grammar and syntax Active vs. passive voice Avoid pleonasms: has been shown to Read: Strunk and White, The Elements of Style Read: Robert A. Day, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper Paragraphs and spaces Don t make it look overly dense or cluttered Fonts, margins, etc. Use some system (bold, underline, numbers) to indicate sections and subsections Flow Logical transitions from sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph Do the work for your reader
Presentation and Style Zero tolerance for typos Figures should be self explanatory Legends Label the X and Y axes Point to or demarcate key features Avoid excessive abbreviations Avoid vague terms: e.g., affects, influences Cite complete references Take the reviewer by the hand Don t make them think Don t require them to look elsewhere for information Look at successful applications
A February 12 Deadline - K08 Jan-Dec: Nov-Jan: Dec: Jan: Feb-Mar: Mar: Apr: Apr: June: May-Jun: Jun: Jul: Sep 1: Think, advice, preliminary data, manuscripts Download forms, write, seek advice, get feedback, rewrite Admin stuff: Budgets, letters, etc. Submit near-completed draft for routing/approval Send to UW Office of Research Sorted by CSR Assigned an unique number: K08-HL077765-01 Assigned to a Study Section Reviewers picked and assigned by SRA Applications sent to reviewers Supplementary data Study section meets Scores uploaded to era Commons Summary statement uploaded/emailed Institute Council $$$$ or resubmit (now: K08-HL077765-01A1)
UW - Office of Sponsored Programs UW OSP, with lots of links to grant writing sites: http://www.washington.edu/research/osp/index.php
Life after a K08 - Award Mechanisms for Grown-ups Investigator Initiated Awards (Feb 5, Jun 5, Oct 5) R03: Small Research Grants - innovative, high-risk ($50K/yr, 2 yr) R21/R23: Exploratory and Development Grants R01: Independent Research Grants - 3-5 yr, renewable, variable budgets Multi-PI Grants Center Grants & Roadmap Initiatives Other mechanisms
New and Early Stage Investigators Not previously a PI on any PHS-supported research project other than on Small R-series (R03, R15, R21) Development career awards (K01, K08, and K12). Non-mentored career awards (K02, K04) Details at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/ Early Stage Investigators Within 10 yrs of terminal degree or completion of medical residency Extensions: injury, birth Breaks for New and Early Stage Investigators Separate payline 5 points higher Fund all years requested Expedited review if missed elevated payline by 5 points or less (i.e., >5-10) Shortened turn-around time for revision: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-06-013.html 1 st renewal: payline 5 points higher
Number of R-series Awards - New & Established PIs
Grant Preparation for R01s Establish your independence Letter from mentor and/or chief/chair confirming this More emphasis on preliminary data and productivity Everything else is about the same
Whose Getting the Grants? Middle-age to Old PhDs in Basic Science Departments
NIH Applications and Success Rate by Degree
NIH Research Awards by Age of PI FY2001
A Country for Old Men (and Women) R-series Grants by Age of PI
Gender Data
Success Rates by Gender
Average Age of R-series Awardees
Average Age at Time of Appointment to Assistant Professor at US Medical Schools 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 MD/PhD PhD MD 32 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Get a Grant and Retire 1980 2006 Total NIH PIs Number Average Age New NIH PIs Number Average Age Number of Medical School Faculty Positions Average Age of Medical School Faculty Average Age of First time Assistant Prof. 1980 1998 2006 14,887 39.1 1,843 37.2 17,761 42.7 1,355 39.0 25,419 50.8 1,346 42.4 53,552 73,413 121,468 43.1 45.2 48.7 33.9 35.4 37.7
Stay in the School of Medicine NIH Success Rate by Departments - 2007 Want more information on NIH Award stati Go here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/awa
How are Grants Reviewed and Evaluated
CSR: Center for Scientific Review Receives, assigns and reviews ~80,000/yr 200 SRA (Scientific Review Administrators) ~18,000 reviewers per year >220 Study Sections/Special Emphasis panels 1,800 grant review meetings/yr CSR has no funding authority
Study Sections Organized into IRGs (Integrative Review Groups) 12-24 members, essentially all from academia Plus about another 12+ ad hoc reviewers 60-100+ applications per meeting ~10-14 per member 3 reviewers per applications Information from CSR web site: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ Study section scope Roster of reviewers Policies Schedules Study sections are advisory - they do not fund applications.
Review Process Applications sent to reviewer 6-8 weeks before the meeting Streamlining 1-2 weeks before, grants in the lower half are identified Streamlined grants are triaged, i.e., not discussed Written critiques/scores uploaded up to 2 days beforehand Riveting video of a mock Study Section: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/resourcesforapplicants/insidethenihgrantreviewprocessvideo.htm
8 am Lower half stream-lined Reviewers state scores 1-9 Adjectives: Exceptional (1) Outstanding (2) Excellent (3) Very Good (4) Good (5) Acceptable (6-7) Find another job (8-9) Discussion 15-20 min per application Restate scores Budgets and administrative issues Next application 6-7 pm Bar, eat, bar, sleep, repeat next day Review Process
Review Criteria Training/Career Development F and K Grants Candidate Sponsor and training environment Training proposal Training potential Investigator Initiated Grants R01s etc. Significance Is the work important, relevant? Will it have an impact? Approach Meat of the critique Design, methods, plans, etc. Innovation Novel concepts and/or approaches Investigator Training and experience Productivity Productivity Environment Institution, facilities
Criterion Score New Scoring System Whole numbers: 1-9 1 (exception); 9 (um, well let s just hope you never get a 9) Given by reviewers but not discussed at study section Provided in summary statement of all applications (discussed and not discussed) Overall Impact Score Whole numbers: 1-9 Not the mean of the criteria scores Different criteria are weighted by each reviewer Each review recommends a score All committee members score within the range Can vote outside the range, but must state that you are doing so Final Score Mean of all scores x 10 10-90 Percentiled against similar applications across 3 meetings Payline Varies among institutes http://www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs/nihinfo/paylines.htm
Criteria Scores Score Descriptor Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses 1 Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses 2 Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses 3 Excellent Very strong with only some minor weaknesses 4 Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses 5 Good Strong but with at least one moderate weakness 6 Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses 7 Fair Some strengths but with at least one major weakness 8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses 9 Poor Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact
Overall (Impact) Score Impact Score Descriptor Strengths/Weaknesse 1 Exceptional High Impact 2 Outstanding 3 Excellent 4 Very Good Moderate Impact 5 Good 6 Satisfactory 7 Fair Low Impact 8 Marginal 9 Poor Weaknesses
Summary Statement
Top Reasons Why Grants Don t Get Funded 1. Lack of new or original ideas. 2. Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan. 3. Lack of knowledge of published, relevant work. 4. Lack of preliminary data and/or experience with essential methodologie 5. Uncertainty concerning future directions (where will it lead?). 6. Questionable reasoning in experimental approach. 7. Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale. 8. Unrealistically large amount of work. 9. Poor training potential
Didn t Make It Revised Application One chance only A1, then new proposal Consider the critique (without emotion) Address concerns in an Introduction 1-2 pages before Specific Aims Be agreeable but not obsequious Be firm but not confrontational Do not re-submit until all is in order Seek advice