1 / 12

Reflections on Successful Strategies for Grant Proposals

Reflections on Successful Strategies for Grant Proposals. Randolph J. Nudo, PhD. SUCCESS RATES OF NEW (TYPE 1) R01-EQUIVALENT APPLICATIONS FROM FIRST-TIME AND ESTABLISHED INVESTIGATORS. Your grant was hosed! What now?. First R01 application. Priority score = 372; percentile score = 71.2

neith
Download Presentation

Reflections on Successful Strategies for Grant Proposals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reflections on Successful Strategies for Grant Proposals Randolph J. Nudo, PhD

  2. SUCCESS RATES OF NEW (TYPE 1) R01-EQUIVALENT APPLICATIONS FROM FIRST-TIME AND ESTABLISHED INVESTIGATORS

  3. Your grant was hosed! What now?

  4. First R01 application • Priority score = 372; percentile score = 71.2 • Strengths = 3; Major Weaknesses = 8 • “The ability to form meaningful conclusions of the study hinges on the validity of the method and its analysis.” • “…controversial method…caution must be taken in the interpretation…, but this is not discussed in the proposal.”

  5. More tidbits • “…experimental design section is not well organized… …descriptions are inadequate.” • “The PI comes from a background where he has learned to perform evaluation of receptive fields in layer IV in sensory cortical areas…no preliminary data to show that these responses can be recorded in motor cortex; layer IV does not exist in motor cortex.” • “Are the changes in the data a consequence of the manipulation?”

  6. Response to criticism • Resubmit as soon as possible. • Always remind the reviewer what they liked about your proposal • “Although (the proposal) was given a poor priority score of 372, it seemed that the Study Section wanted to see the experiments done.” • Don’t just provide an adequate response to major criticisms. Go above and beyond! • “…more thorough discussion of…” “Research Design and Methods reorganized” “quantitative methods described in detail” “objective method” “describe reliably” “enables statistical procedures to be applied to estimates of variability”

  7. In the Introduction, focus primarily on red flag(s). • Understand the criticism thoroughly. Defend your position confidently and unapologetically. • ½ page description of new preliminary data -- “We routinely record somatic sensory receptive fields in motor cortex…” Placed in context of literature. “new section in Preliminary Studies…” Most extensive and quantitative to date.

  8. The subsequent review • Priority score = 157; percentile score = 9.9 • Weaknesses = None. • “The PI presents interesting preliminary data… The proposed studies will test ideas in a careful systematic fashion.” • “Revision appears to address the criticisms raised in the previous review…high probability for success.”

  9. Team Approach to Grant Writing

  10. Methods for team approach • Engage the entire laboratory: graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, technicians • Everyone independently creates two or three specific aims • Aims are grouped (similar themes, similar methodologies) • Aims are prioritized (novelty, solid preliminary data, “fit” with other themes”, rationale, significance) • Best aims developed into full research design protocols. One or two lab members per aim • PI has more time to develop a bird’s eye view and concentrate on the overall program

  11. Results of team approach • Priority score = 134; percentile score = 0.4 • “The discussion of this application was fairly minimal reflecting the fact that committee members were largely in consensus with respect to the numerous attributes of this study and few weaknesses.”

  12. “If at first you don’t succeed, just keep on suckin’ till you do suck seed.” --Perverted proverb, Los Angeles area, circa 1960

More Related