NIH Grant Writing Workshop. Susan McHale Professor of Human Development; Director, SSRI Douglas M. Teti Professor of Human Development, Psychology, and Pediatrics; Associate Director, SSRI Rhonda BeLue Associate Professor of Health Policy and Administration Kristin Buss
Professor of Human Development; Director, SSRI
Douglas M. Teti
Professor of Human Development, Psychology, and Pediatrics; Associate Director, SSRI
Associate Professor of Health Policy and AdministrationKristin Buss
Professor of Psychology, College of the Liberal Arts
Associate Professor of Sociology and Demography,
College of the Liberal Arts
B. Grants Management
Scientific Review Group (SRG)
Non-federal scientists with relevant expertise
Led by a Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
http://www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.aspC. Review:Scientific Review Group (1st Level)
The potential awarding IC performs the second level of review.
Comprised of scientists from the extramural community and public representatives.
NIH program staff examine applications for impact (formerly “priority”) scores, percentile rankings, & summary statements against the IC’s needs.
Program staff provide grant funding plan to Advisory Council or Board.
Advisory Council or Board advises the IC director.
Director makes final decision.
2. Get your proposal to the right review committee
3. Seek feedback from colleagues and consultants on drafts of the grant (prepare ahead!)
4. Consider who is likely to review your grant (review the rosters) and make sure to know and cite their work when relevant
5. Recognize that funding on first submission is rare
Page limits may vary for other funding mechanisms.
Check Funding Opportunity Announcement: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_results.htm?scope=pa&year=active
SO START EARLY!
2. A separate 1-9 score for each of 5 core criteria (Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment)
3. Additional review criteria help determine scientific and technical merit BUT are not scored separately
4. Additional review considerations are addressed by reviewers, but are not scored & are discussed after group scores.C. The Scoring Process
1. Significance: important problem addressed; how will this improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practiceScore Criteria
3. Innovation: the work challenges and seeks to shift current research or practice paradigms; utilizing noveltheory, approaches or methods, instrumentation, or interventions; the work is novelScore Criteria (continued)
5. Environment: the environment will contribute to the project’s success; institutional support, equipment, & other resources sufficient; unique features of the environment, subject population, collaborative arrangementsScore Criteria (continued)
Final Overall Impact Score:
Mean of all reviewers’ final impact scores X 10
Range = 10 (high impact) -- 90 (low impact)
NOTE: New scoring likely to produce more applications with identical scores (“tie” scores). Thus, other factors (e.g., mission relevance, portfolio balance) will be considered when all other things are essentially equal
Enhancing Peer Review Criteria: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-09-025.html
Page Limits: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms_page_limits.htm
Human Subjects: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/index.htm
SF424 guidelines for submission: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm
NIH RePorter (formerly CRISP)
NIH Grant Writing Tip Sheets
Getting an RO1
NSF Proposal Writing
Other Proposal Writing Guides
Reasons Proposals Fail
New and Early Stage Investigators
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm (forms, grant search, etc.)