Grantsmanship: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive!

1. Grantsmanship:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive! Jerry Heindel, Ph.D. Scientific Program Administrator Division of Extramural Research and Training, NIEHS heindelj@niehs.nih.gov . NIH/DHHS/NIEHS

2. NIH I am from the Government and I am here to help you!

3. Overview • Problems first time (and other) applicants make….. • What to do about it! • Principles of grantsmanship- • Grants.gov and electronic submissions Start With the End in Mind!

4. Elements of Grant Success Good Ideas Good Reviewers Good Timing Good Luck Good Grantsmanship

5. $ NIH $ NIH GRANT$ + Formula for Grant Success + = + +

6. Good Luck • The consequence of: • Good Ideas • Good Presentation • Good Timing • Good Reviewers • Good Grantsmanship

7. $ NIH $ NIH GRANT$ + Formula for Grant Success + = + +

8. Grant writing is a learned skill • Writing manuscripts that get published in peer reviewed journals is a learned skill. • Writing grant applications, is also a learned skills. Grantsmanship is a full time job…. Knowing the Science is not enough!

9. Common Problems with Applications • Overly ambitious • Lack of innovation • Lack of linkage to human health problem • Lack of focused/mechanistic hypothesis • Lack of focused aims that will prove and only prove the hypothesis • Unfocused research plan that does not test feasibility • Questionable reasoning in approach • Lack of experimental detail • Lack of experience with methods

10. What to do….. • Start early! • Learn to move from lab experiments to the big picture. • Learn to think in terms of hypotheses to test and how to test them….even in everyday lab work. • Develop a specific niche research area of your own…you need to be known as an expert in a specific area…think long term not just one application. • Focus on specific aims page. • Think salesmanship/grantsmanship. • Get help reviewing drafts and working through the entire process ( Mentor and Granting Organization).

11. Start Planning Early!!!!! Planning Schedule…..

12. Applying for Funding NIH

13. THE NIEHS EXTRAMURAL TEAM ! PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR GRANTS MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ADMINISTRATOR

14. Scientific Program Administrator • Develop program initiatives • Provide guidance and assistance to applicants • Attend Scientific review group (SRG) meetings as program resource person(s) • Communicate results of review to applicants • Make funding recommendations • Monitor progress during the award period

15. Scientific Review Administrator Review administrators setup and conduct scientific and technical reviews of grant applications to identify those of highest scientific and technical merit in their respective discipline and disease areas.

16. Grants Management Specialist Grants Management Officials ensure that business management actions for NIH programs and awards are performed correctly, efficiently, and in accordance with pertinent grant policies and good business practices, including responsibility for maintaining official grant files.

17. When to Interact with Various Staff Members Scientific Program Administrator: • Prior to submission • After the review is complete • Prior to the award • During the progress of the research Grants Management Official: • Fiscal or Administrative questions prior to submission or award and throughout award Scientific Review Administrator: • After Submission • Prior to Summary Statement

18. Assistance (Grant) Mechanisms • Regular Research Grant-R01 • Others • Small grants - R03 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm • New Investigator-K99/00 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-06-133.html • Exploratory – R21 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r21.htm • Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) - R15 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/area.htm

19. Principles of Grantsmanship Preparing an R01(R03, R21) Application • Title • Abstract (200 words) • Research Plan • Specific Aims ( 1 page) • Significance ( bkg) (2-3 pages) • Preliminary Studies • Experimental Methods/Approach • Budget/Timeline • References

20. It is not the will to win that’s important. Everyone wants to win! It is the will to prepare to win that makes the difference.Bobby Knight

21. Important Point to Remember There is an art to writing applications! TIP: MELD SCIENCE, SALESMANSHIP AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS

22. Grantsmanship : General Preparation • Assess the field….know state of field and opportunities. • Check out the “competition”. • Brainstorm ideas….match them to NIH. • Novel, innovative, impact • Check with NIH program directors. • Give yourself plenty of time….3-6 mo! • Start with the end in mind !

23. Grantsmanship • Start With the End in Mind! • Receipt and Referral ( Institute and Study Section) • Review System • Study Sections • Reviewers • Review Criteria Overall goal: To make everyone involved in the process happy…to make their job easier.

25. The key to success in grant writing is to engender enthusiasm in the reviewer---who then becomes an advocate for the proposal!

26. Grantsmanship:Start With The End in Mind 1. Know your Audience! • The Reviewers • Accomplished, dedicated, fair • Overly committed, tired, inherently skeptical, overly critical • General understanding only • Used to reviewing R01 applications

27. Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria SIGNIFICANCE: Does this study address and important problem? If the aims are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services or preventative interventions that drive the field?

28. Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria INNOVATION: Is the project original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice: address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools or technologies for this area of research?

29. Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria APPROACH Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative strategies?

30. Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria INVESTIGATOR: Is the Principal Investigator capable of coordinating and managing the proposed work ? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the Principal Investigator and other researchers, including consultants and subcontractors (if any)? Are the relationships of the key personnel to the University and to other institutions appropriate for the work proposed?”

31. Start with the End in Mind!2. Review Criteria ENVIRONMENT: Is there sufficient access to resources (e.g., equipment, facilities)? Does the scientific and technological environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements?

32. Start with the End in Mind!3.Selling Yourself and Your Ideas! Knowing the Science is not enough. • Scientist • Spokesperson • Communicator ( writer & speaker) • Salesperson

33. Grantsmanship : A Research Focus The Scientist as a Salesperson : • You are a Business : Big Business • CEO ; Scientific Director ; Sales Representative • Sell yourself and your ideas • Use Your Communicationskills • Written and Oral

34. Grantsmanship: Sell yourself and your ideas! • What are you selling? • Why is it important? • Impact (who will benefit) • How will you do it? • Advantages/strengths/limitations • Track record (can you do it?) And put it in the proper form !

35. Principle of Successful Selling • Make people like you…develop rapport • Find out what they need or want • Get the other person point of view • Know your product • Show advantages of your product • Develop a desire for your product • Getpeople saying YES

36. Principles of Grantsmanship Preparing an R01(R03, R21) Application • Title • Abstract (200 words) • Research Plan • Specific Aims ( 1 page) • Significance ( bkg) (2-3 pages) • Preliminary Studies • Experimental Methods/Approach • Budget/Timeline • References

37. ABSTRACT:Stated Guidelines • State the application’s broad, long term objectives and specific aims. • Make reference to the health-relatedness of the project. • Describe concisely the research design and methods for achieving goals. • Discuss potential for innovation. • Avoid summaries of past accomplishments and the use of first person. • Do not exceed 200 words.

38. Grantsmanship: ABSTRACT • IDENTIFY PROBLEM: • What is the problem addressed? ( Must be public health problem!!) • Who cares • SOLUTION: • Hypothesis/goal/product • PLAN: • Approach • Specific aims/milestones • Techniques/methodologies used • BENEFITS: • Expected results • Application/benefit

39. Grantsmanship : The Heart of The Application • Specific Aims • Background and Significance • Preliminary Studies • Research Design/Methods • Literature Cited Research Plan Specific Aims Hypothesis Abstract

40. DO NOTwrite the application for the “Specialist”YouMUSTconvince theentirereview committee

41. Jargon: Be careful what you say….. • One reason some branches of government have trouble operating jointly is that they don’t speak the same language. • Goal: “Secure a Building” • Air Force • Army • Marines • Navy

42. Grantsmanship: Specific Aims Section (One Page) • Introductory Paragraph • Statement of long term health-related goal (1 sentence) • Background/significance of problem (1-2 sentences) • Preliminary data/state of the art (2-3 sentences) • Data gaps/controversy (1-2 sentences) • Clearly defined hypothesis/specific goal ( 1-2 sentences) The flow of logic must be compelling!!!

43. Specific Aims (Cont’d) • Specific Aims/Milestones • 2-5 aims ( One sentence each) • Specifically focused to prove hypothesis/develop product • Logical order with no dead ends • To characterize, To determine the, To relate... • Focus on scientific goal not technology • Summary Statement • Emphasize novel product and innovative approach and impact on field ( 2-3 sentences)

44. The aims should be endpoints…so it can be easily determined if they have been met!!Aim 1. To determine if……orAim 1. To characterize

45. Idea and Hypothesis. NOVEL!!! • New, innovative and novel ideas…paradigm shifters. • You need to be first….we don’t fund followers! • We don’t fund gap filling. • We don’t fund verification/repetition. Why is this application special….what singles out this application?

46. Hypothesis • We hypothesize that calcium causes reproductive dysfunction by interfering with pituitary gonadotropin secretion, testosterone synthesis and secretion, androgen metabolism in target organs and sex steroid hormone receptor binding in the neuroendocrine system and in the reproductive organs.

47. Hypothesis • We hypothesize that estrogen-like endocrine disruptors alter uterine growth by altering HOX gene expression via disruption of estrogen stimulation of HOX gene cis regulatory DNA elements. • Our overall hypothesis is that TCDD exerts its effects on ovarian steroidogenesis by binding to the AhR and specifically inhibiting P450 aromatase gene expression.

50. Background and Significance Goal: To convince the reviewers that you are familiar with the field and to justify need for proposed study. • Logical development of background information that forms basis of proposal. • Critical evaluation of current knowledge. …show how proposed work builds on previous work. • Identification of data gaps, conflicts, needs, what’s new and novel and innovative. • Importance of research and how it will fill need. • Thus these studies demonstrate the importance of this area…. • These studies provide important background for this study in…. • The proposed project will build on this previous work….by…. • Public health benefit….significance paragraph to frame current status of work in the field and explain how the proposed project will make a contribution.