grantsmanship the good the bad and the ugly or how to swim with the sharks and survive n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Grantsmanship: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive! PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Grantsmanship: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive!

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 71

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


  • 109 Views
  • Uploaded on

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. NIH. I am from the Government

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Grantsmanship: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! or How to Swim with the Sharks and Survive!' - len-benjamin


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
grantsmanship the good the bad and the ugly or how to swim with the sharks and survive

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

slide2

NIH

I am from the Government

and I am here to help you!

overview
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!

slide4

Elements of Grant Success

Good Ideas

Good Reviewers

Good Timing

Good Luck

Good Grantsmanship

slide5

$ NIH $

NIH GRANT$

+

Formula for Grant Success

+

=

+

+

slide6

Good Luck

  • The consequence of:
  • Good Ideas
  • Good Presentation
  • Good Timing
  • Good Reviewers
  • Good Grantsmanship
slide7

$ NIH $

NIH GRANT$

+

Formula for Grant Success

+

=

+

+

grant writing is a learned skill
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!

common problems with applications
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
what to do
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).
start planning early
Start Planning Early!!!!!

Planning Schedule…..

the niehs extramural team
THE NIEHS EXTRAMURAL TEAM !

PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATOR

GRANTS

MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST

SCIENTIFIC

REVIEW

ADMINISTRATOR

scientific program administrator
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
scientific review administrator
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.

grants management specialist
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.

when to interact with various staff members
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
assistance grant mechanisms
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

principles of grantsmanship preparing an r01 r03 r21 application
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
slide20

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

important point to remember
Important Point to Remember

There is an art to writing applications!

TIP: MELD SCIENCE, SALESMANSHIP

AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS

grantsmanship general preparation
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 !
grantsmanship
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.

slide25
The key to success in grant writing is to engender enthusiasm in the reviewer---who then becomes an advocate for the proposal!
grantsmanship start with the end in mind 1 know your audience
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
start with the end in mind 2 review criteria

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?

start with the end in mind 2 review criteria1

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?

slide29

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?

slide30

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?”

start with the end in mind 2 review criteria2

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?

start with the end in mind 3 selling yourself and your ideas
Start with the End in Mind!3.Selling Yourself and Your Ideas!

Knowing the Science is not enough.

  • Scientist
  • Spokesperson
    • Communicator ( writer & speaker)
  • Salesperson
grantsmanship a research focus
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
grantsmanship sell yourself and your ideas
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 !

principle of successful selling
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
principles of grantsmanship preparing an r01 r03 r21 application1
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
abstract stated guidelines
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.
grantsmanship abstract
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
grantsmanship the heart of the application
Grantsmanship : The Heart of The Application
  • Specific Aims
  • Background and Significance
  • Preliminary Studies
  • Research Design/Methods
  • Literature Cited

Research Plan

Specific Aims

Hypothesis

Abstract

do not write the application for the specialist you must convince the entire review committee
DO NOTwrite the application for the “Specialist”YouMUSTconvince theentirereview committee
jargon be careful what you say
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
grantsmanship specific aims section one page
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!!!

specific aims cont d
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)
slide44
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
idea and hypothesis novel
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?

hypothesis
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.
hypothesis1
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.
background and significance
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.
preliminary data
Preliminary Data

Goal: To establish your experience and competence in the area of application.

  • Convince reviewers you are familiar with and have done all the techniques proposed including data analysis and interpretation…
  • that the work is feasible…
  • that suitable groundwork has been done (preliminary data).
  • Simple graphs and tables with descriptive legends.
  • No extraneous or irrelevant data.
  • Black and white.
experimental methods research plan
Experimental Methods/Research Plan

For Each Aim/Milestone:

  • Rationale for approach
  • Experimental Design in detail including data analysis and interpretation
  • Potential Difficulties/Limitations
  • Alternative approaches

Justify everything including number of animals, assays, statistical analysis, timetable and that you have experience and expertise needed.

general issues
General Issues
  • Attention to details
  • Layout and format
nih support of new investigators
NIH Support of New Investigators
  • ImplementationReview groups received orientation during the 1998 review round . They are reminded each review round.
  • Reviewers are informed of the “New” investigator “ definition and honor the guidelines.
  • Review groups are provided with a list of first-time applicants with review assignments and at review.
common problems with applications1
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
grantsmanship guidance at nih
Grantsmanship Guidance at NIH
  • http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/default.htm
  • http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir_policy.htm
  • http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbirgrantsmanship.pdf
  • http://niaid.nih.gov/ncn/sbir/advice/advice.pdf
what is grants gov
What is Grants.gov?
  • The Federal government’s single, online portal for any person, business, or State, Local and Tribal government to electronically:
    • Find Grant Opportunities
    • Apply for Grants
  • A cross-agency initiative involving
    • 900 grant programs
    • 26 grant-making agencies
    • Over $350 billion in annual awards
posting funding opportunity announcements on grants gov
Posting Funding Opportunity Announcements on Grants.gov
  • Funding opportunities will continue to be posted in the NIH Guide and Contracts as usual.
    • NIH will continue to use RFAs and PAs, but all solicitations will be referred to as funding opportunity announcements in Grants.gov.
  • They will simultaneously be posted to Grants.gov by OER staff along with the appropriate application package.
nih s electronic receipt goal
NIH’s Electronic Receipt Goal

By the end of May 2007, NIH plans to:

  • Require electronic submission through Grants.gov for all NIH grant applications
  • Transition from the PHS 398 application form to SF424 family of forms data set
    • SF424 Research and Research-Related (SF424 (R&R))

Announced in the NIH Guide, Aug. 19, 2005:http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-067.html

electronic receipt how it works
Electronic Receipt: How it works

Applying for Grants at Grants.gov:

After finding the grant opportunity on Grants.gov:

Step 1: Download the grant application package. (PureEdge Software required to view.)

Step 2: Complete the application.

Step 3: Submit the application to Grants.gov. (Processed through Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR)).

Step 4: Track the status of the submitted application package you are notified it has been retrieved by NIH.

electronic receipt how it works1
Electronic Receipt: How it works

Step 5: eRA software checks the application against NIH business rules.

Step 6: NIH notifies PI and Signing Official via email to check the eRA Commons for results of NIH rule checking.

Step 7: If the application passes NIH rules, SF424 (R&R)-based grant image appears.

  • Principal Investigator (PI) and Signing Official (SO) review application.
    • If acceptable, the application is accepted in 24 hrs in Commons.
    • If not, the PI or SO rejects the application in Commons, makes changes and resubmits via Grants.gov
electronic receipt how it works2
Electronic Receipt: How it works

Apply for Grants (cont.):

Step 8: If application does not pass NIH rules, errors and warnings are listed.

  • Fix errors and resubmit to Grants.gov

Step 9: After verification, data and grant image are saved and application begins getting processed by NIH staff.

nih timeline

NIH Timeline:

Submission of Grant Applications through Grants.gov

Using SF424 Family of Grant Application Forms

NIH Timeline

Submit R03, R21 & R33 viaGrants.gov (6/1/06)

Submit R01 via Grants.gov (2/1/07)

2006

2007

APR

JUN

MAY

AUG

SEP

JUL

FEB

DEC

JAN

NOV

JUL

AUG

OCT

JUN

MAR

MAY

APR

SEP

application review and award

Center for Scientific Review

Assign to

IC and IRG

Scientific Review Group

Review for

ScientificMerit

Institute

Evaluate for Relevance

Advisory Council or Board

Action

Recommends

Allocates

Funds $$

Takes final action for NIH Director

APPLICATION, REVIEW, and AWARD

National Institutes of Health

University Researcher

Submits

Grant

Application

Applicant Initiates

Research Idea

~2-3 months

after submission

~2-3 months after review

Conducts

Research

Institute Director