# Presentation: 393772

## Interfacing with Grant Reviewers: Lessons in Grantsmanship

- Mary K Martel, Ph.D.
- University of Chicago

## Grantsmanship

- “the art of obtaining grants”
- 				- Websters Dictionary

## Web Results 1 - 10 of about 49,800 for grantsmanship [definition]. (0.25 seconds) 

Welcome to TGCI - The world's leader in grant information and ... For more than 30 years, TGCI has been the world's leading source of grantsmanship training and grant information. ... Grantsmanship Training Program Schedule. ... www.tgci.com/ - 17k – 

Grantsmanship ClassesLearn how to write grants and findfunders. Two day national classes.GrantWritingUSA.com 

How to Apply - The Art of Grantsmanship... Art of Grantsmanship. It takes a lot of time and effort to write a grant or fellowshipapplication. ... The Art of Grantsmanship (courtesy of Dr. Jacob Kraicer). ... http://www.utoronto.ca/cip/sa_ArtGt.pdf - 4k - Cached - Similar pages 

Etc!

- _[Welcome to TGCI - The world's leader in grant information and ](http://www.tgci.com/)__[...](http://www.tgci.com/)_ For more than 30 years, TGCI has been the world's leading source of **grantsmanship** training and grant information. **...** **Grantsmanship** Training Program Schedule. **...** www.tgci.com/ - 17k –
- _[Grantsmanship](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://grantwritingusa.com%3Fg2&sa=l&ai=Ag45UiCgRBx-0v4J2KGguOGsrGcsqIfgjEepAWrs5NwQAQ6EAQb4ABEQAYaBAAAAAAEAA&num=1)__[ Classes](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://grantwritingusa.com%3Fg2&sa=l&ai=Ag45UiCgRBx-0v4J2KGguOGsrGcsqIfgjEepAWrs5NwQAQ6EAQb4ABEQAYaBAAAAAAEAA&num=1)_Learn how to write grants and findfunders. Two day national classes.GrantWritingUSA.com
- _[How to Apply - The Art of ](http://www.hfsp.org/how/grantsmanship.php)__[Grantsmanship](http://www.hfsp.org/how/grantsmanship.php)_**...** Art of **Grantsmanship**. It takes a lot of time and effort to write a grant or fellowshipapplication. **...** The Art of **Grantsmanship** (courtesy of Dr. Jacob Kraicer). **...** http://www.utoronto.ca/cip/sa_ArtGt.pdf - 4k - _[Cached](http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JXA61IY4LTMJ:www.hfsp.org/how/grantsmanship.php+grantsmanship&hl=en)_ - _[Similar pages](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=related:www.hfsp.org/how/grantsmanship.php)__ _
- Etc!

|                          |
| --- |

## On the web

- http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/write/index.htm
- How to write a grant proposal
- http://www.whitaker.org/grants/
- Proposal Writing Tips from NIH
- Proposal Writing Summary by Savio Woo
*Proposal Writer's Guide* by Don Thackrey
*Proposal Writing: The Business of Science* by Wendy Sanders

## The only interface an applicant has with the reviewer is the grant application document.

This document should be “completely transparent”.

- This document should be “completely transparent”.

## Peer reviewed grant funding is a COMPETITION.

**The NIH receives 50 to 70 thousand grant applications in a year.  Top 20-30 percent earn support.**

**Chaos? **
**Electronic filing on the way.**

## In all probability, the quality of science of the applications in the 10% below the cutoff for funding by an agency is not significantly different from that in the 10% above the cutoff.

"Grantsmanship" can make a difference.

- "Grantsmanship" can make a difference.

**Some opinion:**

## The art of "grantsmanship" will not turn mediocre science into a fundable grant proposal. But!

Poor "grantsmanship" may turn very good science into an unfundable grant proposal. 

- Poor "grantsmanship" may turn very good science into an unfundable grant proposal.

**More opinion:**

## For new investigators

- Grants to get you started:
- Equipment, grad or postdoc for 1-2 years
- Cancer Center seed grants
- Not all universities alike
- State grants
- Industry sponsored grants
- Professional Society
- Time limits as to how long you are considered to be “junior” on many of these grants.

## Big Grants

- 	100-200k$ per year for 3-5 years
- R01s
- DOD
- DOE
- Others
- P01s
- With indirect costs, can add up to 1M$ over the term of the grant.

## NCI Radiation Therapeutics and Biology Study Sectionhttp://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp

**Know your reviewer!**

## Slide 12

| 
Receipt, Review, and Award Cycles |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Types of Applications | Cycle I | Cycle II | Cycle III |
| Application Receipt Dates |  |  |  |
| Institutional Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service (Kirschstein-NRSA) Awards *(All new, competing continuation, supplemental and revised applications) | January 10 | May 10 | September 10 |
| Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA)(All new, competing continuation, supplemental and revised applications except those involving AIDS-related research) | January 25 | May 25 | September 25 |
| New Research Grants and Research Career Awards | February 1 | June 1 | October 1 |
| Program Project Grants and Center Grants(All new, competing continuation, supplemental and revised applications) | February 1 | June 1 | October 1 |
| Competing Continuation, Supplemental and Revised: Research Grants and Research Career Awards | March 1 | July 1 | November 1 |
| Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Grants(All new, supplemental, and revised applications except AIDS and AIDS-Related applications) | April 1 | August 1 | December 1 |
| Individual Kirschstein-NRSA Awards (Standard) ** (All new and revised applications except AIDS and AIDS related applications) | April 5 | August 5 | December 5 |
| Conference Grants and Conference Cooperative Agreements(All new, competing continuation, supplemental and revised applications) | April 15 | August 15 | December 15 |
| AIDS and AIDS-Related Grants(All new, competing continuations, supplemental and revised applications; includes AIDS and AIDS-Related SBIR/STTR and Fellowship applications) | May 1 | September 1 | January 2 |
| Review and Award Schedule |  |  |  |
| Scientific Merit Review | June - July | October - Nov | February - Mar |
| Advisory Council Review | Sept - Oct | January - Feb | May - June |
| Earliest Project Start Date *** | December | April | July |

## Plan ahead!

**Plan ahead!**

## http://www.survival.pitt.edu/library/documents/grantspersonshipmanual.pdf

**http://www.survival.pitt.edu/library/documents/grantspersonshipmanual.pdf**

## Slide 15

## Grant Mentorship

- Fine line between mentoring and interfering
- Department or intra-institution mentor
- Outside mentor/reviewer

## Components of an Application

- 	Abstract
- A) Specific Aims
- B) Background and Significance
- C) Preliminary Studies (sometimes)
- D) Research Design and Methods
- 	E) Human subjects
- 	F) Vertebrate animals

## Non-research items

- Budget
- Biographical Sketches
- Resources

## Slide 19

## 7. Think like a reviewer 

A. Format the proposal so that it is easy to 
1) find key points (like answers to the review criteria) 
2) read & appreciate (see examples at end of this document) 
B. Use an optimal type face and type size 
	1) select a good typeface: 
good = Times Roman, Century Schoolbook 
never = Courier (unattractive), Arial (hard to read in quantity) 
	2) typesize >11 pt (NIH says 10 pt. is ok – it isn’t, not if you want happy reviewers.) 
	3) occasionally use special fonts (bold, italics) 

**A. Format the proposal so that it is easy to **
**1) find key points (like answers to the review criteria) **
**2) read & appreciate (see examples at end of this document)**** **
**B. Use an optimal type face and type size **
**	****1) select a good typeface: **
**good = Times Roman, Century Schoolbook **
**never = Courier (unattractive), Arial (hard to read in quantity) **
**	****2) typesize **_**>**_**11 pt (NIH says 10 pt. is ok – it isn’t, not if you want happy reviewers.) **
**	****3) occasionally use special fonts (bold, *****italics*****) **

## 7. Think like a reviewer 

C. Write in paragraphs 
	1) include only one major idea per paragraph 
	2) make the first sentence in a paragraph a topic sentence 
	3) use headers frequently 
D. Let your text B-r-e-a-t-h-e 
	1) indent paragraphs 
	2) skip line between paragraphs 
E. Be sure to conform to all instructions! (type size, pages, margins, sections, etc.) 
You don’t want to have the proposal sent back without review because of a formatting error. 

**C. Write in paragraphs **
**	****1) include only one major idea per paragraph **
**	****2) make the first sentence in a paragraph a topic sentence **
**	****3) use headers frequently **
**D. Let your text B-r-e-a-t-h-e **
**	****1) indent paragraphs **
**	****2) skip line between paragraphs **
**E. Be sure to conform to all instructions! (type size, pages, margins, sections, etc.) **
**You don’t want to have the proposal sent back without review because of a formatting error. **

## Slide 22

## Slide 23

## Who is a new investigator?

|  NIH considers you a new investigator if you've never been a PI on a PHS-supported research project other than a small grant (R03), Academic Research Enhancement Award (R15), exploratory/developmental grant (R21), or K series career awards except K02 and K04. 
Make sure you get counted as new. 
Check the checkbox in the application face page so NIH and reviewers can readily identify you. Also state in the biosketch that you are a new investigator. 
It's to your advantage to identify yourself as a new investigator because reviewers expect fewer prior achievements from you. Further, new investigator status can help you qualify to be funded through selective pay or with a bridge award.
                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| --- |

## 70-150 Grants in 3 days

**70-150 Grants in 3 days**

**Like the debate team in high school**
**2 reviewers, 2 readers**
**All can comment, all vote**

## Review Criteria(NIH/NCI)

**	****1) Significance ****2) Approach ****3) Innovation ****4) Investigator ****5) Environment**

**Reviewer’s primary job is **
**to focus on the scientific content**
**(but they keep budget in mind).**

## (1) Significance

- Does this study address an important problem?
- If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced?
- What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?

## (2) Approach

- Are the conceptual 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 tactics?

## (3) Innovation

- Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or method?
- Are the aims original and innovative?
- Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?

## (4) Investigator

- Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work?
- Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers (if any)?

## (5) Environment

- Does the scientific 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?
- Is there evidence of institutional support?

## In addition to the above criteria, in accordance with NIH policy, all applications will also be reviewed with respect to the following:

- The adequacy of plans to include both genders, minorities, and their subgroups as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated.
- The reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the proposed research
- The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project proposed in the application.

## http://www.csr.nih.gov/

**  **** ****                                         ****A Video on Peer Review at NIH**** **
- The Center for Scientific Review has produced a video of a mock study section meeting to provide an inside look at how NIH grant applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit. The video shows how outside experts assess applications and how review meetings are conducted to ensure fairness. The video also includes information on what applicants can do to improve the chances their applications will receive a positive review.** **
**To make the video both authentic and authoritative, real reviewers volunteered to review real but altered and disguised applications. NIH staff members also volunteered to participate in this video, which was developed in collaboration with the NIH Office of Extramural Research. **

## NIH Grant Scoring

- Rare to get funded first time around
- Scoring range 1.0-3.0 (1=best)
- Discussed in study section (15 minutes) and receive a summary statement
- Scoring range 3-5: streamlined, “triage”
- No discussion, unedited reviews
- All reviewers agree to “unscore”
- Streamlined grants can make a come-back!
- 3 strikes and you’re out
- 20th percentile (or less) is fundable
- What score is this?

## Reviewing

- Look at specific aims page
- Several intro paragraphs
- List of specific aims
- Look at the Methods section
- AIM 1 -> Method 1 -> Prelim data
- Then background and significance

## Observations

- High enthusiasm
- Nearly all grants are a balance of strengths and weaknesses
- Reviewer should not rewrite an application but may suggest “fixes”
- Some grants have fatal flaws

## Rookie Mistakes

- Scope too broad
- Amount of work to accomplish is ambitious for the timeframe
- Lack of clear endpoint
- “Significance” is not proved
- Eg. Look at 10 cases
- No statistics
- Lack of quantitative analysis
- Quality of grant writing uneven
- Starts out strong upfront, weak at the end

## What’s the research?

- “Another” optimization algorithm
- Another type of detector
- Another method
- Chicken-fried rice, pork-fried rice.....
- New direction with promise to move the field forward
- Not incremental
- Compelling evidence

## Discussion

- Hypothesis driven?
- Descriptive vs. mechanistic
- Do the work first, then write the grant?
- Flaws of the review process

## Advice

- Wealth of information about grantsmanship, grant process etc on the web; ignore at your own peril!
- Don’t waste a “pitch” with a poorly written and/or ill conceived research plan
- Bottomline: Is your grant worth xxx$ (a million bucks)?

## Radiation Research: Vol. 160, No. 6, pp. 729–737.
Education and Training for Radiation Scientists: Radiation Research Program and American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, May 12–14, 2003
C. Norman Coleman,a, 1 Helen B. Stone,a, 1 George A. Alexander,b Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff,c Joel S. Bedford,d Robert G. Bristow,e Joseph R. Dynlacht,f Zvi Fuks,g Lester S. Gorelic,h Richard P. Hill,e Michael C. Joiner,i Fei-Fei Liu,e William H. McBride,j W. Gillies McKenna,k Simon N. Powell,l Michael E. C. Robbins,m Sara Rockwell,n Peter B. Schiff,o Edward G. Shaw,m Dietmar W. Siemann,p Elizabeth L. Travis,q Paul E. Wallner,a Rosemary S. L. Wong,a and Elaine M. Zemanr

**Education and Training for Radiation Scientists: Radiation Research Program and American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, May 12–14, 2003**
**C. Norman Coleman,*****a, 1***** Helen B. Stone,*****a, 1***** George A. Alexander,*****b***** Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff,*****c***** Joel S. Bedford,*****d***** Robert G. Bristow,*****e***** Joseph R. Dynlacht,*****f***** Zvi Fuks,*****g***** Lester S. Gorelic,*****h***** Richard P. Hill,*****e***** Michael C. Joiner,*****i***** Fei-Fei Liu,*****e***** William H. McBride,*****j***** W. Gillies McKenna,*****k***** Simon N. Powell,*****l***** Michael E. C. Robbins,*****m***** Sara Rockwell,*****n***** Peter B. Schiff,*****o***** Edward G. Shaw,*****m***** Dietmar W. Siemann,*****p***** Elizabeth L. Travis,*****q***** Paul E. Wallner,*****a***** Rosemary S. L. Wong,*****a***** and Elaine M. Zeman*****r***