# Presentation: 075977

## How to win an NIH grant – A reviewer’s perspective

**Louise Ryan**
**Har****vard University**

## Who am I? 

**Study section member for about 5 years (off now)**
**Recipient of my own R01 grant (originally an R29 young investigator grant) **
**Recent unsuccessful applicant for new grant ******
**PI of a T32 training grant, a T35 Summer Internship Grant and an R25 IMSD grant**
**Benefited from advice from many senior colleagues**
**Offered advice to many junior ones! **

## Elements of an R01 grant

**Title pages, including abstract**
**Budget**
**CVs (PI and key personnel)**
**Four main (scientific) sections**
**Specific Aims**
**Background/Significance**
**Preliminary Studies**
**Methods**
**Human and animal subjects**
**Literature Cited**
**Appendix**

## What do I do when Ann sends me a grant to review? 

**Read the abstract, specific aims and background/significance sections to get a sense of whether there is something exciting and important being proposed**
**Is the problem important? **
**Does PI understand the motivating subject matter? **
**Is PI connected to subject matter scientists (potential for application) ?**
**Are the goals concrete and achievable?**
**Will the work have an impact?**
**Are there motivating datasets? **
**Is the proposed work new? Creative?**
**This is ****significance**** ****element of the review criteria**

## What do I do next?

**Once significance is established, I evaluate the ****approach**
**Is there a clear and appropriate plan? **
**Does the applicant know the literature?**
**Has the applicant overlooked any major pitfalls or potential problems? Have they appropriately considered alternative approaches? **
**How can I tell?**
**Section C (preliminary studies) tells me whether the approach has been at least partially tested out**
**Section D (methods) provides the details of exactly what is to be done.  **

## What else am I looking for? 

**Innovation**** – like to see creativity and imagination (but not too much!).  Good to address problems that are a little “different”**
**Investigator**** – like to see a strong track record (senior investigator), or strong potential (junior investigator) **
**Papers **
**Past grants/collaborations **
**Environment**** ****– will it facilitate the work?**
**Collaborating investigators (subject matter and statistical), evidenced by co-investigators on the grant, or at least letters of support **
**Applied projects that provide real work motivation and data **

## A few special issues

**New investigators**
**Writing style**
**Dissemination plans**
**Revised proposals**

## New investigators? 

**More emphasis on potential than track record**
**Involvement of senior colleagues as mentors**
**Supportive institutional environment**
**A little leniency in terms of detailed plans**

## Writing and presentation

_**Very**_** important**
**Helps the reviewer!**
**Gives confidence that the work can be achieved**
**Speaks to applicant’s ability to think through and present a logical plan**

## Dissemination plans

**Does the applicant have a good publication track record? **
**Do they have a record of publishing in subject matter as well as statistical journals?  Do they describe plans for this? **
**Will they make software available?  Do they know what this involves? **

## What if you don’t get funded the first time? (most don’t!)

**Cry, brush off your ego and gear up to try again! **
**Read the critique carefully, objectively, perhaps with a colleague.  Typical issues include**
**Lack of significance/motivation**
**Vague plans**
**Lack of detail**
**Occasionally, scientific disagreement**
**Talk to your NIH Project Officer**

## What if I am reviewing a revised proposal?  

**Responsiveness**
**Responsiveness **
**Responsiveness**
**Don’t criticize the reviewers!**

## Preparing for a grant submission

**A year ahead of time, start thinking about your general focus. Find an important area where you are qualified to contribute**
**Seek advice of senior colleagues**
**Read successful grants (junior and senior)**
**Talk to NIH people**
**Look at NIH websites**
**Block out time prior to submission**
**Circulate your specific aims 4 months ahead of submission date. Seek advice**
**Finish your first draft 2 months ahead.  Seek advice and detailed input**

## My own experience

**Writing a grant is a ****lot ****of work, but it is**
**Satisfying**
**A focusing experience**
**Part of the process of research**
**Study section critique can hurt, but it is wise to listen**
**My recent unsuccessful experience? Lack of devoted time led to **
**Sloppy writing**
**Lack of detail**
**	****	****	****I plan to try again!**

## Other Grant Mechanisms

**R03 grants**
**Biostatistical Cores in PPGs and Center Grants**

## Training Grants

**Program must be very strong (well focussed training plan, lots of good graduates)**
**Must have strong grounding in applications.  Most training grants are institute-specific**
**PI must have strong training and administrative experience **
**PI must have strong scientific record**
**Should have lots of strong mentors**
**Minority training component must be strong**
**School should be supportive**

## Best of luck!!