Upload
clifton-tate
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CAS NIH R-Grant Workshop
Dr Lindsey N. Shaw
Part 1: Introducing the Task and My Experience
Help with NIH Funding – a Difficult Task!
I Have Some Grant Writing Experience
My Best Insight – Study Section Experience
But I don’t have all the answers!
MRSA – the Ultimate Super Bug!
Global Infectious Disease
S. aureus – the Leading Western Pathogen
Meningitis/Brain Abscesses
EndocarditisPneumonia (necrotizing)
Osteomyelitis
Septic arthritis
Food Poisoning
Toxic Shock Syndrome
2010
Penicillin
Methicillin
Vancomycin
1950 1970 1980 1990
Penicillin
Methicillin
1960
Ciprofloxacin
Ciprofloxacin
1940 2000
Dru
g In
trod
uced
Firs
t Cas
e of
Res
ista
nce
Rifampicin
DaptomycinLinezolid
Rifampicin
Daptomycin
Linezolid
Tigecycline
Vancomycin
Drug resistance timeline
Gentamicin
Gentamicin
Cefalotin
Cefalotin
Tetracycline
Tetracycline
• StaphVAX (Nabi)– Targets Capsule CP5 and CP8
• AltaStaph (Nabi)– Targets Capsule CP5 and CP8
• NeuTec Pharma– Unreported Surface Antigen
• Veronate (Inhibitex)– Targets ClfA (Surface Antigen)
• Vaccine Research Int– Can/Clf/FnBp/Eap (Surface Antigens)
• ETI-211b (Elusys)– Spa (Surface Antigen)
• SRP(Sanofi Pasteur)– Siderophore/Antiporter
• Novartis– IsdB/SdrD/SdrE/IsdA (Surface Antigens)
• Merck– IsdB (Surface Antigen)
• Aurexis (Inhibitex)– Targets ClfA (Surface Antigen)
• Biosynexsus– Wall Techoic Acid
FAILED Phase III (2002)
FAILED Phase II (2006)
Dormant Since 2009
FAILED Phase III (2007)
FAILED Phase II (2011)
Surely vaccines will work?
FAILED Phase II/III (2011)
FAILED Phase II (2006)
Dormant Since 2009
Dormant Since 2007
Dormant Since 2007
FAILED Phase III (2011)
Post-Antibiotic Era
What Does this Add Up To?
SIGNIFICANCE
Part 2: Where to Begin – the Groundwork
What I Cannot Do For You!
Learning on the Job
What I Can Do For You!
The NIH’s 21 Institutes
Their Remit
Their Budgets
The Paylines
Their Success Rates
Their Due Dates
R01 =
R03/R21 =
R15 =
Timing and FY Budgets
Picking a Study Section
Creating a Funding Strategy
Diversification
Exploit Serendipity
Maximizing Return on Investment
R01 R21
But Remember, Quality, Not Just Quantity
Scoping out the Competition
Other Groundwork - Networking
Elevator Pitch
Part 3: Getting Started – the Types of Applications
RFA vs Investigator Initiated
RFA vs Investigator Initiated
Type of Application
Grant Amount Years Scope Renewable ESI
R01 $1,250,000+ 4-5 Discrete, specified, circumscribed project
Yes Y
R21 $275,000 2 Exploratory, high risk, high reward No N
R03 $100,000 2 Small project, pilot or feasibility studies
No N
R15 $300,000 3 Support meritorious research, Expose students to research, Strengthen the research environment of the institution
Yes N
R15s the Basics
Institution cannot receive >$6M a year from NIH(USF Med school ineligible, main campus is)
12+1 Pages, due 25th of the month
Supports Meritorious Research
Student Involvement is paramount
Must strengthen the research environment
Preliminary Data not Required!
Renewable
Extra Considerations
Mechanism Specifics
R15 Issues
R15 Positives at USF
R03s the Basics
Preliminary Data Not Required!
6+1 Page Application (same size as R21)
16th of the month due date (same as R21)
Success rates a little better (22.5% > 21.6%)
Comes down to risk and project scope
Extra Considerations
Cost Benefit Analysis
Career Stage Considerations
Might consider starting small to
be good
But, without a track record, can you get the work
done in time?
R03s rarely lead to R01s
R21s the Basics
Preliminary Data Not Required!
6+1 Page Application
16th of the month due date
$175,00 more than R03
Need to deliver
For projects that need a shot in the arm
Extra Considerations
High Risk, High Reward
Exploratory – think about language
Two or Three Aims?
Conservatism
R01 R21
Fishing Expedition
R01s the Basics
Preliminary Data Definitely Required!
12+1 Page Application
5th of the month due date
Up to $1,250,000 over 5 years
Not easy to get!
Extra Considerations
New is Good for R01s
ESI: Early Stage Investigator<10 years since terminal degreeNever been PI of an R01
NI: New Investigator>10 years since terminal degreeNever been PI of an R01
ESI/NI Help
Other R01 Benefits
R56
Selective Pay NominationDecided by POsFunds a small number of grants that miss the
payline, but are programmatically important
Part 4: Logistics & Review Criteria
Work to a Timeline
Just because you CAN write a grant in 2 weeks, doesn’t mean you should!
Self EvaluationProven track record – particularly for R01sProductivityTrainingNew field – smaller grant? Do you have papers?
Got an Idea?Gap in the KnowledgeCompetition – enough space?ImpactFollow serendipity
Crafting Your Aims – Gut Check
Ask yourself these questions:
Would my reviewers see my aims as tackling an important problem in a significant field?
Would they would view my aims as being innovative?
Do my specific aims test my hypothesis?
Are they doable within the period I am requesting?
Are the aims and hypothesis concrete and focused?
Can I define endpoints my reviewers will be able to assess?
Crafting Your Aims – Check Point
IMPACT
Significance
Investigator
Innovation
Approach
Environment
Human Subjects, Animals, Biohazards
Resubmission/Renewal
Review Criteria
Significance
Understanding Significance
Significance
Make sure all your reviewers—not just your assigned reviewers—grasp the importance of your project
Throughout, focus on the significance of your research to your field and to public health
Convince your reviewers how the niche you've selected can push forward the frontier of knowledge in your field.
Highlight the significance in your Abstract and Specific Aims — the sections all reviewers will read
Explicitly state:
How your research will advance your field
How it will fill knowledge gaps, and how it relates to research underway
How the work is new and unique
How it meets the NIH mission to:
Improve health through science, by leading to cures, treatments, or preventions for human disease
How convincing you are will profoundly affect your score
Significance
Significance
If most of your reviewers are fluent in your field, don't spend much effort convincing them of the significance of your project
Reviewers think of most work in their field as significant
They will be particularly energized by an application that addresses critical research and has a promising strategies
Reviewers make judgments based on their experience and expertise.
Scoping your reviewers out and writing to their perspective is key
Convince them of the significance of your research based on the composition of your study section.
Scenario 1 – Study section is narrowly focused in your field (reviewers are fluent in your area): spend much less effort convincing them of your project's significance.
Scenario 2 - Study section is more diverse: write more on significance
Significance 101
In the Significance section, you describe the importance of your hypothesis to the field (especially if your reviewers are not in it) and human disease.
You point out significance throughout the application.
The application shows that you are aware of opportunities, gaps, roadblocks, and research already underway
You state how your research will advance the field
Based on the roster, can you assume your reviewers will see things the way you do?
Significance Checkpoint
Let other people fill in gaps in your expertise
Choosing highly experienced people to be on your team will help build trust in the future success of your project.
Expand your pool of expertise by recruiting consultants and collaborators, especially those who are known and respected
Get commitments from collaborators at the planning stage - don't waste time planning work you cannot deliver.
Use the credit card.
Senior-level collaborators will typically work part-time for credit (e.g., the potential of future publications), rather than pay.
Investigator
Collaborations are common, but there are drawbacks.
No control over the execution of that part of the research
Working out the order of authors on future publications.
Collaborators may want to use data generated for their grants and may see themselves as the lead.
Collaborators play an active role in the research. The grant may pay part of their salary via a subaward
Consultants provide advice or services that fill gaps, e.g. supplying reagent/software. They usually receive a fee rather than salary
Investigator
Here are some questions to consider:
Is the collaborator at your institution?
If not, what inter-institutional agreements may be necessary?
You might want to look at multiple PI agreements as an example.
What intellectual property arrangements do you need to make?
Investigator
Innovation
Understanding Innovation
Be Innovative, But Be WaryInnovation is a review criterion – so think outside the box — just not too far!Innovation is the knowledge, tools, resources your project can contribute to the field.It's enough to show how the work you propose is new and unique and will push the frontiers of knowledge aheadFor most people, the goal is significant incremental progress, not a giant leap forward. This generally means improving on or proposing a new application of an existing concept, method, or clinical intervention.
Innovation
If you are a new investigator or are entering a new area, expect reviewers to be skeptical if your research is highly innovative.
Note that if your reviewers feel they could not get the work done, they are unlikely to think you could either.
Reviewers may also take a challenge to the status quo as a challenge to his or her world view or research.
Novel methodology – that you can actually do – is always a huge help
Innovation
After finishing the draft innovation section, check that:
You show how your research is new and unique
Explores new scientific avenues
Has a novel hypothesis
Will create new knowledge.
If you are a new investigator:
Do you explain how your project can refine, improve, or propose a new application to an existing concept/method?
Innovation Checkpoint
If you go for the other option described in NIH's definition: show how your research can shift a current paradigm, do you:
Make a very strong case for challenging the existing paradigm?
Have data to support the innovative approach?
Have strong evidence that you can do the work?
Innovation Checkpoint
Sketch Out Experiments for Your Research Strategy
If your Specific Aims section is the big-picture part of your application's Research Plan, the Research Strategy is its nuts and bolts.
In your Research Strategy show your reviewers that you can not only "talk the talk" but also "walk the walk.“
Start planning by sketching out experiments you could do to conclusively accomplish each aim, including alternative pathways you could pursue.
Having references for techniques avoids a lot of problems
Approach
Plan what you would do if:You get an exciting new lead.You get a negative result.
Map out alternative experiments too, making sure they track with your planned aims.Showing alternatives will help convince reviewers you are well-prepared to deal with unknowns and reveal how you thoughtfully planned your research. You may want to create a flowchart and timeline for planning and possibly include it in the application.Approach is the most common place for things to go wrong
Approach
After finishing a draft Approach section, check that:
You include enough background and preliminary data to give reviewers the context and significance of your plans.
Each of your Specific Aims results in a set of experiments:
That can test the hypothesis
Show alternative experiments and approaches in case you get negative or surprising results.
Your experiments can yield meaningful data to test your hypothesis.
Approach Checkpoint
As a new investigator, include enough detail to convince reviewers you understand and can handle a method.Is it clear what you do well and what unique skills you and your team bring to the research? If you think reviewers may have doubts, explicitly state
your team's resources and expertise.Do you describe results and anticipated their implications.Do you keep track of, and explain, who will do what, what they will do, when and where they will do it, how long it will take, and how much money it will cost.Does your timeline show when you expect to complete your aims?
Approach Checkpoint
Environment
Environment is Easy – Get it Right!
Top 10 Reasons for Application Failure
1. Poorly formatted, typographical errors, grammatical errors, lack of proofreading, or unappealing presentation.
2. Insufficient preliminary data, or preliminary data do not support project's feasibility.
3. Overly ambitious Specific Aims or Research Strategy.
4. Unimportant question; lack of significance to the field or public health.
5. Lack of investigator expertise or collaborators on the team.
6. Lack of innovation or new ideas.
7. Lack of a strong, original hypothesis and Specific Aims.
8. Failure to identify potential pitfalls and lack of alternative approaches.
9. Failure to demonstrate knowledge of the field (didn’t cite relevant papers or account for alternative viewpoints).
10. Failure to request a study section or get advice on study section choice (so the application ended up in the wrong study section).
Top 10 Reasons for Application Failure
Part 5: Other Assembled Advice
Ask: Can the research make a difference?Will it open up a new area of discovery ?Will it develop a new approach to a major problem?
Get outside opinionsDon't assume others will see you work as you do
When considering projects, get advice from experts, including colleagues and NIH program officers
Make sure your strengths match up with potential projects, and you are within your area of expertise
You Can’t Do Science in a Vacuum
Create Specific Aims that fit the mechanism
Make sure they have clear endpoints reviewers can readily assess
Create a hypothesis (or hypotheses) that is well focused and testable by the aims and experiments
Make sure your project is not getting too big
Limit scope. Avoid being too ambitious. Create a project of limited scope that is doable within the time and resources appropriate for you to request, especially if you are a new investigator.
Size, Scope and Overly Ambitious
See whether you have all the necessary resources and expertise to perform the experiments
Think about hiring – who and how many?
Make sure your team has first-hand experience with the science and methods
If the team is multidisciplinary, make sure NIH has a review committee that will be able to effectively review the application
Check that you have access to necessary equipment, especially large equipment
Resources and Experience
Rate the project and decide whether to pursue it. Ask NIH program officers whether your idea would fit their institute – what do they think?Ask experts in your institution and other colleagues to rate your ideaGive a presentation on the project and possible research approachesBased on this input, rate the impact of your topic on a scale from 1 (highest) to 9 (lowest), the NIH review scaleTake another look at your NIH peer review committee. What will they think of your idea?
Self Triage
Design a project that is a bit outside of the box—but not too much!Think of innovation as what your project will contribute to your field if it succeedsIf you are a new investigator, strive for significant incremental progress, not a giant leap forward.It's enough to show how the work you propose is new and unique and will add significantly to existing knowledge.Know the policy areas that make your application more complex.IRB, IACUC, rDNA
Be Novel – Just Not Too Novel!
Write To Your Audience
Fire up your reviewers by convincing them of these key points.
1. Your proposal has a strong potential to have a high impact on its field of science.
2. Your approach is logical and innovative.
3. Your institution will give you the support you need.
4. You (with the help of your collaborators) are the person to do the research.
5. Testing your hypothesis is worth NIH's money.
1. Can your research move your field forward?
2. Is the field important—will progress make a difference to human health?
3. Can you and your team carry out the work?
Three Big Questions
As you write your application, check that:You understand who your audience is so you know what they're looking for.Realize that although only a few reviewers read your full application, the entire study section will score it.Spell out why you should be funded by describing how your project is high impact.Make it easy for assigned reviewers to grasp the goals, significance, and feasibility of the project.Your Abstract, Specific Aims, and Significance can be understood by your assigned reviewers and the rest of the study section
Checkpoint
Methods unsuited to the objective.Lack of focus in hypothesis, Specific Aims, or Research Plan.Study not likely to produce useful information.Problem more complex than investigator appears to realize.Proposed project is a fishing expedition lacking solid scientific basis, i.e., no basic scientific question being addressed.Insufficient statistical expertise either to design the project or conduct the research.Proposed model system not appropriate to address the proposed questions.Relevant controls not included.Contradictory data were obtained by the investigator and that reported by others.
Design Issues
Rationale for experiments not provided, i.e., why they are important or how they are relevant to the hypothesis.
Too little detail in the Research Plan to convince reviewers the investigator knows what he or she is doing.
Direction or sense of priority not clearly defined, i.e., experiments do not follow one another and lack a clear starting or finishing point.
Not clear which data were obtained by the investigator and which were reported by others.
Writing and Presentation Issues
Reviewers May Not "Get It"Peer reviewers are knowledgeable, experienced scientists, but they don't know everything. Make your application as clear as possible so they can understand your idea.Problem: They may not be familiar with all your methods.Solution: Write to the nonexpert in the field.
Problem: They may not be familiar with your lab.Solution: Convince them you can do the job.
Problem: They may get worn out from reading many applicationsSolution: Write clearly and concisely, and make sure your
application is neat, well organized, and visually appealing.
Problems and Solutions
You have just a few seconds to make a great first impression.
At first glance, reviewers know whether they eagerly anticipate or dread reading your application.
All the more reason it should be neat, well organized, and easy-to-read.
Keep in mind that your reviewers have a multitude of applications to evaluate, so they'll appreciate one that's visually appealing and super user friendly.
Presentation, Presentation, Presentation
Divide into sections. Use headers to create structure and white space. Also, try breaking up text since blocks of uninterrupted text are depressing to look at. Guide with graphics. Graphics, timelines, and other visuals help reviewers grasp a lot of information. Label all materials clearly. Make it easy for reviewers to find information.Edit and proofread. Your presentation—writing and appearance—can make or break your application, so eliminate typos and internal inconsistencies. And, since two or more sets of eyes are better than one, ask other people—including nonscientists—to read your application.
Presentation, Presentation, Presentation
Savvy PIs create opportunities to drive their main points home.
They don't stop at the Significance section to emphasize their project's importance, they look beyond their biosketches to highlight their team's expertise.
Don't take a chance your reviewer will gloss over that one critical sentence buried somewhere in your Research Strategy
Write yourself an insurance policy against human fallibility: if it's a key point, repeat it, then repeat it again.
Packaging
Add more emphasis by putting the text in bold, or bold italics (in the modern age, we skip underlining—it's for typewriters).While describing a method in the Approach section, state your collaborators' experience with it.Point out that you have access to a necessary piece of equipment.When explaining your field and the status of current research, weave in your own work and preliminary data.Delve into the biology of an area to make sure reviewers will grasp the importance of the research, and understand the field and how your work fits into it.
Packaging
In the top-notch applications we reviewed, organization ruled but
followed few rules. While you want to be organized, how you go
about it is up to you.
Final Piece of Advice
Part 6: Review – the Study Section
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fBDxI6l4dOA#at=558
CSR Video of Study Section