kevin m. kelley, ph.d. associate dean for research college ...web.csulb.edu/healthequity/sites/ ·...

Kevin M. Kelley, Ph.D.Associate Dean for Research

College of Natural Sciences and MathematicsCSULB

Faculty Workshop for Developing NIH Proposals

Focused on Health Disparities Topics



http://grants.nih.gov/grants/grants_process.htm NIH’s “Grants Process Overview” includes a video

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/writing_application.htm NIH’s “Writing Your Application” (useful tips)Browning, Beverly A. (2014). Grant Writing for Dummies, ISBN:978-1-118-83466-4

See above resources, and handouts provided at workshop

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/grants_process.htm

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/writing_application.htm

I. Support of Competitive Research (SCORE) Research Advancement Award (SC1)Individual investigator-initiated research projects aimed at developing researchers (at MSIs) to a stage where they can transition successfully to other extramural support (R01 or equivalent)PAR-14-019 [http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-019.html]faculty “at the most advanced formative stages of their research career and are seeking to transition from to non-SCORE support; productive as evidenced by a steady track record of peer-reviewed publications; expected to increase research competitiveness by progressively enhancing the pace and productivity of their projects

II. Support of Competitive Research (SCORE) Pilot Research Project (SC2) Individual investigator-initiated pilot research projects for faculty (at MSIs) to generate data for a more

ambitious research project.PAR-14-017 [http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-017.html]allows investigators normally in their earlier stages of development to test a new idea or gather preliminary data to establish a new line of research; a “mentored” award (with R01 investigator); must “be able to commit a minimum of 50% of full-time effort during academic year and summer to conduct the proposed research"; it is expected that investigators will continue to compete successfully for NIH or other research support as a result of the SC2 award progress. No preliminary data required for SC2

III. Support of Competitive Research (SCORE) Research Continuance Award (SC3) Individual investigators at intermediate stages of development to continue to engage in meritorious research projectsPAR-14-018 [http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-018.html]investigators who have been engaged in research and published and who seek to continue to conduct competitive research of limited scope to increase their publications and ‘eventually’ transition to non-SCORE support; “in addition, the SC3 seeks to expand the research base at the institution and to broaden the exposure of students to the excitement of science and the conduct of biomedical research

NIH

SCO

RE P

RO

GR

AM

S ww

w.n

igms.n

ih.go

v/trainin

g/SC

OR

EFaculty Workshop for Developing NIH Proposals


“early”

“late”

CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Upcoming SCORE deadline: “Sunday January 25, 2015” (=Monday January 26, 5:00 pm local time)(NIH allows proposal submission on day after posted deadline if it falls on a non-business day; other upcoming deadline in 2015: May 25). The program has been continued through 2016, using January 25 and May 25 deadlines.

2. Proposed budgets: SC1 [≤$250,000*/yr; 4 yr max]SC2 [≤$100,000*/yr; 3 yr max]

SC3 [≤$75,000*/yr; 4 yr max] (*direct cost)

3. Prospective PIs: SC1 & SC2: cannot be a PI/PD of any other active research support at the time an SC award is made

SC3: cannot have more than $75,000 support from other grants

4. Page limits on narrative: 6 pages for SC2 & SC3; 12 pages for SC1

5. NIH limit of 20 SC grants/institution: we still have ample room for more (at least 10 spots left currently)

6. Renewals allowed? SC1 (one renewal allowed); SC2 (no renewals allowed); SC3 (no restrictions)

7. CSULB eligibility and submission: When you prepare your SCORE applications, CNSM has developed an “Institutional

Information” document that is important for the proposal’s eligibility for SCORE (these documents are placed into the “Other

Attachments” section of the NIH proposal). . . . of course we share!



Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) Program (R15)Supports small-scale research projects in the biomedical and behavioral sciences conducted by faculty and students at educational institutions that have not been major recipients of NIH research grant funds. PAR-13-313 [http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-13-313.html] --as posted 9, 2013Deadlines: February 25, June 25 and October 25, 2014 (standard NIH application deadlines)Budget: up to $300,000 direct costs over entire project (≤3 years)renewablepreliminary data not required

NSF and NIH deadlines

NSF-MRI: January 22, 2015 (similar January dates in future years)

Various NSF deadlines: see http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?org=NSF&ord=date

e.g., IOS: prelim Jan 17, invited full Aug. 1DEB: prelim Jan 23, invited Aug. 4

Various NIH deadlines: see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm

NIH-SCORE-winter: January 26*NIH-SCORE-spring: May 25* *same deadlines all years through 5-2016



http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?org=NSF&ord=date

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm



• What do you want to accomplish (objectives)?– This is the introductory, 1-page “master plan” for your proposed research.– Unfortunately, it is not unusual for some members of study sections to read

only the Specific Aims and Project Summary/Abstract before scoring.• Dense, full-of-jargon, poorly-written Specific Aims will not reflect well in the scoring of

your proposal, even if the science is good!

– Is a useful summary for obtaining early feedback on your proposal

• Includes project hypothesis to be tested and milestones– all of the key aspects of your project (e.g., what is important and exciting)

without fine detail

• Aim for an unmet scientific need (highlight novelty!)

• Be crystal-clear in your writing!– You provide the conceptual framework upon which the reviewers hang the

details of what will be done.

The Heart of the Proposal: Specific Aims



• Specific Aims section is the most important part of your proposal—you must “sell” your research idea!– Understand your customer (e.g., Study Section reviewers)

– Show that you will help NIH (or DoD, NSF, etc.) accomplish its goals

• Start with a concise problem statement and state why it is important

• Limit yourself to 2-4 aims

• Make sure to explain why the research matters

• Final product: A well-crafted project that will result in the advancement of significant knowledge in your field

More Tips for Specific Aims



• Convince the reviewers that the funding will be a good return on investment ROI (SALES)

• Write for a general science audience; don’t bury your aims in too much jargon

• Explain specialized terminology

– Too dense to read = too dense to fund

• Keep it general and interesting

– Focus on Why, Who, What, and How

More Tips for Specific Aims



• First section (upper bread): topic, goals, objectives, hypothesis, and rationale

• Middle section (the meat and cheese):

Specific Aims: 2-4 objectives and description

• Last section (lower bread): use last brief paragraph to highlight impact and outcomes

Make a Specific Aims Sandwich:



Hypothesis: a general statement, based on existing information, that describes a process in nature

– Allows one to make specific predictions that can be tested experimentally

Properties:

– Fit: compatible with existing knowledge

– Testability

– Simplicity

– Generality: applies broadly



Preparing a Grant Funding Timeline

• A Timeline (Gantt chart) tells the grant reviewer when major project milestones will begin and end during the grant’s funding period (usually in 12-month increments).

• The timeline also typically includes information about who’s accountable for each activity and how you’ll evaluate the program’s accomplishments during that period.



When you develop a project timeline, keep in mind that the grant reader wants to see answers to the following questions:

•What are the key tasks/activities that will be carried out to implement the program successfully?

•Did the grant applicant include all tasks, from the day funding is announced or awarded to the last day of the project’s funding time frame?

•Do the tasks reflect accurately the budget, budget periods, and budget justification?

•Can each task realistically begin and end in the proposed time frame?

•Are evaluation activities included in the timeline chart?

•Who is responsible for seeing that each activity is implemented and completed?

Inouye, SK et al. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:274-282

Examples



Project Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Initial Planning Phase 12 months

Student Outreach (n=286) 48 months Lower Division Program 48 months Upper Division Program 51 months Evaluation & Data Analysis 54 months

Figure 2: Project Timeline

Table 4: Program Implementation Timeline and Total Numbers of Scholars Trained Per Year Note that the total number of scholars per year includes the overlapping cohorts, which spans multiple years.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Academic Summer Academic Summer Academic Summer Academic Summer Academic Summer

Cohort 1 Set up recruitment& selection; Prepare LC seminars and SRTP

36 UD

Cohort 2 32 LD 36 UD




# Scholars/year 36 UD 32 LD & 72 UD 32 LD & 98 UD 32 LD & 98 UD 32 LD & 98 UD

Examples, continued

Table 2. Institutional Development Core Evaluation Plan time-line: year

1 1

1-2 1-2

1-2 1-5 2-4 2-5 2-5 2-5

Aim-1 Implement strategic infrastructure plan to expand research capacity and student training

Performance Indicators: d.1.1 Establish BSE & BHE Infrastructure Cooperatives and hire Research Resources & Training Coordinators d.1.2 Create broadly-represented BSE & BHS Infrastructure Committees and catalogue and coordinate resources1 d.1.2.1 Hire BHS research specialists (c.1.2 i-iii)1 d.1.3 Complete A&R projects; equip and open new resources for student and faculty research (c.1.1, c.1.2 & c.1.3)1 d.1.4 Establish, advertise and implement Faculty Research Strengthening Programs: d.1.4.1 Institutional innovations to expand time to excel and compete (c.2.4.vi)1 d.1.4.2 Collaborative Research Stimulation* & Pilot/Seed Grant Programs (c.2.4 ii&iii)2 d.1.4.3 Small Instruments and Equipment Program (c.2.4.iv)1 d.1.4.4 Faculty Research Mentoring Program (c.2.4.i)2 d.1.4.5 Annual Biomedical Research Conference (c.2.5) d.1.4.6 Research Resources and Training websites (c.1.3) using data from d.1.2 (above); maintain updated1

Aim-2 Implement faculty development programs to enhance mentorship and pedagogical skills

Performance Indicators: d.2.1 Hire Multicultural Innovation (MI) & Pedagogical Innovation (PI) Coordinators (c.2.3) d.2.1.1 Develop innovations and content for campus faculty development curricula (with FCPD, c.2.3)3 d.2.2 Create and run the Mentoring in a Multicultural Setting workshop series (c.2.3.i)3 d.2.3 Establish the BUILD Mentors Colloquia (c.2.3.ii)3 d.2.3 Create and run the BUILD Faculty Learning Community (c.2.3.ii)3

1 1

2-5 1

1-5

1-5

Aim-3 Develop the Doctoral Scientists Program and Faculty Diversity Initiative

Performance Indicators: d.3.1 Create, advertise and implement the BUILD Research Postdoctoral Fellows program (c.2.2)4 d.3.1.1 Engage postdoctoral fellows in faculty development programs, teaching and career development3,4 d.3.2 Initiate, advertise and hire R1 Postdoctoral Teaching Fellows positions (c.2.2)4 d.3.3 Establish Research Assistant Professor tracks, advertise and implement (c.2.2)4 d.3.4 Implement the multi-pronged recruitment measures (c.2.1) for the Faculty Diversity Initiative d.3.5 Open faculty searches in each participating College, using above recruitment measures (c.2.1) and hiring4 d.3.5.1 Engage new hires in faculty development programs (c.2.3)3 d.3.6 Prepare and submit an NIH-IRACDA proposal with R1 Partner UC Irvine (c.2.2)4

1-5 1-5 1-5 2

1-5 2-5 2-5 2

Associated Outcomes Data will include: 1[research time allocated to faculty, infrastructure redundancies removed and integration; faculty research skills development; use of new facilities to expanded research]; 2[collaborations formed, associated productivity—research grants; student-involved publications & conference presentations]; 3[use of new mentoring and pedagogical strategies and skills, student performance outcomes (grades, growth perceptions, skills development), and professional dissemination of results; student demographics in faculty research programs; number of R1 mentors for faculty and associated faculty productivity]; 4[number and demographics of Research Postdocs, R1 Postdoc Teaching Fellows, and Research Assistant Professor positions; Tenure-track Faculty hires and demographics]

Examples, continued



Examples, continued

Grant-writing timeline

Inouye, SK et al., Ann Intern Med 2005;142:274-282 See handout “B”



• Significance: is the work important?

• Innovation: is it new thinking?

• Approach: is it feasible?

• Investigator(s): are they well-suited?

• Environment: is there adequate support and resources?

NIH Research Project Grant Review Criteria



• Align your project with defined research priorities

• Identify who will be reviewing your proposal– http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Pages/default.

aspx

• Know the evaluation criteria– NIH: significance, investigator, innovation,

approach, environment

– Other agencies: find out (= do your homework!)

http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Pages/default.aspx



• Lack of new ideas• Unfocused research plan: poorly-written or unresponsive to

program directions• Lack on knowledge of published relevant work• Lack of essential scientific experience• Future directions of research?• Questionable experimental approach• Unrealistic scope of work• Lack of experimental detail• Limited funding: major issue at present

– FY13: NIAID R01 new investigator 12%; established investigator 8%

Reasons for Not Getting Funded



Good luck and go for it!

kevin m. kelley, ph.d. associate dean for research college ...web.csulb.edu/healthequity/sites/ ·...

Documents