Tips on Writing Basic Research Grants

1
Tips on Writing BasicResearch Grants

• John S. Adams, M.D.
• Burns and Allen Research Institute General
  Clinical Research Center (GCRC)
• Cedars-Sinai Medical
• UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine

2
Experience

• 1987-91 V.A. Career Development Study Section
• 1994-96 NIH Orthopedic Study Section, ad hoc
• 1997-01 NIH Orthopedic Study Section
• 1997-01 NIH, OBM Study Section, special
  emphasis panels
• 1992-pres GCRC grant author and reviewer
• K30 curriculum developer
• K23 and T32 program director

3
Agenda

• tips for success
• know the process and players
• get and use a grant-writing mentor
• resubmission process
• pink sheet analysis
• crafting and effective Introduction

4
Timeline of Events
Months
supplementary material to SRA
submission
study section review
Council
pink sheets
IRG (study section) assignment
score
resubmission
revision
5
Imperatives

• Recognize your strengths and weaknesses.
• Know your audience all study section members
  vote on your proposal.
• key concepts
• significance
• innovation
• hypothesis-driven
• Start from scratch no cutting pasting allowed.

6
Composition Tips

• trip to the zoo approach
• tell the reader a story
• directed
• connected
• use pictures for concept expression
• model human experiments
• in animals
• in vitro

7
Timeline of Events
Months
supplementary material to SRA
submission
study section review
Council
pink sheets
IRG (study section) assignment
score
resubmission
revision
8
Study Section Assignment

• Comes from the DRG (Division of Research Grants)
• Arrives within 2-4 weeks of submission deadline
• Provides study section (initial review group
  IRG) assignment
• Assigns an IRG contact person usually the SRA
  (senior review administrator) of the study
  section
• Provides Institute assignment
• Could be assigned to 2 or even more institutes

9
Study Section Assignment
10
Timeline of Events
Months
supplementary material to SRA
submission
study section review
Council
pink sheets
IRG (study section) assignment
score
resubmission
revision
11
(No Transcript)
12
Notice of Score

• Comes from the Institute to which grant assigned
• Arrives within 2-3 weeks of study section
  (initial review group IRG) meeting
• Provides score and percentile rank
• Assigns the Institute contact person, usually a
  Program Administrator
• cannot contact this person until after receipt of
  the summary statement
• Provides approximate time for arrival of the
  summary statement of pink sheets

13
Summary Statement or Pink Sheets

• Face sheet
• Resume and Summary of Discussion
• Description (applicants own words)
• Critiques
• Human subjects utilization
• Animal utilization
• Budget recommendations
• Study Section roster

14
Summary Statement or Pink Sheets
15
Resume and Summary of Discussion

• Composed by the Scientific Review Administrator
  (SRA) of the study section
• Summarizes
• Hypothesis of the proposal
• Strengths
• Weaknesses
• Sentiment of the study section

16
Critiques

• In order primary, secondary, tertiary reviewer
  comments
• Can contain a minority opinion
• Each addresses five issues
• Significance
• Approach
• Most extensive, critical review of the science
• Innovation
• Investigators
• Environment
• Critically important for K grantees

17
Adams Method for Pink Sheet Analysis

• Tabulate strengths (black) and weaknesses (red).
• Be comprehensive, but
• Dont count the same criticism twice
• black to red ratios
• 11 score 150
• 12 score 200
• 13 score 250
• Most important criticisms are those levied by
  more than a single reviewer.

18
Black and Red Critique Identification
19
Timeline of Events
Months
supplementary material to SRA
submission
study section review
Council
pink sheets
IRG (study section) assignment
score
resubmission
revision
20
Resubmission

• Due in March, July, or November
• Uses the 398 format
• Contains clearly marked revisions to the original
  submission
• Introduction precedes Section A
• Limited to two pages
• Delineates substance and sites of revisions

21
Your ResubmissionDo

• Follow 398 instructions precisely.
• Assume all of the initial study section comments
  were correct.
• Respond to all criticisms.
• Assume the same reviewer(s) will be seeing your
  revised application.
• try to identify your reviewer(s) from the
  summary statement roster
• write the resubmission with your reviewers
  research/expertise in mind

22
Your ResubmissionDont

• assume youre smarter than your reviewers
• argue with the reviewers in your response
• Leave out a consideration of any criticism,
  regardless of how minor it might seem to you
• fail to have your colleague and/or mentor review
  your revision before resubmission
• fight with your
• grants and contract officer
• IRB office
• IACUC representative

23
Writing the Introduction

• Thank the IRG for their work
• Begin on a positive note
• Recount the strengths noted by the IRG
• Recount the weaknesses
• Start with most frequently noted and substantial
• Move to least common and serious
• Identify the site of revisions in response to
  stated weaknesses
• End on a positive note

24
Your ResubmissionFatal Flaws

• Not marking points of revision in your
  resubmission
• Writing a non-responsive Introduction
• Writing an antagonistic (i.e. condescending)
  Introduction
• Resubmitting before you have the additional
  preliminary data requested