Grants and Grant Writing

1
Grants and Grant Writing

• M.E. Maguire

2
Outline

• Where do grants come from?
• The process of grant application and review
• The review
• Grant writing suggestions
• Review an actual grant
• Respond to the review of that grant

3
Why get grants?

• To be able to do your own research
• Feed your curiosity
• Get tenure (or keep your company afloat)

4
Who do you get grants from?

• FEDERAL
• NIH
• NSF
• DOD
• DOE
• DARPA
• STATE
• LOCAL
• Other NATIONAL Non-Profit
• Pharmaceutical and Biotech Firms -

5
Federal Grants

• NIH
• Basic biomedical research NIGMS only
• Disease related All other institutes
• Some from equipment centers and infrastructure
  grants
• NSF
• Basic research in all fields of science
• To strengthen structure and participation in
  the scientific enterprise

6
Federal Grants

• DOD
• Breast cancer
• Bioterrorism (also NIH)
• Applications (especially weaponry in the broadest
  context)
• DOE
• Microbial genomes
• Bioremediation
• Energy generation

7
Federal Grants

• DARPA
• Defense Advanced Research Project Agency
• Mostly contract research, not a grant
• Generous funding
• Rapid, continual progress, closely monitored
• Future years are not guaranteed funding
• Much is technology oriented, but significant
  amount is biological
• Always cutting edge, speculative, pie in the sky,
  risky
• Very often will fund things that they think have
  less than 1 chance of succeeding or that are
  demonstration of principle
• We expect you to fail
• We hope you get filthy rich

8
Other Grants

• State agencies
• Tend to be for facilities or specific types of
  enterprises
• Very targeted
• Tend to be consortia of institutions
• Usually only 1-2 years funding
• Some politics

9
Local Agencies

• Local Foundations
• Small, not many
• Tend to be extremely targeted

10
National Non-Profit

• Disease-related (usually)
• AHA
• ACS
• Kidney
• AHA/ACS will support basic research if clearly
  connected to a disease process
• Often favor younger investigators
• Less /grant than NIH
• Howard Hughes
• They find you
• Other National Foundations
• Eclectic, usually very targeted
• Sometimes good source of fellowships
• Do not neglect. If your area matches a
  foundations, can be long-term support
• Ellison Foundation
• Global Infectious Disease or Aging
• Tell us why NIH wont fund this.

11
Pharmaceutical Biotech

• Drug trials or testing
• Drug discovery
• Some aspects of basic research
• See CVs of Piomelli and Penning
• Can build long term relationships
• Modest (20-100K)
• Entrepreneurial and/or aggressive approach helps

12
NIH and NSF

• Different cultures
• NIH tends to be more targeted, focused research
• NSF will support more global approaches to an
  informational or methodological problem
• Phosphoproteome
• NIH is much more money usually
• NSF does not like to support PI salary
• NSF requires you to consider broader aspects of
  the research
• Educational
• Outreach
• K-12
• Teachers

13
NIH Grants

• Types
• R01 Individual Investigator Grants
• R03 Small Grant Program
• R15 AREA grants
• R21 Innovative Research Grants
• P01 Program Project
• Centers and SCORs
• K Awards

14
NIH Grants

• R01 Individual Investigator Grants
• The basic grant
• 3-5 years of support
• Up to 250,000/yr, no detailed budget
• Can ask for more, but requires justification
• About 9,000/year new/competing renewals
• Becoming less and less a percentage of total NIH
  funds
• Most NSF grants would be similar to R01s

15
NIH Grants

• R03 Small Grant Program
• Limited funding for a short period of time
• Pilot or feasibility studies
• Secondary analysis of existing data
• Small, self-contained research projects
• Development of research methodology
• Development of new research technology
• Up to two years
• Up to 50,000 per year

16
NIH Grants

• R15 - AREA Grants
• To stimulate research in educational institutions
  that provide baccalaureate training for a
  significant number of the Nation's research
  scientists, but historically have not been major
  recipients of NIH support.
• Small research projects
• Feasibility and pilot studies
• Provide data preliminary to a traditional
  research project grant.
• lt 35,000/yr, total of 75,000 for up to 3 years
• Highly competitive

17
NIH Grants

• R21 Innovative Research Grants
• Innovative, high-risk research, requiring
  preliminary testing or development
• Exploration of new approaches or concepts
• Development of new technologies or methods
• Development of data upon which significant future
  research may be built, i.e., the data should have
  a high level of impact on the field
• Example New models in unusual organisms
• Two years funding
• Generally 100-150,000/yr
• Unfortunately, study sections tend to be too
  conservative

18
NIH Grants

• P01 Program Project
• Group of R01s thematically related
• Synergism among investigators should be
  demonstrated
• Slightly less /grant that R01
• But can have administrative and facility cores
• Virtually always 5 years
• Increasing percent of NIH budget
• University administrators love these
• More indirect costs and slightly longer term

19
NIH Grants

• SCORs and Centers
• Disease related Ireland Cancer Center or CFAR
• Facility Related (less common)
• Genomics/Proteomics
• SCOR tends to be a more disease related program
  project grant
• Centers are more comprehensive
• Clinical
• Basic
• Translational
• Patient care sometimes

20
NIH Grants

• K Awards
• Transitional or new direction
• Somewhat advanced training
• Beginning investigators
• Often abused

21
NIH Grants The Process

• Write it and submit it
• PHS398 form
• Three deadlines per year
• February 1, June 1, October 1
• Avoid February 1 if possible fiscal year issues
• Competitive renewals due 1 month later
• The big warehouse

22
NIH Grants The Process

• Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
• Not an institute, solely for reviews
• The Review Officer
• Assigns Institute and Study Section
• You can ask for specific Institute and SS
• Usually granted, not always
• Switches after a previous review are granted much
  less often, frowned on
• Dont shop for SSs

23
NIH Grants Study Sections

• IRGs (Initial Review Groups)
• Several study sections under each IRG
• AIDS and Related Research (8 SSs)
• Biochemical Sciences
• Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
• Integrative, Functional and Cognitive
  Neuroscience
• Molecular, Cellular and Developmental
  Neuroscience
• Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging, and
  Bioengineering

24
NIH Grants Study Sections

• Study Section function
• 12-20 members (3-4 year terms)
• Often an equal number of ad hoc members
• Ad hocs are not permanent members and can serve
  only once per fiscal year
• Mechanism to ensure adequate coverage
• 99 meet in Washington at a hotel
• Airfare, per diem and 100/day honorarium

25
NIH Grants Study Sections

• Study Section function
• Meet 1-3 days
• 30-120 grants, average 90
• 20 min per grant
• Review Science only
• Do NOT make funding decisions
• Confidentiality is very important
• Reviewers should never discuss grants with anyone
  outside SS meeting
• NIH is very strict about this

26
NIH Grants Study Sections

• Reviewers
• Usually 3
• Two primary (Must write full critique)
• One reader (May write a critique, usually short)
• Not necessarily an expert in the field
• Absolutely critical that you explain the science
  clearly
• Triage
• At beginning of meeting, nominate grants for Not
  competitive or Unscored, i.e., bottom 50
• If anyone objects, grant is fully discussed
• Triaged grants get a full written review, just no
  discussion

27
NIH Grants Study Sections

• Reviewers
• Conflicted members leave room
• Reviewers state a suggested score and then
  read/paraphrase their critiques
• Open floor for discussion
• Sometimes brief
• Sometimes lengthy
• Discussion reflected ONLY in the summary
• Pink Sheets
• Written critiques are sent verbatim, no editing
• Summary written by Exec Secy of SS

28
NIH Grants Scoring

• Grants are scored on a 1.0-5.0 basis
• 1.0 is best
• Average score is converted to 100-500 scale
• Get numerical score plus a percentile ranking
• Percentile is your score averaged against all
  grants reviewed at the current SS plus the two
  previous meetings of that SS
• Funding is rare for scores greater than 200 or
  percentiles greater than 25.
• Many institutes are funding between 15th and 20th
  percentile

29
NIH Grants

• Institute Councils
• The second step in the process is to present all
  scored grants to the Institute Advisory Council
• Mostly scientists, generally well established
• Some lay people, few administrators
• The Council is the group that actually approves
  funding
• They do not review the science
• Their mission is to make sure the total array of
  grants being funded fulfills the mission of that
  particular Institute

30
NIH Grants

• Institute Councils
• Institute Program Officers each present their
  portfolio of grants to the Council with their
  recommendations for funding
• Funding is strictly by percentile up to a point
• The last couple of percentiles are nebulous
• Those grants just a few percentile points below
  the payline are reviewed by the P.O.s and
  Council for relevance to Institute mission
• Council can and sometimes does choose to fund a
  proposal that is slightly below the payline if
  they deem it of more relevance/importance to the
  Institutes mission

31
NIH Grants - Help

• Two sources of help
• Study Section Executive Secretary
• Program Officer

32
NIH Grants - Help

• Study Section Executive Secretary
• A scientist, but now an administrator
• Handles all grant materials and paperwork
  regarding a review
• Does not actually preside over the SS
• One member is named Chair
• Responsible for writing a summary of the decision
  and discussion of the grant
• This is the most important part of your review
• Conscientious reviewers will slightly revise
  their critiques to reflect discussion, changes,
  etc.
• Most dont, but becoming more common
• Therefore, the written critiques are what the
  reviewer thought before they got there
• Can call/email Exec Secy to get more comments
• However, they often dont remember your
  individual grant so sometimes helps, sometimes not

33
NIH Grants - Help

• Program Officer
• The person in the assigned institute responsible
  for administering your grant
• Your friend!
• Cultivate your P.O.
• Be nice to your P.O., never argue or gripe
• Often attend SS meetings and thus have insight
  into what went on and can help you read between
  the lines of the critique

34
NIH Grants - Help

• Program Officer
• Has a portfolio
• Likes to build a portfolio of excellent grants
  from stable, excellent investigators
• Can sometimes get you interim funding or can push
  your grant if youre near the payline
• Can offer advice on revisions

35
NSF Grants

• NSF is very similar
• Main differences are
• P.I. salary frowned on
• NOT medically/disease related
• Smaller study sections, less biomedical and more
  biological expertise
• NSF also sends grants to several outside
  reviewers
• You get to recommend them
• Two reviewers at SS, plus outside reviews
• Outside reviews are mostly used as a check on the
  two reviewers
• Did they miss something?
• Provide expertise on a particular method or issue

36
NSF Grants

• Not numerically scored
• Categories
• Outstanding
• Excellent
• Good
• Acceptable/Average
• Not scientifically sound/valid
• Within each category, grants are ranked by
  ordering
• Whole SS is involved even if conflicted
• Reviewers write summary during SS
• Must be approved by other reviewer

37
NSF Grants

• SS heads combine Exec Secy and P.O. functions of
  NIH
• They make the funding decisions within certain
  guidelines
• They can modify budget and length

38
Does the Review Process Work?

• Yes!
• My 95 rule
• On the rare occasions it doesnt, you do have
  avenues of appeal, almost always through your
  Program Officer and/or Exec. Secy
• They trashed my grant is NOT a valid reason to
  appeal

39
GRANT WRITING

• There are NO absolute rules
• Lots of variations, most are valid
• Essential points
• Important BIOLOGICAL problem
• Good, hopefully innovative approach
• Convince them youre competent

40
GRANT WRITING

• Organization
• The first page and abstract are crucial
• Most SS members read only the abstract
• Your reviewers have formed an opinion about the
  grant solely from your statement of the problem
  and aims on the first page

41
GRANT WRITING

• Organization
• Introduction
• Not an exhaustive review of the literature
• Selectively review whats relevant to your ideas
• Highlight what isnt known and why it should be
• State a succinct summary of the issue(s) at end
  of Introduction

42
GRANT WRITING

• Organization
• Preliminary Data/Progress Report
• Data that defines the problem or defines the
  importance of the problem
• Data that demonstrates feasibility of approach
• Again summarize problem at end
• Maguires N1 rule
• Data in your papers versus data in a grant
  proposal

43
GRANT WRITING

• Organization
• Preliminary Data/Progress Report
• Does not have to be exhaustive
• Too many figures often counterproductive
• Make the figures BIG
• And make sure they print well
• Write figure legends that explain the experiment
• State importance of the experiment in the text

44
GRANT WRITING

• Organization
• Experimental
• Rationale Why?
• Experiments What?
• Anticipated Results
• And their interpretation
• I expect that this experiment will show. This
  would imply that..However, if the results show
  that, this could mean that..
• Alternative Approaches
• Alternative methods to get the data you want
• Alternative approaches to the question itself

45
GRANT WRITING

• Organization
• Aims
• Aims build on each other but are not necessarily
  dependent on each other
• Dont leave yourself open to an experiment in Aim
  1 such that if you dont get the expected result,
  Aims 2 and 3 are now irrelevant or not feasible
  or not important

46
GRANT WRITING

• Organization
• Aims
• Maguires rules of grant writing
• Aim 1 should be interesting but straightforward
• Aim 2 should be somewhat more innovative and have
  just a bit of risk
• Aim 3 can be more innovative and riskier but not
  off the wall
• If you have a really, really cute experiment,
  just do it, dont put it in the grant

47
GRANT WRITING

• During the Review Process
• Submitting Additional Data
• BRIEF!!!!!!
• To the point
• Important
• Demonstrate feasibility of an approach
• Crucial piece of data supporting hypothesis

48
GRANT WRITING

• During the Review Process
• Submitting Additional Data
• Submit 5-6 weeks before SS meets
• 7 complete copies
• No more that 2 pages of text and 1-2 figures,
  preferably less.
• The data in this figure demonstrate/show that
  This supports the idea that X is connected to Y,
  thus showing feasibility/supporting hypothesis of
  Aim X
• Reviewers are NOT obligated to read or to
  consider this additional data
• Most do, but they arent obligated.
• Most additional data submitted in my experience
  isnt very important, or its importance isnt
  explained well

49
GRANT WRITING

• Revising a Grant
• The reviewers are ALWAYS right
• The reviewers have ALWAYS given you good ideas
  and constructive criticism
• If the reviewers didnt understand something or
  misinterpreted something, its usually YOUR fault
• Usually, reviewers really are right. Listen to
  them
• You dont have to actually do the experiments
  they suggest
• Keep your replies to reviewers positive and brief
• Just say These were the main criticisms, Ive
  revised these sections to answer them, and Ive
  rewritten the entire grant anyway

50
GRANT WRITING

• Grammar and Spelling
• Get it right!!!!!!!!!!!
• Make it readable
• Space
• Headings

51
GRANT WRITING

• Keep it simple
• Imitate Hemingway!!!!!
• Minimize compound sentences
• Minimize interjections, internal clauses

52
GRANT WRITING

• Watch your logic
• Test answers from 5th and 6th graders in OH

53
GRANT WRITING

• Watch your logic
• The Greeks were a highly sculptured people, and
  without them we wouldn't have history. The Greeks
  also had myths. A myth is a young female moth.
• Make sure you understand what a method can tell
  you and what it cant tell you.

54
GRANT WRITING

• Watch your logic
• The greatest writer of the Renaissance was
  William Shakespeare. He was born in the year
  1564, supposedly on his birthday. He never made
  much money and is famous only because of his
  plays. He wrote tragedies, comedies, and
  hysterectomies, all in Islamic pentameter.
• Use the right words. Get the jargon right.

55
GRANT WRITING

• Watch your logic
• The nineteenth century was a time of a great
  many thoughts and inventions. People stopped
  reproducing by hand and started reproducing by
  machine. The invention of the steamboat caused a
  network of rivers to spring up.
• A gives rise to B. B does not give rise to A

56
GRANT WRITING

• Watch your logic
• Johann Bach wrote a great many musical
  compositions and had a large number of children.
  In between he practiced on an old spinster which
  he kept up in his attic. Bach died from 1750 to
  the present. Bach was the most famous composer in
  the world and so was Handel. Handel was half
  German, half Italian, and half English. He was
  very large.
• Make sure of your claims. In most universes, 22
  4, but always consider the possibility that it
  might not