1. R01? R03? R21? How to choose the right funding mechanism Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco February 2016

2. Every fundable research grant begins with “a great idea” The idea must be creative, exciting, and worth funding. 1. Concentrate ideas in your area of expertise that will make an impact on public health. 2. Do your homework. Make sure your project fills a gap in the existing literature. 3. Brainstorm potential ideas with mentors and colleagues in your field.

3. How to maximize your chances of funding on the 1 st round 1. Address a clearly defined research problem that is a high priority in your field. 2. Build on previous research and pose interesting, important, and testable hypotheses. 3. Propose a scope of work that is appropriate to the track record of the investigator(s).

4. Defining the research problem To clearly define the research problem for reviewers, you need to explain the following: 1. The public health consequences of the continued existence of the problem. You must be able to describe their scope and severity (e.g., mortality, morbidity, cost). 2. The research challenges or barriers that prevent further progress in your field. You must be able to explain the limits of our knowledge and capabilities relevant to this problem, as well as what we need to know that we don’t know now, or what we need to do that we can’t do now.

5. Defining the research problem How well reviewers think you achieved this goal will greatly influence their assessment of the potential impact of your project. Remember, simply moving science forward is not enough; you will be judged on the likelihood that your research will make an impact on public health.

6. Common mistakes to avoid Not being able to document the scope or severity of the problem (or, in some cases, even its existence). Trying to address too many problems. Focusing on an array of related questions rather than a specific research problem can easily become “overly ambitious” in scope. Because these projects often lack a unifying central research problem, they may be viewed as “lacking focus.”

7. The “less is best” approach In this approach, you address a clearly defined research problem that prevents further progress in your field.  This ensures “focus.” Each specific aim addresses some critical aspect of that problem; when taken together, they are adequate to address the problem.  This ensures “integration.” As a consequence, these applications are easier to write and easier to understand.

8. Building your team 1. Seek opportunities for collaboration. 2. Identify co-investigators who fill gaps in your expertise, especially a collaborator who is well known. 3. Consider multidisciplinary approaches. 4. Recruit senior colleagues who can provide advice and periodic peer-review of your grant application (e.g., overall scope, specific aims, methods)

9. The Multiple PI Option If you lack key competencies with regard to the approach you’re proposing in an R01, you might consider the “multiple PI” option. This option should be used only in circumstances where “team science” is employed. These projects require 2 or more equally important areas of expertise that would normally not be found in a single investigator. Recruit an investigator whose expertise complements yours and addresses critical competencies that you lack.

10. Choosing the right funding mechanism: R01, R03, R21? R01: Research Project Grant Definition: “Supports a discrete, specified, circumscribed project to be performed by the named investigator(s) in an area representing the investigator's specific interest and competencies, based on the mission of the NIH.” Funding 3 - 5 years Most R01s use “modular budgets” ($250K/year or less in direct costs) Special permission is required to submit an R01 if any year exceeds $500K/year in direct costs.

11. Choosing the right funding mechanism: R01, R03, R21? R03: Small Grant Definition: Supports small projects that can be carried out in a short period of time with limited resources. Funding: Up to $100K in direct costs for 2 years ($50K/year) Appropriate projects Pilot or feasibility studies Secondary analysis of existing data Small, self-contained research projects Development of research methodology or new research technology

12. Choosing the right funding mechanism: R01, R03, R21? R21: Exploratory/Developmental Grant Provides support for the early or conceptual stages of development. Funding: Up to $275K in direct costs over 2 years. Appropriate projects: Should address the feasibility of a novel area of investigation or a new experimental system that has the potential to enhance health-related research. The NIH parent announcement describes this research as “High Risk – High Impact.” However, some Institute-specific program announcements may not emphasize this requirement. Warning! Not all NIH institutes support R21s!

13. Resources National Institutes of Health Institute websites Program officers The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook Authors: Stephen W. Russell and David C. Morrison Available online from Grant Writers’ Seminars and Workshops: www.grantcentral.comwww.grantcentral.com