Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

An Applicant’s Perspectives on the New NIH Changes Grover C. Gilmore.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "An Applicant’s Perspectives on the New NIH Changes Grover C. Gilmore."— Presentation transcript:

1 An Applicant’s Perspectives on the New NIH Changes Grover C. Gilmore

2 2 Background  Joined CWRU in 1975.  External funding since 1978 in all but four years.  NIH – 19 grants (12 as PI), 61 years of funding.  ODMH – 1 grant (PI), 1 year of funding  Foundations – 2 grants (1 as PI), 5 years of funding

3 Application Process  Start with an idea that excites you  Identify collaborators  Examine NIH Program Announcements to determine a close fit  Contact a program director cited in the announcement to discuss your idea o Keep in contact as you develop the application 3

4 Application Process  Speak with other investigators who have applied for NIH funding  Identify a successful applicant and ask for a copy of the application  Follow the instructions of the new application to the letter 4

5 Application Process  Change in page limits for Research section from 25 to 12 pages  An original goal was to reduce the review emphasis on the details of methodology  Action of review panels will ultimately determine what is required in the application 5

6 Application Process  Identify the review panel that will likely be assigned the application  Examine the member composition of the panel to determine if the application should address an area more comprehensively.  Seek internal review of the application prior to submission to NIH  Suggest in the cover letter which review panel will be appropriate  After the application has been assigned, contact the program officer if you have questions about the panel or the process. 6

7 Resubmission (amendment) 1.Grumble to all who will listen about the faults of the review panel 2.Accept that you can do a better job of explaining your ideas and the strengths of your application 3.Itemize the comments of the reviewers a.Identify central themes in the reviews that need to be addressed b.Identify small areas that can be clarified 7

8 Resubmission (amendment) 4.Meet with research team to craft the changes and the response to the reviewers a.Contact Program Officer to discuss your response to the review panel 5.Write an Introduction that responds explicitly to the reviewers concerns a.Highlight with underline or italic format areas in the application with major changes. 6.Seek internal review prior to submission 8

9 Competing Renewal  Develop a plan for continuing the project.  If the review period is 9 months, then the renewal application must be submitted at least 9 months prior to the end of the award period.  Consider submitting the renewal 12-15 months prior to the end of the first award.  Consider carrying over funds to create a funding bridge in case the renewal is not funded before the first award ends. 9

10 Competing Renewal  Renewal will be based in part on the progress that has been made in addressing the first research questions.  Show activity at relevant conferences and in publications.  Attend conferences that are most relevant for the area in which the grant is funded. o Strategy is to ensure that you are up to date on the leading edge of science in that area. 10

11 Attitude  Persevere!  Use the feedback that you receive at every stage of the process.  Believe that good science will be funded. 11

Download ppt "An Applicant’s Perspectives on the New NIH Changes Grover C. Gilmore."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google