1. Grants and Grantsmanship

2. Human Resources for Grantsmanship Training Mentors Colleagues working in your field Scientists working in other fields Research administrators Program officers at funding agencies Anyone skilled in expository writing

3. Albert Einstein College of Medicine Office of Grant Support Location: Belfer 917 (718) 430-3642 www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs

4. NIH COMPETING RPG* APPLICATIONS: TRENDS IN NUMBER, AWARDS AND SUCCESS RATES FY 1998-2007 RPG 4 *RPG activity code in R00, R01, R03, R15, R21, R22, R23, R29, R33, R34, R35, R36, R37, R55, R56, RL1, RL5, RL9, P01, P42, PN1, UC1, UC7, U01, U19, U34, DP1, DP2, RL1, RL2, RL5, RL9. Also includes RPGs from NLM as of FY07.

5. Types of Funding ContractProject originates with funder Stresses deliverables Cooperative Agreement Contract-Grant hybrid Funder has programmatic input GrantProject originates with grantee Few deliverables GiftNoncompetitive Unrestricted

6. Cost Accounting Standards e.g. Consistency in Estimating, Accumulating, and Reporting Costs Consistency in Allocating Costs Incurred for Same Purpose Allocation of Direct and Indirect Costs e.g. Criteria for determining how costs are charged or allocated to cost objectives.

7. The Costs of Research Direct CostsIndirect Costs SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES TRAVEL PATIENT COSTS ANIMALS SUBJECT COSTS PUBLICATION COSTS SERVICE CONTRACTS SPACE UTILITIES CUSTODIAL SERVICES SECURITY LIBRARY ANIMAL FACILITIES INFORMATION SYSTEMS SHARED RESEARCH FACILITIES IRB IACUC BIOSAFETY PAYROLL PURCHASING GRANT MANAGEMENT

8. The Costs of Research Direct Costs Total Costs =+ Indirect Costs Direct Costs Indirect Costs = X (estimated) Indirect Rate

9. The Costs of Research Example: Annual Direct Costs = $100,000 Indirect Rate = 70% Total Annual Costs = $170,000 Total Budget Request = $100-170K

10. Assurances and Certifications Human Subjects Animal Welfare Handicapped Individuals Sex Discrimination Age Discrimination Ethical Conduct Intellectual Property Human Embryonic Stem Cells Drug-free Workplace Combating Trafficking in Persons Conflict of Interest Delinquent Debt

11. Institutional Review (REQUIRED ) to address budgetary priorities and regulatory obligations Pre-Submission Review of Grant Applications Principal Investigator IRB Biosafety IACUC Finance Administrators Scientific Review (OPTIONAL) to maximize competitiveness to maximize competitiveness Proofreaders Mentors Experts ? Non-Experts? OGS Presentation Review (OPTIONAL)

12. “The institution should provide a document on institutional letterhead that describes its commitment to the candidate and the candidate’s career development, independent of the receipt of the award. The document should include the institution’s agreement to provide adequate time and support for the candidate to devote the proposed protected time to research and career development for the entire period of the proposed award. The institution should provide the equipment, facilities, and resources necessary for a structured research career development experience. It is essential to document the institution's commitment to the retention, development and advancement of the candidate during the period of the award. “ [NIH K Award Guidelines]

13. Basic Steps for Success 1. Come up with a great idea. 2. Find an appropriate funding source. http://www.infoed.org/new_spin/spin.asp http://www.grantsnet.org/ http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html http://www.grants.gov http://www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs/FundingSources/privatefunding.htm http://www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs/FundingSources/funding.htm

14. Types of Funders Federal Government State Government Voluntary Health Orgs (aka Public Charities) Professional Associations Private Foundations Corporate Foundations Corporations (Direct giving programs) Individuals

15. Types of Grants Fellowship Research Training Career Development Travel Equipment Construction Program/Service

16. Types of NIH Grants R-series = Research Grants R01- Research Project Grant R21- Exploratory/Developmental Grant R03- Small Grant K-series = Research Career Development Grants K23- Mentored Patient-Oriented RCDA K08- Mentored Clinical Scientist RCDA aka “Grant Mechanisms”

17. Basic Steps for Success 1. Come up with a great idea. 2. Find an appropriate funding source. 3. Discuss your idea with a program officer at the funding agency.

18. Know Your Funder Area of funding interest Type of funding Typical size of grants Application and review procedure Eligibility restrictions: Type of institutionPrevious awardees CitizenshipGeography Faculty statusAge/Sex/Ethnicity Prior fundingCost sharing

19. Know Your NIHese PA vs. RFA NINDS R03 vs. NICHD R03 Feb-June-Oct vs. March-July-Nov Success Rate vs. Percentile Rank SRA vs. Program Officer eRA vs. IRG Revision vs. Resubmission

20. Basic Steps for Success 1. Come up with a great idea. 2. Find an appropriate funding source. 3. Discuss your idea with a program officer at the funding agency. 4. Follow the application guidelines.

21. Basic Steps for Success 1. Come up with a great idea.

22. To prove that an idea is great, you must show: Need [Should it be done?] Feasibility [Can it be done?]

23. Great Idea Checklist -Need- Important problem? Potential for major impact in the field? Original concept or approach?

24. Great Idea Checklist -Feasibility- Methods appropriate to Aims? PI and team trained to carry out work? Potential problems acknowledged?

25. Great Idea Checklist -Feasibility- Good scholarly environment? Institutional commitment? Useful collaborative arrangements?

26. NIH Criteria for Review of Research Grant Applications Significance3 questions Approach2 questions Innovation3 questions Investigator2 questions Environment3 questions http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm

27. Basic Steps for Success 1. Come up with a great idea. 2. Find an appropriate funding source. 3. Discuss your idea with a program officer at the funding agency. 4. Follow the application guidelines. 5. Write a research plan that is clear, focused, convincing, complete and realistic.

28. Components of the Research Grant Application Scientific Research Plan: Specific Aims Background/Significance Preliminary Data Methods Human Subjects Vertebrate Animals Literature cited Appendices Administrative Face page/Title Abstract (summary + relevance) Key Personnel Budget Biosketch Other Support (JIT) Resources Checklist

29. A. Specific Aims List the broad, long-term objectives and the goal of the specific research proposed, e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology.

30. Specific Aims Well-defined objectives from which the project is derived and level of success is determined. Should present a framework that helps to organize the rest of the Research Plan. Often used by reviewers as an initial triage tool.

31. Specific Aims Clearly presents a gap in knowledge that will be filled by the proposed work. For NIH applications, does not confuse “significance” with “health relevance”.

32. Specific Aims Be brief and specific. Make each Aim a single sentence. Add detail paragraph under Aim if needed. Most successful applications have 2-4 specific aims.

33. Specific Aims Often begins with an opening paragraph that summarizes the problem, background, rationale, and long-term goals. Should be understood by scientists outside your field. Provides a summary for non-primary reviewers. The less technical information is presented first.

34. Specific Aims Should make the reader eager to read the rest of your application. MUST make the primary reviewer eager to read the rest of your application. The most important page in most applications. Should be the first page written and the last page revised.

35. Reviewer-Friendly Writing Good paragraphs are easy to read and easy to skim: Topic sentence About 8 lines Expected buzzwords and phrases No more than one big idea (unless there is strong logical flow) Active vs Passive voice ? Serif vs sans serif typefaces ?

36. Reviewer-Unfriendly Writing Bad grammar. Misplaced modifiers and confusing antecedents. Jargon, acronyms, and abbreviations. Sending the reviewer to the lexicon. Long, abstract, pretentious, Latin-laced circumlocutions when a short, concrete description will work.

37. Insufficient or unclear justification for significance of problem. Too little detail about proposed studies. Too much work proposed. Failure to make preliminary data the cornerstone of Specific Aims Common Reasons for Poor Reviews (First Time Applicants)

38. Basic Steps for Success 1. Come up with a great idea. 2. Find an appropriate funding source. 3. Discuss your idea with a program officer at the funding agency. 4. Follow the application guidelines. 5. Write a research plan that is clear, focused, convincing, complete and realistic. 6. Have experts and non-experts read your proposal before submission.

39. Basic Steps for Success 1. Come up with a great idea. 2. Find an appropriate funding source. 3. Discuss your idea with a program officer at the funding agency. 4. Follow the application guidelines. 5. Write a research plan that is clear, focused, convincing, complete and realistic. 6. Have experts and non-experts read your proposal before submission.