Specific Aims Grant Writing Workshop Specific Aims Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study Boston University School of Medicine ♥No industry relationships to disclose ♥Associate Editor, Circulation ♥2R01HL ♥1R01HL ♥N01-HC ♥1P50 HL12016

Resources FDD Page Isabel Dominguez created on grant writing tips researchers/grant-writing/ researchers/grant-writing/ Russell & Morrison’s Grant Writers’ Seminars & Workshops  The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook

BUMC Grant Writing Resources Associate Provost for Research Carter Cornwall’s Proposal TrainingCarter Cornwall’s Proposal Training Clinical Research Resources Office Clinical and Translational Science Institute Corporate and Foundation Relations Expertise and Instrumentation Search Office of Medical Education Office of Sponsored Programs Vice Chair for Research (DOM)

How do Reviewers Work? Hard For virtually all grant reviewers, the study section work takes place after their day job Your job is to make their job easy

Getting Started How do you Pick a Topic? What excites you and experts in your field? ­Is it important?  Significance ­Is it novel?  Innovation Will it build an identity distinct from your mentor? Read the everything you can find on the topic NIH Reporter what is already funded on your topic Will it build to subsequent funding/RO1s?

Getting Started? The Blank Page Ask to see colleagues’ successful grants Ask to see colleagues’ critiques Have you blocked out time to write your grant???

How important are the Specific Aims?

Fundamental to the Application’s Success

Why are the Specific Aims Important? 1.Reviewers often determine a grant’s merit merely after reading the S.A. 2.Study section silent reading period. S.A. is only section most study section members will read 3.Roadmap to the entire grant

Specific Aims Chapter 7 - Grant Application Writer’s Workbook Outline Grant – Paragraph 1 1.Significance ­Clinical ­Current knowledge ­Gap in knowledge/unmet need

Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 2 2.Long term goal ­Big picture of research program ­Objective of application ­Central hypothesis and rationale ­Links back to first paragraph

Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 3 3.Specific Aims – for each aim ­Approach »Specific question »Sample »Design »Specific hypothesis tested

Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 4 4.‘Payoff’ ­Expected outcomes ­Why group & environment perfectly suited ­What impact on patients and field

What dew Raveiwrs KNOT want to sea? Details details details A sloppy grant ­NO typos / grammar problems  Correct references Clear subject headingsLogical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science Slick presentation cannoT RESCUE HO HUM contentA sloppy grant ­NO typos / grammar problems  Correct referencesClear subject headings ­Logical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the scienceSlick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content A sloppy grant NO typos / grammar problems  Correct references Clear subject headingsLogical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out manuscript makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum contentA sloppy grant ­NO typos / grammar problems  Co rrect references Clear subject headings Logical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the scienceSlick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content

What do Reviewers NOT want to see? Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content A sloppy grant  Instead aim ­No typos No grammar problems ­Avoid long paragraphs Correct references ­Subject headingsAvoid tiny font ­Logical flowAvoid TNTC abbreviations Sloppiness encourages concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers Lucid writing, organized, well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science Can scientist not in the field understand the grant?

What Are Common Pitfalls? Significance Not of major public health import Technical tour de force, but so what Lack of a conceptual model Lack of stated hypothesis seeking to test ­‘fishing expedition’ Lack of generalizability

What Are Common Pitfalls? Innovation Incremental

When should an early career investigator start working on a grant? 1.You cannot start too early 2.2 submission rule: 1 st submission must be strong  Grants not discussed higher chance of ‘double jeopardy’ 3.S.A. formulated at least 6 months in advance 4.First draft 12 weeks in advance 5.Mentor s and colleague s have time to review draft at least 1-2 months in advance 6.You cannot start too early When should ALL investigators start working on a grant?