1. OCTOBER 18, 2011 SESSION 9 OF AAPLS – SELECTED SUPPORTING COMPONENTS OF SF424 (R&R) APPLICATION APPLICANTS & ADMINISTRATORS PREAWARD LUNCHEON SERIES Module D: Building Blocks - SF424 (R&R) Application

2. Overview of this Session Supporting narrative sections of NIH grant applications will be reviewed. Selected Summary Statements will by used to show how these sections can help or hurt your application. What’s Wrong With This Picture?

3. The Summary Statement You Don’t Want To See “Overall the committee felt this was a very good proposal with clear potential, but with several missed opportunities for synergy.”

4. Support for Your Application You can avoid this critique by carefully crafting non- science sections to support your main narrative. These include:  Biosketch  Facilities & Other Resources  Budget Justification  Letters of Support

5. Biosketch Basics For who?  Senior/Key Persons: individuals without whom you could not complete the project.  Co-Investigators  Consultants (intellectual contribution)  Other Significant Contributors (do not commit measurable effort to the project; no salary support is requested) Components  Educational Block  Personal Statement  Selected Peer-Reviewed Publications  Research Support

6. Importance of a Biosketch Establishes role definition. Presents a fully-integrated research team. Used in evaluating the INVESTIGATOR core review criteria:  well suited to the project;  appropriate experience and training (important for early stage investigators and new investigators);  ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced the field (important for established investigators); and  complementary and integrated expertise (important for multiple-PI led projects).

7. Biosketch – Related Critiques “The roles of personnel and consultants are not described.” “None of the personnel are described as having any experience in relevant studies, although the biographical sketch of the PI shows one publication in this area.” “Who is Dr. Smith? There is no C.V. and it is not clear what work he is doing, other than “work related to X dataset.”

8. Biosketch Advice Never just copy and paste from a previously submitted Biosketch. Prepare a draft personal statement on behalf of your collaborator (s) and send to him or her to expand on. Focus on the details. Leave no question unanswered.

9. Facilities & Other Resources Basics For where?  Each project performance site. Components  Environment – Contribution to Success  Institutional Commitment to Early Stage Investigators  Facilities

10. Importance of Facilities & Other Resources Demonstrates feasibility of project. Used in evaluating the ENVIRONMENT core review criterion:  probability of success;  institutional commitment (especially important for early stage investigators and new investigators); and  unique contributions and benefits.

11. Facilities & Other Resources – Related Critiques “The feasibility of the project is questioned given the physical separation of the proposed research team.” “Study is enormous and no clear explanation of how they project achieving it. Need to justify ability to recruit and enroll such a large study population.”

12. Facilities & Other Resources - Advice Never just copy and paste from a previously submitted Facilities & Other Resources page. Start with a boiler plate and cater text to your proposal. Don’t overload with text. Think creatively about what to include. Leave no question unanswered.

13. Budget Justification Basics What’s included?  Justification of all budget categories requesting $1,000 or more in any budget year. Components  Personnel  Equipment  Travel  Participant/trainee Support  Other Direct Cost Items

14. Importance of a Budget Justification Supports the budget request. Proves to NIH that you understand the funds needed to complete the planned work. Allows you to further explain roles and expertise of personnel, and the necessity of travel, equipment and supplies as it relates to the main narrative. Used in evaluating the APPROACH core review criterion:  Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Also used in evaluating the additional BUDGET AND PERIOD SUPPORT review criterion:  Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

15. Budget Justification – Related Critiques “Personnel effort is not adequately described or justified.” “Administrative budget does not account for external speaker or annual travel costs for the seven external advisors to visit the program on-site… This is inconsistent with the text that states that they budgeted for expenses for collaborative meetings, publications, and communications.”

16. Budget Justification - Advice Cross check the justification with the narrative to ensure all mentioned costs are budgeted for and justified. Check that the numbers in the justification match those in the budget. For personnel, clearly state who will be performing each role and why. For travel, equipment and other expenses clearly explain what is being purchased and how it is necessary for/directly related to your proposed research.

17. Letter of Support Basics From who?  Senior/Key Persons: individuals without whom you could not complete the project.  Co-Investigators  Consultants (intellectual contribution)  Other Significant Contributors (do not commit measurable effort to the project; no salary support is requested)

18. Importance of a Letter of Support The goals of a letter of support are to:  Specify what the consultant/collaborator will contribute to the research.  Convince the reviewer that the consultant/collaborator will fulfill the request.  Convey enthusiasm for the work.  Lend credibility to your proposal. A well written letter of support can express enthusiasm and justify inclusion in the proposal. Used in evaluating the INVESTIGATOR core review criteria:  well suited to the project;  appropriate experience and training (important for early stage investigators and new investigators);  ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced the field (important for established investigators); and  complementary and integrated expertise (important for multiple-PI led projects).

19. Letters of Support – Related Critiques “None of the personnel are described as having any experience in relevant studies.” “The roles of personnel and consultants are not described.” “Dr. X is listed as an unpaid consultant, but it is not clear what involvement he will have in the project.”

20. Letter of Support - Advice Letters are not required for personnel (such as research assistants) not contributing in a substantive, measurable way to the scientific development or execution of the project. For consultants, letters should include rate/charge for consulting services. Provide a draft letter to ensure that salient points are addressed.

21. Administrator’s Role Review non-science pieces for consistency with each other, the budget, and the main narrative. If asked to draft justifying text, letters, or personal statements, ask for the information you’ll need to make these sections compelling and accurate. Always request that the PI and other senior key personnel review these sections.

22. Investigator’s Role Review non-science pieces for consistency with each other, the budget, and the text, especially after last minute changes. Share with your administrator relevant information about the proposed project and specific roles. Take the time to craft these sections.