Yolonda L. Colson MD, PhDAssociate Professor of SurgeryBrigham and Women’s Hospital

Harvard Medical School

2011 AATS Grant Writing Workshop

WRITING A REVISION:

Formulation Your Response and Rebuttal

“PINK SHEETS”

Reading your Summary Statement

Summary Statements

Anger, Denial and Despair

are a normal part of reading a

critical review of your “perfect”

grant…© Henry T. Kaiser/Photolibrary & www.avantipress.com

The 2nd Stage of Reading Your Summary Statements ..

Let’s agree to respect each others views,

no matter how wrong yours may be …

© Ashleigh Brillant on despair.com

Summary Statements: Acceptance

Before you can write a successful revision and make

your grant better,

you must accept the criticism as constructive and address each

point.

Parts of a Summary Statement

Summary of DiscussionDescription (rephrasing what

you said)Public Health Relevance3-4 Reviewer Critiques with

scores for each of 5 criteria (scale of 1-9)

The Reviewer Critique

Summary of Strengths and WeaknessOverall ImpactIndividual Scores in Each of 5 Criteria:

- Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment

Other Critical Areas that must be addressed:

- Protection of Human Subjects, Vertebrate Animals, Biohazard, Resubmission (response to prior critique), Budget and period of support, Resource Sharing Plan

Understanding your ScoreImpact Score Descriptor

Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses

High

1 ExceptionalExceptionally strong with essentially no

weaknesses

2 Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses

3 ExcellentVery strong with only some minor

weaknesses

Medium

4 Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses

5 GoodStrong but with at least one moderate

weakness

6 SatisfactorySome strengths but also some moderate

weaknesses

Low

7 FairSome strengths but with at least one major

weakness

8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses

9 PoorVery few strengths and numerous major

weaknesses

Minor Weakness:  An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact Moderate Weakness:  A weakness that lessens impact Major Weakness:  A weakness that severely limits impact

Impact/Overall Priority Score: Mean score from all eligible members' impact/priority scores x 10. Final overall impact/priority scores range from 10 (high impact) through 90 (low impact). *.* means not scored, generally rank in the lower half of all submitted applications.

REALITYREALITYOne Chance to Revise a

Grant and Raise The Score Into the “Fundable”

Range

• How Significant & Innovative is your proposal -- really?

• Identify Critical Strengths and Weaknesses

•What areas can and cannot be improved?

• Can you address the criticisms scientifically without using the word “Idiot”?

• Get Advice from your Program Officer

Critically Evaluate Your Grant

Critically Assess Likelihood of a Revised Grant Getting

FundedDid the Reviewers –

• Like the Overall Concept?

•Agree with Significance and Innovation?

•Identify Discrete “Fixable” Items that will yield Major Improvements?

•Identify Any Fatal Flaws?

Can You Improve Your Grant

Enough to Get it Funded ?

It does not matter if you improve the score on your RO1 from the 50th to the 25th percentile – neither is fundable

It will likely matter significantly, however, if you can improve your score from the 18th to the 14th percentile, especially if you are a new investigator.

LISTENLISTENThere is value in what

the Reviewers are saying to you

Set Your Ego Aside and Listen

Make a worksheet that outlines the REVIEWERS Opinion …

The Important Clinical Problem Addressed

Strengths and WeaknessesAreas/Questions NOT addressedNew Experiments RequiredFatal Flaws in Design or Concept

Common “Fixable” ProblemsPoor writingSignificance not clearFeasibility of approach not clear Insufficient information in

experimental details, preliminary dataFailure to discuss alternatives and

obstacles as part of research designToo Ambitious – Cut Aims,

Experiments

More Difficult Issues

• Reviewers question significance - Rarely benefit from change in Study Section

• Hypothesis not supported or not credible

•Work previously described - (i.e. nothing new)

•Methods or experimental design are inaccurate or not appropriate for hypothesis

WRITING A WRITING A REVISION: REVISION:

Giving your Grant a Second Chance!

Writing a Grant Revision

Highlight Strengths Use reviewer’s own words

Address Weaknesses Direct positive responses

Answer Questions Respectful, factual data

Risky to Add Unrequested New Ideas/Aims

Seek Advice of “Experts” and Mentors

Befriend an Experienced Mentor

Show your Reviews and a draft of your response to an NIH-funded investigator• Talk about what you can/cannot fix and how• Have you answered the reviewers’ criticisms?

• How much difference is it likely to make in your score?

Remember they have been through this themselves … learn from their mistakes and experience

Example of Grant RevisionIntroduction (1 page ):The proposal received many favorable reviews from the Study

Section, including comments such as: “The local drug delivery approach they propose to understand and develop is at the cutting edge of materials science and therapy.”; “The proposed work could have very significant impact …”; “They have a clear vision for taking the science through to the translational research.”; “The idea of creating a scaffold that delivers drugs and must serve some mechanical function is challenging, and their solution to this is innovative.”…“Well-articulated proposal, with very few weaknesses.”; “The PI has a strong publication record… and significant preliminary data.”; “…experimental design is excellent, with logical progression ….”; ”Choice of models and imaging methods using dual labels …are excellent aspects of the experimental design.”; “… and innovation is high.”

The reviewers made insightful comments and provided valuable feedback on areas that have now been improved. Our responses are summarized below and new text in the proposal is highlighted by a * at the nearest paragraph indent. In addition, our first paper demonstrating prevention of tumor recurrence following resection in vivo is in press and was highlighted as a work of special interest to this field (Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2009, Epub Dec. 3).

Example of Grant RevisionDetailed Responses to Reviewers (included in 1-page intro):

Q: “it is not clear that this will prevent reoccurrence.”A: Our preliminary data show that we can prevent local recurrence after resection in a murine model (see section 3.3.2.3) using the paclitaxel loaded films. Although metastatic disease was not prevented given the aggressive nature of the LLC model, the longest surviving recipients all received drug-eluting copolymer films.

Q: “Biggest weakness of the proposed work (which overall is excellent) is their proposed mechanical characterization. The two big issues are (1) Cyclic loading is inherent to this application and a thorough test plan is not included, and (2) the fluidic environment and degradation will have a huge impact….”A: We have included a test plan and will evaluate film performance in a fluid environment using an Instron equipped with a fluid chamber located in the BioInterface Technologies (BIT) center at BU.

Revised Grant

• Entire revised grant application + 1-page introduction

• Make clear what changes were made in answer to reviewers questions

• Incorporate new changes into grant proposal - “Free-standing” proposal with new

improved science

• Mark changes in grant text - Sidebar marks, parentheses, or underline

PUBLICATIONS One of the most important

things you can do to support your revised grant is to publish papers supporting your grant hypothesis etc.

Peer-review in a high impact journal is very powerful

•Builds Basic Science Reputation – Credibility

If at First you Don’t Succeed

Remember---

You Have to Just Keep Trying!

We Have All Been There --

Because Eventually You Succeed!!

© Stuart Crossett & www.avantipress.com