Grant Writing Study Section Reviewer’s Top 10 TipsStudy Section Reviewer’s Top 10 Tips

Early Career Faculty Development Early Career Faculty Development ProgramProgram

Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM

Peter S. Cahn, PhD

The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart StudyThe NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study

Boston University School of MedicineBoston University School of MedicineNo industry relationships to discloseNo industry relationships to disclose

♥ 1R01HL092577♥ 1RC1HL101056 ♥ 1R01HL102214♥ 1R01AG028321

•  NIAID has made four successful R01 applications available with the reviewers’ comments: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/appsamples.aspx

• Page that Isabel and I put together on grant writing tips: http://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/for-researchers/grant-writing/

BUMC Grant Writing Resources

• Associate Provost for Research• Carter 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)

1. 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

2. What type of grant should you apply for?

• Bookmark funding websites ­ NHLBI» http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm» listserv@list.nih.gov

­ Your specialty society»E.g. AHA, ACS, etc.

• Check sponsored programs for other opportunities e.g.­ Robert Wood Johnson­ Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute­ Local foundations

2. What type of grant should I apply for?

• Review eligibility & match the funding mechanism with ­ Your idea­ Training­ Publication record

• Myth­ AHA doesn’t fund clinical work

3. How do you Pick a Topic?

• What excites you?

• Will it help you build an identity distinct from your mentor?

• Will it build to an RO1

3. How do I Get Started?

• Ask to see colleagues’ successful grants

• Ask to see colleagues’ critiques

• Look at NIH Reporter to see what is funded by your institute, on your topic, via your mechanism http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm

4. How important are the Specific Aims?

• The reviewer should know in one page

­ Why the question is important

­ Why your approach is innovative

­ Your aims

»What hypothesis you seek to test

­ Why your team/environment is well-suited to the conduct the study

­ For a training grant

»How the study fits into the rest of your career

5. What do Reviews want to Read?

• Novel science that answers an important question

­ Novel

»Will the study shed new insights

»Look in an unstudied/understudied population

»Use an innovative technique

­ Clinical relevance

»Does it address a question of public health significance

»Could you explain to a lay person ‘so what’

»Think family reunion & elevator speech

6. What dew Raveiwrs KNOT want to sea?• 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 flowLeads 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 Correct 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

6. What do Reviewers NOT want to see?• Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content but

• A sloppy grant Instead aim­ No typos No grammar problems ­ Avoid long paragraphs Correct references­ Subject headings Avoid tiny font­ Logical flow Avoid 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?

7. What Are Common Pitfalls?Exercise

7. 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

7. What Are Common Pitfalls?Innovation

• Incremental

7. What Are Common Pitfalls?Investigators

• Unclear next steps Does the project build your career RO1

• Lack of publications in field

• Lack of completion prior funding aims

• Key expertise lacking ­ Statistician ­ Bioinformatician­ Specific experimental technique

• So much funding unclear ability to participate on current application

7. What Are Common Pitfalls?Institutional/Environment

• Lacking

­ Specific mentoring plan

­ Experts in field

­ Space

­ Protected time

­ Support for career

7. What Are Common Pitfalls?Approach

• Overdependence project completion on success of 1 aim

• Timeline

­ Overambitious

­ Unrealistic

­ Absent

• Confounding

• Quality control for measurements

7. What Are Common Pitfalls?• Approach not worked out• Statistical methods reviewed by a statistician­ Power calculations »Several scenarios with assumptions laid out»Easy to understand

­ Multiple testing

8. Features that Wow the Reviewer

Picture that elegantly and simply captures

•Your­conceptual­model

•Illustrates­your­data

•Outlines­your­study­design

•Added­bonus­of­breaking­up­the­text­and­allowing­the­grant­to­breathe

9. When should an early career investigator start working on a grant?

1. You cannot start too early2. With the 2 submission rule you need the first

submission to be strong Grants not discussed have a higher chance of ‘double

jeopardy’

3. Specific aims formulated at least 3 months in advance

4. First draft 8 weeks

5. Mentors and colleagues have time to review draft at least 1 month in advance

6.6.You cannot start too earlyYou cannot start too early

Budget• Do not over or under budget

10. What if it doesn’t get a good score?• Regroup with your mentors

• Address all major issues raised by the Reviewer

­ Quote the Reviewer directly

­ Have multiple colleagues read your introduction

• If you disagree, do so with utmost respect

• Setbacks are opportunities

­ To reassess, realign, reinvigorate

­ Reviewers may have saved you from wasting 4 years on a project to nowhere

• The key to success in research is resiliency

Get Involved in Your Professional Organization