Archive for the ‘nih grant suggestions’ Tag

New Webinar: NIH Submission Strategies — Register Now!

You have a cool idea for a research project, now what? The second in my new webinar series addresses NIH Submission Strategies. As a person who works on NIH submissions full time, I know there are certain steps you can take before you write a single word that correlate with better scores and outcomes.

Some of these steps include the following: taking the time to understand the priorities of the stakeholders involved, including reading Appropriations Reports; learning which projects are already in the NIH funding portfolio to ascertain how you might adjust your idea to fit in; identifying multiple ICs (not just an obvious one) and shopping around different versions of your Specific Aims to gauge enthusiasm; building a relationship with the all-important Program Officer, who will help guide questions related to study design, FOA, ESI status, and study section; and understanding the review process and audience before you write.

Your team will invest hundreds of hours in your submission. Why not spend 90 minutes learning some tried-and-true strategies to use before you write that will optimize your chance of success? I probably work on more NIH submissions in a month than you will work on across your entire career. I’ve helped clients land over $200 million in federal funds, and I can help strengthen your submission and improve your grantsmanship as well.

REGISTER FOR ALL 3 WEBINARS AND SAVE!
Bundle with two more webinars and save! Three webinars for $499.

Read about all three webinars, including “Mistakes Commonly Made on NIH Grant Applications” and “How To Write The Specific Aims.”

NIH Submission Strategies

Who: Essential for grantees planning to submit an R01, R21, or R03 in an upcoming cycle, and the senior faculty and administrators who advise them.
When: Wednesday 11 February 2015, 11am-12:30pm EST or
Thursday 19 February 2015, 11am-12:30pm EST
Cost: $199; Or register for all three webinars this month for $499
Takeaways: At the end of this 90-minute session, participants will be able to:

1. Utilize the Reporter website to identify their niche in the funding portfolio
2. Identify likely ICs, POs, and FOAs
3. Write several drafts of their Aims to send to POs
4. Choose the most appropriate IC, FOA, and study section with PO guidance

REGISTER NOW!

Posted February 5, 2015 by Meg Bouvier in Freelance medical writing, medical grant writing, NIH grantwriting

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NIH Simplifies Policy on Late Applications

NIH might give you a two-week grace period on late applications. For details, see the Notice issued Dec 2014.

Examples of Reasons Why Late Applications Might Be Accepted

  • Death of an immediate family member of the PD/PI (or MPI).
  • Sudden acute severe illness of the PD/PI (MPI) or immediate family member.
  • Temporary or ad hoc service by a PD/PI on an NIH advisory group during the two months preceding or the two months following the application due date. Examples of qualifying service include: participation in an NIH study section/special emphasis panel, NIH Board of Scientific Counselors, Program Advisory Committee, or an NIH Advisory Board/Council. Qualifying service does not include participation in NIH activities other than those involved in extramural/intramural peer review or NIH Advisory Council/Board service.
  • Delays due to weather, natural disasters, or other emergency situations, not to exceed the time the applicant organization is closed.
  • For PD/PIs who are eligible for continuous submission (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/continuous_submission.htm), the late application policy applies to activities not covered under the continuous submission policy (i.e., other than R01, R21, and R34 funding opportunities that use standard due dates).

 

Examples of Reasons Why Late Applications Will Not Be Accepted

  • Heavy teaching or administrative responsibilities, relocation of a laboratory, ongoing or non-severe health problems, personal events, participation in review activities for other Federal agencies or private organizations, attendance at scientific meetings, or a very busy schedule.
  • Review service for participants other than a PD/PI or MPI, acute health issues or death in the family of a participant other than a PD/PI or MPI.
  • Problems with computer systems at the applicant organization, problems with a system-to-system grant submission service, or failure to complete or renew required registrations in advance of the application due date.
  • Failure to follow instructions in the Application Guide or funding opportunity announcement.
  • Correction of errors or addressing warnings after 5 PM local (applicant organization) time on the application due date. Applicants are encouraged to submit in advance of the due date to allow time to correct errors and/or address warnings identified in the NIH validation process.

– See more at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-039.html#sthash.flUVBOvk.dpuf

Dr. Bouvier Interviewed on Grantsmanship for the Journal Nature

We invite you to read Dr. Bouvier’s comments on grantsmanship in an article in the latest issue of the journal Nature.

The article, entitled, “Impact: Pack a Punch”, discusses the importance of impact in proposed research projects. It included comments from scientists and funding agency administrators from a wide variety of scientific fields in numerous countries. Dr. Bouvier was the only professional grantwriter who participated in the article.

Nature, a prominent international journal published weekly, remains one of the few journals to publish research spanning all of the scientific disciplines. It is one of the most widely cited journals in science worldwide.

Dr. Bouvier provided permission for her information to be translated for their Japanese and Arabic editions.

Posted October 21, 2013 by Meg Bouvier in Biomedical research, Freelance medical writing, medical grant writing, medical policy writing, NIH grantwriting

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How I Transitioned From Bench Science To Medical Writing

I get emails weekly from people who want to know how to switch from bench science to medical writing. I don’t have a good answer, but I can share how it happened for me, which was a combination of luck, persistence, and New York-style chutzpah.

Soon after I began my post-doc at NINDS, a postcard arrived in our lab saying, “Congratulations Dr. Baker, you have been chosen from among hundreds of applicants to be one of a dozen post-doctoral fellows to participate in a prestigious writing seminar.” The workshop was to be taught by Dr. Ruth Levy Guyer, herself a bench scientist-turned-renowned writer of books, essays, articles, reviews, and commentaries. As luck would have it, Dr. Baker had departed for a job at Genentech the week before. Naturally I went to the workshop, and was permitted to stay because Dr. Guyer admired my moxy. I enjoyed her course thoroughly and remember many of her lessons to this day.

I love to write. Invariably the feedback on my dissertation, grant applications, and journal articles began with praise for the writing. So when a fellow post-doc asked me to edit an article for her because she was bogged down with work, I readily accepted. It was not a research article—she volunteered as an editor for a journal called Women In Science. I enjoyed editing the article so much that I too began to volunteer. Soon thereafter the editor, Pam Hines (a senior editor at Science magazine), gave me a column as well.

One day an article arrived for me to edit, and the author was none other than Dr. Guyer. The idea of editing the work of my writing teacher filled me with dread. I must have proven myself a marginally acceptable editor, because afterward Ruth graciously informed me that her husband worked for NHGRI and that soon the institute would be advertising for a staff writer. Was I interested?

I was not on the job market and had never considered leaving my post-doc after just two years. But off I went to see Leslie Fink, the head of communications at NHGRI. I had no writing samples but Leslie took a chance on me: Had I seen a movie lately? Could I write a review?

So I landed my first medical writing position with a “review” of the wonderful Muhammad Ali documentary “When We Were Kings.” Leslie took a risk, but so did I: I agreed to work at my post-doc salary, which was half what they paid writers; but worse, I agreed to work for six months with no obligation for them to hire me. The conventional wisdom was that if you left the bench for six months, you were finished in medical research. So I was burning a bridge with no promise of a future in writing.

My lab chief at NINDS thought I had lost my mind. My department chair at Mt. Sinai Medical School, where I had earned my Ph.D., called to express his dismay, telling me, “You are one of the ones who would have made it.” (My dissertation had been published as a two-author paper in a prestigious journal.) My research colleagues almost without exception told me frankly that I was making a huge mistake and would live to regret it.

I didn’t. I set to work at NHGRI, happily clocking the insane hours to which I had grown accustomed as a post-doc. Those working in government administration are not necessarily known for working long hours, so I quickly impressed my supervisors with my hard work, if not my dazzling writing skills. Shortly after arriving they advertised for a writer (“Seeking a medical writer with curly brown hair and blue eyes, who plays French horn and piano and trained as a dancer…”—the ad fell just short of this level of specificity) and I became an inside hire, as often is the case at NIH.

I learned a great deal while working in the Office of Press, Policy, and Communications, as the NHGRI budget at the time allowed for only one staff writer position. I drafted press releases, fact sheets, policy documents, appropriations testimony, budget justifications to Congress, meeting summaries, and annual reports. I helped with fact checking, press prep, lecture prep, speech writing, and book chapters. I even got to work on a Shattuck lecture for the New England Journal of Medicine. Leslie Fink was patience personified in teaching me the basics. I learned about policy from Dr. Kathy Hudson, our hard-nosed and extremely talented policy wonk who was herself a former bench scientist (Kathy is now in a top leadership position at NIH.) I had the extreme good fortune to work under Dr. Francis Collins, then NHGRI Director and head of the Human Genome Project (now NIH Director.) Those who read my blog already know of my high regard for Dr. Collins.

Take-home messages for those looking to transition from bench science to medical writing:

  • Be persistent. Expect that most avenues you pursue will lead nowhere. When I started my own medical writing company, I must have shaken a thousand hands at hundreds of onerous networking functions before I got a break. When I was considering a career change, I joined National Association of Science Writers (NASW), D.C. Science Writers Association (DCSWA; lyrically pronounced “duck-swa”), and later the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA). I participated in any and all forums they offered, both electronically and otherwise.
  • Be pushy. Joe Palca, science correspondent for NPR (and married to Kathy Hudson), gave a talk on how to break into science writing. His advice was, “Shamelessly exploit every contact you have,” or something to that effect. When considering a career change, I told every person I came across, whether they were in research, writing, or they happened to be sitting next to me on the metro. Hey, you never know. When that postcard arrived in the lab announcing Dr. Baker’s acceptance into a writing workshop, there was no question that I would go in her stead.
  • Take risks. I accepted the position at NHGRI knowing they had no obligation to hire me at the end of my contract, and knowing that I could not return to bench science. Had I not done so, I would probably still be plating cells and running gels.
  • Expect to work your arse off. I succeeded at my first writing job in large part because of the hours I put in. Later, I succeeded at launching a medical writing company in the middle of a recession while living in the middle of nowhere, in large part because I worked seven days a week. My company has been extremely successful, and I still work seven days a week. If you love what you do, you won’t mind, or even notice, usually. (Please note however that your family will notice. And mind.)
  • Don’t be bothered by the naysayers. I took an enormous amount of flack from my research colleagues when I made the switch. This is only troublesome if you fail afterward. When you succeed, they will all suffer collective amnesia concerning their doubts and criticism, and will be full of praise for your successes.
  • Do it for free. Perhaps the best piece of career advice I have ever received. If you want to transition into something new, do it for free for a while, at least part time (time and finances permitting.) I volunteered to write and edit at a free journal. It led to my first job offer, and put me in contact with an editor at Science magazine. I also accepted my first writing position at a greatly reduced salary (short-term). Few people will turn down free (or greatly reduced cost) work, and it will help you gain experience, contacts, writing samples, and references in your field.

I hope this story is helpful to someone, or at least was mildly entertaining. Best of luck to anyone looking to make the switch!

Posted January 22, 2013 by Meg Bouvier in Freelance medical writing, NIH grantwriting

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How to Use RePORTER When Preparing New Grant Applications

I love the NIH RePORTER website. One could spend hours on this site, looking at funding trends, levels, priorities, and percentages. If you are considering writing a grant application or contract proposal to NIH, it is well worth spending time on this website to see what NIH is already funding in your topic area.  If you find a similar project, read about it and determine if your proposed project could offer something different. If you find no funding for your topic, it could mean there is a gap in an Institute’s funding portfolio that they might want to fill, or it could mean it is not a funding priority for them at this time. As always, discuss your grantsmanship strategies with your prospective Program Officer(s). NIGMS has a recent post on using RePORTER to search for funded projects in your area:

How to Use RePORTER When Preparing New Grant Applications – NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog – National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

%d bloggers like this: