Archive for the ‘NIH grants’ 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!

Advertisements

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

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

New Webinar: “Mistakes Commonly Made on NIH Grant Applications”

In an effort to provide cost-effective training to the broadest group possible, I am launching a series of webinars in the upcoming months. The first of these will be in early February, and the goal will be to help grantees recognize and correct common submission mistakes.

Unlike many who conduct NIH submission training programs, I myself work on NIH submissions full time. I see clients make the same types of mistakes repeatedly– mistakes that are easily avoided.

Each year I am fortunate to have dozens of clients share their Summary Statements with me. Because I regularly read reviewer comments from a multitude of study sections, I can easily identify trends in pink sheets. I also keep track of evolving trends at NIH based on information I find in FOAs, Notices, and Appropriations Testimony. Study sections change, funding priorities evolve. It is important to understand NIH’s priorities right now.

I have helped clients land over $200 million in federal funds in the past five years. Your NIH submission will entail several hundred hours of work by you and others. Why not learn strategies to optimize your success on this and future submissions?

What: Webinar entitled “Mistakes Commonly Made on NIH Grant Applications

Who: Ideal for faculty preparing to submit a K, R21, R03, or R01 in an upcoming cycle, and the senior faculty and administrators who advise them.

When:Wednesday 4 February 2015, 11am-12:30pm EST or
Thursday 12 February 2015, 11am-12:30pm EST
Cost: $149
Takeaways: At the end of this 90-minute session, participants will be able to:
1) Predict some key criticisms reviewers may make
2) Identify problems in their or their colleague’s draft applications
3) Utilize that information to write stronger drafts

NIH Awards $31M To Increase Diversity in The Biomedical Research Workforce

Credit: Photokanok at FreeDigitalPhoto.net

Credit: Photokanok at FreeDigitalPhoto.net

In late October, NIH issued a news release stating that it will award $31 million to enhance diversity in the biomedical research workforce in FY14. The award will go to over 50 recipients who will be part of the national Diversity Program Consortium, established to engage researchers from underrepresented backgrounds. Award recipients work at geographically diverse institutions across the country that serve underrepresented communities. Members of the consortium will develop, implement, and evaluate methods for encouraging individuals to pursue careers in biomedical research and remain in this field.

Research shows that economic, social, and cultural factors significantly influence the pursuit of science careers. Dr. Hannah Valentine, NIH chief officer for scientific workforce diversity, asserts, “These awards represent a significant step toward ensuring that NIH’s future biomedical research workforce will reflect the unique perspectives found within the diverse composition of our society.”

The Diversity Program Consortium is part of a five-year plan with three major initiatives. The goal of the first initiative, BUILD, is to explore new approaches to attract students from diverse backgrounds to the biomedical science workforce. The goal of the second initiative, the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), is to develop best practices for mentoring individuals from underrepresented groups. Finally, work carried out as part of the Coordination and Evaluation Center is designed to assess the effectiveness of the training and mentoring approaches developed by BUILD and NRMN. It will also establish short- and long-term methods for measuring the effectiveness of both training and mentoring programs.

Top Ten Things NIH Reviewers Should NOT Say In A Review

ID-10046929

Credit: Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Center for Scientific Review publishes their Peer Review Notes three times a year, and the most recent issue came out yesterday. The news items are always interesting and it is worth subscribing, if you don’t already. This issue contained an item about things NIH reviewers should not say. I repeat the list in its entirety here—I thought it might be fun for my grantees to see reviewers critiqued for a change.

What do you think of this list? Have you seen one or two of these on your Summary Statements? Me personally? I have seen variations on # 2, 4, and 10 in Summary Statements, and have strongly suspected reviewers of #1 and 5. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read # 7, sometimes I think CSR is a little out of touch with what actually happens on Study Sections:

  1. “I didn’t read the application, but I scanned it and saw the applicant said XXX. He doesn’t know what he’s doing.” Damning statements like this can skew a review discussion over something that might be insignificant in the context of the overall application. It’s better for you to ask other reviewers who have read the application carefully what they think about XXX.
  2. “This New Investigator does not appear to be fully independent since he continues to co-publish with his fellowship mentor/department chair, or does not have designated lab space, or has not been promoted in the past several years.”  Academic research organizations have widely diverse policies for faculty advancements and lab space, and many PIs maintain productive and healthy collaborations with mentors for many years after establishing themselves as bona fide investigators. You should focus more on the investigator accomplishments, such as being the first or senior author on a significant publication or giving presentations at major scientific meetings.
  3. “This application is not in my area of expertise . . . “  If you’re assigned an application you feel uncomfortable reviewing, you should tell your Scientific Review Officer as soon as possible before the meeting.
  4. “I don’t see this basic science research affecting my clinical practice any time soon.” An application does not necessarily have to show the potential for clinical or timely impact—if the applicant doesn’t make such claims. Basic research often takes time to pay off, and you’re charged to assess the “likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved.” Absence of an effect on public health does not necessarily constitute a weakness in basic science.
  5. “I like this project but I’m giving it a poorer score because the applicant has too much money.” Other funding is not a scoreable matter. You should focus on the application’s scientific and technical merit. However, you can note an excessive budget request in the budget section for NIH to consider.
  6. “This application has 2 great aims and 1 bad one. I would recommend deleting Aim 3, and I can give it a 1 or 2.” You cannot trade aims with scores. The application needs to be evaluated as a whole.
  7. “This R21 application does not have pilot data, which should be provided to ensure the success of the project.” R21s are exploratory projects to collect pilot data. Preliminary data are not required, although they can be evaluated if provided.
  8. “The human subject protection section does not spell out the specifics, but they already got the IRB approval, and therefore, it is ok.” IRB approval is not required at this stage, and it should not be considered to replace evaluation of the protection plans.
  9. “This application was scored a 25 and 14th percentile last time it was reviewed . . . .” You should not mention the previous score an application got, because this could skew the review discussion. Focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the current application as well as the responses to previous critiques.
  10. “This is a fishing expedition.” It would be better if you said the research plan is exploratory in nature, which may be a great thing to do if there are compelling reasons to explore a specific area. Well-designed exploratory or discovery research can provide a wealth of knowledge.

NIGMS To Dramatically Limit Funding for Scientific Meetings

In a December blog post, NIGMS states it will “accept very few R13 or U13 applications in the future. We strongly encourage potential applicants to contact us before requesting approval to submit an application.” Associate Director for Extramural Activities at NIGMS, Ann Hagan PhD, explains further:

“We understand the importance of these meetings, but we receive a large number of requests to support them and have concluded that it is not cost-effective to consider most of these requests. The numerous applications for small conference grants are costly to process and review, and the funds used for them compete directly with research project grants, including R01s. Our priority is to use our resources in the ways that most directly promote research and training, which already include mechanisms to allow students and fellows to attend scientific meetings.”

For the full blog post, click here. Note the comments below the post from the President of Cold Spring Harbor Lab and the Chair of an upcoming Gordon Research Conference, as well as Dr. Hagan’s reply about the use of the R25 mechanism to fund courses and training workshops.

NIH Releases Info For Grantees on Government Shutdown

As expected, with no Congressional agreement on FY14 funding, and with too much Obamacare-related animosity for Congress even to agree to a temporary bill to fund at FY13 levels, the US federal government shut down at midnight last night. This morning the NIH released a notice to grantees concerning the government shutdown. Highlights include the following:

SUBMISSION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS: For the duration of the funding lapse, applicants are strongly encouraged not to submit paper or electronic grant applications to NIH during the period of the lapse.  Adjustments to application submission dates that occur during the funding lapse will be announced once operations resume.  For any applications submitted immediately prior to or during the funding lapse, here is what will happen.

  1. For electronic submissions through Grants.gov: Grants.gov will be open and can accept electronic applications.  However, applications will not be processed by NIH until the eRA Systems are back on-line.  NIH will ensure that all applications submitted within the two business days before or during the funding lapse will receive the full viewing window once the systems are back on-line.
  2. For electronic submission of multi-project applications through NIH’s ASSIST system: The ASISST system will not be available until NIH systems are back on-line.
  3. Paper Submissions: Staff will not be available to receive paper applications during a funding lapse.

The safest course is to wait to submit any application to NIH until after operations resume and a Notice in the NIH Guide concerning adjusted submission dates is posted.

CONTACT WITH NIH STAFF: For the duration of the funding lapse, NIH extramural employees will be prohibited from working (remotely or in the office).

PEER REVIEW AND COUNCIL MEETINGS: For the duration of the funding lapse, the NIH will not be able to conduct initial peer review meetings – whether in-person or through teleconferences or other electronic media. Also during this time, the NIH staff will not be able to send or receive email messages, or update website information, and NIH computer systems that support review functions will not be operational.

CURRENTLY ACTIVE GRANT AWARDS:  For the duration of the funding lapse, all work and activities performed under currently active NIH grant awards may continue.  However, see Notice for limits on performing many of the reporting requirements associated with NIH grant funding.

Reviewers of NIH Grant Submissions May Pay A Heavy Price When Their Own Submissions Are Reviewed

Grant scores are being posted right now. I was at a policy meeting last week with one of my grant clients and we waited with baited breath to see her scores. Although she has had a great deal of success on past NIH submissions, she was worried about this one, and with good reason. She recently agreed to serve as a reviewer on an NIH study section, but quickly realized that it meant that the resubmission of her own R01 competing renewal could no longer be reviewed in the most appropriate study section. Instead, it was assigned to a Special Emphasis Panel, or SEP. My client studied the list of reviewers on the SEP and learned that there was no one on the panel with the expertise needed to review her submission. She informed her SRO of this problem, but was told to sit tight and wait and see how the review went.

My client is considered an eminence in her field. She chairs a nationally-ranked academic department in her area, has landed numerous R01s, a U01, ARRA funding, and more. On her R01 competing renewal she scored in the 20th percentile, but the problems identified by the reviewers were certainly fixable and she resubmitted with hope, if not confidence. Then she accepted the position on the study section and the resubmission went to the (underqualified) SEP. The results of the resubmission were posted: Unscored.

It is hardly the first time I have heard such a story, it is just the most recent. It is considered an honor to be invited to serve on a study section. Many, like my client, choose to do so despite the time and effort involved because they feel they should give back for the many years of funding they have received from NIH. But the inadvertent result may be that the reviewer’s own submissions must be reviewed elsewhere, often on a panel that lacks the necessary expertise. As a result, my client and others have decided to terminate their service on study sections, which has the result of denying other NIH grantees reviews from those deemed the most qualified to provide them.

The current policy creates a situation where reviewers of a study section may be unable to get a fair review of their own grant applications at the most appropriate study section, thereby essentially penalizing them for service to NIH.

When discussing this problem last week in Washington with an NIH program officer, I was told to contact my local congressman. The PO felt that if we wanted to effect change to this NIH policy, the only approach was to inform a congressman that his constituents were not receiving millions in federal funding due to this policy. I plan to do so, and urge you all to do the same.

Posted October 30, 2012 by Meg Bouvier in Biomedical research, medical grant writing

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

NIH To Limit Money To Well-Funded Investigators?

Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at NIH, posted in her blog “Rock Talk” about the possibility of NIH limiting funds to already funded investigators. Decisions were to be made at September Council, so we should be getting some information about this program soon. From the original blog post:

“It’s been three months since I discussed how, during May Advisory Council meetings, NIH would pilot a new Special Council Review process for particularly well-funded applicants (NOTE that they have now dropped the amount to $1M in directs to trigger a council review). Since that time, we ran the pilot and carefully considered all the great feedback we received from Advisory Council members and staff. We are now ready to implement the final policy on Special Council Review.

“The new special review process will be in effect for the 2013 fiscal year, beginning with September 2012 Council meetings. The new policy will provide additional consideration of new and renewal applications from well-supported investigators who currently receive more than $1 million or more in direct costs. I want to remind you that this policy does not cap the total amount of funds an investigator may receive from NIH, but rather is a special review to complement existing NIH policies that require monitoring all investigators’ activities for overlapping support, and determining whether additional funds should be awarded to well-supported investigators.”

For the full blog post and all comments, click here: NIH Extramural Nexus.

NIH Summary Statements and Resubmissions

Dr. Sally Rockey, NIH’s Deputy Director for Extramural Research, writes a blog called “Rock Talk”, which is well worth subscribing to. I am attaching an article from her latest post here. The article deals with Summary Statements and making decisions about resubmission, but it is actually chock full of useful links, particularly the links to the NIH podcast series, All About Grants.

NIH Extramural Nexus.

Webinars on NIH Grantsmanship

At Meg Bouvier Medical Writing, we are in the process of developing webinars on topics related to NIH grantsmanship. We are very interested to hear from you about the sorts of topics and formats that would be of interest. Please feel free to leave any kind of feedback on how you might like to see us structure future webinars, especially what topics might be of interest to you.

Meanwhile, please feel free to take a look at this 4 min YouTube video from Meg Bouvier with a sample of the sorts of information that might be included in future webinars:

%d bloggers like this: