Beth A. Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond University of ... A. Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,USA. ... manage stress and time, ... • show appreciation.

Grantspersonship

Beth A. Fischer and Michael J. ZigmondUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,USA

Survival Skills and Ethics Program

www.pitt.edu/~survival

Topics include• Writing research articles

• Making oral presentations

• Obtaining advanced training

• Teaching

• Job hunting

• Managing personnel

• Obtaining funding

Acknowledgments

• Lillian Pubols (NINDS)• Miner, Miner & Griffith

– Proposal Planning and Writing• Ogden and Goldberg

– Research Proposals: A Guide to Success• ...and many others

Types of grants

objective• training/career

– fellowship– career award

• research• conference• equipment• infrastructure

form• investigator-initiated

– individual– groups

• “set-aside” grants• contracts

Types of grants

objective• training/career

– fellowship– career award

• research• conference• equipment• infrastructure

form• investigator-initiated

– individual– groups

• “set-aside” grants• contracts

Availability of grantsOther

• government• non-government organizations• philanthropic foundations• health voluntaries• corporations• private individuals

Why don’t people get funded?

Why people don’t get funded

• because it is too hard?


• because it is too hard?• already accomplished harder tasks


• inadequate concept


• inadequate concept

A good idea is necessary, but not sufficient.


• inadequate concept• poor presentation


• inadequate concept• poor presentation• poor understanding of process


• inadequate concept• poor presentation• poor understanding of process• lack of persistence


• inadequate concept• poor presentation• poor understanding of process• lack of persistence

Good grants are not funded, excellent ones are

GrantspersonshipPreparing

1. establish frame of mind2. develop concept3. identify funding source4. inform your institution5. refine concept

Writing6. think like a reviewer7. outline, write, edit8. get feedback & revise

Submitting9. get approvals

10. obtain assignment11. submit application12. provide add’l material13. ensure receipt

Responding14. await review15. study report16. respond to report

GrantspersonshipPreparing


Writing6. think like a reviewer7. outline, write, edit8. get feedback & revise

Submitting9. get approvals

10. obtain assignment11. submit application12. provide add’l material13. ensure receipt

Responding14. await review15. study report16. respond to report

Think ahead and plan backwards

Grantspersonship1. establish frame of mind2. develop concept3. identify funding source4. inform your institution5. refine concept

6. think like a reviewer7. outline, write, edit8. get feedback & revise

9. get approvals10. obtain assignment11. submit application12. provide add’l material13. ensure receipt

14. await review15. study report16. respond to report

0 d

2-60d

2 m2 m

>3 m

Phase I: Preparing


Establish frame of mind

• often: little enthusiasm

Establish frame of mind

• often: little enthusiasm• better: a wonderful opportunity

General points to keep in mind

• proposal in contrast to research manuscript– read by many fewer– likely to have much greater impact

• material can be recycled– from previous ms– into future ms

Develop a Concept

That FITS

Develop a concept that FITS

• Fills a gap in knowledge


• Fills a gap in knowledge• Important to

– the field– funding agency– you


• Fills a gap in knowledge• Important• Tests a hypothesis


• Fills a gap in knowledge• Important• Tests a hypothesis• Short-term investment in long-term goals

Identify Funding Source

Identify funding source

• select agency

Source of information

• internet• reference books• colleagues• acknowledgements on papers• office of research at your institution• libraries


• select agency• improve odds: match objectives



– research interests



– research interests– personal characteristics

• career phase• gender• developing nation


• select agency• improve odds: match objectives • communicate with program staff

Ask program staff

• is concept relevant

Ask program staff

• is concept relevant• current instructions

Ask program staff

• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews

Ask program staff

• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria

Ask program staff

• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding

– percentage– level (amount, years)

Ask program staff



• characteristics of– strong proposals– weak proposals

Ask program staff



• characteristics– strong proposals– weak proposals

• appendix material– ok?– when, to whom?

Ask program staff



• characteristics– strong proposals– weak proposals

• appendix material– ok?– when, to whom?

• pre-review possible

Contacting program staff

• in their offices– phone– email– letter– in person (by appointment)

• at professional meetings

Inform Your Institution

Inform your institution

• departmental chairperson• office of research• secretarial assistant• fiscal assistant• people to give feedback

Develop Concept

Develop ConceptRefine

Refine your concept

• review current literature

Refine your concept

• review current literature• talk with colleagues

Refine your concept

• review current literature• talk with colleagues• think hard

Refine your concept

• review current literature• talk with colleagues• think hard• think harder

Phase II: Writing the proposal


Think like a reviewer

What do they want to know?


What do they want to know?

Time spent reading proposal

• primary reviewer (writes report) 7-8 hr• reader (no report) 1 hr• discussion at study section 20 min

Survey by Janet Rasey

Proposals reviewed were NIH R01

Write for the reviewer

• use standard organization• provide clear, and very visible answers

to review criteria• anticipate reviewer's questions and

provide answers• state relation to funder’s mission

Write for the reviewer, part 2

• use standard organization• provide clear, and very visible answers

to review criteria• anticipate reviewer's questions and

provide answers• state relation to funder’s mission

Phase II: Writing the proposal



Stock the sections

• Research plan– Specific Aims– Background and Significance– Preliminary Data– Research Design and Methods

• Budget and Justification• References

Outline, Write, and Edit


• being with a full outline


• being with a full outline• write initial draft without editing


• being with a full outline• write initial draft without editing• edit thoroughly


• being with a full outline• write initial draft without editing• edit thoroughly

Editing

• avoid vague qualifiers• use active voice

General organization

• have a table of contents• make it easy to find key points

– bold face headings and terms– cross references– some redundancy

Appearance

Appearance

• select good type face

Appearance

• select good type facegood

Times RomanCentury Schoolbook

Appearance

• select good type facegood never!

Times Roman courier

Century Schoolbook Helvetica

Appearance


Times Roman courier


– size > 11 pt

Appearance


Times Roman courier


– size > 11 pt– occasionally use special fonts

bold face

italics

Appearance

• select good type face• write in paragraphs

Appearance

• select good type face• write in paragraphs

– 1 major idea per paragraph– topic sentences– use headers frequently

Appearance

• select good type face• write in paragraphs• let your text

– indent paragraphs– skip line between paragraphs

A. Background and SignificanceThe importance of training in "survival skills:" Success in

science requires a solid background in a specific scientificdiscipline as well as extensive laboratory experience. However,for individuals to develop into accomplished professionals, theymust acquire survival skills, that is, they must be able tocommunicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtainemployment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, andbehave responsibly (1,2,3).This has always been the case and isbecoming even more true as our doctoral and postdoctoraltrainees need to be prepared for a variety of vocations (3, 4)

In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of ourtrainees will ultimately find themselves doing research inindustry, teaching in 4-year colleges, or serving in someadministrative capacity. Others will combine their PhDs withprofessional degrees in medicine or law and become clinicalresearchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the theformulation of public policy. With many of these new vocations,extra-laboratory skills become even more essential (3).

Traditionally, higher education in the sciences has focusedalmost exclusively on the content of the scientific disciplineand on research methodology. Indeed, individuals employed inresearch and related fields often complain that although theiracademic training provided them with a sound foundation in their

A. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCEThe importance of training in "survival skills." Success in science

requires a solid background in a specific scientific discipline as well asextensive laboratory experience. However, for individuals to develop intoaccomplished professionals, they must acquire survival skills, that is, theymust be able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtainemployment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, and behaveresponsibly (Bloom 1992; Bird 1994; National Academy of Sciences 1995).This has always been the case and is becoming even more true as ourdoctoral and postdoctoral trainees need to be prepared for a variety ofvocations (National Academy of Sciences 1995; Varmus 1995).

In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of our trainees willultimately find themselves doing research in industry, teaching in 4-yearcolleges, or serving in some administrative capacity. Others will combinetheir PhDs with professional degrees in medicine or law and become clinicalresearchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the formulation of public

Follow-up survey

Participants from our 1995, 1996, and 1997 trainer-of-trainersworkshops were recently sent a survey to see what they had done to providetraining in survival skills and ethics at their institution. (The 1995 workshopwas made possible by an earlier grant.) Thusfar, slightly more than half of all formerparticipants have responded. Even if oneassumes that none of the non-respondents didnot implement any instruction at all (unlikely),the results of this survey still provide a clearindication of the impact of our program.

Instruction implemented by participants:The total number of hours of instruction insurvival skills and ethics that was provided in1997-98 by former participants was comparedwith the instruction offered in the year prior to their attendance (Figure 1).The number of students taught in new or preexisting (but expanded) coursesincreased by an average of 25 hr per year among the respondents.

Figure 1

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Implementation

0200400600800

1000

1995 1996 1997

Workshop participant

inst

ruct

ion

prov

ided

(h

r) before

�� '97-98

Appearance

• select good type face• write in paragraphs• let your text b r e a t h• conform to instructions!

- type size - margins- # pages - sections

Check photocopy quality

Get Feedback

Asking for help

Yes– program staff– former reviewer– colleague

NO!– current reviewer

Get feedback

• establish mentors early

Get feedback

• establish mentors early• provide clear instructions

– what– when

Get feedback

• establish mentors early• provide clear instructions• take no for an answer

Get feedback

• establish mentors early• provide clear instructions• take no for an answer• remind gently

Get feedback

• establish mentors early• provide clear instructions• take no for an answer • remind gently• show appreciation

Get Feedback and Revise

Phase III: Submitting

9. get approvals10. obtain assignment11. submit application12. provide additional material13. ensure receipt

Get approvals

Get approvals• use of subjects

– human (IRB)– animals (IACUC)

• safety• agreements

– collaborators– consultants– university administrators

Get approvals• use of subjects

– human (IRB)– animals (IACUC)

• safety• agreements

– collaborators– consultants– university administrators

Allowenough

time!

Obtain Assignment

Obtain the right assignment

• program relevance• availability of funds• sympathetic review• competent reviewers

Clues for assignment officer

• title• abstract• list of key words• specific aims• cover letter• input from program staff

Submit Application

Submit application

• know the deadline– postmark versus arrival– absolute or flexible

Submit application

• know the deadline• anticipate problems

– bad weather– equipment failures– holidays– sickness

Submit application

• know the deadline• anticipate problems• give yourself extra time

(everything takes longer than you think)

Submit application

• know the deadline• anticipate problems• give yourself extra time• what if you are late?

Submit application


– call and ask– there often is a grace period

Submit application


– call and ask– there often is a grace period– sometimes there isn’t

Submit application

• know the deadline• anticipate problems• give yourself extra time• what if you are late?• also send copy to program officer

Ensure Receipt

Provide Additional Material

Phase IV: Responding

14. await review15. study report16. respond to report

Await Review

What will be happening

1. assignment


1. assignment2. evaluation

– staff– peers

• sitting panel• external reviewers

– site visit (rare)


1. assignment2. evaluation3. prep of report, which may

– not be available– need to request– take 2-3 mo– be incomplete– contain contradictions

Study Report and Respond

Possible outcomes

• scored– high– “gray area”– low

Possible outcomes

• scored– high– “gray area”– low

• rejected

Possible outcomes

• scored– high– “gray area” funding?– low

• rejected

Reasons for rejection: Research proposals

• unoriginal ideas• diffuse, superficial• lack of knowledge• uncertain future

directions

• inadequate rationale• poor reasoning• unrealistic workload• lack of expt’l detail• uncritical approach

Reasons for rejection: Fellowships

• weak candidate– productivity– letters– training

• poor mentor– research– funding– experience

• inadequate proposal– quality of research– relevance to training

• weak institution– colleagues– support

If budget is reduced

• estimate what can be accomplished• renegotiate

– objectives– experiments

• save rest for future application

If score is in “gray zone”

• talk to program officer• consider providing additional material

– rebuttal– evidence of feasibility

If funding is not provided

• quit


• quit

application MUST have merit ifyou followed previous steps


• quit• same application with rebuttal


• quit• same application with rebuttal• revised application

– some changes– some rebuttal


• quit• same application with rebuttal• revised application

– some changes– some rebuttal

• request new reviewers

Persistence pays

> 50% NIH applicants funded

Behave responsiblythroughout

Behave responsibly

• source of material– text– ideas– data

Behave responsibly

• source of material• adequacy of methods

Behave responsibly

• source of material• adequacy of methods• collaborations

Behave responsibly

• source of material• adequacy of methods• collaborations• pilot data

Behave responsibly

• source of material• adequacy of methods• collaborations• pilot data• budget

Behave responsibly

• source of material• adequacy of methods• collaborations• pilot data• budget• biosketch

Behave responsibly

• source of material• adequacy of methods• collaborations• pilot data• budget• biosketch

General principle:Do not misrepresent anything.

Advice to junior investigators

Timeline for NIH proposal:From application to funding

Date Step Feb 1, 2001 application Jun – Jul, 2001 review Aug – Sep, 2001 summary statement Nov 1, 2001 revised application Feb – Mar 2002 review May – Jun, 2002 council meets July 1, 2002 funding begins

Assume approximately 18 months.


• get funded as soon as possible– funding track record helps get more $– jobs, promotions easier with grant– proposals often not funded first time


• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine

– amount– time


• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine• make sure previous work published


• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine• make sure previous work published• every proposal should be excellent


• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine• make sure previous work published• every proposal should be excellent• letters from others can help


• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine• make sure previous work published• every proposal should be excellent• letters from others can help• don’t stop ‘till you have more than enough

Components of an Application

Components

• title• abstract• research plan

– objectives– significance– preliminary data– research design,

methods

Components



methods

• budget • budget justification• biosketches• approvals• letters• appendix

Components



methods

• budget • budget justification• biosketches• approvals• letters• appendix

Title

• mini-abstract• accurate statement of long-term goals• conform to guidelines• include key words

Abstract

• background• specific aims• unique features• methodology• expected results

• method of evaluation

• generalizability• relation to field• broad impact

Contents

Abstract• accurate• simple• interesting• not provocative• key words

Research plan

• Specific aims• Background & Significance• Preliminary Data• Research Design & Methods

Research plan

• state objectives

Research plan

• state objectives• provide

background– general literature– your work– reviewer’s work

Research plan


background• be hypotheses-

driven

Research plan



driven• highlight strengths

– ideas– methods

Research plan




• emphasize practicality– methods– preliminary data– time & skills

Research plan




• emphasize practicality– methods– preliminary data– time & skills

• discuss outcomes, have contingencies

Methods• tell why your method is best

Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details

– methodology– controls– instruments to be used– information to be collected: value & limitations– precision of data– procedures for data analysis – interpretation

Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome

Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome• specify alternative method if yours fails

Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome• specify alternative method• list sources of unique materials

– reagents– materials– populations

Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome• specify alternative methods • list sources of unique materials• consider input from statistician

– methods for data analyses– amt data to collect

Approximate Timeline (in years)

Molecular basis of neuroprotection

Signaling underlying effects of GDNF

Impact of GDNF on cell death

54321Experiment

Timeline

Project evaluation(included in proposal)

• specify who will conduct– internal– external

• relate measures to objectives• include evaluation instrument if

available

Personnel

Personnel

• name individual when possible• indicate selection procedures

Collaborators & consultants

• add skills, expertise• add credibility

Biographical sketches

• include for critical personnel– Principal Investigator (PI)– Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI)– Co-Investigators (Co-I)– Collaborators– Consultants– Research assistants


• include for critical personnel• highlight relevant accomplishments


• include for critical personnel• highlight relevant accomplishments• ensure accuracy

– training, experience– publications– grant support

Budget

• reasonable– for the project– for the agency

• inflationary increases• new costs in subsequent years

Budget

• service/maintenance costs• insurance• shipping• training to use new equipment

justify all equip carefully

Budget

• reasonable• justify all requests

– amounts– time

Justification

• personnel – % effort on project– responsibilities

Justification

• personnel

Ben Aster, Ph.D., 20% effort. Dr. Aster is responsible for program evaluation.

Justification

• personnel

Ben Aster, Ph.D., 20% effort. Dr. Aster is responsible for program evaluation. He develops evaluation instruments, administers surveys, compiles and analyzes the data, initiates follow-up inquiries, and writes evaluation reports.

Justification

• animals– quantity– cost at age– days housed– cost of housing

Budget

• reasonable• justify all requests

• amounts• time

• explain appearance of overlap

Budget• reasonable• justify requests• explain appearance of overlap• new NIH format: modular budgets• cost-share when possible

– funds– services– equipment

Construction of budgetsalaries 50,000

supplies 25,000equipment 15,000

Construction of budget

• fringe benefits salaries 50,000fringe benefits (20%) 10,000supplies 25,000equipment 15,000


• fringe benefits• direct costs

salaries 50,000fringe benefits (20%) 10,000supplies 25,000equipment 15,000

DC 100,000


• fringe benefits• direct costs• indirect costs

salaries 50,000*fringe benefits (20%) 10,000*supplies 25,000*equipment 15,000

DC 100,000IDC 42,500Total Award $142,500

Resources and environment

• to document resources available– equipment– space– facilities– support staff

Equipment grants

• relation to existing resources• value added to research

– in your research unit– outside research unit

• benefits for students• implications of not having equipment

Subject welfare

• know, adhere to guidelines• get appropriate approvals

Human subjects• characteristics of subjects, population• recruiting methods• criteria for selection• consent procedures• potential risks• how risks will be minimized• benefits to subjects and community• inclusion of women and minorities

Vertebrate animals

• detail proposed use• justify species and number• veterinary care• minimizing stress, discomfort• justification for method of euthanasia

Letters

• letters of agreement– obtain from collaborators, consultants– to document

• type, level of involvement• access to special

– reagents, equipment– methods– populations

– improve by providing sample

Letters• letters of agreement• letters of recommendation

– may be required– could be optional– could be inconspicuous

Supplementary materials: Some examples

• color or enlarged figures• reprints of your work• updated information

– results– other accomplishments

Supplementary material

• find out if, when, where• never use to circumvent page limits!!

Summary

• there is money available

Summary

• there is money available• getting it takes

– a good idea– a proper match– good grantspersonship– persistence

Summary



• it is hard work

Summary



• it is hard work• it is so worth it!

Beth A. Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond University of ... A. Fischer and Michael J. Zigmond University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,USA. ... manage stress and time, ... • show appreciation.

Documents