Basic Sciences

1
Faculty of Medicine Grant Writing Workshop
Basic Sciences
Richard L. Horner, PhD Departments of Medicine
and Physiology University of Toronto
2
Useful Resources
1/13
? CIHR Website ? Publications ? Funding
Related Documents ? Grant Writing Resources
PDF downloads
Resources
? The Art of Grantsmanship J Kraicer ? Dept
Physiology Website at U of T ? PhysioNews ?
Internal Review of Grants ? Link at
bottom PDF download
3
Useful Resources
2/13
? CIHR Website ? Institute of Genetics
(IG) ? IG Publications and Resources ?
Guidebook for New Principal Investigators PDF
download
Resources
? Picking a research problem. The critical
decision ? CR Kahn. New Eng J Med 330
1530-33, 1994
? These are excellent sources - Level of detail
beyond this presentation - Up to you to invest
your time to generate your return
4
Process
3/13
? Grant writing workshops
Resources
? Ultimately give common sense advice
? Time and effort are only barrier
? Keys to an outstanding grant - good and
relevant science - superb grantsmanship -
quality applicant (training, publications etc) -
techniques and feasibility - potential (new
applicant) or previous progress
Process
? Competition is fierce need an edge -
attention to detail - careful thought, self
critique, internal review - preliminary data
(should CIHR be first grant ?) - quality
hypotheses - alternate plans
5
Process
4/13
? What happens when your grant is submitted ?
Resources
? Make sure agency is appropriate
? Check requirements and follow exactly
? Registration - Check requirements WELL in
advance - Value your summary page Used to
choose your reviewers 1st impression If
changes then reviewers may not be suitable -
Choose appropriate institute and committee
Process
? Chair and Scientific Officer assign reviewers
(with input) - Internal (or ad-hoc by phone)
externals rare - Internals are KEY to outcome of
your grant - Identify committee members - Be
aware of who could review
6
Process The Playing Field
5/13
? Typical CIHR committee (from my experience)
Resources
? 45 grants per competition Chair Scientific
Officer 9 Committee Members Spectrum grants
(diseases, cell-molecular / in-vitro / human)
Process
? Typical load for a reviewer 8 10 written
reports (1O and 2O) 4 grants as a reader
? Not necessarily reviewed by experts with your
expertise CIHR used to ask for external referees
(rarely now)
? Reviewers are your advocates (but surrounded by
their peers) 25 success rate ? 11-12 grants
(or 7 grants at 15) 3/12 per reviewer load
make your grant stand out
7
Process The Scores
6/13
? Funding range
Resources
4.2
Process
8
Process The Committee Meeting
7/13
? Chair announces grant to be reviewed
? Colleagues from your institution leave
Resources
? Scores announced
CIHR REP
? 1O introduces grant - Applicant - Proposal
SO
Chair
5
Process
1
? 2O adds their input Debate
6
2
? Reader comments
7
? Consensus
3
Speakerphone
? Confidential scores by all members ( 0.5)
8
4
? Budget
9
? SO notes
? Funding determined by rank (from average score)
9
Grant Writing
8/13
? Aim to score high
Resources
? Start writing early (3 9 months)
? Identify your research goals and specific aims
Process
? Requires careful thought ultimately what
judged on
? Start early plan / advice / collaborations /
prelim data
? Cant do these things well in last weeks (and
it shows)
Writing
? In last month grant is being refined (not
defined)
? Early attention allows focus and change of ideas
10
Grant Writing Important Basics
9/13
? Think and prepare your grant well in advance,
Trim your schedule ruthlessly and
selfishly Keep personal relationships and
lifestyle intact
Resources
? If you are too busy to write the grant it will
show, and raise doubts about your ability to do
the research
Process
? Not everyone is a natural Be prepared to write
? read ? re-write...
? Communication Clarity and Simplicity ? Clear
Science Put yourself in reviewers place Know
your audience
Writing
? Participate and act upon rigorous internal
review
? Take critical comments seriously - If points
come across differently than intended ? it
is your fault not the reviewers
11
Grant Writing Time Management
10/13
? All aspects of proposal are crucial
Resources
? Use a reference manager
? Pay attention to CV Module and finish
early Very important module time consuming
Process
3 9 months Start CV Module Start Summary and
Research Proposal Clarify and Focus your
research Generate Preliminary Data
Writing
12
Grant Writing
11/13
? Do not write for one reviewer (they may be the
reader)
Resources
? Summary Page 1st Impression Overview of
Specific Aims Sets tone for
reviewer Generates interest / importance
Process
? Summary of Progress Include even if 1st
application Summarize previous work
? Research Proposal Good balance Use
white space Effective
illustrations Preliminary
data Show yourself (e.g. bold refs)
Writing
13
Research Proposal - Structure
12/13
? Example of Balance in Research Proposal (see
others)
Resources
Background 4-5 pages Introduction and
Significance Overall Aims /
Rationale Background for each theme prelim
data
Process
Hypotheses Clearly stated and well thought out
Methods Common Methods - 1.5 pages
Research Plan Expected Results 4 pages
Rationale / Hypothesis / Protocol /
Expected Results / Alternative Results
Interpretation Future Directions. Takes
much soul searching careful thought Spot
flaws and refine experiments
Writing
Potential concerns and Future Directions 1 page
Timeline ( personnel) and Summary 1/10th page
14
CV Module
13/13
? Very Important and Takes Time
Resources
? My experience Applicants introduced first in
review Small comments dictate the tone
(e.g. well trained, good progress
etc)
Process
? 2 grants being equal CV module can help your
reviewers advocates on your behalf ? Do
not be shy about accomplishments ? Highlight
publications impact factor (editorials etc) ?
If advantageous highlight of publications
(1st vs. senior author ? Highlight position
in field (e.g. invitations to speak) ? Some
duplication with summary progress is OK
Writing
CV Module
15
Extra Material on Handout / Web
? Re-submission ? Hypothesis ? General Tips ?
CIHR Documentation on Peer Review Research Appli
cant
16
Re-submission
? There is no appeal process wait until next
deadline
? After period to calm down ? Read comments
carefully ? Take particular note of SO comments
? Notes are a summary of what determined your
score
? Respond ? 2 pages to politely respond to
reviewers comments ? If necessary have
someone read to see the tone ? Indicate how you
have addressed the issues ? Responses must be
self-contained and understandable as a
stand-alone document ? Understand that your
reviewers may be different next time
17
Hypothesis
? A good hypothesis has insight and shows
evidence of in-depth knowledge of the
literature.
? It also shows evidence that you appreciate
where the field is moving - be alert to new
ideas and act on them
? A testable hypothesis has a specific negative
counterpart
? A lazy hypothesis implies a lazy approach
(study design, analysis etc).
18
General Tips
? The experiment must answer the question posed
if not it is flawed rejection
? Most common problems with grants No testable
hypothesis Significance not clear (your
fault) Not important Research plan is flawed,
boring, too easy. Weak presentation
? Avoid "this has never been done", "there is no
data on". It may be the question is trivial.
What is novel vs. confirmation?
? Be proud of research. If not is there a problem?
19
CIHR Documentation on Peer Review
Research
? How important and original are the hypotheses
and how clearly are they formulated?
? How important and original are the
contributions expected from the research
proposed?
? What is the potential for important new
observations or knowledge?
? How well do the experiments address the
hypotheses?
? How appropriate are the methods and proposed
analyses?
? How well will the applicant implement new
methods (to science or the applicant)?
20
CIHR Documentation on Peer Review
Research
? How well did the applicant anticipate
difficulties and consider alternatives?
? Are there preliminary data?
? How critically is the relevant literature
appraised and evaluated?
Applicant Productivity, Experience and Training
? How appropriate to the research is the training
or track record of the applicant?
? How important and original is the applicants
productivity?
? Do you have confidence the applicant can do the
work?