Drafting the Research Proposal

1
Drafting the Research Proposal

• Susan E. Maier, Ph.D.
• Research Development Officer

2
Office of Proposal Development

• Supports faculty in development and writing of
  large and small research grants to federal
  agencies and foundations
• Focus on center level initiatives,
  multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research
  teams, research affinity groups, new/junior
  faculty research, diversity in the research
  enterprise, and long-term proposal planning
• Offers training seminars and development
  activities
• Undergraduate and graduate student funding,
  postdoctoral funding, new/junior faculty funding

3
Office of Proposal Development

• Mike Cronan, Director (mikecronan_at_tamu.edu)
• Develops partnerships leads center grant
  proposals, establishes new initiatives sets
  directions for office
• Lucy Deckard, Associate Director
  (l-deckard_at_tamu.edu)
• New faculty initiatives, career awards
  specializes in proposals in physical sciences,
  engineering, materials, equipment
• Phyllis McBride, Assistant Director
  (p-mcbride_at_tamu.edu)
• Leads most training seminars including 1-day
  Craft of Grant Writing Seminar and 15-week Craft
  of Grant Writing Workshop focus on DHS and NIH
  proposals editing and reviewing
• Jean Ann Bowman, Research Scientist
  (jbowman_at_tamu.edu)
• Focus on proposals in earth, ecology,
  environmental sciences and agriculture
• Susan E. Maier, Research Development Officer
  (smaier_at_tamu.edu)
• HSC NIH biomedical initiatives and research
  partnerships training seminars on NIH
• Robyn Pearson, Research Development Officer
  (rlpearson_at_tamu.edu)
• Focus on humanities, education, liberal arts,
  social, behavioral sciences editing and
  reviewing
• Libby Childress, Administrative Assistant
  (libbyc_at_tamu.edu)
• Scheduling, travel arrangements, contact for
  information, sets up registration for seminars
  and workshops

4
Overview of Presentation

• Handouts
• PowerPoint presentation
• Workbook chapters
• Schedule
• Drafting the Proposal
• Getting started
• The components of the proposal
• How to submit the proposal

5
Getting Started

• Assess your readiness to write
• Do you have a well-developed research idea,
  preliminary data, the need for collaborators?
• Who is your primary competition for this planned
  submission (CRISP-NIH, Award Search-NSF, COS)
• Identify funding opportunities
• Solicited or unsolicited, fellowships or research
  proposals
• Analyze the funding agency
• Competitive applications are closely aligned with
  the agencys mission and goals
• Read and understand the specifics of the
  solicitation (or application)
• Understand the proposal review process
• Draft the application
• Create a proposal production schedule

6
Understanding the Review Process

• Address review criteria within text of proposal
  or in places where they can be most strongly
  addressed (e.g., budget justificationpersonnel)
• RFA/PA or application forms (instructions)
  outline the specific review criteria
• E.g., PA-05-146, Structural Interventions,
  Alcohol Use and Risk of HIV/AIDs
• Investigator (Education, training, relevant
  experience)
• Environment (Suitability of facilities and
  institution support)
• Significance (Ability of the project to improve
  health)
• Approach (Feasibility of methods and
  appropriateness of budget)
• Innovation (Originality of research)
• E.g., PAR-05-124, High End Instrumentation Grant
  (NMR, Mass Spec, GC)
• Section A. Justification of Need
• Section B. Technical Expertise
• Section C. Research Projects
• Section D. Institutional Commitment
• Section E. Administration of the Instrument
• Section F. Financial Administration
• At NIH, proposals are reviewed by convened
  panels, called study sections

7
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)

• http//www.csr.nih.gov/default.htm
• Divisions (4)
• Integrated Review Groups (IRG) 23
• Study Sections (SS) 220
• Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)
• Members (peers with expertise in SS research)
• Standing members
• Ad hoc members
• http//www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp
• Indication of when specific members of SS will
  rotate off
• Special Emphasis Panels

8
CSR Organizational Chart
9
Writing for Reviewers

• Know the reviewers
• For NIH regular study sections,
  http//www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp
• Write for reviewers
• Create reviewer-friendly text
• Divide proposal into logical sections (using
  requested RFA/PA headings or headings suggested
  in the application document)
• Make paragraphs brief and concise
• Discuss important issues/items first
• Spell out acronyms (especially if used
  infrequently)
• Check spelling, grammar, punctuation
• Create reviewer-friendly formatting
• Observe page limits, margin requirements, font
  size and type specifications
• Incorporate headings, provide a roadmap for
  reviewers
• Use white space

10
Components of the Proposal

• Will vary according to RFA/PA or type of program
  (e.g., fellowship vs. research grant)
• When in doubt about what to include, refer to the
  instructions in the RFA/PA or the application
  instructions
• If it is still not clear call the program
  officer or person responsible for the RFA/PA, or
  someone at the agency responsible for grant
  applications

11
Generic Proposal Components

• Cover sheet
• Abstract, Executive Summary
• Table of contents
• Budget budget justification
• Biographical sketch for PI and all other key
  personnel
• Resources (and institutional support)
• Completed, ongoing and pending support
• Research Plan (page limits!!)
• Specific Aims, Introduction, Objectives
• Background and significance
• Literature review
• Preliminary studies
• Research or program design
• Project schedule
• References
• Appendix items, Supplementary Material (letters
  of support)

12
Cover Sheet

• Include program solicitation number
• New PI?
• Administrative officials (RF, TEES, TAES)
• Requested award amount, proposed award period
• Compliance issues
• Signatures

13
Responding to a PA?
New investigator?
Compliance issues?
Amount and duration?
14
Abstract, Executive Summary

• Length and content dictated by agency limits
• Minimally
• Describe project short-term and long-term goals
• Explain importance of project to agencys mission
• Explain why applicants are best people for job
• Connect the proposed work with the agencys
  evaluation criteria
• Address agency-specific details, e.g.,
  NIH-relevance to human (public) health NSF-
  broader impacts and intellectual merit

15
Abstract, Executive SummaryNSF Requirements
16
The Research PlanIntroduction/Specific
Aims/Objectives

• Statement of the problem
• Overview of hypotheses to be tested or objectives
  to be addressed
• For multi-investigator proposals, this section
  offers a roadmap for the reviewer as to the
  various investigators and their specific role on
  the project
• Agency-specific (NIH) in a revised application,
  use introduction to respond to reviewers comments

17
The Research PlanBackground and
SignificanceLiterature Review

• Background and Significance
• A chance to summarize relevant research with
  respect to the current topic
• Not necessary to be exhaustive highlight key
  elements and critically evaluate current relevant
  research
• How will this project fill gaps in the
  literature?
• How will this project specifically advance the
  field?
• Agency-specific can the results be applied to a
  patient population (translational research)?
• Literature Review
• Cite relevant, current research
• Integrate discussion of previous research with
  goals/objectives of present proposal
• Call attention to relevant publications (if
  multi-investigator proposal)
• Cite relevant references of study section members
• Establish consistent use of references in
  literature review

18
The Research PlanPreliminary Data

• Opportunity to provide account of applicants
  accomplishments
• Establish expertise in specific field or
  technique
• Justify appropriateness of specific method or
  technique (highlight the advantages of one method
  over another method)
• Highlight collaborative efforts
• Some proposals do not require preliminary data,
  e.g., NIHs R21
• Some require extensive listing of preliminary
  data and results from multiple experiments or
  studies, e.g., NIHs Established Scientist
  Career Award (meritorious career)

19
The Research PlanResearch Design or Program

• Well-organized and easy to read (key features
  easy to find)
• Multiple sections (e.g., multiple investigator
  projects) should be written in the same voice and
  follow a consistent pattern
• Common elements of generic research design
  section
• Statement of the problem or issue
• Statement of hypothesis, construction of specific
  model, development of software, etc.
• Action plan
• What methods will be used to achieve the goal
  (from very specific to very general, depending on
  agency)
• Potential pitfalls
• What problems may occur and what solutions would
  be used to solve them?
• Interpretation
• How will the results tie into the original goals
  of overall project? What new knowledge or outcome
  will result from the action plan?

20
References

• Use an appropriate bibliographic style for your
  particular research area
• Check
• Cross-check
• Re-check
• .references cited in the text against those in
  the reference list eliminate those that are not
  cited

21
Biographical Sketch

• Generic Version of Biographical Sketch
• Name, Title, Institutional affiliation
• Education
• Indicate major field of study, years each degree
  earned
• Professional appointments
• Job title, affiliation, location, duration of
  appointment
• Publications
• Full citations, cite papers specific to the
  proposal, may indicate x of n
• Grants/Awards
• NIH - completed (up to 3 years past), current,
  pending (submitted), no dollar amount or percent
  effort
• Collaborators
• Conflict of interest issues
• Other
• Professional memberships, honors, description of
  synergistic activities, educational efforts

22
ExampleNIH
23
Resources

• Office space
• Laboratory space
• Clinical space or resources
• Animal subjects
• Major and other equipment (local and available
  nearby, including collaborators)
• Computer facilities
• Other unique resources specific to your project

24
(No Transcript)
25
Completed, Current, Pending Support

• Contract number
• Sponsor
• Principal Investigator name
• Project title, start and end dates, direct costs
  (first year, total annual)
• Your name, role on project
• Your percent effort
• Overall goal of project
• Overlap
• Agency-specific NIH does not require this
  information until they are ready to make an award
  (just-in-time)

26
(No Transcript)
27
Budget and Budget Justification

• Get help from Research Foundation (or other
  proposal administration organizations)
• Understand the lingo...direct vs. indirect costs
  (IDCs)
• Budget for yearly inflationary increases (esp.
  salaries)
• Agency-specific (NIH) modular vs. non-modular
  budget
• Modular budget awards money in 25K increments up
  to 250K per year regardless of exact budget
  amounts calculated (NIH does not want a detailed
  budget)
• Non-modular budget awards actual costs of project
  to the nearest dollar amount

28
Budget and Budget Justification continued

• Budget Justification
• How will you spend the money if awarded?
• Be accurate and justify all requests
• Generic budget categories
• Personnel
• Who? What will they do? How much effort ()? Why
  is this person critical to the success of the
  project?
• Equipment
• What do you need? Why do you need it? Is there a
  similar apparatus nearby that you can use (if
  yes, why not use it)?
• Travel
• Where do you need to go? How many times will you
  go there? How many of the project personnel will
  go? Approximately how much will it cost and why?
• Other Supplies
• Equipment maintenance contracts? Fee for service
  resource?

29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
Appendix, Supplementary Materials

• Papers describing a novel technique, your unique
  expertise in a specific area
• Letters of support (Co-investigators,
  institution)
• Color photos included in the proposal text as B/W
• Quote(s) for equipment
• Do not use this space to insert new data or
  information

32
Submitting the Proposal

• Logging in the proposal
• Proposals from the HSC go to Texas AM Research
  Foundation (TAMRF) http//rf-web.tamu.edu/preaward
  /proposaladm.html
• Log in by phone or website
• Addressing compliance issues
• Need compliance documents if your research
  involves animals, humans (even tissue banks), or
  hazardous materials (e.g., recombinant DNA)
• Agency-specific NIH requires current and
  approved compliance documents to be submitted
  only if an award is likely just-in-time
• Routing Signatures
• Need sufficient time to route the proposal for
  signatures of administrators, Co-investigators,
  etc
• Agency-specific NSF requires electronic
  submission, NIH has begun implementing electronic
  submission of specific proposal types
• Electronic submission time element even more
  crucial to planning since uploading to website
  may be slow during the final day/time proposal is
  due

33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
Questions?
36
CSR - Streamlining

• Proposal received at CSR
• Assigned to an IRG, then to a SS
• The SRA assigns a primary (P), secondary (S) and
  tertiary (T) reviewer
• Investigator-initiated proposals (R01, R03, R21)
  are read by the P, S, T reviewers bottom 50 of
  proposals are identified about 1 week prior to
  the SS meetingtriage or streamlining
• Streamlined applications receive summary
  statements verbatim from each reviewer, but are
  not scored
• All 3 reviewers must agree on the streamlined
  proposals in order for the proposal to be triaged

37
CSR - Scoring

• SS meets to review applications
• Primary reviewer presents your proposal to the
  group (reads the abstract)
• SS members discuss your application, the primary
  reviewer is able to answer questions about the
  proposal
• SS members assign a score to the proposal between
  1-5 (1outstanding, 5forget it)
• After the meeting the SRA calculates the average
  score for each proposal, multiply by 100 to get a
  3 digit score (100-500)
• SRA calculates a priority score or percentile
  ranking of the score based on the past 3 cycles
  of grant scores within SS
• SRA prepares a written critique of your proposal
  based on reviewers comments