The Ideal Road to NIH Funding

1
The Ideal Road to NIH Funding
2
The Real Road to NIH Funding
3
Do not underestimate your need for funding

• Your life as an independent scientist depends on
  it

4
How do you get started?

• You need to look hard for sources of grant
  funding
• Resources -
• NIH web site (look for RFAs, PAs)
• IRIS (Illinois Researcher Information Service) -
  8,000 grants
• COS (Community of Science) - over 200,000 funding
  sources
• TRAM (Texas Research Administrators group)
• go to your grants office
• Look for appropriate NIH entry grants
• mentored awards (K series, etc.)
• PhD - K22, K01, K02, K18
• MD - K08, K23, K24...
• targeted awards - special circumstances (i.e.
  reentry awards)

5
Find the right mentor

• The most critical component of your first grant
  is a good mentor
• A good mentor is not necessarily
• the head of your lab
• the nice guy that will talk to you
• just one person

6
Characteristics of a good mentor

• Has a track record
• respected scientist (publications, national
  presence)
• personally written successful NIH grants
• Is actively doing research
• knows current trends
• Will critically read your grant
• not just change the grammar or spelling
• will provide meaningful critique

7
Realistic timeline getting ready to write

• Before you begin to write
• Read the literature
• Gather your preliminary data
• do not use data from other members of the lab
• be sure your laboratory head is not writing a
  grant using your data
• Be sure you really understand the relevance of
  your proposal
• talk to experts
• Find 3-4 potential pre-submission reviewers

2-3 months
8
Realistic timeline starting to write

• Outline the grant
• the outline will evolve into a specific aims
  page
• Show the outline to your mentor/s
• expect multiple revisions
• find out when your mentor/s and reviewers expect
  to review your grant (ideally 2mo before
  submission)
• Format your preliminary data
• write figure legends as you are formatting

2 wk - 1 month
9
Realistic timeline writing

• Order of writing
• Preliminary data
• Relevance
• Experimental Design
• Background
• Specific Aims
• Give a complete draft to your mentor
• if this is your first grant allow 2 months
• be sure mentor will have time to carefully read
  your grant

1- 3 months writing mentor review/revisions
10
Realistic timeline reviewers

• Reviewers should have served on NIH study
  sections
• Reviewers should know something about your area
• dont need to be in the same field
• Be nice to your reviewers
• no spelling or grammar mistakes
• all figures correctly labeled
• ask for their critiques within 2 weeks

2 wk
11
You have just worked on your grant for 7 months
12
Submit your grant

• Be absolutely sure there are no mistakes
• Spelling
• Figure labeling
• References
• Administrative errors
• Look at every copy to be sure there are no missed
  pages

This may take 2-3 days
13
Celebrate!
1 night
14
Start working on your next grant
15
Success rates of NIH grants
2001 data
16
The score arrives
17
What if you dont get scored?

• There may be serious flaws
• figure out if its the science or the
  presentation
• get help !!!!!!!!!
• go to your mentor !!!!!!!
• realize you are not alone
• start the process again

18
If you do get scoredWhat does the score mean?
100 Very rare, the goal 120 Outstanding, see 1 or
2 per round 140 Outstanding 160 Excellent, no
major weaknesses 180 Excellent, minor weaknesses
that detract 200 Very good, some significant
flaws 220 Very good, some significant
flaws 240 Better than average, resubmit 260 Needs
significant improvement 280 Needs significant
improvement 300 Average gt300 Below average, dont
want to see it again
19
What do you do next?

• Read the reviews
• try not to get mad
• its not personal, its business
• it is critical to call your program officer at
  the NIH
• carefully listen to what the program officer says
• Start to think about how to respond
• the revision needs to address each flaw, point by
  point (even if they missed the point)

20
Resubmission

• Your response to the reviewers is critical
• dont say they were wrong
• always be deferential
• always give new, and better data
• Consider sending in even more data after the
  grant has been resubmitted (shows progress)

21
Expect to resubmit again

• The study section members may have changed
• The field may have changed since your submission
• Be careful about directing the grant to another
  study section

22
Be aggressiveKeep trying