The ultimate scientific challenge: How to write a research proposal - PowerPoint Presentation

The ultimate scientific challenge: How to write a research proposal Dianna A. Johnson, Ph.D. Professor emeritus Department of Ophthalmology, UTHSC

Science is the search for ideas Ideas represent more than just facts or observations Ideas are mental constructs that connect facts and observations into potential hypotheses or questions: : “What if…..?” This is the heart of the ultimate scientific challenge Finding answers to scientific questions can be relatively easy; finding the initial question is the hard part.

Attributes of great ideas New – totally new or more realistically, new in some important aspect. Testable Results should be useful Results should be amenable to incorporation into; add to our greater body of scientific knowledge (Don’t just sing in the shower.)

Attributes of great thinkers They are often young Risk takers Create new tools, new ways of thinking, find new connections Apply old techniques to new problems Apply new techniques to old problems

Your new idea(s) will define your scientific career Testable hypotheses represent the product, the currency of scientific research Create the hypothesis; experimentally test the hypothesis; interpret the results; apply this new discovery to improve current understanding Your findings are never final; they represent the best possible answer for the moment – to be improved upon in the next round of scientific investigation. Hallmarks of good science: creative ideas, demanding and thorough experimental testing, thoughtful interpretation, integration of findings into current scientific body of knowledge

Step I: Get a brilliant idea It is up to you. Study, listen, ask for advice, read, analyze other brilliant ideas The idea has to be yours, otherwise you will not reach the ultimate goal of being an INDEPENDENT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. A PI is responsible for “ the idea”.

Step 2: Garner resources you have and those you will need to pursue your idea Space – labs, existing data sets, clinical settings Equipment Experimental animals, clinical trials, computer programs Collaborations – letters of support, commitments Institutional approval and support

Step 3: Who funds the kind of research you want to do Hospitals Corporations Drug companies Philanthropic organizations Educational organizations Start-up companies, private investors

NIH funding is the gold standard Because of the NIH’s long-standing record of rigorous and fair review, an NIH grant can lead to: A faculty position Access to high level collaborators Invitations to meetings The accolade of being an INDENDENT PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR

WHICH NIH INSTITUTE? NIH Institutes/Centers Number of Applications Reviewed Number of Applications Awarded Success Rate 2 Total Funding 3 NCI 10,282 1,162 11.3% $571,221,786 NHLBI 3,960 992 25.1% $560,224,209 NIDCR 906 201 22.2% $75,411,281 NIDDK 3,170 664 20.9% $305,255,775 NIDDK Type 1 Diabetes 25 25 100.0% $15,214,803 NINDS 4,478 975 21.8% $455,799,261 NIAID 6,207 1,420 22.9% $609,007,725 NIGMS 3,835 1,118 29.2% $432,735,737 NICHD 3,033 557 18.4% $219,303,457 NEI 1,159 310 26.7% $125,004,384 NIEHS 1,118 191 17.1% $71,273,065 NIA 3,240 937 28.9% $909,452,485 NIAMS 1,589 266 16.7% $95,968,966 NIDCD 840 228 27.1% $93,186,178 NIMH 2,714 602 22.2% $343,854,980 NIDA 2,108 391 18.5% $214,428,590 NIAAA 948 253 26.7% $90,130,499 NINR 691 71 10.3% $29,633,659 NHGRI 268 75 28.0% $41,408,137 NIBIB 1,523 256 16.8% $81,941,039 NCCIH 306 62 20.3% $27,031,681 NIMHD 656 70 10.7% $34,557,375 FIC 210 41 19.5% $7,741,674 NLM 186 33 17.7% $10,800,868 OD COMMON FUND 1,243 135 10.9% $168,007,320 NCATS 66 23 34.8% $17,511,462 OD ORIP 73 13 17.8% $3,417,033 NIH Total 54,834 11,071 20.2% ###############

The NIH RO1 Grant Proposal: A conversation with 2 experts in your field Peer review: Although the study section may consist of more than a dozen funded investigators in various areas of research, and each has one vote; you must win over the assigned reviewers, usually 2 individuals who are experts in your field. The overall judgement of the assigned reviewers will be reflected in scores given your proposal in 8 different areas, plus an overall “impact” score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. The impact score determines your chances of funding.

Scored Review Criteria 1. SIGNIFICANCE: address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field; improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice; change the concepts; drive this field. 2. INVESTIGATOR(S): well suited to the project; appropriate experience and training; ongoing record of accomplishments. 3. INNOVATION: utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions

Scored review criteria (continued) 4. APPROACH: well-reasoned and appropriate; robust and unbiased approach; potential problems, alternative strategies; benchmarks for success 5. ENVIRONMENT.  contribute to the probability of success; adequate for the project proposed 6. RESOURCES: appropriate resources to conduct the research, such as adequate equipment and laboratory space

Scored criteria (continued) 7. INDEPENDENCE AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: appropriate experience and training; institutional commitment (start-up funds, technician) 8. COLLABORATORS AND CONSULTANTS: Most scientific work requires collaboration among researchers, and NIH is dedicated to fostering such relationships; spell out roles of collaborators. USE THESE PHRASES IN WRITING EACH SECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL SO THAT REVIEWERS CAN MORE EASILY FIND RELEVANT INFORMATION UPON WHICH TO BASE THEIR EVALUATION OF YOUR PROPOSAL.

Are You a New or Early Stage Investigator?    A Program Director / Principal Investigator (PD/PI) who has completed their terminal research degree or end of post-graduate clinical training, whichever date is later, within the past 10 years and who has not previously competed successfully as PD/PI for a substantial NIH independent research award. ESI applications with meritorious scores will be prioritized for funding. NIH offers funding opportunities tailored to new investigators, such as the  NIH Director's New Innovator Award .

ESI (CONTINUED) identify yourself as a new investigator because reviewers are instructed to give special consideration to new investigators Reviewers will give greater consideration to the proposed approach of an ESI proposal, rather than the track record of the PI First-time applicants may have less preliminary data and fewer publications HOWEVER: ESI proposal must demonstrate true independent of any former mentors; that you have resources and institutional support, ability to independently carry out the research

Additional tips from nih Make Your Project’s Goals Realistic (#1 criticism of new proposals : too ambitious) Be Organized and Logical – make it easy on the primary reviewers Write in Clear Concise Language – make it easy for non-experts to understand   Sell Your Idea – Make the case for why NIH should fund your research Edit and share for comments – ask colleagues to provide ”trial review”

Funding of a first submission is unusual Apply for R01 as soon as reasonable for you to do so Apply to other funding sources on a continuing basis in order to gain some level of funding, some exposure to other review communities, and practice in writing proposals