Grant Writing Workshop Specific Aims Emelia J Benjamin
Grant Writing Workshop Specific Aims Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, Sc. M The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study Boston University School of Medicine ♥ ♥ No industry relationships to disclose Associate Editor, Circulation 2 R 01 HL 092577 1 R 01 HL 102214 ♥ N 01 HC 25195 ♥ 1 P 50 HL 12016
Resources • FDD Page Isabel Dominguez created on grant writing tips http: //www. bumc. bu. edu/facdev-medicine/forresearchers/grant-writing/ • Russell & Morrison’s Grant Writers’ Seminars & Workshops The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook
BUMC Grant Writing Resources • • • Associate Provost for Research Carter Cornwall’s Proposal Training Clinical Research Resources Office Clinical and Translational Science Institute Corporate and Foundation Relations Expertise and Instrumentation Search Office of Medical Education Office of Sponsored Programs Vice Chair for Research (DOM)
How do Reviewers Work? • Hard • For virtually all grant reviewers, the study section work takes place after their day job • Your job is to make their job easy
Getting Started How do you Pick a Topic? • What excites you and experts in your field? Is it important? Significance Is it novel? Innovation • Will it build an identity distinct from your mentor? • Read the everything you can find on the topic • NIH Reporter what is already funded on your topic http: //projectreporter. nih. gov/reporter. cfm • Will it build to subsequent funding/RO 1 s?
Getting Started? The Blank Page • Ask to see colleagues’ successful grants • Ask to see colleagues’ critiques • Have you blocked out time to write your grant? ? ?
How important are the Specific Aims?
How important are the Specific Aims? Fundamental to the Application’s Success
Why are the Specific Aims Important? 1. Reviewers often determine a grant’s merit merely after reading the S. A. 2. Study section silent reading period. S. A. is only section most study section members will read 3. Roadmap to the entire grant
Specific Aims Chapter 7 - Grant Application Writer’s Workbook Outline Grant – Paragraph 1 1. Significance Clinical Current knowledge Gap in knowledge/unmet need
Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 2 2. Long term goal Big picture of research program Objective of application Central hypothesis and rationale Links back to first paragraph
Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 3 3. Specific Aims – for each aim Approach » Specific question » Sample » Design » Specific hypothesis tested
Specific Aims Outline Grant – Paragraph 4 4. ‘Payoff’ Expected outcomes Why group & environment perfectly suited What impact on patients and field
What dew Raveiwrs KNOT want to sea? • Details details • A sloppy grant NO typos / grammar problems Correct references Clear subject headings. Logical flow • Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers • A well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science • Slick presentation canno. T RESCUE HO HUM content. A sloppy grant NO typos / grammar problems Correct references. Clear subject headings Logical flow. Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact • papers A well-laid out grant makes it easier for • the Reviewer to see the science. Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content subject headings. Logical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact the science Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content. A sloppy grant NO typos / grammar problems Correct references Clear papers A well-laid out manuscript makes it easier for the Reviewer to see NO typos / grammar problems Correct references Clear subject headings Logical flow concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out grant makes it easier for • Leads to the Reviewer to see the science. Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content
What do Reviewers NOT want to see? • Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content • A sloppy grant Instead aim No typos Avoid long paragraphs Subject headings Logical flow No grammar problems Correct references Avoid tiny font Avoid TNTC abbreviations • Sloppiness encourages concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers • Lucid writing, organized, well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science • Can scientist not in the field understand the grant?
What Are Common Pitfalls? Significance • Not of major public health import • Technical tour de force, but so what • Lack of a conceptual model • Lack of stated hypothesis seeking to test ‘fishing expedition’ • Lack of generalizability
What Are Common Pitfalls? Innovation • Incremental
should ALLcareer When should an early investigator start investigators start working on on aa grant? 1. You cannot start too early 2. 2 submission rule: 1 st submission must be strong § Grants not discussed higher chance of ‘double jeopardy’ 3. S. A. formulated at least 6 months in advance 4. First draft 12 weeks in advance 5. Mentors and colleagues have time to review draft at least 1 -2 months in advance 6. You cannot start too early
- Slides: 20