Advice from the Battleground: Inside NIH Study Sections and Common Mistakes on NIH Applications
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes248 views
The document outlines a meeting focused on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) study sections and common mistakes in NIH grant applications. It includes presentations on understanding the NIH peer review process, strategies for grant renewal, and common application pitfalls. A panel discussion provides insights on reviewed applications and how to interpret feedback from reviewers.
Advice from the Battleground: Inside NIH Study Sections and Common Mistakes on NIH Applications
- 1. Inside NIH Study Sections and Common Mistakes on NIH Applications: Advice from the Battleground September 1, 2021 1-2:30 p.m.
- 2. 3 Agenda Welcome and Introduction of Agenda: April Armstrong Part 1 (40 minutes) “The Inside Scoop on NIH Study Sections” by Chanita Hughes-Halbert “How to think like a reviewer” by Arthur Toga “Strategies for grant renewal” by Gage Crump Part 2 (50 minutes) Panel Discussion: Thomas Buchanan, Sarah Hamm- Alvarez, Chanita Hughes-Halbert, Art Toga, Gage Crump, and April Armstrong
- 3. Panelists
- 4. 5 •Please submit questions using the Q&A feature anytime throughout the meeting •Please do not use the chat feature •This meeting will be recorded and posted online
- 5. The Inside Scoop on NIH Study Sections Chanita Hughes Halbert, PhD Department of Population and Public Health Sciences Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center University of Southern California hughesha@usc.edu
- 6. Grant Process Overview • Center for Scientific Review: Receives and reviews applications that are submitted to NIH • Reviewers: Responsible for evaluating the scientific merit and impact of applications using established criteria. • Study Sections: • Integrated Review Group – study sections that are clustered together around a common scientific area • Study Section – Scientists who are experts in the field, mature/objective, and diverse https://public.csr.nih.gov/
- 7. Key Principles of NIH Peer Review • NIH provides oversight of the process • Fair • Objective • Study sections evaluate scientific merit • Scientists who are experts in the field, mature/objective, and diverse
- 8. Key Players in Study Sections • SRO – Scientific Review Officer • PO – Program Official • Study Section Chair • Reviewers
- 9. • SRO introduction and orientation • Study section introductions • Triage (not discussed) • Primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers provide scores and critiques (and discussants) • Discussion/questions among study section • Discussion is summarized • Reviewers provide scores again based on discussion • Study section members asked if voting outside of the range • Priority score is provided to applicant • Summary statement is provided to applicants Inside the Study Section
- 10. Q&A Session with Dr. Hughes-Halbert (2 minutes) 12
- 11. Arthur W. Toga www.ini.usc.edu CIA Think Like a Reviewer
- 12. RFP RFA PA RFI
- 13. PO SRA CSR Know the panel ! The wisdom of Willie Sutton (circa 1933)
- 14. Structured Clear Comprehensive Brevity What (aims), why (significance), when (timeline), how (innovation and approach), who (investigators) Other Stuff What if X goes wrong? Validation Block the Critique
- 15. Graphics not Groans Bullets, Bold and Beautiful
- 16. 1. Triage and Nerf 2. Arguments and Rebuttals 3. Déjà vu all over again
- 17. If she says ‘that is nice dear…’ Pass the elevator test iCRAP
- 18. Q&A Session with Dr. Toga (2 minutes) 20
- 19. Strategies for grant renewal Gage Crump, PhD Professor, Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Integrative Anatomical Sciences Eli and Edythe Broad CIRM Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at USC 21
- 20. What Reviewers Look for in R01 Renewal • Productivity • ~1 last-author publication per year of grant (bioRxiv and other pre-prints count toward total) • Minimum 1-2 papers in higher impact journals ** if productivity lower, consider new R01 instead • Significant New Direction • Avoid appearance of incremental advance • At least one aim significantly different than prior R01 • Bring in new co-I/collaborator ** renewal needs some connection to prior R01 ** ok to change title of renewal R01, grant number stays same
- 21. Unique Aspects of R01 Renewal • Progress Report • ~1 page summarizing progress on each aim of prior R01 • Part of Research Strategy (counts toward 12-page limit) • Flexible where to insert (I typically place between Background and Preliminary Studies) • Progress Report Publications • Reviewers receive Summary Statement of R01 being renewed • Based on previous reviewer comments will get a sense of your previous aims, but will not have access to previous Specific Aims or Research Strategy sections • Its Ok to have changed directions or not completed some aims as long as you have published well
- 22. Why to Renew vs. Submitting New R01 • Leverage strong publications in previous period • Build on previous grant with exciting new findings • Sympathy scoring for legacy grants – i.e. reviewers impressed with long-standing grants (I’ve seen some for 45th year but >~15 years may help)
- 23. Q&A Session with Dr. Crump (2 minutes) 25
- 24. Panel Discussion and Q&A Session (50 minutes) Please use the Q&A box to submit questions anytime 26
- 25. What is your general approach to reviewing grants for study section? • What do you look at most closely? • Are there sections you place less emphasis? • How might your approach be different if you are primary vs secondary reviewer? 27
- 26. What is your general approach to reviewing grants for study section? • What do you look at most closely? • Are there sections you place less emphasis? • How might your approach be different if you are primary vs secondary reviewer? 28
- 27. What is your general approach to reviewing grants for study section? • What do you look at most closely? • Are there sections you place less emphasis? • How might your approach be different if you are primary vs secondary reviewer? 29
- 28. 30 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research Applications and How to Avoid them: • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Preliminary studies • Overall strategy • Methodology and analysis
- 29. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research Applications and How to Avoid them: • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Preliminary studies • Overall strategy • Methodology and analysis
- 30. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research Applications and How to Avoid them: • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Preliminary studies • Overall strategy • Methodology and analysis
- 31. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research Applications and How to Avoid them: • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Preliminary studies • Overall strategy • Methodology and analysis
- 32. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research Applications and How to Avoid them: • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Preliminary studies • Overall strategy • Methodology and analysis
- 33. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research Applications and How to Avoid them: • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Preliminary studies • Overall strategy • Methodology and analysis
- 35. 3. The Summary Statement: Now what? a.What is the role of your program officer in assistant with your interpretation or response to a statement? b.How do you read and interpret it – what matters most? Least? c. Whether and how do you construct a response and revision? d.What should you do about inaccuracies?
- 36. 3. The Summary Statement: Now what? a. What is the role of your program officer in assistant with your interpretation or response to a statement? b.How do you read and interpret it – what matters most? Least? c. Whether and how do you construct a response and revision? d.What should you do about inaccuracies?
- 37. Your feedback matters. Please complete the post meeting survey.
- 38. Inside NIH Study Sections and Common Mistakes on NIH Applications: Advice from the Battleground September 1, 2021 1-2:30 p.m.
Editor's Notes
- #7: Who is discussed first. What percentage gets discussed in each category? Discussion of new investigators. --over ambitious --over interpretation -- wait until the last minute --need to give the grant to the worst enemy --the younger the reviewers, the harder they are. --needs to be a coherent story without loose ends --innovative but not too innovative --what is innovation? Conceptual innovation: Eistein: being a genius is looking at something that everyone else is looking at but seeing it in a different way. Unique perspective Scientific innovation: you’ve got the goods. Technical innovation: technology. Investigators: you need an investigative team. It’s about team. Science is a team sport. Resubmission– Timing when to prepare and how many to submit. Terrible mistakes, and what to do. R03 or R21 doesn’t have ESI privilege. Approach section– twice the space for alternative approach as the actual approach.