The Barry Davis Workshop: Funding Opportunities for the New ...

The Barry Davis Workshop: Funding
Opportunities for the New Investigator
Susan Sullivan, PhD; NIDCD Division of Scientific Programs;
Director of the Taste and Smell Program

Goals of workshop
• NIDCD mission areas
• Research funding mechanisms for
trainees and Early Stage
Investigators
• NIH review process and potential
pitfalls
• Questions

National Institute on Deafness and
Other Communication Disorders
(NIDCD)
Director: Dr. James Battey
Mission: conduct and support
biomedical and behavioral research
and research training in the normal
and disordered processes of:
-Hearing
-Smell
-Voice
-Language
-Balance
-Taste
-Speech

NIDCD Extramural Awards (FY12)
Mission areas
• Hearing 53 %
• Balance 5 %
• Smell 11 %
• Taste 6 %
• Voice 7 %
• Speech 7 %
• Language 11 %

NIDCD Extramural Staff
Program Officer (PO): Scientific mgmt.
Assists applicants in the process (advises on NIDCD
mission areas and grant mechanisms), attends
review meetings (advises on resubmission),
recommends funding and post-award actions
Scientific Review Officer (SRO): Review mgmt.
Recruits, schedules, and convenes expert review
committees (study sections), assigns and advises
reviewers, and prepares Summary Statements
Grants Management Officer (GMO): Fiscal mgmt.
Checks budgets and issues Notices of Grant Award
(NGA), no-cost extensions, institutional transfers

Select NIDCD Research and
Training Awards
Individual Ruth L. Kirschstein National
Research Service Awards (NRSAs)
• F30: Integrated dual-degree training (MD/PhD, etc.)
• F31: Predoctoral training (Diversity and “generic”)
• F32: Postdoctoral training
Select Career Development Awards
• K99/R00: Early-Stage Career Transition
Select Research Project Grant Awards
• NIDCD Small Grant R03 Program
• Investigator-initiated R01

Individual NRSA Fellowships (Fs)
• Supports the training of predocs or postdocs
• Must be US citizen, US non-citizen national, or
permanent resident
• Limits on the total number of years of NRSA
support allowed
• Budgets are pre-determined: stipend, partial
tuition and fees and a small institutional
allowance
• Scientific Review: Review panels convened by
the NIDCD Scientific Review Branch
• NIDCD Program Contact: Dr. Dan Sklare

Pathway to Independence Award
(K99/R00)
• Mentored postdoctoral (K99) & independent
investigator (R00) phases
• Up to 5 yrs of support
• Eligibility: Postdocs with < 4 yrs experience;
does not require US citizenship or
permanent residency
• K99 Phase (1-2 yrs): < $105K/yr salary plus
$25K for research costs
• R00 Phase (2-3 yrs): < $249K total costs/yr
• NIDCD Program Contact: Dr. Dan Sklare

• NIDCD Program Contacts: Drs. Bracie Watson
and Susan Sullivan
NIDCD Small Grant Program (R03)
• Supports research of PIs who are in the early
stages of their research career
• Eligibility:
– Must be

Investigator-Initiated R01
• Mainstay of NIH research support for both
early stage and established PIs
• Up to 5 years in duration
• Modular budgets- direct costs are in $25K
increments up to $250K/yr
• Non-modular budgets- require more detailed
budget justification. Budgets over $499K/yr
require prior approval
• Special considerations given to New and
Early Stage Investigators

New Investigator (NI) and an Early
Stage Investigator (ESI) Definitions
New Investigator (NI):
Not yet held a substantial, competing NIH
research grant (previous F, K, R03, R21 - still
considered a NI)
Early Stage Investigator (ESI):
New Investigator within 10 years of completing
his/her terminal research degree or is within 10
years of completing medical residency (or the
equivalent)
ESI eligibility is determined by the degree dates
you report in your Commons account

NI/ESI special considerations
• Discussions of NI/ESI applications are usually
clustered during the review meeting to give
appropriate consideration with others at the same
career stage
• Shorter review cycle with special receipt dates
• If you are an NIDCD ESI and you miss the automatic
R01 payline, you may submit a letter to Advisory
Council for special consideration for funding

Preparing to submit
• Establish an eRA Commons account for tracking
the progress of your application
– Work with institute officials. Can take weeks.
• Carefully read the program announcement for your
specific grant mechanism (eligibility, review
criteria, page limits, due dates, and instructions for
submission)
• Talk with your PO in order to identify the most
appropriate institute and study section for your
application

What happens to your application
when you submit it?
• Institute signing official electronically submits
your application through Grant.gov
• References must submit letters via eRA
Commons by submission deadline
• Received by the Division of Receipt and Referral
• A referral officer refers it to an NIH Institute
• Assigned to an appropriate scientific review
study section
– Training grants and R03s reviewed by NIDCD SRB
– Investigator-initiated R01s reviewed by CSR

Once assigned to study section
Scientific Review Officer (SRO) administers
study section’s review of your application –
• Determines expertise necessary for
evaluation and identifies appropriate
reviewers
• Provides guidance and review criteria
• Oversees review meeting
• Reports results of review and generates the
final summary statement

Review of applications
• For each application, generally three reviewers
are designated as “assigned reviewers”
– Assign preliminary overall scores
– Assign criterion scores
– Submit written critiques

Scoring
Impact Score Descriptor
High Impact
Moderate
Impact
Low Impact
1 Exceptional
2 Outstanding
3 Excellent
4 Very Good
5 Good
6 Satisfactory
7 Fair
8 Marginal
9 Poor

Overall Impact Score: 1-9
• Reviewers provide 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.

Scored Review Criteria
Fellowships
• Fellowship Applicant
• Sponsors, Collaborators,
Consultants
• Research Training Plan
• Training Potential
• Institutional Environment and
Commitment to Training
R01s/R03s
• Significance
• Investigators
• Innovation
• Approach
• Environment

Reviewer critique template
Does the project address an
important problem or a critical
barrier to progress in the field? If
the aims of the project are
achieved, how will scientific
knowledge, technical capability,
and/or clinical practice be
improved? How will successful
completion of the aims change
the concepts, methods,
technologies, treatments,
services, or preventative
interventions that drive this field?

Preliminary scores & streamlining
Overall preliminary
score (average of
assigned reviewers)
Discussed
Not
Discussed

“Not Discussed” Designation
• “Not discussed” applications still reviewed
and receive full written feedback and
criterion scores from assigned reviewers.
• One resubmission is allowed---opportunity to
improve application. Reviewers’
concerns addressed in an “Introduction”
page.
• Reference letters (fellowships), appendix
materials, etc… must be resubmitted.
• Take advantage and seek advice of funded
senior investigators!

“Discussed” Applications
• Assigned reviewers discuss strengths and
weaknesses of each application
– Recommend overall impact score
• All eligible panel members record an overall
impact score
• Final overall impact score is the average score
of all reviewers multiplied by 10
• Final overall impact scores range from 10-90,
in whole numbers

After study section
• Overall impact score released & appears on
Commons (hours-days)
• Summary Statement released & appears on
Commons (days-weeks)
• Once released, information is available to
you and NIH program staff

Funding Decision to Award
• Funding recommendations (second
level review) made by NIDCD Training
Board (Fs) or Advisory Council (Ks and
Rs)
Prior to an award:
– Resolve any administrative concerns
– Submit just-in-time (JIT) information
– Must submit annual progress reports for
out-year awards

• Typos (!!)
Common weaknesses
• Difficult to read/follow - use
diagrams/drawings for complex ideas
• Over- or under-ambitious
• Not enough preliminary data
• Project not well described in context of
current literature
• No consideration of pitfalls and alternatives
• Specific aims are interdependent- avoid the
domino effect

Common weaknesses
• No letters of support from collaborators/
consultants
• Lack of attention to vertebrate animal or
human subjects sections
• Questions about your independence (R03
and R01s)
• For revised applications: Not responsive
enough to previous reviews- don’t ignore
a comment you don’t like and don’t be
argumentative.
• Submitting before it is “ready to go”
• Not contacting your Program Officer

Common weaknesses
(Fellowships)
• Applicant: weak grades, poor productivity
• Sponsor/Mentor: unfunded, inexperienced in
proposed techniques, lack of mentoring
experience
• Training plans: not individualized, failure to
include training in what is required for the
project
• Training potential: not clear what will be gained
by training experience, staying at same
institution