NIH TIPS FOR APPLICANTS Runtime 4 min, 38 seconds. Question on the screen: what are common mistakes to avoid? KEITH YAMAMOTO, executive vice dean of the school of medicine at the University of California in San Francisco, says: In NIH applications, perhaps the most common, especially among new investigators, is over ambitiousness. Just kind of spreading out and trying to cover too much territory. MARTIN PHILBERT, professor of toxicology and senior associate director of research, University of Michigan School of Public Health says: If you do not convey the essence of the idea clearly, then no matter how good the idea is, it’s lost. And so what we term as grantsmanship frequently on the panel is really the idea of efficiently and sometimes repetitively conveying what you want to do, what you will do, and how it will advance the science. Question on the screen: where can I get help? KATE BENT, Chief of CSR’s Health Care Delivery and Methodology Integrated Review Group, says: I would encourage any applicant to seek outside review before submitting the application. There are things you miss all the time. And you should take their advice seriously. Take their critiques as important, and work on revisions before you actually make your grant application and submit it. DANIEL WRIGHT, Program Director for Hematology Research at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, says: Well, the role of program directors such as myself is to advise applicants and to be advocates for them. An important part of the responsibility of the program director is to keep abreast of the particular field and research area that they’re overseeing. And this can be an advantage to the applicants because they see it from a broader perspective. Question on the screen: what if I don’t get a good score? KATE BENT: I don’t know anyone who gets positive results on every single grant application they submit. And the first one that gets rejected is the hardest, but they’re never fun, and after that you regroup and you just move on. SEYMOUR GARTE, Director of CSR’s Division of Physiology and Pathological Sciences, says: In fact, you’ll always receive a summary statement which contains the criticisms that were leveled at the grant by the study section members. It’s very important to read these criticisms carefully and to take them into account and correct the application when you resubmit the grant. Question on the screen: what makes an application exciting? DAVID GRAINGER, professor of bioengineering and pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of Utah, says: You can read so many proposals, and yet one will stick out and hit you in the face as being an absolutely wonderful piece of literature. And for me these contain again, that lucid style, a very compelling creative scientific idea, and this idea of impact of moving science in a mode towards a clinical end that is not only credible, but you think will make an enormous boost of capability or boost of therapeutic value to a patient population that currently is in some type of need. BRIAN HOFFMAN: You have a bunch of people looking at your proposal who are disposed to do well by you. Who want to find an exciting idea and good science and support it, and tell them a good story. Tell them a story about what you want to do, why you want to do it, and how you’re going to do it. MARTIN PHILBERT: There are essentially three elements of a proposal that get me really excited. The major hook, frankly, is the way it’s presented. How clear is the language? How well do the ideas follow one from another? The second, and perhaps more important, is what is the quality of the idea. The third is the innovation. How much will this one study advance our knowledge of something that has eluded our consciousness for some time? Text on the screen: Final encouraging thoughts . . . KATE BENT: I would encourage any applicant to take part in reviewing activities such as they exist. Perhaps reviewing manuscripts for a journal. Review an abstract for your professional meeting. And when invited to review for NIH, participate. You’ll find that your applications get stronger and you learn a lot by reviewing and participating. SEYMOUR GARTE: The best advice I could give to an applicant who’s starting to write a proposal for the first time is to do your homework with respect to what NIH is looking for in a grant proposal, get advice from your peers and mentors on what sort of proposal you should write and how you should write it. There’s lots of information on the NIH web site that will help you. There are many opportunities for funding. Text on the screen: For more information on CSR and the NIH peer review process, visit our web site at www.csr.nih.gov. This video is a production of the Center for Scientific Review and the NIH Division of Events Management, Multi Media Department and Rocket Media Group Logos are shown on the screen for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Scientific Review.