Survival Skills and Ethics Program
www.pitt.edu/~survival
Topics include• Writing research articles
• Making oral presentations
• Obtaining advanced training
• Teaching
• Job hunting
• Managing personnel
• Obtaining funding
Acknowledgments
• Lillian Pubols (NINDS)• Miner, Miner & Griffith
– Proposal Planning and Writing• Ogden and Goldberg
– Research Proposals: A Guide to Success• ...and many others
Types of grants
objective• training/career
– fellowship– career award
• research• conference• equipment• infrastructure
form• investigator-initiated
– individual– groups
• “set-aside” grants• contracts
Types of grants
objective• training/career
– fellowship– career award
• research• conference• equipment• infrastructure
form• investigator-initiated
– individual– groups
• “set-aside” grants• contracts
Availability of grantsOther
• government• non-government organizations• philanthropic foundations• health voluntaries• corporations• private individuals
Why people don’t get funded
• inadequate concept• poor presentation• poor understanding of process• lack of persistence
Why people don’t get funded
• inadequate concept• poor presentation• poor understanding of process• lack of persistence
Good grants are not funded, excellent ones are
GrantspersonshipPreparing
1. establish frame of mind2. develop concept3. identify funding source4. inform your institution5. refine concept
Writing6. think like a reviewer7. outline, write, edit8. get feedback & revise
Submitting9. get approvals
10. obtain assignment11. submit application12. provide add’l material13. ensure receipt
Responding14. await review15. study report16. respond to report
GrantspersonshipPreparing
1. establish frame of mind2. develop concept3. identify funding source4. inform your institution5. refine concept
Writing6. think like a reviewer7. outline, write, edit8. get feedback & revise
Submitting9. get approvals
10. obtain assignment11. submit application12. provide add’l material13. ensure receipt
Responding14. await review15. study report16. respond to report
Think ahead and plan backwards
Grantspersonship1. establish frame of mind2. develop concept3. identify funding source4. inform your institution5. refine concept
6. think like a reviewer7. outline, write, edit8. get feedback & revise
9. get approvals10. obtain assignment11. submit application12. provide add’l material13. ensure receipt
14. await review15. study report16. respond to report
0 d
2-60d
2 m2 m
>3 m
Phase I: Preparing
1. establish frame of mind2. develop concept3. identify funding source4. inform your institution5. refine concept
General points to keep in mind
• proposal in contrast to research manuscript– read by many fewer– likely to have much greater impact
• material can be recycled– from previous ms– into future ms
Develop a concept that FITS
• Fills a gap in knowledge• Important to
– the field– funding agency– you
Develop a concept that FITS
• Fills a gap in knowledge• Important• Tests a hypothesis• Short-term investment in long-term goals
Source of information
• internet• reference books• colleagues• acknowledgements on papers• office of research at your institution• libraries
Identify funding source
• select agency• improve odds: match objectives
– research interests– personal characteristics
• career phase• gender• developing nation
Identify funding source
• select agency• improve odds: match objectives • communicate with program staff
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding
– percentage– level (amount, years)
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding
– percentage– level (amount, years)
• characteristics of– strong proposals– weak proposals
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding
– percentage– level (amount, years)
• characteristics– strong proposals– weak proposals
• appendix material– ok?– when, to whom?
Ask program staff
• is concept relevant• current instructions• who reviews• what are criteria• funding
– percentage– level (amount, years)
• characteristics– strong proposals– weak proposals
• appendix material– ok?– when, to whom?
• pre-review possible
Contacting program staff
• in their offices– phone– email– letter– in person (by appointment)
• at professional meetings
Inform your institution
• departmental chairperson• office of research• secretarial assistant• fiscal assistant• people to give feedback
Phase II: Writing the proposal
6. think like a reviewer7. outline, write, edit8. get feedback & revise
Time spent reading proposal
• primary reviewer (writes report) 7-8 hr• reader (no report) 1 hr• discussion at study section 20 min
Survey by Janet Rasey
Proposals reviewed were NIH R01
Write for the reviewer
• use standard organization• provide clear, and very visible answers
to review criteria• anticipate reviewer's questions and
provide answers• state relation to funder’s mission
Write for the reviewer, part 2
• use standard organization• provide clear, and very visible answers
to review criteria• anticipate reviewer's questions and
provide answers• state relation to funder’s mission
Phase II: Writing the proposal
6. think like a reviewer7. outline, write, edit8. get feedback & revise
Stock the sections
• Research plan– Specific Aims– Background and Significance– Preliminary Data– Research Design and Methods
• Budget and Justification• References
Outline, Write, and Edit
• being with a full outline• write initial draft without editing• edit thoroughly
Outline, Write, and Edit
• being with a full outline• write initial draft without editing• edit thoroughly
General organization
• have a table of contents• make it easy to find key points
– bold face headings and terms– cross references– some redundancy
Appearance
• select good type facegood never!
Times Roman courier
Century Schoolbook Helvetica
– size > 11 pt
Appearance
• select good type facegood never!
Times Roman courier
Century Schoolbook Helvetica
– size > 11 pt– occasionally use special fonts
bold face
italics
Appearance
• select good type face• write in paragraphs
– 1 major idea per paragraph– topic sentences– use headers frequently
Appearance
• select good type face• write in paragraphs• let your text
– indent paragraphs– skip line between paragraphs
A. Background and SignificanceThe importance of training in "survival skills:" Success in
science requires a solid background in a specific scientificdiscipline as well as extensive laboratory experience. However,for individuals to develop into accomplished professionals, theymust acquire survival skills, that is, they must be able tocommunicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtainemployment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, andbehave responsibly (1,2,3).This has always been the case and isbecoming even more true as our doctoral and postdoctoraltrainees need to be prepared for a variety of vocations (3, 4)
In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of ourtrainees will ultimately find themselves doing research inindustry, teaching in 4-year colleges, or serving in someadministrative capacity. Others will combine their PhDs withprofessional degrees in medicine or law and become clinicalresearchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the theformulation of public policy. With many of these new vocations,extra-laboratory skills become even more essential (3).
Traditionally, higher education in the sciences has focusedalmost exclusively on the content of the scientific disciplineand on research methodology. Indeed, individuals employed inresearch and related fields often complain that although theiracademic training provided them with a sound foundation in their
A. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCEThe importance of training in "survival skills." Success in science
requires a solid background in a specific scientific discipline as well asextensive laboratory experience. However, for individuals to develop intoaccomplished professionals, they must acquire survival skills, that is, theymust be able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtainemployment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, and behaveresponsibly (Bloom 1992; Bird 1994; National Academy of Sciences 1995).This has always been the case and is becoming even more true as ourdoctoral and postdoctoral trainees need to be prepared for a variety ofvocations (National Academy of Sciences 1995; Varmus 1995).
In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of our trainees willultimately find themselves doing research in industry, teaching in 4-yearcolleges, or serving in some administrative capacity. Others will combinetheir PhDs with professional degrees in medicine or law and become clinicalresearchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the formulation of public
Follow-up survey
Participants from our 1995, 1996, and 1997 trainer-of-trainersworkshops were recently sent a survey to see what they had done to providetraining in survival skills and ethics at their institution. (The 1995 workshopwas made possible by an earlier grant.) Thusfar, slightly more than half of all formerparticipants have responded. Even if oneassumes that none of the non-respondents didnot implement any instruction at all (unlikely),the results of this survey still provide a clearindication of the impact of our program.
Instruction implemented by participants:The total number of hours of instruction insurvival skills and ethics that was provided in1997-98 by former participants was comparedwith the instruction offered in the year prior to their attendance (Figure 1).The number of students taught in new or preexisting (but expanded) coursesincreased by an average of 25 hr per year among the respondents.
Figure 1
����������
����������
����������
����������
����������
����������
����������
���������
���������
��������������
�������
Implementation
0200400600800
1000
1995 1996 1997
Workshop participant
inst
ruct
ion
prov
ided
(h
r) before
���������� '97-98
Appearance
• select good type face• write in paragraphs• let your text b r e a t h• conform to instructions!
- type size - margins- # pages - sections
Get feedback
• establish mentors early• provide clear instructions• take no for an answer• remind gently
Get feedback
• establish mentors early• provide clear instructions• take no for an answer • remind gently• show appreciation
Phase III: Submitting
9. get approvals10. obtain assignment11. submit application12. provide additional material13. ensure receipt
Get approvals• use of subjects
– human (IRB)– animals (IACUC)
• safety• agreements
– collaborators– consultants– university administrators
Get approvals• use of subjects
– human (IRB)– animals (IACUC)
• safety• agreements
– collaborators– consultants– university administrators
Allowenough
time!
Obtain the right assignment
• program relevance• availability of funds• sympathetic review• competent reviewers
Clues for assignment officer
• title• abstract• list of key words• specific aims• cover letter• input from program staff
Submit application
• know the deadline• anticipate problems
– bad weather– equipment failures– holidays– sickness
Submit application
• know the deadline• anticipate problems• give yourself extra time
(everything takes longer than you think)
Submit application
• know the deadline• anticipate problems• give yourself extra time• what if you are late?
Submit application
• know the deadline• anticipate problems• give yourself extra time• what if you are late?
– call and ask– there often is a grace period
Submit application
• know the deadline• anticipate problems• give yourself extra time• what if you are late?
– call and ask– there often is a grace period– sometimes there isn’t
Submit application
• know the deadline• anticipate problems• give yourself extra time• what if you are late?• also send copy to program officer
What will be happening
1. assignment2. evaluation
– staff– peers
• sitting panel• external reviewers
– site visit (rare)
What will be happening
1. assignment2. evaluation3. prep of report, which may
– not be available– need to request– take 2-3 mo– be incomplete– contain contradictions
Reasons for rejection: Research proposals
• unoriginal ideas• diffuse, superficial• lack of knowledge• uncertain future
directions
• inadequate rationale• poor reasoning• unrealistic workload• lack of expt’l detail• uncritical approach
Reasons for rejection: Fellowships
• weak candidate– productivity– letters– training
• poor mentor– research– funding– experience
• inadequate proposal– quality of research– relevance to training
• weak institution– colleagues– support
If budget is reduced
• estimate what can be accomplished• renegotiate
– objectives– experiments
• save rest for future application
If score is in “gray zone”
• talk to program officer• consider providing additional material
– rebuttal– evidence of feasibility
If funding is not provided
• quit• same application with rebuttal• revised application
– some changes– some rebuttal
If funding is not provided
• quit• same application with rebuttal• revised application
– some changes– some rebuttal
• request new reviewers
Behave responsibly
• source of material• adequacy of methods• collaborations• pilot data• budget• biosketch
Behave responsibly
• source of material• adequacy of methods• collaborations• pilot data• budget• biosketch
General principle:Do not misrepresent anything.
Timeline for NIH proposal:From application to funding
Date Step Feb 1, 2001 application Jun – Jul, 2001 review Aug – Sep, 2001 summary statement Nov 1, 2001 revised application Feb – Mar 2002 review May – Jun, 2002 council meets July 1, 2002 funding begins
Assume approximately 18 months.
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded as soon as possible– funding track record helps get more $– jobs, promotions easier with grant– proposals often not funded first time
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine• make sure previous work published
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine• make sure previous work published• every proposal should be excellent
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine• make sure previous work published• every proposal should be excellent• letters from others can help
Advice to junior investigators
• get funded ASAP• starting small is fine• make sure previous work published• every proposal should be excellent• letters from others can help• don’t stop ‘till you have more than enough
Components
• title• abstract• research plan
– objectives– significance– preliminary data– research design,
methods
Components
• title• abstract• research plan
– objectives– significance– preliminary data– research design,
methods
• budget • budget justification• biosketches• approvals• letters• appendix
Components
• title• abstract• research plan
– objectives– significance– preliminary data– research design,
methods
• budget • budget justification• biosketches• approvals• letters• appendix
Title
• mini-abstract• accurate statement of long-term goals• conform to guidelines• include key words
Abstract
• background• specific aims• unique features• methodology• expected results
• method of evaluation
• generalizability• relation to field• broad impact
Contents
Research plan
• Specific aims• Background & Significance• Preliminary Data• Research Design & Methods
Research plan
• state objectives• provide
background– general literature– your work– reviewer’s work
Research plan
• state objectives• provide
background• be hypotheses-
driven• highlight strengths
– ideas– methods
Research plan
• state objectives• provide
background• be hypotheses-
driven• highlight strengths
• emphasize practicality– methods– preliminary data– time & skills
Research plan
• state objectives• provide
background• be hypotheses-
driven• highlight strengths
• emphasize practicality– methods– preliminary data– time & skills
• discuss outcomes, have contingencies
Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details
– methodology– controls– instruments to be used– information to be collected: value & limitations– precision of data– procedures for data analysis – interpretation
Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome• specify alternative method if yours fails
Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome• specify alternative method• list sources of unique materials
– reagents– materials– populations
Methods• explain why your method is best• provide details• identify pitfalls, how will overcome• specify alternative methods • list sources of unique materials• consider input from statistician
– methods for data analyses– amt data to collect
Approximate Timeline (in years)
Molecular basis of neuroprotection
Signaling underlying effects of GDNF
Impact of GDNF on cell death
54321Experiment
Timeline
Project evaluation(included in proposal)
• specify who will conduct– internal– external
• relate measures to objectives• include evaluation instrument if
available
Biographical sketches
• include for critical personnel– Principal Investigator (PI)– Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI)– Co-Investigators (Co-I)– Collaborators– Consultants– Research assistants
Biographical sketches
• include for critical personnel• highlight relevant accomplishments• ensure accuracy
– training, experience– publications– grant support
Budget
• reasonable– for the project– for the agency
• inflationary increases• new costs in subsequent years
Justification
• personnel
Ben Aster, Ph.D., 20% effort. Dr. Aster is responsible for program evaluation.
Justification
• personnel
Ben Aster, Ph.D., 20% effort. Dr. Aster is responsible for program evaluation. He develops evaluation instruments, administers surveys, compiles and analyzes the data, initiates follow-up inquiries, and writes evaluation reports.
Budget• reasonable• justify requests• explain appearance of overlap• new NIH format: modular budgets• cost-share when possible
– funds– services– equipment
Construction of budget
• fringe benefits salaries 50,000fringe benefits (20%) 10,000supplies 25,000equipment 15,000
Construction of budget
• fringe benefits• direct costs
salaries 50,000fringe benefits (20%) 10,000supplies 25,000equipment 15,000
DC 100,000
Construction of budget
• fringe benefits• direct costs• indirect costs
salaries 50,000*fringe benefits (20%) 10,000*supplies 25,000*equipment 15,000
DC 100,000IDC 42,500Total Award $142,500
Resources and environment
• to document resources available– equipment– space– facilities– support staff
Equipment grants
• relation to existing resources• value added to research
– in your research unit– outside research unit
• benefits for students• implications of not having equipment
Human subjects• characteristics of subjects, population• recruiting methods• criteria for selection• consent procedures• potential risks• how risks will be minimized• benefits to subjects and community• inclusion of women and minorities
Vertebrate animals
• detail proposed use• justify species and number• veterinary care• minimizing stress, discomfort• justification for method of euthanasia
Letters
• letters of agreement– obtain from collaborators, consultants– to document
• type, level of involvement• access to special
– reagents, equipment– methods– populations
– improve by providing sample
Letters• letters of agreement• letters of recommendation
– may be required– could be optional– could be inconspicuous
Supplementary materials: Some examples
• color or enlarged figures• reprints of your work• updated information
– results– other accomplishments
Summary
• there is money available• getting it takes
– a good idea– a proper match– good grantspersonship– persistence
Summary
• there is money available• getting it takes
– a good idea– a proper match– good grantspersonship– persistence
• it is hard work
Summary
• there is money available• getting it takes
– a good idea– a proper match– good grantspersonship– persistence
• it is hard work• it is so worth it!