Applying for early investigator career grants

**Please note for those of you who followed the links below on 7/31, you may have found the 2017 e-book. Please follow the link now to access the 2018 e-book. Sorry for the confusion!**

This week, ORDE released our New Investigator Funding e-book. This book outlines a variety of career-type grant programs. Many agencies offer grant programs that are designed to cultivate early career investigators. These career awards focus on promising junior investigators that agencies want to invest in. However, these career grants are quite diverse.

Below are four questions you'll want to answer before deciding to apply to any new investigator grant program.

1.     How does the agency define new investigator?

If you're a new investigator, you're a new investigator, right? Well, maybe. Different agencies define new investigator differently. Some are looking at how many years since you received your terminal degree(s). Some are looking at how long you've been in your research position. And, some are looking at whether or not you've received major funding previously.

2.     Is it a mentored grant?

Some new investigator programs are the same sort of research-focused programs as those that are not for new investigators. And others are considered mentored awards, where in your proposal you must address your own career development plan, and also identify a mentor who will work with you throughout the award period. The NIH Career Development or K awards are generally framed in this way. While K applicants must identify a research project in their proposal, the larger focus is on the candidate, their mentor, and their career development. On the other hand, the NSF's CAREER program is research-focused. While applicants are wise to show how their CAREER project fits in with their and their department's larger research goals, this is peripheral to the research project itself. Other agencies run the gamut.

  

3.     Do your past grants affect eligibility?

At some agencies, the new investigator programs are targeted at bringing very early career investigators and their research up to speed. Thus, if you have shown that you are competitive for major funding previously, this could make you ineligible for some new investigator awards. For instance, at the NIH, if you have secured major funding as the PI, e.g., received an R01, you lose your new investigator status and would not be a good candidate for a K award. But, for the NSF CAREER program, about half of CAREER awardees have received previous awards from the NSF and it puts them in a better place to compete for the CAREER and certainly does not make them ineligible.

4.     What are the goals of the program?

The questions above really all lead to this question. Before you decide whether or not to apply for a new investigator grant, you must first understand the goals of the agency and the new investigator program. Is the agency hoping to create new independent investigators with their program by funding career development? Or is the agency looking to promote those newer investigators who have already proven that they are independent and productive researchers? When you understand the program, you can consider if it is a good fit for you at your current stage.

After perusing our e-book, we suggest that you contact ORDE with any questions and to have us conduct a personalized fund search for you (if you are a CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus faculty member). We look forward to helping you!

Resource:

Research Funding Opportunities for New Investigators - ORDE

ORDE Fall Faculty Seminars Open for Registration

I'm happy to announce that we have released our fall faculty seminars and they are open for registration. All faculty on our CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses and our affiliates are welcome to attend. Lunch is served and resources are provided at each program. We hope you'll join us! Please register here: http://www.ucdenver.edu/research/ORDE/Pages/FacultySeminar.aspx

AMC: NIH K Awardees Panel

September 12, 2018

12:00 – 2:00

Location: Education 2 North, Rm 1103

Faculty Experts: Sarah Borengasser, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Heather Coates, Assistant Professor, College of Nursing; & Danielle Soranno, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine

The mentored NIH Research Career Development Award or K Award is unique among NIH grants. Successful candidates not only have to propose an excellent research plan but also have to show that they need mentoring and that they have the potential to be independent investigators. Join us to better understand the NIH K Awards and hear from recent awardees of the K01, K99, and K08.

Denver: Academic v. Grant Writing

September 27, 2018

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: CU Building, Rm 3301

Faculty Expert: Bud Talbot, Assistant Professor, Science Education and Laurel Hartley, Associate Professor, Biology

Research faculty need to write a lot, writing articles and grant proposals in particular. But, these are very different types of writing. The academic writing that goes into articles is often oriented toward other experts in the field. Proposal writing however requires the PI to pitch their idea and convince readers to invest in their project. In this seminar we will look at the difference between these types of writing, looking particularly at how you can switch gears from academic writing to grant writing. Additionally, we will learn from our faculty experts how to write in these different capacities collaboratively.

AMC: Scientific & Grant Writing Symposium

October 16, 2018

9:30 am – 1:30 pm

Location: Education 2 South, Rm 1102

Faculty Guest Experts: Spero Manson, Associate Dean for Research, Colorado School of Public Health; Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine; Garth Sundem, Science Writer, Cancer Center; and Naomi Nishi, Associate Director of ORDE

Science writing and grant writing are not usually considered synonymous with clear and compelling writing. This is usually because science and grant writing require engaging complex, and highly technical subject matter. But, it can be done. Join us for this symposium and hear from several professional science/grant writers on how to improve your craft.

Denver: New Faculty Symposium

October 24, 2018

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: Student Commons, Rm 1401

Faculty Expert: Bob Damrauer, Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of Research Services

Early Career Investigators often feel a bit isolated from the research community on a new campus. This new faculty symposium is an opportunity to familiarize yourself with the CU Denver research community and introduce yourself and your work. You also will learn more about all of the research processes and resources available to you.

AMC: Know Your Agency: American Diabetes Association

November 6, 2018

12:00 – 1:30

Location: Education 2 North, Rm 1107

Faculty Expert: Jane Reusch, Professor, School of Medicine

In the Know Your Agency Lunches, we feature a specific agency and ask either an investigator funded by the agency or an agency insider to give an overview of the agency and offer some of the nuances that might not be readily available on the website or program announcement. These lunches also offer an opportunity for investigators interested in applying to the agency the chance to ask questions of someone more experienced with the agency.

Denver: Know Your Agency: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

November 7, 2018

12:00 – 1:30

Location: CU Building, Rm 490

Faculty Expert: Shale Wong, Professor, School of Medicine

In the Know Your Agency Lunches, we feature a specific agency and ask either an investigator funded by the agency or an agency insider to give an overview of the agency and offer some of the nuances that might not be readily available on the website or program announcement. These lunches also offer an opportunity for investigators interested in applying to the agency the chance to ask questions of someone more experienced with the agency.

Understanding Private Foundations

In the midst of a competitive federal grants climate, researchers are wise to diversify their funding portfolios. However, the first challenge researchers face in considering private foundations, especially if you're used to going after R01s at NIH, is setting your sights quite a bit lower in terms of dollar amount.

Besides smaller funds, private foundation generally have the following attributes:

• They are unique and differentiated from one another in terms of mission, approach, cause, etc.
• They do not want to fund projects that are fund-able by federal or other public sources
• They want to fund projects that are innovative or even risky
• They want to fund projects that will further their specific cause
• They are sometimes a good place to find seed funding (when they see themselves as partners with government or institutional funders)

Susan M. Fitzpatrick and M. Bren Dolezalick expand on these attributes in their book chapter: Diversifying Your Portfolio: The Role of Private Funders in Writing Successful Grant Proposals: From the Top Down and Bottom Up.

In his book, The "How To" Grant Manual, David G. Bauer differentiates private foundations into four basic types:

National General Purpose: These organizations fund projects across the nation and are looking for research that will have an impact on a broad scale.  An example would be the Rockefeller Foundation.

Special Purpose: These define the scope of research they will fund much more narrowly and generally focus on one target area. An example would be the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (focused on American Health Care).

Community: These foundations focus on issues or areas of focus that are important to a particular region or community.  An example would be The Denver Foundation.

Family: These foundations are often created as memorials by a family and the projects they fund must be in line with the family's goals and ideologies.

Clearly, you want to understand the type of foundation that will be a good fit for your research based on the foundation's goals and your own.  But, private funding can serve as a good source for supplementary funding or initial funding as a seed grant.

For CU faculty, oftentimes you need to work with the Office of Advancement or through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research when pursuing private foundation grants so that the university communications are coordinated and consistent, so be sure to check on the appropriate processes when pursuing a private foundation grant.

Resources:
Diversifying Your Portfolio: The Role of Private Funders
What is a private foundation?

Don't N/A Yourself Out of a Grant

Agency guidelines for grant proposals often feel tedious. In fact, if they don't feel tedious, you better go back and read the guidelines again to make sure you're not missing the tedious requirements. However, I've noticed in proposals I review how often PIs respond N/A or "not applicable" to different guideline prompts.

Now, in some situations, the prompt or question does not apply to you and thus an N/A response is appropriate, but be cautious when you're responding to a guideline and saying it is not applicable to you. First, make sure that what you're responding to really isn't applicable to you. If the prompt asks what grant proposals you have pending, you can pretty quickly determine if it's N/A. But, if the question is asking about future grant submission plans, you probably don't want to respond with N/A, because you should be continuing to apply for grants. Showing the agency your future grant plans gives them confidence that your work will continue, that it's going somewhere.

Even if you think that your response to a prompt is N/A, maybe using N/A is still not your best strategy. Grant proposals are so limiting in terms of sharing your ideas, so when considering your response to each prompt, see if there is an opportunity to further your case rather than saying N/A. If you're responding to a question about IRB approval, and your research doesn't use human subjects, perhaps use the space to reiterate your methods and show rigor, while assuring reviewers that your work does not use human subjects or that you've already been assessed and received approval from the IRB. Another area that I see rife with N/As is in response to data management prompts. Even if you think your project won't be data heavy or you think that this prompt is in reference to big data projects, think again! Agencies want to know how you'll collect, protect, and maintain your data, whatever that data looks like or how much there is.

Another "easy out" that is often used in grant proposals is boilerplates. Why should you re-create the wheel when responding to facilities questions or more general institutional questions? Well, there are a couple of reasons to not cut and paste. First, if you cut and paste boilerplate text into your proposal, it can sometimes flag your proposal for plagiarism with the agency when other proposals have used the same boilerplate. Second, remember, prompts are opportunities to further your case, so customize your responses to questions about your institution. Just use the boilerplate to inform you about the institution and facilities, but then re-write it to show how your institution is ideal for you and your work to be successful.

Resources:
Using Proposal Boilerplates: The Dos and Don'ts - proposalworks.com
Be Careful About Using Boilerplate in Grants - The Development Source

What to do in the final days of proposal development

The NSF CAREER grant proposal deadlines are coming up in July, along with deadlines at other agencies, and it got me thinking about what happens in the final days of proposal development. I've had several past blogs that chided you to start developing your proposal six months in advance. (See the ORDE proposal development timeline), but today I wanted to offer some tips for the final days of proposal development.

Continue work with your grants administration
Now, you should have been working with your grants administrator from the day you decided to submit a grant proposal, but in the final days, folks in grants administration take on a large load of work for your proposal, so make sure that you are in close communication and getting them everything that they need by when they need it.

Re-read the guidelines
Yes, you've read them multiple times, but remember not following even one of the guidelines set forth by an agency can be grounds for rejection. So, check through them one last time.

Use criteria as a checklist
Make sure that you have responded to all of the criteria on which your proposal will be reviewed. Use the same language that the call for proposals or the guidelines use so reviewers are clear that you're responding to what has been asked of you.

Secure all ancillary documents
Remember that letter you needed to include from your Department Chair in support of your application? Make sure you have all those extra documents on letterhead, signed, and scanned in. For some fellowships, letter-writers submit their letters directly to the agency, so check in with those folks to make sure that they were indeed submitted.

Have the proposal proofed
At the end of the day, even the best and most careful writers make mistakes, so arrange to have someone proof your final proposal. Proofing ensures that you have rid your proposal of errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, consistency, etc. You don't want to run the risk of a reviewer catching an error and thinking you were a bit sloppy!

Submit before the final hours
Remember, most applicants submit their proposals right at the deadline. This can get you into trouble if any of the systems at your institution or at the agency go down or even slow down. Don't put yourself or your colleagues in grants administration in the situation of sweating and crossing fingers as they try to submit your proposal. Submit the day before it's due!

Resources:
ORDE Timeline
ORDE Tips and Checklists