Last week, ORDE hosted an NIH K Awardee Panel at our Anschutz Medical Campus with three faculty members who had successfully competed for a K01, K08, or K99, and they had some great advice, which I wanted to recap here.
First, to step back, the NIH K, or Research Career Development Award is a mentored grant. Most of the K mechanisms are for early career investigators, including Post Docs and Assistant Professors who have yet to successfully compete for an R01 or similar award for independent investigators. The goal of these K awards are to fund these promising investigators and to invest in their development, such that they can compete for their R01 or like award by the time they've finished their K.
Tips from former awardees:
The K proposal is unlike any proposal.
Since the K is a mentored award, you probably already realize it's different, but what the awardees stressed was how different it is. You must propose a research plan, a mentoring plan, and a career development plan that is integrated, where the components are mutually beneficial. Your mentoring and career development plans should complement your research plan, and vice versa. There are also many letters of support required from a variety of people to show not only the commitment of your mentoring team, but also your institution's commitment to you to support you in your K.
Work with your Program Officer.
Although our awardees differed in their discussions about how easy it was to work with their Program Officers, the resounding theme was that each worked with them as much as possible. One awardee had met her Program Officer at a conference almost a decade before submitting her K, and the two had strategized about her research career. Another awardee had a bad first experience with her Program Officer, but despite that, she persisted and continued to engage that PO with her work and her proposal.
Plan to resubmit.
All of the awardees on our panel had resubmitted their K proposals, with the exception of one who was allowed to make a rebuttal on her proposal without fully resubmitting. The awardees all agreed that those working on their K applications should plan for at least one resubmission, which is difficult given the time it takes to write your K. If you are like most and your first K application is not funded, work with your Program Officer to make the right improvements on your proposal, also don't let the rejection stop you from moving forward with the career development you planned. Go ahead and take the course you needed. Yes, you'll need to take it out of your proposal, but showing that you've moved ahead with things anyway, shows reviewers your commitment to your career.
Find and work with your primary mentor closely.
Your primary mentor should be someone who is a successfully funded researcher and has mentored other successful K awardees in the past. Given your mentor's experience, make sure you are working closely with them before you submit your proposal as they will be your best source of advice, coaching, and mentoring even before they are your official K mentor. Also, choose a mentor that you have a track record with, but not one you've worked with for a long time. You don't want reviewers to wonder what more you can learn from your mentor if you've already been with them for a few years.
Lastly, create a support network as you embark on your K application. Seek out those who have applied and who are applying; ask them to review draft proposals. Also, seek out the resources on campus, like ORDE and the CCTSI. The K application is a tricky one, so do all you can to set yourself up for success!
Resources:
ORDE NIH K Presentation
CCTSI PreK Program
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
The Grant Development Cycle
Many of us in research development, talk about "grant development," whereas those outside the field often talk about "grant writing." But grant developers use this phrase in recognition that grant writing is just one part of the grant development process. Below is an image of the grant development cycle. I call it a cycle intentionally, because as any successfully funded researcher will tell you, it never ends, whether you need to revise and resubmit or continue working toward your next grant after awarded to sustain your research, you must stay engaged in grant development.
To expand on this cycle, below are steps you should follow to develop a competitive grant proposal:
Search literature & funding landscape: Around the time you are combing the literature to identify gaps that your research can address, you should also be getting a lay of the funding landscape. Faculty at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus can contact ORDE to have us conduct a comprehensive fund search.
Develop project & research sponsor: As you begin to develop your research idea and have identified which sponsors might be a good fit to fund your research, you should do background research on the sponsors to which you're considering applying. It's important to understand the ideology, approach, as well as preferred topics funded by the sponsor.
Develop concept paper: A concept paper is a one-two page document that gives an overview of your project and why it's important. This can be used to shop your idea around to get feedback and generate interest around your research amongst funders, collaborators, and/or mentors.
Review program announcement: This may seem obvious, but in our experience, some PIs miss this vital step and can end up with their grant rejected when they have not followed the instructions in the program announcement.
Work with Program Officers: POs serve as the liaison between a sponsor and an applicant. POs often have influence over the review process and even some funding decisions. It's a good idea to reach out to a PO to get their thoughts on your research project before you apply.
Draft grant proposal: Based on the feedback you get on your concept paper, and considering what you've learned from your sponsor research and the program announcement, you can begin to draft your grant application.
Seek feedback: Once you have a working draft of your grant, you should vet it with colleagues, mentors, and even laypeople to make sure that your case is clear and compelling and accessible by different audiences.
Revise and Resubmit: We find ourselves in a competitive grant-funding climate where getting a grant rejected is a reality for most researchers. Remember, the biggest difference between those investigators who ultimately are funded and those who aren't is whether or not they keep submitting grants.
Resources:
Navigating the Grant Development Process - enago academy
Grant Lifecycle - University of Utah
To expand on this cycle, below are steps you should follow to develop a competitive grant proposal:
Search literature & funding landscape: Around the time you are combing the literature to identify gaps that your research can address, you should also be getting a lay of the funding landscape. Faculty at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus can contact ORDE to have us conduct a comprehensive fund search.
Develop project & research sponsor: As you begin to develop your research idea and have identified which sponsors might be a good fit to fund your research, you should do background research on the sponsors to which you're considering applying. It's important to understand the ideology, approach, as well as preferred topics funded by the sponsor.
Develop concept paper: A concept paper is a one-two page document that gives an overview of your project and why it's important. This can be used to shop your idea around to get feedback and generate interest around your research amongst funders, collaborators, and/or mentors.
Review program announcement: This may seem obvious, but in our experience, some PIs miss this vital step and can end up with their grant rejected when they have not followed the instructions in the program announcement.
Work with Program Officers: POs serve as the liaison between a sponsor and an applicant. POs often have influence over the review process and even some funding decisions. It's a good idea to reach out to a PO to get their thoughts on your research project before you apply.
Draft grant proposal: Based on the feedback you get on your concept paper, and considering what you've learned from your sponsor research and the program announcement, you can begin to draft your grant application.
Seek feedback: Once you have a working draft of your grant, you should vet it with colleagues, mentors, and even laypeople to make sure that your case is clear and compelling and accessible by different audiences.
Revise and Resubmit: We find ourselves in a competitive grant-funding climate where getting a grant rejected is a reality for most researchers. Remember, the biggest difference between those investigators who ultimately are funded and those who aren't is whether or not they keep submitting grants.
Resources:
Navigating the Grant Development Process - enago academy
Grant Lifecycle - University of Utah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)