The National Institutes of Health (NIH) are streamlining methods for announcing specific research interests. They will be phasing out the use of program announcements (PAs), which often come with multiple flavors (e.g., Clinical Trial Allowed/Not Allowed, R01, R03, R21), replacing them with Notices of Special Interest (wait for it, NOSI). Requests for Applications (RFAs), program announcements with special receipt/referral/review considerations (PARs) and program announcements with set-aside funds (PASs) will continue to be used. NOSIs will highlight specific research topics of interest, and then typically direct applicants to one or more parent announcements. When applying through a NOSI (I'm loving this acronym), it is critical that the notice number be included in the Agency Routing Identifier field to allow NIH to assign and track these applications appropriately.
This welcome news from the NIH creates a much simpler and intuitive for accessing and applying to the appropriate mechanism at the NIH.
Resources:
NIH Notices of Special Interest
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
The NSF Merit Review Process
In May, the NSF released their 2017 Report on their Merit Review Process. Below I highlight some of the key elements of that report.
Overall, the NSF shows in this report that they've maintained a funding rate of what is currently 23% overall. This varies by directorate with the Geosciences holding the highest rate at 32% and the Engineering Directorate holding the lowest at 19%.
Monthly salary funding for PIs has continued to decline, sitting at an average of .7 months funded for single PIs and .63 months for multiple PIs. To put this in perspective, a decade ago in 2007, the NSF funded on average 1.37 and 1.27 months for single and multiple PIs, respectively.
At the NSF, the vast amount of proposals are reviewed by external reviewers with the exception being EAGER, RAPID, and RAISE proposals that the Program Directors use their discretion in funding. Otherwise, in FY 2017, 68% of proposals were reviewed by a panel only, 24% were reviewed ad hoc and a panel, and 4% were reviewed ad hoc only. A panel refers to a gathering of a small group of external researchers that discuss the merits of multiple proposals at a time. Ad hoc refers to when proposals are sent to external researchers, individually, where the reviewers never get together to discuss the proposals.
The core review criteria for every NSF proposal include intellectual merit understood as the contributions the research will make to its scientific field and broader impact, understood as the larger difference the research will make outside of its direct scientific field.
In terms of the overarching life cycle of grant proposals, along with the timeline, the NSF offers this image:
If you are looking at applying or re-applying to the NSF and want to get a better sense of the agency, I encourage you to review the 2017 report. Also, NSF offers grants conferences that can give you a leg up on applying to the NSF. The next conference is November 18-19 in Boston.
Resources:
Report on the National Science Foundation's Merit Review Process 2017
NSF Grants Conference Website
Overall, the NSF shows in this report that they've maintained a funding rate of what is currently 23% overall. This varies by directorate with the Geosciences holding the highest rate at 32% and the Engineering Directorate holding the lowest at 19%.
Monthly salary funding for PIs has continued to decline, sitting at an average of .7 months funded for single PIs and .63 months for multiple PIs. To put this in perspective, a decade ago in 2007, the NSF funded on average 1.37 and 1.27 months for single and multiple PIs, respectively.
At the NSF, the vast amount of proposals are reviewed by external reviewers with the exception being EAGER, RAPID, and RAISE proposals that the Program Directors use their discretion in funding. Otherwise, in FY 2017, 68% of proposals were reviewed by a panel only, 24% were reviewed ad hoc and a panel, and 4% were reviewed ad hoc only. A panel refers to a gathering of a small group of external researchers that discuss the merits of multiple proposals at a time. Ad hoc refers to when proposals are sent to external researchers, individually, where the reviewers never get together to discuss the proposals.
The core review criteria for every NSF proposal include intellectual merit understood as the contributions the research will make to its scientific field and broader impact, understood as the larger difference the research will make outside of its direct scientific field.
In terms of the overarching life cycle of grant proposals, along with the timeline, the NSF offers this image:
If you are looking at applying or re-applying to the NSF and want to get a better sense of the agency, I encourage you to review the 2017 report. Also, NSF offers grants conferences that can give you a leg up on applying to the NSF. The next conference is November 18-19 in Boston.
Resources:
Report on the National Science Foundation's Merit Review Process 2017
NSF Grants Conference Website
Friday, June 14, 2019
Crafting an Argument in Your Grant Proposal
Making a case in your grant proposal sounds easier than it is. And that's because the research you want to do is not based on one simple argument. Your next project stems from a whole complex background of knowledge and research and there are likely many arguments you could make for your research and all are sound!
So, how do you decide? First thing's first, get to know the agency you're applying to. What are their goals and how does your research help them achieve those goals? Secondly, take a look at who the reviewers are. Are they other researchers, community members, or other types of stakeholders? In understanding the agency and the type of person reading your proposal, you will be able to choose and craft the best argument for your proposal.
Once you know what argument you're focusing on and who you're writing for, you're ready to structure your argument, and here's a recommendation for structure:
Problem with hook:
First, give them a sense of how terrible the problem is that you're addressing. Use statistics to show how dire the situation is.
Cutting edge research:
Give them some context. What research has been done to address this problem so far?
Gap:
Describe what holes remain in the research that keep us from solving the urgent problem you've described.
Critical need:
Explain why the gap you've identified is so important for you to address. Why is it so important?
Project description:
Explain your project and how it is going to address the gap and meet the critical need you've identified.
Vision:
End by reminding reviewers what is possible and/or the great impact your research in this project and future projects will have on the field and in addressing major challenges.
This formula for building your argument not only includes the most crucial points that drive it home, but also follow a logical progression that is easy for reviewers to follow and digest. In writing your grant proposal, you want to guide your reviewer through your argument. Don't leave them stranded or headed down the wrong path. Lead them to your end destination of being confident that your project should be funded!
Resources:
Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!) - UNC Chapel Hill
So, how do you decide? First thing's first, get to know the agency you're applying to. What are their goals and how does your research help them achieve those goals? Secondly, take a look at who the reviewers are. Are they other researchers, community members, or other types of stakeholders? In understanding the agency and the type of person reading your proposal, you will be able to choose and craft the best argument for your proposal.
Once you know what argument you're focusing on and who you're writing for, you're ready to structure your argument, and here's a recommendation for structure:
Problem with hook:
First, give them a sense of how terrible the problem is that you're addressing. Use statistics to show how dire the situation is.
Cutting edge research:
Give them some context. What research has been done to address this problem so far?
Gap:
Describe what holes remain in the research that keep us from solving the urgent problem you've described.
Critical need:
Explain why the gap you've identified is so important for you to address. Why is it so important?
Project description:
Explain your project and how it is going to address the gap and meet the critical need you've identified.
Vision:
End by reminding reviewers what is possible and/or the great impact your research in this project and future projects will have on the field and in addressing major challenges.
This formula for building your argument not only includes the most crucial points that drive it home, but also follow a logical progression that is easy for reviewers to follow and digest. In writing your grant proposal, you want to guide your reviewer through your argument. Don't leave them stranded or headed down the wrong path. Lead them to your end destination of being confident that your project should be funded!
Resources:
Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!) - UNC Chapel Hill
Thursday, June 6, 2019
Videos on NSF and P01/Center Grants
I'm happy to announce that we've now edited and uploaded all of our seminar videos from the Spring 2019 semester. See the last two seminars on the National Science Foundation and on Planning a P01 or Center Grant Proposal on our Vimeo site. Also, browse our other videos to see any you've missed!
National Science Foundation
Faculty Experts: Martin Dunn,
Dean, College of Engineering and Applied Science; Doris Kimbrough, Professor,
Chemistry
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) is the premier federal funding agency for the Sciences. Join
us for this seminar to learn about the NSF and their grants program. Seasoned
experts will discuss the mission and organization of the NSF, their overarching
grants criteria, their proposal structure, and tips for applying to the NSF.
How to plan for a P01 or Center Grant
Faculty Experts: Cathy
Bradley, Professor and Associate Dean of Research, Colorado School of Public
Health; John Hokanson, Professor, Colorado School of Public Health; Jennifer
Kemp, Director, Department of Medicine Research Office; Jon Samet, Dean,
Colorado School of Public Health
P01 and Center grants are
highly competitive and unique. It takes seasoned PIs, multiple great projects,
integration, collaboration, and sustainability. This seminar is targeted for
faculty interested in leading or being part of competitive P01 or center grant
applications. You will hear from faculty experts on the demands of the
P01/center grant proposal as well as from those who have successfully competed
for such a grant. The seminar will also focus on the institutional and
professional benefits of submitting P01 and center grants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)