Showing Background Research in Your Proposal

One thing I tend to notice when reviewing grant proposals for faculty internally is that they are often lacking in describing the cutting edge research. In fact, it's not uncommon for a PI to not really talk about their project in the context of past research at all. This is a big oversight. If you haven't couched your project in what has been done already, you set up your reviewers to wonder 1. Do you understand the research landscape in this area? and 2. Has this project already been done? or 3. Is this the best project to do in this area right now?

Now, I can certainly understand how this gets left out. You are space limited in most grant proposals, so it's certainly enticing to just jump right into what you want to do and why it's important. But, remember, to show the importance of your study, you need to offer contextual research. More than that, you must show you're the right person for the job by showing the contributions you've made to research in this area in the past.

To do this, I give you a formula for describing and contextualizing your project in the research...

Describe the cutting edge of current research:
You don't want to give reviewers a full literature review in your grant proposal; most likely that's not an option with page constraints anyway. But you do want to give them an overview of the most cutting-edge research in the field. Remember, some reviewers may not be in your exact field, so they aren't up-to-date on the latest and greatest, so let them know. Use this description of the cutting edge to generate some excitement about the field and your work.

Show your contributions:
One thing PIs sometimes forget is that they not only have to make a case for their amazing research, but they also need to show that they are the best person to do this research. So, when you're describing the cutting edge research, be sure to position yourself in it as a thought leader and cutting-edge researcher yourself.

Identify the gaps:
Once you've clued your reviewers into what's happening that's so exciting in your field and what you've done thus far, segue into what is the next thing that needs to be done. Outline the gaps in the cutting-edge research and what needs to happen to keep the field moving forward.

Show why your gap should be filled:
Sometimes PIs outline the gaps in their grant proposal but don't take the extra step to explain why it's so important to fill these gaps. This can be a fatal flaw in a proposal. Don't assume that your reviewers will inherently understand why your project is important. Close the loop and explain the whole thing, even if you think it's unnecessary. Your reviewers will be thankful for the clarity.

Show how you will fill it and offer the ongoing vision
Once you've made the case for your project, show how your project will accomplish all the needs that you described in your case. And as the icing on the cake, bring them back to the vision of your research and what will be possible in the future as you progress.

If you use these items as a checklist, you'll be sure to incorporate all the items you need in your proposal to make a clear and compelling case for your project.

Resources:
The Heilmeier Catechism
Heilmeier Catechism: Nine Questions You Must Answer to Develop a Meaningful Data Science Project - Data Scientist Insights

Collaboration in Pandemic Times

Some of the work we do in ORDE includes working with researchers to build bridges and spur collaboration. Although given the COVID pandemic, researchers are not able to meet in person to work together, there are other ways to collaborate virtually. And in some ways, our new normal can make it simpler to work together. There are no commutes, booking conference rooms, etc. to worry about anymore.

Also, the urgency in finding a COVID vaccine has inspired global research collaboration like we've never seen before as detailed in a recent NY Times article.

Whether collaborating face to face or online, there are some important tips to keep in mind to ensure a successful collaboration as you get started!

Know your strengths and weaknesses
Before you reach out to collaborators, be clear on where your expertise lies and where it is limited. This will help you to pitch yourself and your project to potential partners and help you to identify the right partner(s).

Identify potential team members' strengths and weaknesses
Once you're clear what your role should be in a project and what roles and needs you must fill to make it come to fruition, you're ready to look for collaborators. Talk to your colleagues and make connections in the areas you have needs. When you identify a potential collaborator, set up an initial conversation to vet them.

Be ready to share
If you want a collaboration to be successful, you shouldn't go into conversations assuming that you're the boss and your collaborator will just provide what's needed. If that's how you want to run things, then you're really looking for a consultant on your project, not a collaborator. Most researchers will not be willing to invest themselves in a project that does not feel like it is theirs. So, be prepared to not only share your idea, but adapt the idea with your new partner(s).

Be ready to assert yourself
On the flip side, a collaboration shouldn't feel like a handoff of your idea to another. Some researchers feel their project is co-opted especially when they seek collaboration with a more seasoned PI. To combat this, be ready to assert yourself and demand a true partnership in the project.

Know what's in it for each researcher
An essential piece to a good collaboration is setting each collaborator up for success. When beginning a collaborative project, it's important to get all motivations out on the table to make sure they're complementary. Also, this is the time to discuss order of authorship of subsequent publications, and who will provide what resources and time to which parts of the project. This can help you avoid confusion or conflict later on.

But is collaboration worth it?
Collaboration is a lot of work, but it also bolsters the research products by incorporating a variety of perspectives and expertise. In addition, according to Adams (2012), co-authored pubs tend to get cited more.

Resources:
The Rise of Research Networks - Adams (2012)
The Science of Team Science Website
Team Science Toolkit - NCI
Difference in collaboration patterns across discipline, career, and stages - PLOS Biology Journal

Writing Your Specific Aims

When it comes to applying for an NIH grant, your Specific Aims page is the most important and where you should spend the most time. Here's why: Although only a few reviewers are assigned your proposal to review, all of the reviewers in the study section will score your proposal. The reviewers not assigned your proposal will only have a chance to look at your Specific Aims page when your proposal is up for review. This means that although they will have the input of those reviewers who read your whole grant, they will be scoring your proposal based on the Specific Aims, which they'll be reading quickly as they try to listen to the primary and secondary reviewers' case.

So, it is of utmost importance that your Specific Aims be clear and compelling! Below, I offer some tips for the different sections of your Specific Aims page:

Intro:
In your opening paragraph, you want to hook your reviewers. Show them how big the problem is you're trying to solve. Use statistics to show how many people are affected by the problem and in what way. You want to evoke a feeling of urgency amongst your reviewers. But, don't leave it at that. You want to also make sure that you offer your project goal in the first couple of sentences; don't make your reviewers dig for what this proposal is all about.

Background:
After you've introduced your problem and your solution, you want to back it up. You need to describe the cutting edge research in your area (and highlight where you have already contributed to this research). After you've shown what's been happening, identify the gap that still remains and explain why that gap needs to be filled now, by you/your team.

Hypothesis:
Once you've shown the gap where you're focused, articulate your hypothesis. Your hypothesis should be testable and not descriptive.

Specific Aims:
Following your hypothesis, you outline your specific aims. Usually, you have 2-3 specific aims. These aims should be interrelated but not co-dependent. This can be a tricky balance, but it is essential. It's also important that your aims be very clear.  State each aim succinctly and follow it with a short sentence or two explaining it.

Vision:
To close your Specific Aims, be sure to bring it back to the vision of your research. Remember, people tend to remember what they read first and last the best, so make sure you leave reviewers with the punchline. Express the impact and what's possible down the road with this work!

Structuring your Specific Aims in this way, as well as hitting these points will allow this one page to flow, as well as be clear and compelling. Additionally, consider including a conceptual diagram of your aims in the page to more easily show how they fit together. Also, even though you'll be tight on space, make sure to keep space between your paragraphs to give your reviewer visual breaks. In everything you do, make sure you are making your Specific Aims page easy on your reviewer.

Resources:
The anatomy of the Specific Aims Page - Bioscience Writers
Writing Your Specific Aims Seminar - ORDE

ORDE Summer eSeminar Series

In case you're feeling in a rut this summer, ORDE is happy to share our summer eSeminar series on a series of grant development topics. CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campus faculty are welcome to register here. And for other folks, we will post the recordings on our Vimeo site shortly after.

Writing Specific Aims and Project Overviews

June 24, 2020

12:00 – 1:00 pm

Presenter: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director for Educational Outreach, ORDE

When it comes to grant proposals, your project overview or specific aims has been likened to the front door of your proposal. Even though reviewers may skip around your proposal, most start with the Project Overview/Specific Aims and have a pretty good idea of whether they like your proposal or not based on that one page. This makes your specific aims/project overview crucial to your competitiveness. Join us for this e-seminar where you’ll learn strategies for constructing your specific aims/project overview to make it as clear and compelling as possible.

Working with Program Officers

July 14, 2020

12:00 – 1:00 pm

Presenter: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director for Educational Outreach, ORDE

Program Officers are key when it comes to grant funding. They orchestrate an agency’s review process as well as reviewer selection, they help set the direction and priorities for an agency’s research agenda, and they have insight into what it takes to develop a competitive proposal for their agency. Thus, it is important to work with Program Officers as you develop your proposal. Join us for this e-seminar where you’ll learn step-by-step approaches to contacting and continuing to work with Program Officers.

Revising and Resubmitting your Grant Proposal

August 6, 2020

12:00 – 1:30 pm

Presenter: Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine

Few things are as disappointing as not getting your grant proposal funded, but it’s important to remember that all of the most funded researchers have had many proposals declined. What makes them successful, though, is that they didn’t let those rejections stop them. They listened to their reviewers, worked with their Program Officer, went back to the drawing board, and resubmitted a better proposal. Join us for this seminar where a faculty expert will discuss the resubmission process and how to be successful through it.

Resources

ORDE Summer eSeminar Series

ORDE Vimeo Site