Category: Grant Strategy

Four NIH Mentorship Resources New Researchers Need to Consider

“To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.”

-Bruce Lee

Much has been made of the impact of declining funding on early-career researchers, as demonstrated in Daniels and Rothman’s recent Wall Street Journal article, How to Reverse the Graying of Scientific Research, and the letters received in response to the piece. As I mentioned in last week’s posts, In Case You Missed It: NIH Amends Resubmission Policy and Changes to Biographical Sketches for All Federal Agencies’ Funding Applications, there are some interesting recent changes in the research funding arena that can benefit the strategic early-career researcher.

Continue reading “Four NIH Mentorship Resources New Researchers Need to Consider”

How to Develop a Logic Model

In academic medicine, many programs are supported through extramural funding. Applications for this funding often require a logic model, the development of which is usually learned by new grant writing team members on-the-fly. Building a logic model is not hard, and it is an iterative process. The logic model provides a dynamic framework during the planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs. This makes it sound like one of those things people give the label “no right or wrong way of doing it.” On the contrary, while there are different ways of building a model, a “right” and good logic model is part of a competitive, strategic proposal. Continue reading “How to Develop a Logic Model”

Changes to Biographical Sketches for All Federal Agencies’ Funding Applications

While a full roll-out isn’t expected until 2016, the NIH and other federal funding agencies will be changing their bibliographical sketch format. Continue reading “Changes to Biographical Sketches for All Federal Agencies’ Funding Applications”

In Case You Missed It: NIH Amends Resubmission Policy

In 2009, the NIH restricted the number of resubmissions of applications for funding to one (A1), requiring any subsequent new research funding applications (A0) to be substantially different from the unfunded application. Shrinking research budgets and the impacts of this restriction–it requires researchers to substantially re-direct their work, which may mean reorienting the efforts of a whole lab–were taking an obvious toll on research, with many meritorious ideas being abandoned as a result of this restriction. Continue reading “In Case You Missed It: NIH Amends Resubmission Policy”

Plagiarism in Grant Proposals

Last year, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article titled “Plagiarism in Grant Proposals” by Karen M. Markin. The topic of plagiarism in grant proposals is something I discuss in my grant development seminars and workshops, and this article made the topic more tangible for many of the participants (although there is still always a lot of discussion and disbelief around the concept of self-plagiarism).  If you haven’t read this article, and you are involved in grant development, I would highly recommend that you take some time to review the article and share it with your team. One very salient point made is that the PI will always be held responsible for content, and the line “my graduate student did it” is not a defense.

Often, however, seminar and workshop participants ask for an example, and recently a case of plagiarism in a grant proposal was addressed by the Office of Research Integrity. Continue reading “Plagiarism in Grant Proposals”

Choosing the Right Study Section

Many researchers are unaware that they can choose a study section for their investigator-initiated application in some instances. This is not an option for every agency and foundation, but it is for the NIH, for example. In fact, any researcher applying to the NIH who does not spend some quality time researching the study section listings and other abundant materials available to applicants at the Web site for the NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is missing a strategic opportunity.  Continue reading “Choosing the Right Study Section”

Shifting to Writing for the Emerging Patient-Centered Research Paradigm

For those of you who are interested in patient-centered research, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has released a report that may be of interest to you: Partnering with Patients to Drive Shared Decisions, Better Value, and Care Improvement – Workshop Proceedings. This report has an accompanying four-page meeting summary, as well, and I would recommend this summary not just for its content, but for its utility as a writing model for those strategic communicators new to the area of patient-centered research. Continue reading “Shifting to Writing for the Emerging Patient-Centered Research Paradigm”