Tag: NIH

NIH Investigator-Based Support Begins!

Just a quick update of note today, which is also a call to action:

Immediately following the joint announcement by Drs. Collins and Rockey yesterday of the NIH’s new investigator-based funding, NIGMS issued an RFI for an investigator-based pilot funding program. (I discussed this new funding model in yesterday’s post.) Similar announcements from NIH centers and programs will follow, and I would encourage all researchers interested in seeing this funding model succeed to take the time to respond to these RFIs. As I explained in yesterday’s blog, the NIH clearly recognizes the challenges being faced by researchers–especially new investigators–in the current funding climate and is working to make changes to improve the environment. The strategic researcher will take the time to learn about–and shape through responding to RFIs–these new opportunities as quickly as possible.

I will re-tweet these opportunities as they become available. My Twitter handle is @JKNByram, and my Twitter feed is available on this blog page, kellybyram.wordpress.com.  You are invited to follow me for timely updates.

More Changes to Funding at NIH to Benefit Researchers

Shrinking pools of research funding, lower success rates, and increasing resource scarcity at research institutions strain most researchers, but new researchers have had a particularly difficult time securing funding of late and many have left the field as a result. The NIH has signaled awareness of these pressures, announcing in April changes to the biosketch form that benefit new researchers and the replacement of the onerous “one resubmission” rule with a more relaxed policy.

Today, Dr. Sally Rockey and Dr. Francis Collins announced that the NIH would allow its centers and programs to offer longer, sustained funding to researchers in the model of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s (HHMI) “people, not projects” funding model. Continue reading “More Changes to Funding at NIH to Benefit Researchers”

How Do Multi-PI Applications Fare?

In her blog entry, How Do Multi-PI Applications Fare?, Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the NIH, explains that:

Only in 2013 is there a significant difference in award rate between single PI and multi-PI award rates, and this is in favor of multi-PI awards. But for most years, and overall, there doesn’t seem to be a trend indicating that multi-PI applications are more (or less) likely to be awarded than single PI applications.

So, when you’re applying to NIH for research funding, while there are many other considerations to take into account in deciding whether to submit a multiple-PI application, preference for funding is not one of them. As always, the key questions to ask is:  what would best address the science being proposed? Would a single- or multiple-PI model best ensure optimal leadership of this research project? Additionally, when considering the multi-PI option, be sure to consider how you will structure the roles of the investigators to meet the goals of your proposed research.

While it is great to hear this answer for the NIH, I would suggest that researchers be careful not to extrapolate this answer to other funders for which team science with multiple PIs might more closely align with the mission. The prudent grant writer should research what types of  projects are getting funded by the agency or foundation with which they think their proposed research might closely align. This should be done early in the process of developing a team and a proposal. This process includes analyzing what type of teams are able to complete the type of work being done–as Dr. Rockey phrases it, “what would best address the science being proposed?” What applies for the NIH does not necessarily apply for your team’s proposed project or another funder–know what will, and then build your team accordingly!

When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?

When choosing the primary sources for a research proposal, most of us experienced types dutifully instruct new researchers and proposal writers that sources older than five years are too old, unless you’re citing a seminal work. And there it usually ends–if primary research is less than five years old at the time of review, have at it. But recently a researcher pointed out the new reality of technology, the down side of our real-time existence–research that is too new. That’s right, research on which the digital ink has yet to dry can be too bleeding edge to reliably support your hypothesis in the eyes of reviewers. There are two primary reasons this is a new, but important, reality in the world of research proposals. Continue reading “When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?”

Grants Are Business


Those of you who follow my blog have probably noticed a lack of blogging of late–I am finishing my MBA, and there is quite a bit to do in these last weeks of the program. My first graduate degree was in biology, and the final weeks were actually much more relaxing than the months of research and writing that had preceded them. I am currently in a scramble to get things done, and to get done. So I will be brief.

In the MBA theme, I will share the key thesis of my grantsmanship strategy: A grant proposal is a business proposal. Boom. Pretty simple. But I am always amazed by how academicians want to resist the concept that they are, fundamentally, selling an idea and their team’s labor. There is some feeling among academics that the grant proposal is somehow more intellectual, more precious, than a business proposal. I’m here to tell you it is not. Rant, yell, cry, go through the five stages of grief, but at some point arrive to the realization that you are asking for money for your idea and a plan to create the end product . . . which is a business proposal.

Once you come to grips with the realization that a grant proposal is nothing more than a business proposal, you will be liberated and more efficient. At the highest level, if you are a strategic, efficient person, you will research the needs and perspective of the funder and have a much better understanding of the direction your proposal should take. That is, if you are strategic, you will do your research into what the funder is looking for and give it to them. This effect will ripple through all aspects of the development of your project and proposal, and you will produce a more competitive, fundable proposal. Boom.

A Quick First Step to Knowing Your Funding Source

So often new grant writers can be a bit overwhelmed by the multiplicity of funding sources, and they may initially find it hard to differentiate between them based solely on their mission statements. Don’t waste your most valuable resource (your time!) in developing a proposal if you are not certain of your project’s fit with the funding source. An easy way to get an idea of what kind of projects/research a source funds is to review information about the projects and research the agency or foundation has funded previously. Two great examples of funding sources that provide ample information are the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal agency, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), an independent research institute.

 

Continue reading “A Quick First Step to Knowing Your Funding Source”

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”

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”

A Great Resource for Biomedical Research Grant Proposal Writers

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about the utility of using field-specific models of effective communication when expanding into a new area, I thought I would offer more examples. Yesterday’s example was specific to patient-centered engagement and research, but today I thought I would share the resource I suggest to the biomedical research proposal writers in my training sessions. For these writers, many of whom are research faculty and fellows, the sample applications offered by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) provide a wonderful resource. Continue reading “A Great Resource for Biomedical Research Grant Proposal Writers”