Back to: News & Events : Past Meetings and Workshops : NCCAM Grantsmanship 2008
Hints from Seasoned Study Section Members
June 2008 – Presentation delivered at NCCAM Grantsmanship Workshop
Linda Duffy, Ph.D.
Program Officer, NCCAM
What really goes on behind the study section doors?
You are in good company
Knowledge —- "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood".
- Madame Curie
What reviewers look for in investigator research
Feasible Research Plan — Specific aims, methods, and analytical plan are compellingly addressed.
Appropriate Methods — Proposes new approaches to test a solid hypothesis on a major problem.
Investigator Experience — Procedures and methods are appropriate and within the level of experience of the investigators.
Letters of Support — Provides strong letters of institutional commitment and collaborative support.
What reviewers look for in capacity-building
Science that thinks big and aims high.
Aim for the bull's eye
- Clarity — why the research is worth doing
- Precision — How the field will be moved forward
Innovation challenges
- Shifting Paradigms — Less experienced investigator may have more difficult time providing an innovative approach that shifts paradigm.
- Substantiate the Rationale — Failure to make a strong case for why investigator is challenging the existing paradigm often lacks substantiated data to support a proposed shift in the paradigm.
- Moving the Field — Either the means or the ends are innovative; both do not need to be but providing convincing argument for one or the other is the challenge.
New approaches to major problems
Innovation —- "An innovation of armies can be resisted but not an idea whose time has come".
- Victor Hugo
Weigh preliminary data
- New Approaches — The more novel an idea or an approach tests an existing paradigm, the more necessary it is to have a solid hypothesis based on preliminary data that substantiates a claim.
- Investigator Laboratory — Evaluate how qualified the investigator is to handle the technologies and how much of the preliminary data is from the investigator's laboratory.
Competitive continuation applications
- Progress Reports — Summary of important findings to date should be included.
- Publications — Inclusion of published results [PMID] highlighting progress toward achieving specific aims.
Human subject protection training certification
- Confirm for key personnel that human subject protection training and education certification is completed.
Foreign institutions
- The relevance of the proposed research to the Institute or Center mission is weighed in the balance for determining need for the research.
- If similar work is being done in the U.S., it can lower reviewer enthusiasm.
Overlaps — testing the waters
- Scientific Overlap — Note whether another organization or NIH grant is supporting a part of the research plan.
- Commitment Overlap — Check that the committed effort of investigators does not exceed 100%.
- Budgetary Overlap — Determine that there is not a request for resources paid for by another source.
What makes a good application?
Guiding Vision
What makes a good application?
Strategic Decisions
Putting it together
- Responsive to RFA/PA — Meets objectives, in a well-organized research plan.
- Significant Research — Problem is significant to the field and is likely to have an impact on public health.
- Innovative — Modest to highly novel, and the approach is well supported
- Strong Institutional Commitment — Resources and environment are adequate with strong institutional support for the research.
- Qualified Investigators — The investigator team is the ideal candidate to conduct the research and is likely to accomplish the specific aims.
- Strong Mentoring Plan — Career development plan high likelihood to achieve investigator success.
How to make a study section member smile?
- Impact — Knowing an application will make an original and important contribution.
- Feasibility — Seeing conceptual design, methods, and analytical plan tightly integrated.
- Investigator Environment — Recognizing that the institutional commitment, mentoring plan, research plan and collaboration create synergy.
- Innovation — Reading exciting, novel ideas that are well supported.
What makes a bad application?
Scope is Too Narrow
What reduces enthusiasm
- Premature Research Plan — One or two aims with very narrow scope that lack substantiated rationale.
- Overambitious Scope — Plan does not realistically fit the request for time and resources.
- Unfeasible Approach — Problem is more complicated and investigators lack background for a high likelihood of success.
- No Alternative Strategies — Potential obstacles and pitfalls are not considered, if success of initial experimental set does not succeed as expected.
- Inappropriate Model System — The model organism proposed is inappropriate.
- Poor Control Selection — Controls for human studies are inadequately addressed.
- Flawed Analytical Plan — Insufficient consideration is given to the sample size, power, and other statistical needs.
What impacts an unscored application
- Overambitious amount of work and unrealistic timeline
- Inadequate protection of human subjects, laboratory staff, or animal safety
- Failure to acknowledge key literature and factual inaccuracy
What can happen to an application
- Streamlined — unanimously judged to be roughly in the bottom half of applications. These are not discussed; the reviewer critiques serve as the summary statement.
- Deferred — postponed if unable to determine an application's scientific merit because important information is missing.
- Not Recommended for Funding Consideration (NRFC) — used for applications that lack significance and substantial scientific merit or have serious hazards or ethical issues.
How to make a study section member cringe?
Failure to proofread
Blurred Vision
- Excessive Detail — The more information there is, the more dense the reading, and more likely reviewers will lose interest.
- Lack of Organization — Enthusiasm is reduced for unlabelled, disorganized sections, appendices that are overly dense and unformatted, and pages that do not match the table of contents.
- Not Following the Format Rules — Enthusiasm is further reduced when the application exceeds page limit, reduced font size, and spacing are used.
- Too Many Acronyms — Medical acronyms are not clearly understood, and excessive abbreviating throughout text.
What reviewers look for in budgets
- Scope of Budget — Budget request as compared to the investigator career level, grant type, and research goals.
- Budget Matches Text — Credibility is lowered for equipment requests in a budget that are stated in the research plan as available.
- Realistic Timeframe — Specific aims are considered as to whether they are achievable within the budget and timeframe planned.
- Roles and Effort — Key personnel roles and time-effort need to be detailed in the budget justification.
Life is a Journey
Excellence —- "When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece".
- John Ruskin
Note: The PDF file requires a viewer such as Adobe Reader, which you can download free of charge from the Adobe Web site.
