I understand the grant process. And I understand lawyers don't get grants for science projects. Part of the NIH grant process...
* The Center for Scientific Review
NIH's grant-reviewing organization--the Center for Scientific Review (CSR)--is one of 24 NIH institutes. It's the first stop for any grant application; indeed, your grant application will be reviewed for scientific merit entirely within the CSR, regardless of which institute ultimately funds (or decides not to fund) your research project. So you need to understand how the CSR is organized.
The CSR is divided into integrated review groups (IRGs), which, in turn, are divided into study sections. Here's a CSR organization chart and the study section roster.
You need to understand this, because your cover letter will advise the CSR on which study section to send your application to. Spend some time on this decision. Your request won't automatically be honored, but if it makes sense it will.
Note that the above roster index includes links to study-section membership rosters. (Some study sections don't have links to membership rosters directly, but you can see which members were present at the most recent meeting by clicking on the most recent "meeting roster" link.) Once you've narrowed your search for the ideal study section down to a couple or a few study sections, look at the membership rosters. See names you recognize? If you don't, look up their publications and see if they're doing work that is similar to yours--or, more generally, if they're likely to appreciate the value of the work you're proposing. If you don't recognize any of the names, and their papers seem to be written in Martian, try another study section.
Studying the membership roster will also help you decide how to pitch your project--how technical to be and how general: If your preferred study section is populated by people who are likely to know your science very well, you may want to discuss your work at a higher level of technical detail. Imagine that you are having a one-on-one conversation with them. What would you say? How would you present your work to that audience? But even if your study section includes experts in your field, don't forget to emphasize the big picture. You want to show that you know how to do your work, and you have to show that it's worth doing.
If your study section consists of people whose work is quite different from yours, you'll need to write for a more general, less expert audience. You may want to put less emphasis on technical details and more on the big picture--but keep in mind that you may not get the study section you want, and there are often last-minute membership substitutions, so you're playing the odds here. You want to cover your bets, to make sure that your application is strong even if you get a different study section than you request. You have to find the right balance between breadth and specificity, and you need to use each where it's appropriate.
It's one of the oldest bits of writing advice around, a cliché: Know your audience. The CSR is your audience; you aren't writing for some abstract group, you're writing for this core group. When you're writing an NIH grant proposal, you can actually get to know your audience pretty well. That's a huge advantage.
One other thing you need to consider when preparing NIH applications: You can submit an application in response to a specific program announcement (PA) or request for applications (RFA)...or you can choose not to. It's exciting to see that the NIH is seeking to fund research like yours, so you might be tempted to run out and apply under a particular RFA. But that might not improve your odds. Not every RFA is well funded, and some get lots of applications. So you'll have to decide whether your odds will be better within an RFA, or whether your application is likely to fare better among the general pool of applications. For a complete list of all RFAs and PAs, see the NIH Guide
* What if your proposal isn't funded?
Well, most of them aren't. But many people react to this in exactly the wrong way. If your grant isn't funded, take advantage of that fourth window of communication opportunity: Once you've received your "summary statement," contact the "appropriate institute or program official for an interpretation of the reviews and the disposition of the application." Take careful notes. Get as much insight as you can into the reviewers' responses to your application. This isn't at all for cynical reasons; well, maybe just a little. You want to have the best information you can get for revising your application (yes, it's a forgone conclusion that you'll resubmit). But it doesn't hurt to be perceived as serious and determined.
Then get to work rewriting the application. After all, the funding rate for "first amendments" is higher than the funding rate for new proposals. The funding rate for second amendments is higher still. In a sense, having your proposal rejected gets you that much closer to getting a grant--if you handle rejection and use it to your advantage.
No matter how tempting it might be, don't dismiss the criticisms of your reviewers. Address them; take them seriously. True, the occasional reviewer will be clueless, but that really doesn't matter. Once your application has been reviewed, it has a paper trail that you have to deal with, like it or not. Even if the comments are dumb, address them. If a reviewer doubts that your approach will work, come up with an alternative approach that definitely will. If a reviewer doesn't think your research is important enough to merit funding, then change the focus to bring it more into alignment with NIH's particular, stated goals. Even if your score doesn't improve all that much the next time around, you are more likely to be funded as an exception if the goals of your research are precisely aligned with the objectives of the NIH.
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org |
