RESEARCH FUNDING: HOW TO PROSPER IN 2012 AND BEYOND
Leonard H. Rome, Ph.D.
Senior Associate Dean for Research
http://research.mednet.ucla.edu
Thursday, April 19th, 12 noon, 13‐105 CHS
Thursday, April 19th, 12 noon, Live Stream THE HARD REALITY
• 10‐15 years ago, one could expect to apply for one's first NIH R01, directly after completing a postdoctoral fellowship. Today, the average age for someone to receive their first R01 grant award is over age 40. • In 2005, 15‐18% of grants were funded, depending on the NIH institute. For FY 2010 less than 10% will be funded. For the past 6‐7 years funding for NIH itself has been flat which means in real dollars the NIH budget has gone down for 6‐7 years.
How do you •
•
•
•
•
get started?
Understand what is expected.
Set realistic goals.
Explore your opportunities.
Get ready early.
Take advantage of internal review.
THE HIGH COSTS OF RESEARCH
• Personnel 60-85% of total costs
• Lab assistant (college graduate) $30,000+
• Staff research associate I (college grad +
experience) $35,000+
• Research nurse >$100,000
• Postdoctoral fellow $38-46,000
• Portions of P.I.’S and co-P.I.S’ salary
• All salaries must provide benefits (+20-30%)
• Graduate student $27,000 + tuition
THE COSTS OF RESEARCH
• Supplies
– Bench science ~ 20-40% total
• High costs: animal colonies
– Clinical/social science ~10-15%
• Equipment maintenance
• But: physical plant and administration costs
usually charged to “overhead”
• Shared instrumentation grants
SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR RESEARCH
Major Sources:
Investigator Initiated Grants (RO1)
NIH – National Institutes of Health ($32B*)
NSF – National Science Foundation ($7.4B*)
ACS – American Cancer Society (~$0.1B)
AHA – American Heart Association
Program Project Grants (PO1, UO1, NIRT etc..)
Other Government
AHQR, DOD, DOE, DARPA…
Large Foundations (HHMI ($0.8B), Keck, etc…)
Small Foundations (Disease specific)
CF, MS, Breast cancer, etc.
2011 Budget Request
OTHER USEFUL TYPES OF FUNDING
• California
– CIRM (stem cell)
– Tobacco
•
•
•
•
Training Grants (Graduate Students, Post‐Docs)
Industry (UC Discovery Program)
Private Donors (Clinical Departments)
UCLA ‐ Intramural Programs
The NIH Alphabet Soup of Award Types
R Awards (Research Project Grants; RPGs) • R01 Research Grants
• R03 Small Research Grant
• R15 Academic Research Enhancement Awards
(AREA)
• R21 Exploratory/Development Grants
• Bioengineering Research Partnership (BRP)
Awards
• R13-U13 Support for Conferences and Scientific
Meetings
• R41, R42, R43, R44 SBIR-STTR Small Business
Innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer Awards
F Awards (Fellowships) • F30 NRSA Predoctoral MD/PhD Fellowships
• F31 NRSA Individual Predoctoral
Fellowships to Promote Diversity in HealthRelated Research
• F31 NRSA Individual Predoctoral
Fellowships
• F32 NRSA Individual Postdoctoral
Fellowships
• F33 NRSA Individual Senior Fellowships
K Awards (Career Development) K01 Mentored Research Scientist Development
Award
K02 Independent Scientist Award
K07 Academic Career Award
K08 Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career
Development Award
K23 Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career
Development Award
K24 Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented
Research
K25 Mentored Quantitative Research Career
Development Award
K99/R00 Pathway to Independence Award
Other Awards
P01 Program Project
P20 Exploratory Grants
P30 Biomedical Research Core Centers
P50 Specialized Center
S10 Shared Instrumentation Awards
S10 Awards - High End Instrumentation (HEI)
T32 NRSA Institutional Training Grant
U01 Research Project Cooperative Agreement
NIH Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34) Program
NIH Pathway to Independence (PI) Award (K99/R00)
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm
How do you get information?
• Agency Sources (NIH, NSF, ACS web sites)
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/
http://www.cancer.org/Research/ResearchProgramsFunding/institutionalresearch-grants
• University of California - OTT
http://www.ucop.edu/ott/welcome.html
• UCLA Sponsored Research - Funding Opportunity Databases
http://www.research.ucla.edu/era/who/whoven.htm
• UCLA School of Medicine, Dean’s Office
http://research.mednet.ucla.edu - Search Engine
• UCLA School of Medicine, Departments
• Other Sites - links to agencies etc..
MIXED GRANT PORTFOLIOS DESIRABLE
• NIH funds subject to cutbacks
• Restrictions on NIH funds (salary cap, foreign travel)
• Restrictions on training grants (us residents or citizens)
• The effects of recession on funding by private foundations
HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE
FY 2009
• $14 billion endowment
• $730 million/yr in support for 375 investigators and labs (Superstars!)
• $101 million/yr for grants outside HHMI
From HHMI Website 2010
PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
Top 20 U.S. Foundations Awarding Grants for Medical Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Foundation Name State
1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation WA
2. The Starr Foundation NY
3. Burroughs Wellcome Fund NC
4. Flight Attendant Medical Research Inst, Inc. FL
5. Avon Foundation NY
6. The Dana Foundation NY
7. W. M. Keck Foundation CA
8. The Picower Foundation NY
9. Eli & Edythe L. Broad Foundation CA
10. The Robert A. Welch Foundation TX
11. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation NY
12. The Rockefeller Foundation NY
13. The Abramson Family Foundation FL
14. The G. Harold & Leila Y. Mathers Foundation NY
15. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation NJ
16. The Sidney Kimmel Foundation PA
17. James S. McDonnell Foundation MO
18. F. M. Kirby Foundation, Inc. NJ
19. Irene Diamond Fund NY
20. Charitable Leadership Foundation NY
Dollar Amount
$270,976,718
33,075,000
25,804,239
20,461,776
16,216,577
15,506,843
14,970,000
13,198,221
12,689,219
10,960,000
10,748,600
10,701,679
10,300,000
9,114,200
8,999,782
8,050,000
7,558,779
7,210,500
6,490,495
6,434,695
No. of Grants
26
14
83
143
16
50
16
8
45
37
26
9
4
44
29
3
43
32
13
1
Circa 2005, Modified from Foundation Center Statistical Services
NIH SPENDING
INSTITUTE BUDGETS
NHGRI
NIAMS
NIEHS
NEI
NCI
NIA
NIDA
NHLBI
NCRR
NICHD
NIAID
NIMH
NIGMS
NIDDK
NINDS
NIH GRANT PROCESS
UPLOAD GRANT PROPOSAL
CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
INSTITUTE(S) ASSIGNED
(27 INSTITUTES AND CENTERS)
COVER THE WHOLE RANGE
OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
INITIAL REVIEW GROUP
(STUDY SECTION)
SPECIFIC EXPERTISE
IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
(SECONDARY REVIEW)
MINOR ADJUSTMENTS
CAN AFFECT MARGINAL PROPOSALS
ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL REVIEW
AWARD
GRANT PROPOSAL
• Directed to a panel of experts with diverse backgrounds and interests
• Three reviewers do in‐depth review
• Proposal must inform and persuade
– Important for science
– Important for human health
– Feasible – The investigator and team can do it
– The proposed budget is justified
SCORING
Impact
High
Medium
Low
Score
Descriptor
Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses
1
Exceptional
Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses 2
Outstanding
Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses 3
Excellent
Very strong with only some minor weaknesses 4
Very Good
Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses 5
Good
Strong but with at least one moderate weakness 6
Satisfactory
Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses 7
Fair
Some strengths but with at least one major weakness 8
Marginal
A few strengths and a few major weaknesses 9
Poor
Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses Non‐numeric score options: NR = Not Recommended for Further Consideration, DF = Deferred, AB = Abstention, CF = Conflict, NP = Not Present, ND = Not Discussed
Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact
Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact
Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact REVIEW CRITERIA
•
•
•
•
•
•
SIGNIFICANCE
INVESTIGATOR
INNOVATION
APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
OVERALL IMPACT
REVIEW CRITERIA
•
•
•
•
•
•
SIGNIFICANCE
INVESTIGATOR
INNOVATION
APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
OVERALL IMPACT
SIGNIFICANCE
• Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? • If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? • How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
REVIEW CRITERIA
•
•
•
•
•
•
SIGNIFICANCE
INVESTIGATOR
INNOVATION
APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
OVERALL IMPACT
INVESTIGATOR
•
•
•
•
Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other
researchers well suited to the project?
If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators,
or in the early stages of independent careers, do
they have appropriate experience and training?
If established, have they demonstrated an
ongoing record of accomplishments that have
advanced their field(s)?
If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do
the investigators have complementary and
integrated expertise; are their leadership
approach, governance and organizational
structure appropriate for the project?
REVIEW CRITERIA
•
•
•
•
•
•
SIGNIFICANCE
INVESTIGATOR
INNOVATION
APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
OVERALL IMPACT
INNOVATION
•
•
•
Does the application challenge and seek to shift
current research or clinical practice paradigms by
utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches
or methodologies, instrumentation, or
interventions?
Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions novel to one
field of research or novel in a broad sense?
Is a refinement, improvement, or new application
of theoretical concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions
proposed?
REVIEW CRITERIA
•
•
•
•
•
•
SIGNIFICANCE
INVESTIGATOR
INNOVATION
APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
OVERALL IMPACT
APPROACH
• Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the
specific aims of the project?
• Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and
benchmarks for success presented?
• If the project is in the early stages of development,
will the strategy establish feasibility and will
particularly risky aspects be managed?
APPROACH
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans
for 1) protection of human subjects from research
risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of
both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of
children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and
research strategy proposed?
REVIEW CRITERIA
•
•
•
•
•
•
SIGNIFICANCE
INVESTIGATOR
INNOVATION
APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
OVERALL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENT
•
Will the scientific environment in which the
work will be done contribute to the probability
of success?
•
Are the institutional support, equipment and
other physical resources available to the
investigators adequate for the project
proposed?
•
Will the project benefit from unique features of
the scientific environment, subject populations,
or collaborative arrangements?
REVIEW CRITERIA
•
•
•
•
•
•
SIGNIFICANCE
INVESTIGATOR
INNOVATION
APPROACH
ENVIRONMENT
OVERALL IMPACT
OVERALL IMPACT
• Will the project exert a sustained, powerful
influence on the research field?
• Overall impact score is NOT the average
of all criterion scores but is the score that
determines funding!
COMMON CRITICISMS
• SIGNIFICANCE
– The project, even if successful, is not likely to
change the field or human health
– Important questions were missed
• INNOVATION
– It has it already been done
– Someone more qualified is already doing it
– The methods and approaches are standard and
do not push the field forward
COMMON CRITICISMS
• FEASIBILITY
– Population characteristics
• The subjects cannot be recruited
• The experiment is not adequately powered
– The amount of work is excessive for the resources or
time available
– Reagents and methods are not up to the task
• FOCUS
– The work will not result in a coherent body of knowledge
• CONTINGENCY PLANNING
– Alternative outcomes were not considered in the plan
– The whole project hinges on the outcome of one part
Basic Guidelines for Successful Grant Writing
• Identify sources of funding
• Know what your funding source expects
• Know the requirements/limitations of the grant (e.g., for citizenship, etc.)
• Start ahead of time
• Get someone else to review it before you submit it
• Know your own limits/abilities
• Know when/where to ask for help
• Learn who will be reviewing your grant (influence this if you can!)
• Know the process by which grant submission/review/notification occurs
• Understand the scoring system and what you need to do if you choose to resubmit
http://dgsom.healthsciences.ucla.edu/dgsom/newsmedia/1172011‐milman
Applying For Your First RO1
Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance (Research and Related), abbreviated SF424 (R&R)
NIH has detailed instructions: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt
/prepare_app.htm
NIH PROPOSAL FORMAT
• RO1 example ‐ Parent Funding Opportunity Announcement, FOA: PA‐11‐260
• NOTE: NUMBER OF PAGES, FONT, SPACING AND MARGINS
• ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION ONLY, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS
• ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
• PERSONNEL AND BUDGET
• BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF INVESTIGATORS (INCLUDING PERSONAL STATEMENTS)
• RESOURCES AND FACILITIES
• RESEARCH PLAN
• INCLUSION OF DIVERSE POPULATIONS
• HUMAN AND ANIMAL USE
• REFERENCES
RESEARCH PLAN
• SPECIFIC AIMS
• SIGNIFICANCE
• INNOVATION
• PRELIMINARY STUDIES/PROGRESS
• APPROACH
SPECIFIC AIMS
• Market your application to reviewers
– Briefly state the impact of the research on your field.
– Briefly state why you chose the project.
– Convey its significance and innovation.
– Use terms a broad audience can understand.
• Choose Specific Aims peer reviewers can easily assess. Each one should be an achievable end point rather than a best effort.
• You should probably limit your application to one Specific Aim a year. For new applicants, being too ambitious is a common mistake.
• Have no more than one or two sets of experiments for each aim. If you need more, reorganize.
SPECIFIC AIMS (continued)
• Think of your Specific Aims as the framework of your application, as an expanded table of contents for your Approach section.
– Make each aim a header in your approach section.
– Design experiments to address each aim.
• Describe your Specific Aims as well‐focused objectives to achieve.
– Describe options with milestones depending on results.
– Have aims that test your hypothesis.
SPECIFIC AIMS
• 1 page‐ a longer version of the abstract.
• Typically 3‐4 numbered goals.
• Use them also as subheadings for the research plan.
• Introduce them with 1‐2 paragraphs that provide the rationale and background.
• Conclude with 1‐2 paragraphs that describe significance.
SPECIFIC AIMS
1 PAGE TOTAL
1‐2 PARAGRAPHS
RATIONALE AND SIGNIFICANCE
HYPOTHESES
3‐4 AIMS
(NUMBERED)
2
1
3
4
1‐2 PARAGRAPHS
SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION
USE AIMS AS SUBHEADINGS FOR APPROACH SECTION
SIGNIFICANCE
• Frame the problem and its general significance.
• Briefly review relevant literature and preliminary data.
• Interpret and identify gaps in knowledge.
• Indicate in general terms how you will fill them.
• Show how the work is new and unique.
• Assess the potential impact on science and
health.
• Refer to NIH priorities as articulated in RFAs and
consensus conferences.
INNOVATION
• Briefly describe how the work is new and unique and
how it will add significantly to what's known.
• If your application is highly innovative, you'll need to
build a strong case for your ability to challenge the
existing paradigm and your reason for doing so.
• To show how the work is innovative, present a broad
view of your field and the significance of the research.
APPROACH
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sections correspond to specific aims
You can briefly reiterate significance and innovation
Integrate preliminary data into the rationale
Present the logical structure of the proposal
Use multiple approaches but prioritize
Discuss pitfalls and alternatives
Discuss data analysis and interpretation
Common or routine methodology can be lumped at
the end
• Flow charts may be helpful
APPROACH
• Provide your own key data supporting the
rationale for the proposal
• Demonstrate relevant technical expertise
• Introduce the research team and its
special skills
• Point out special resources that distinguish
the proposal
THE LAYOUT OF EACH SPECIFIC AIM
BRIEF BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
HYPOTHESES/RATIONALE
STRATEGY AND INNOVATION
EXP 1
EXP 2 EXP 3
EXP 4
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
PITFALLS AND ALTERNATIVES
SIGNIFICANCE
HELPFUL HINTS
• Use headings and subheadings.
• Break up the text with figures and charts.
• Be reader friendly!!
• Communicate excitement - but be realistic.
• Close with “future directions” and a
timeline.
More Advice
•
Be Careful How Much You Propose and How Innovative You Are.
•
Sharpen your application's focus. Novice PIs often overshoot their
mark by proposing too much.
– Propose few Specific Aims -- one for each year of funding requested is
a good rule of thumb -- and a plan with a limited scope.
– Make sure the scale of your hypothesis and Specific Aims fit your
request of time and resources.
– Be sure your hypothesis is provable and your aims doable with the
resources and time you are requesting.
•
Beware of Being Too Innovative
– Research does not necessarily have to create a new paradigm. To be
innovative it can: Shift a current paradigm, or refine, improve, or
propose a new application of an existing concept, method,
instrumentation, or clinical intervention.
– It's generally less risky to use an innovative approach to solve an
existing problem than to take on a problem that's highly innovative.
COMMON REASONS FOR FAILURE
• Goals are not significant
• Lack of new or original ideas
• Lack of demonstrated accomplishment
(relative to stage)
• Weak scientific rationale
• A superficial or unfocused approach
• A lack of understanding of the literature
• Inadequate methodology for goals
• Lack of experience in essential methods
COMMON REASONS FOR FAILURE
• An illogical, disorganized or presumptive
approach
• An uncritical approach
• Scope is excessive for the budget,
resources or experience
• Lack of key experimental detail (must be
provided very strategically in the new short
format)
RESUBMISSION
• Only one resubmission
• Subsequent proposals may be screened for
similarity
• Introductory page is used for direct rebuttal
and summary of changes
• Significance and innovation concerns are
difficult to rebutt
• The best rebuttal to criticism of approach are
new data and interim progress
A Little Optimism
Yes, these are tough times. The competition for research dollars has never been greater and the amount of research funding has remained flat.
However, there are still billions of dollars available for research funding from a variety of sources including the federal government, foundations, the state of California and the University.
This research money will be spent and those who are competitive will be funded. You are faculty at one of the top research universities in the world. You got here because you have what it takes to be successful.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to:
• Tomas Ganz, PhD, MD, Professor of Medicine and Pathology
• John S. Adams, MD, Director, Orthopaedic Hospital Research
Center
Leonard H. Rome, Ph.D.
Senior Associate Dean for Research
http://research.mednet.ucla.edu
For additional copies of this presentation and larger views of these slides, please visit the Junior Faculty Lecture Series page found on the Diversity website:
www.DGSOMDiversity.UCLA.edu
Additional material (not discussed in the lecture)
NEW NIH RO1 GRANT CHECKLIST
1. All PIs must registered in eRA Commons with PI role & up‐to‐date
profile
2. Electronic Submission (see SF424 (R&R))
3. Note proper formats, margins, attachments, figures etc.
4. Cover Letter
5. Project summary/Abstract No more than 30 lines of text
•
succinct description of work, long term objectives, specific aims making
reference to public health significance
6. Narrative (Relevance) No more than 3 sentences
•
relevance of research to public health in lay terms
7. Bibliography & References Cited
•
Incl. all authors, article/journal/book title, vol#, pg.#, year of publication (no
page limit). Articles resulting from NIH support use reference number
(PubMed Central or NIH Manuscript Submission)
NEW NIH RO1 GRANT CHECKLIST (continued)
8. Facilities & Other Resources
•
Describe facilities, lab space, computers, office space and sq. ft available,
equipment available, (as applicable) animals, animal care and use info, vet
facilities, IBC description, human subject protection, statistical consulting,
computing, archiving, software. How environment contributes to success;
institutional investment in the success of investigator.
9. Equipment: list major items of equipment available for project and pertinent
capabilities
10. Biographical Sketch(s)
•
4 pages‐ add personal statement, no more than 15 publications. Use form at:
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm
11. Budget and Justification Modular format if less than $250,000 direct costs/year‐
budgets >$500,000/yr requires Program Officer approval.
12. Research Plan‐ Section 1 Introduction‐ 1 page – Resubmission or revisions only
13. Research Plan‐Section 2 Specific Aims (Add innovation and impact) 1 page
14. Research Plan Section 3 Research Strategy 12 pages includes background &
significance, research design and methods & preliminary studies/progress)
•
(3a) Significance (3b) Innovation (3c) Approach
NEW NIH RO1 GRANT CHECKLIST (continued)
15. Research Plan Section 4‐17 have no page limits
(4) Inclusion Enrollment Report (Renewal Revisions using human subjects only)
(5) Progress Report Publications (Renewals Only: see Part II, Section 4.3 of Application Guide)
(6) Protection of Human Subjects: if ‘yes’ attachments 6‐9 required
(7) Inclusion of women and minorities
(8) Targeted Planned Enrollment
(9) Inclusion of Children
(10) Vertebrate Animals (if yes, attachment required: see page I‐111 in SF 424 Application Guide)
(11) Select Agent Research (see pg. I‐112 in SF 424 Application Guide)
(12) Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan (must be included if more than one PI‐ see pg. I‐113)
(13) Consortium/Contractual (if yes, explain programmatic, fiscal and admin. arrangements)
(14) Letters of Support (consortium and consultant letters)
(15) Resource Sharing Plan(s): Data Sharing Plan (for projects over $500,00/yr direct costs 1
paragraph), Sharing Model Organisms http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model
organism/index.htm, Genome Wide Assoc. Studies http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/
notice‐files/NOT‐OD‐07‐088.html
(16) Appendix
16. Modular Budget