University at Buffalo (UB)
The CHaMP Research Node held an EMS Grant Workshop in which investigators were able to meet with federal representatives to gain feedback on their ideas and learn about pathways to obtaining funding. The goal was to give researchers focused on pediatric EMS an understanding of the NIH process and insight on how to turn their concepts into federally funded research. Below is a list of the lectures that were provided and their key messages, along with links to available lecture slides.
George Sopko, MD, MPH
Medical Officer and Program Director, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Reviewers look at the funding proposal to see if there is a proven track record of infrastructure and evidence of success amongst collaborators. You should also address any issues in your proposal so reviewers don’t have an opportunity to expose weaknesses. Never think the reviewers will not notice something missing in a proposal – talk about it and address it with rational reasoning. Argue vigorously for what you are doing, the reviewers may not like it, but it’s better than having them guess what you are doing. Reviewers guessing what you are doing can also lead to a lack of consistency in the review from one submission to the next.
The NIH wants to fund a strong study design and an intervention that will directly impact patient outcomes. Determine the public health impact, gap or lack of evidence in medical practices, and how your study advances the field. Tell reviewers what is unique about your study and how it advances the field. Have a colleague who is not involved (preferably ‘your worst enemy’) read your proposal and criticize it; this will provide more valuable feedback than seeking validation from those who have “bought into” the project. The proposal needs to address design, population, outcomes, ethics/feasibility, and training. Work out all the details (e.g., FDA approval) before you submit for funding. Further, a pilot study is needed to have a competitive proposal.
Jane Scott, ScD, MSN, FAHA
Director, Office of Research Training and Career Development, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
The NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and is comprised of 27 institutes and centers. Over 90% of the NIH’s budget is distributed through extramural funding for research to colleges, universities, and medical centers. NHLBI (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) is the third largest NIH Institute.
A PA is a Program Announcement and requests applications for funding in a generic area of research and is reviewed by a study section. An FOA is a Funding Opportunity Announcement; it is related to a special healthcare need and reviewed by a Special Emphasis Panel convened for the FOA. Federal funders are looking for high caliber projects that are unique. Talk to a Program Officer about your ideas to gain insight and direction for your application, and to discuss next steps for your application if it is not funded. Specifically ask your program officer if there is “anything special they can suggest that you can address in your proposal.”
Find out what the NIH institute funds and the angle you need to take to be competitive. Keep review criteria listed in the PA or FOA in mind as you write your grant application so that your proposal remains focused. Check the ‘Other Information’ section of the funding announcement for institute-specific information vital to your application. The NIH RePORTER system is a search engine for every NIH-funded grant since 2004 that allows an investigator to determine if his/her idea is competitive and position their proposal to demonstrate what sets it apart from other funded work. It also allows investigators to determine which institute funded specific projects to determine if their idea fits a specific institute. Think broadly about the institute you’d like to target – you never know who might fund a new idea. Pay attention to the politics of funding and what areas of research are currently being funded.
Plan to invest six months into writing an R01. Meet with your local Grants and Contracts Office early to review the funding opportunity and internal processes for submission. Program Officers can talk with an investigator any time prior to submission about the proposal and after the grant review is complete to discuss comments or next steps. They cannot talk to an investigator while a grant is under review. Prior to submission, discuss possibility of the project officer sitting in on meeting to listen to reviewers discuss your application. After the grant review, discuss nature of review, comments, and where to go from there.
Make sure the grant’s budget matches the scope of work in the proposal/budget justification. The grant cover letter should clearly indicate your choice of institute and review panel (ask, don’t tell). Remember grant reviewers don’t see cover letter; only viewed by people assigning the application to a review (so keep them short and direct). Roughly 50% of grant applications are triaged during the review process due to a lack of resources for reviewing.
Robert Tamburro, MD, MSc
Medical Officer, Pediatric Trauma and Critical Illness Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Funding announcements are too competitive to lose focus when writing your proposal – make sure you aren’t including unnecessary information. Check the NIH RePORTER system to see what has already been funded and make sure to thoroughly read the RFA. Contact your Program Officer and make sure the funding opportunity is aligned with your interest. When you want to talk to your Program Officer, first send an email and ask for a time to talk. Include a brief introduction of yourself and project, attach a specific aims page, and ask if he/she would have any time to talk. If you have contacted a Program Officer about your project be sure to follow-up with them to let them know if/when you submit so they can consider going to the section’s review of your proposal. Once you have the summary statement, draft your response to the criticisms before setting up a call with your Program Officer then you can better discuss the next steps (resubmission, pursuing another funding source, etc.). Finally, remember the Approach section is the portion of the grant that can bring scores down the most.
Li-Shin Huang, PhD
Program Director, Office of Research Training and Career Development, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
The Matchmaker function in NIH RePORTER gives you the ability to upload text so you can search for awards based on your own abstracts or other documents that you have already written. For an R01, an institute and study section is needed – you can pick the study section you’d like to suggest by using Matchmaker and seeing the sections that exist. When writing your proposal, make sure the title matches key words for the institute you want assigned to your application. It’s important to remember that the Program Officer cannot assist in the period after your grant is submitted up until you receive your review. However, during this time, you can contact the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) with questions. Your grant will undergo either a general review by the Center for Scientific Review or a Special Emphasis Panel utilized by an NIH Institute.
For K awards, the Career Development/Career Goals and Objectives section is as important as the Research Plan. K awards are not given to proposals with sound science but weak career development plans.
Read funding announcements thoroughly and be alert for new/updated forms. Read the Request for Funding Application (RFA), which is specific to the NIH Institute to which you are applying. You should also read the Parent Announcement, which is designed for multiple participating institutes. Read the Special Note on the Parent Announcement to make sure you are following the institute where you are sending the grant’s specific instructions as you prepare your application. Finally, know the Rigor and Reproducibility requirements for your funding announcement. When writing application, put all sections of the Rigor and Reproducibility requirements into your grant application and state ‘N/A’ for sections that do not apply.
Jane Scott, ScD, MSN, FAHA
Director, Office of Research Training and Career Development, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
When writing a career development award determine what interests you, and who in your field has experience and NIH funding. Talk with colleagues/faculty and find local resources (i.e., who is already funded with a K or R grant). Make sure that your research mentors fit you and your program. When developing your list of mentors, include at least one clinical mentor for a clinical research project.
Post-doctoral individuals should apply for T32 grants; this award provides 2-3 years research training and is a focused research program. The award is suitable for an investigator who needs more training to get to an independent award and involves a 90% time commitment. Late postdoc or early faculty should apply for Institutional K Awards (KL2, K12); these awards provide 2-3 years continued training and involve a 75% time commitment. Early faculty should apply for Individual K Awards, which provide 3-5 years research training. To be successful, you need an investigator, mentoring team, institutional support, proposed research, and a career development plan. During this time, an investigator can apply for R grants. A K23 is ideal for clinicians; they require a hands-on activity with patients. A K08 is ideal for physicians who work with large data sets. A K99/R00 is for individuals who are two years postdoc and transitioning to faculty; this award involves three years of independent research. The NIH also offers a K01 Diversity Supplement; if you have an R01, you can apply for this supplement. The mentee can be at any level (e.g., college, PhD, early faculty, etc.).
It is important to remember that the NIH may not have the type of funding that you want – there may be other organizations with funding opportunities that better suit your research interests. Regardless of where you apply, be compelling in what you are doing and convince the reviewers why your grant deserves funding.
E. Brooke Lerner, PhD
Professor and Research Director, Department of Emergency Medicine, Nodal Principal Investigator, CHaMP Node of PECARN
Find your own passion and pursue every opportunity available. If you truly care about the research question or problem, invest effort. Keep your ears open for opportunities and be ready to make an attempt, even if you are not confident the opportunity will be successful. Build a network of like interested and minded collaborators that can assist you when pursuing funding. Learn from rejection and move on to the next opportunity. Know your local funding sources and apply for them (CTSI, Institution Funds, Foundations, Non-Federal Specialty Organizations). If you have an opportunity, take it (even if it isn’t NIH-related). Consider working with students/learners and learner funding (e.g., local or EMRA) to get parts of projects achieved. Taking these steps will help you accomplish pilot studies and build the foundation for applying for larger funding opportunities.
Jeremy Brown, MD
Director, Office of Emergency Care Research, National Institute of General Medical Sciences Key Points
The NIH funds a wide range of research relevant to Emergency Medicine, with opportunities in both training and independent areas. It is critical to think about the mission of the institute to which you apply. Think about the population your project affects and which institute owns that population – that is the institute to target for funding applications. A helpful tool is the Research Condition and Disease Categorization (RCDC), which lists the amount of NIH spending and funded projects in various areas.
Note: a New Investigator is anyone without R01 funding. In contrast, an Early Investigator is anyone within 10 years of a terminal degree.
Robert Tamburro, MD, MSc
Medical Officer, Pediatric Trauma and Critical Illness Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
When writing a cover letter, make sure you align with the institute mission to which you are applying. Examples of possible funding opportunities within the NICHD include an R03, which is a small, two-year secondary analysis that focuses on data harmonization and does not need pilot data. An R21 is a two-year exploratory grant with a maximum budget of $275,000. The UH1 and UH3 is a dual application for prior work and a clinical trial. Investigators should leverage anything possible and pursue any avenue that offers funding in order to conduct pilot research and build a foundation of evidence for your research question. If you have no preliminary data, your R01 application will be triaged.
George Sopko, MD, MPH
Medical Officer and Program Director, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
When initiating a project with SIREN the Principal Investigator brings a proposal to the SIREN executive committee for full discussion; the committee then determines if the proposal is suitable for the SIREN network. The committee only meets to review proposals three times a year, so investigators must carefully create a timeline for pursuing funding. If SIREN-approves, then the PI applies for funding (through either NHLBI or NINDS) for their clinical trial through the usual funding mechanism, depending on the area of study. If the proposed budget is over $500,000 for any NIH application, an investigator needs permission from the NIH “to exceed the cap” prior to submission (most network grants will exceed the cap). If you are bringing an idea to the NIH to work with SIREN, Jeremy Brown of NIGMS is the first contact (jeremy.brown@nih.gov). As of now, SIREN focuses on adult studies. If you are looking to do a pediatric study and use SIREN, you would need to make a compelling case about why you need SIREN’s resources to conduct your study.
Cynthia Morris, PhD, MPH
Vice Chair of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology Professor of Medicine, Public Health, and Preventative Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University
There are 60 CTSA sites located across the country, so it is likely one of these sites is housed at your institution. Investigators should get to know their institutional CTSA. Often, the CTSA at an institution will have a small pool of funding that can be used to help get a K or an R award. This local resource is often overlooked, so you likely have a good chance to secure funds, which can then be used to move forward with pilot work and speed up the process of applying for larger grants. CTSAs have space for clinical research, along with a lot of regulatory knowledge.