5.4. Grants¶
5.4.1. Funding streams for your lab¶
NIH: National Institutes of Health
Biomedical science
27 institutes and centers with specific foci
Investigator and sponsor-driven programs
NSF: National Science Foundation
Basic science
Primarily investigator-driven programs
Other governmental agencies
DOD: Department of Defense
DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DOE: Department of Energy
Non-profit organizations, e.g. Allen Foundation, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Catalyze initial research rather than provide sustained funding
Often more risk- tolerant
Your institution
Startup funds
Small seed grants
Institutional training grants for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars
Very simple applications
Don’t consume PI percent effort
Graduate, postdoctoral fellowships
Relatively easy to win
Don’t consume PI percent effort
Industry contracts
5.4.2. Taxonomy of funding opportunities¶
Scientific area
Project vs. program
Project grants (e.g. NIH R01, R21) provide funds for a specific project with specific goals and a specific approach
Program grants (e.g. NIGMS MIRA) provide funds for an area of research and don’t require specific goals or a specific approach. These grants provide more flexible funding to enable researchers to follow evolving scientific priorities.
Investigator-driven vs. sponsor-driven
Investigator-driven programs enable researchers to propose projects within a broad scientific area. Often, the programs have few priorities and few restrictions and the sponsor aims to support the most impactful and innovative proposals
Sponsor-driven programs provide funding for strategically important research as determined by the sponsor. Generally, sponsor-driven progams have specific priorities and numerous restrictions.
Scientific stage/risk
High-risk/high-reward (e.g. NIH Director’s program, NSF RAISE program): significant funding for early ideas with substantial potential impact. These programs require little preliminary data, but a strong PI track record of impact is essential. Although high-risk/high-reward grants provide significant funding, NSF and NIH award few of these grants.
Early-stage (e.g. NIH R21): funding modest funding for early ideas with minimal prior evidence
Hardening
Project size
New project (e.g. NIH R21): 1-2 people over 1-3 years
Established project (e.g. NIH R01): 2-3 people over 3-5 years
Collaborative project (e.g. NIH center): requires a larger number of people over 5+ years
Investigator stage
Postdoc (e.g. NIH F32, NIH K99/R00)
Early career (e.g. NSF CAREER, NIGMS MIRA, NIH EIA, NIH New Innovator)
Mid-late career (e.g. NIGMS MIRA)
5.4.3. Funding programs for early career investigators¶
Below is a list of some of the biggest funding opportunities specifically for early career investigators
NIGMS Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA, R35)
Funds research programs
$250,000 per year
51% effort required
6 page application that emphasizes the applicant, the major challenges in their field, and their proposed research program
Director’s Program New Innovator Award (DP2)
Funds high-risk, high-reward research
No preliminary data required
$300,000 per year
25% effort required
12 page application that emphasizes the applicant, significance, and innovation
Applicant must have NI and ESI status
NSF Faculty Early Career Development Program
DOE Early Career Research Program
DOD Young Faculty Award
Non-profit foundations
Beckman Young Investigators Program
Pew Scholars
Searle Scholars Program
Sloan Research Fellowships
See http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/fund/newfaculty.html for a list of additional smaller funding opportunities for new faculty.
In addition, many NIH institutes have lower funding thresholds for New Investigators (NI; applicants which have not yet received an R01 or equivalent) and Early Stage Invesigators (ESI; applicants within 10 years of the completion of their PhD or medical residency). Keep in mind that winning a grant as a Co-PI, would also terminate your NI status. For this reason, until you receive your first grant as the primary PI, it could be a good strategy not to submit proposals as a Co-PI and instead submit those proposals as a Co-Investigator.
5.4.4. Finding funding opportunities¶
Below are several resources for finding funding opportunities
Funding agency websites
5.4.5. Eligibility¶
Universities often only allow personnel with Principal Investigator (PI) status to submit proposals. This status is often only given to tenure track faculty. Some funding programs have additional requirements such as a minimum effort or a maximum time from start of the PI’s first tenure track faculty position.
5.4.6. Deadlines¶
NIH: generally, every 4 months
NSF: continous submission
Other: variable, see program announcements
5.4.7. Proposal process¶
Contact program staff: This can often be accomplished via email. In some cases, a letter of intent or pre-proposal is required.
Discuss idea with program staff: identify suitable funding programs and get feedback.
Submit proposal
Program staff assign proposal to panel
Peers make recommendations to program staff
Discuss and rebut concerns with program staff
Program staff make funding decisions
Resubmit proposal
NIH: Has formal system for resubmission, but you we will likely be assigned different reviewers
NSF: No formal resubmission system, but similar proposals can be submitted
5.4.8. Writing proposals¶
Summaries
Specific Aims: 1 page for reviewers
Summary: 30 lines for public
Narrative: 6 lines for public
Introduction to resubmission (NIH): 1 page
Project description: 12 (NIH) – 15 (NSF) pages, 0.5” margins, 11pt
Problem statement
Anticipated impact and innovation
Background
Your prior work
Results of prior support (NSF)
Research plan: 2-5 aims
Education and outreach plan (NIH centers and NSF)
Timeline
Management plan: who will do what
Evaluation plan: how you will assess progress and success
Future directions
Bibliography: unlimited
Resource sharing plans: 1 page
Outline the products and how they will be tested, documented (examples, tutorials, API docs), and disseminated
Outline the timeline for dissemination
Model organism sharing plan: N/A
Genomic data sharing plan: N/A
Data sharing plan
Software sharing plan
Mentoring plan (NSF): 1 page
Budget justification: 1-2 pages
Brief description of the requested funds and why they are needed
Biosketches of key personnel: 5 pages each
Personal statement
3 major scientific contributions, each with 3 publications
Letters of support from collaborators
Major equipment: ~2 pages
Custom software
Computer cluster
Facilities and other resources: ~2 pages
Scientific environment at university and in department
Computers and software
Lab and office facilities
Junior faculty mentorship and professional development for junior faculty
Central university resources such as library
Administrative support
5.4.9. Typical costs for budgets¶
Personnel salary and fringe benefits (85-90% of total budget)
Student: $42,000/yr
Postdoc: $42-70,000/yr
Fringe benefits: 28.5%
Recruiting: $1,000-1,500/visit
Computer: $1,500
Publication: ~$2,500
Travel (~3% of total budget)
1-2 conferences/person/yr
$2,500 per conference
Materials & supplies: ~$200/yr
Freelancers : $30/hr
Illustrators
Editors
Web designers
Computer services
CircleCI: $600/yr
CodeClimate: $0
Coveralls: $300/yr
DreamHost (Web hosting and IP registration): $200/yr
Docker Hub: $0
GitHub: $600/yr
Google Drive: $20/yr
Minerva: $0
Read the Docs: $0
Software
Adobe Creative Cloud: $240/yr
MATLAB: $100/yr
MS Office: free
Indirect costs: 35-70%
5.4.10. Submitting proposals¶
Proposals must be submitted through your institutions Grants and Contracts Office using their online proposal submission system. These online systems are straightforward. They simply require you to upload each component of your proposal as a .docx or .pdf document and enter your budget using a set of webforms. Typically, proposals must be submitted internally 1-2 weeks in advance of the external deadline.
5.4.11. Peer review¶
Program officers assign each proposal to a panel with 10-20 scientists and up to ~50 proposals
Each proposal is assigned to 3 scientists in general area
Reviewers often do not have immediate expertise in the topic of the proposal
Each reviewer has ~10 12-15 page proposals
Reviewers read and score each proposal according to mutliple criteria
Reviewers often ignore specific program goals
Reviewers meet to align on a consensus score for each proposal which serves as a recommendation to the program staff
~15 minutes of discussion per proposal
First reviewer: Summarizes proposal and strengths and weaknesses
Second reviewer: Summarizes additional strengths and weaknesses
Scribe: Summarizes additional strengths and weaknesses
Discussion about discrepant opinions
Scribe: suggests score
Reviewers agree to score
Scribe writes summary of panel discussion
Panel discussion is reviewed by program staff
After all proposals are discussed,
Broader discussion about important areas to support
The panel identifies the very best proposals
Discussion led by panel chair (NIH) or program staff (NSF)
NSF: discuss all proposals
NIH: discuss only top-scoring proposals
The reviewers and program staff produce a written summary of the discussion
NSF: third reviewer
NIH: program staff
The program staff make the final funding decision informed by the recommendations from the reviewers. At this stage, the program staff review the written summaries. In addition, the program staff may ask for further information from applicants about concerns expressed by the reviewers.
5.4.12. Statistics (NIGMS)¶
Success rate: 28% (including resubmission)
Average R01: $237,000
5.4.13. Grant award process¶
Funding agency sends official notification to you and your university
Funding starts immediately
University sets up fund for award (immediate)
University adjusts effort based on proposed budget (immediate, retroactive to start date)
Open positions (~1 month) and begin interviewing
Hire staff (1-3 months, depending on visa needs)
5.4.14. Annual grant renewals¶
Annual progress reports
Scientific progress and products (e.g. publications, presentations, websites)
Dissemination efforts
Outreach and education efforts
List of participants and contributions
Impact of the above
Unanticipated challenges and revised plans
Plans for next year
Annual non-competing renewal applications
Budget
For many NIH program, competing renewal applications every ~5 years
Full application
5.4.15. Advice for winning grants¶
Focus on significant problems and propose innovative solutions
Generate compelling proof-of-concept
Publicize your proof-of-concept
Identify topical funding mechanisms
Thoroughly read the funding opportunity announcement
Discuss your ideas with the program officers, especially for DARPA, DOD, and DOE
Solicit examples of proposals that have been funded by the same program and solicit advice from previous winners. This is particularly helpful for the administrative sections of proposals.
Dedicate significant grant writing time and allow extra time for unfamiliar opportunities
Determine who your audience is and write for them
Follow all of the directions in funding opportunity announcements
Seek feedback for your colleagues and your lab
5.4.16. Advice for resubmissions¶
Below is our advice for submitting revised proposals
Carefully read all of the reviewers concerns
Keep in mind that blaming the reviewers is not productive. You can’t change the reviewers or program officers, but you can change your proposal and how you present it.
Keep in mind that reviewer concerns are often rooted in poor explanations rather than bad ideas. For this reason, reviewer concerns can often be addressed simply by clarifying the proposal.
Synthesize and rank the reviewers’ concerns
Develop a revised plan that addresses all of the reviewers’ concerns.
Discuss your plans with the program officers
Revise your proposal. This could require re-writing your entire proposal.
In addition to all of the content of the first submission, NIH resubmissions must include a 1-page “Introduction to resubmission”. These documents should (a) summarize the reviewer’s major concerns, (b) summarize your major revisions, and (c) provide a point-by-point summary of each of the reviewers’ major concerns and describe how you have addressed them or why you believe they are unfounded.
To help reviewers identify the major changes to your proposal, you should mark these sections with vertical bars in the margins.