Dartmouth Logo

Dartmouth Logo

Monday, November 22, 2010

Updated Application Guides and Non-competing Continuation Progress Report Instructions Posted

Notice Number:  NOT-OD-11-022


Key Dates
Release Date:   November 19, 2010
Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Purpose
The National Institutes of Health is reposting application and progress report instructions to accommodate recent changes in policy, provide instructional clarifications and update hyperlinks or correct typographical errors.  No new policy or requirements are implemented that have not been previously announced in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts.


Monday, November 15, 2010

New Format Change Announced for NIH, AHRQ, CDC, and FDA Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs)

Notice Number:  NOT-OD-11-019


Key Dates
Release Date:   November 9, 2010  
Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Purpose                         
This Notice announces that newly published NIH, AHRQ, CDC, and FDA Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) are transitioning to a new format that is designed to be shorter, easier-to-read, and more scientifically focused. The new FOA format eliminates redundancy, limits the amount of administrative detail contained in the FOA and directs applicants to the most up to date source information, such as the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide, NIH Grants Policy Statement, and other information sources relevant to NIH, AHRQ, CDC, and FDA. The new format is designed to simplify the application writing process for applicants, increase FOA clarity and transparency and ensure that FOAs are current as changes are made to source documents.  FOAs published in the previous format are still valid until their expiration date.
Inquiries
Please direct all inquiries to: GrantsInfo@nih.gov

Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices

Friday, November 12, 2010

Grant-Writing Tips for Graduate Students

http://chronicle.com/article/Grant-Writing-Tips-for/125301/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

From the Chronicle for Higher Education

By Lisa Patrick Bentley

Financial pressures have shifted grant writing to the forefront of skills that graduate students need to survive academic life. Some students receive instant gratification and get a grant the first or second time they apply. Far more common are repeated rejections.

With any luck, the agency or foundation that denied your grant proposal sent along comments from reviewers along with the rejection letter. But what if you take their advice, revise your proposal, and it still gets turned down? Is there a secret to grant-writing success as a graduate student? In the hope that one exists, and as a postdoc myself, I surveyed 104 graduate students with 2009 fellowships in the life sciences from the National Science Foundation, 64 postdocs with 2009 NSF fellowships in biology, and 22 graduate students who applied for grants unsuccessfully.

Some of their advice was obvious: Write about a project that excites you. Make sure it's achievable and has the potential to contribute new knowledge. Make sure your results will be interesting to journal editors. But they also offered plenty of suggestions that were new to me. The tips that follow constitute a combination of my personal advice on the art of writing a grant with the science of the survey responses.

Know your grant agency. Look at an agency's calls for proposals—especially the ones that interest you the most—to see what its funding priorities are for the year. Then call the program officer or appropriate grant representative to confirm that you and your project qualify. Don't be afraid to make that call, and don't think that only experienced PI's (the grant world's jargon for "principal investigator") call an agency. In my survey, 16 percent of graduate students and 49 percent of postdocs who had received research money spoke directly with someone at NSF at least once (and sometimes more than three times) regarding their proposal.

Think, talk, write, reread, rewrite, repeat. Discuss your proposal with as many people as possible before you start writing to ensure that you have a solid experimental design. Have many different types of people (peers, mentors, family members) review your entire application proposal.

If you doubt this step is crucial, believe the statistics: 63 percent of graduate students who did not receive a grant had only one to three people read their proposals. But 21 percent of the successful graduate students had seven or more people review their grant proposal before submission. Postdocs seemed to have recognized the importance of this strategy, as well, as 32 percent reported that four or more people had reviewed their proposal before submission.

Really talk to your advisers and peers. They might be busy, but they want you to get funded. They write their own grants and have most likely overseen other students' proposals. Think about organizing weekly or monthly meetings with a group of peers to review each other's work. In addition, some universities or laboratories keep successful student-grant proposals on file that you can use for reference as you write your own.

Be specific in stating testable hypotheses. Add preliminary data (your own data, your adviser's, or from the literature) to your proposal corroborating your hypotheses, theory, and/or methodology. You want to show that your project is doable and that you have thought about a framework in which you will interpret, analyze, and present your results.

Don't forget to include relevant literature. Keep organized files of PDF's to help streamline the writing process. Invest time in learning how to use reference software. Reviewers want to know that you recognize the importance of familiarity with past research in your topic area, so cite a range of papers that includes research conducted before 2000.

In addition, list your relevant first- or co-authored publications in your application. Don't worry if you don't have a first-authored publication yet—67 percent of funded graduate students in my survey did not include any of their own publications. Just don't forget to keep publishing in graduate school if you are thinking of applying for a grant as a postdoc: 36 percent of funded postdocs in the survey listed two or more first- or co-authored publications in their grant proposals.

Start the application months early. Sure, you can pull together a quiz at the last minute for that laboratory course you are teaching, but don't put off working on your grant proposal. From the pool of graduate students I surveyed who received NSF fellowships, 27 percent spent a month preparing their proposals for submission, 24 percent spent two months, and 19 percent spent three months. Only 3 percent of the successful students spent a week preparing their submission. On the other hand, 23 percent of the unfunded students in the survey spent only a week preparing their applications.

Last but not least, don't wait until five minutes before the deadline to submit your application. Computers crash, electricity goes out, and servers go down.

Don't save the hardest bits of the application for last. Many people find the project summary, the "intellectual merit" section, and the "broader impacts" section to be the most difficult to write. Read the project summaries of successful grant recipients; many of those summaries are posted online by grant agencies for reference. If you are confused as to what really counts for intellectual merit or broader impacts, talk to your advisers or other students who have had proposals accepted. If all else fails, call the grant agency and ask!

Emphasize your most important points in a bold, concise, and logical way. Reviewers have a short amount of time to read multiple applications. Consider using bulleted lists instead of long narratives, especially in your research statement. When I was in graduate school, the consensus seemed to be that inserting statistics and numbers into your proposal would help guarantee its acceptance. But don't always believe what you hear: 74 percent of funded graduate student proposals in my survey did not include such numbers. So don't insert figures into your proposal because you think they're necessary; only add them if they improve its readability or help describe methods and preliminary results.

Don't take rejection too seriously. Every successful scientist has had grant proposals turned away. It's part of the process. Take the reviewers' comments to heart and talk to an appropriate program officer regarding resubmission.

While I recognize that this list does not cover everything, it should give you a good start for rethinking your grant writing. Preparation, perseverance, and a positive outlook can make a difference.

Lisa Patrick Bentley is a National Science Foundation postdoctoral fellow in bioinformatics at the University of Arizona's department of ecology and evolutionary biology.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Promoting Research Integrity, Ensuring Public Trust

From  Dr. Sally Rockey, Director, NIH Office of Extramural Research:

I believe only when the highest standards of research integrity are upheld do we maintain the public’s trust in the research we conduct, support and administer. I expect that everyone involved in scientific research—investigators, trainees, administrators, and NIH staff—promotes these high standards. To assist the community in achieving these goals, OER recently developed a new Web page that explains research integrity and the processes that ensue from allegations of inappropriate conduct in research. On the new site you can learn about the definition of research misconduct, what is expected and/or required of investigators and trainees, and what happens when NIH learns of an allegation of research misconduct.
The site highlights the ways that the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH help promote research integrity through regulations, policies and requirements for receiving NIH funding. The primary examples of these are requiring every NIH-supported trainee to receive instruction in the responsible conduct of research, and requiring every PHS-supported institution to have in place a system for reporting allegations of research misconduct.
The responsible conduct of research plan for every training and career development grant application is assessed as part of the peer review of the application. There is not a defined curriculum or format, but each plan must address five components: format, subject matter, faculty participation, duration of instruction, and frequency of instruction.
Every institution that receives funding from the NIH, as a PHS agency, must have written policies and procedures in place for handling allegations of misconduct. This assurance is on file with the HHS Office of Research Integrity, under which all NIH-supported research falls for investigation of allegations of research misconduct.
Trust in the integrity of scientific results is fundamental to the US biomedical research enterprise. Everyone who takes part in this enterprise is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the research we conduct, support and administer. I hope you find the new site informative and useful.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Fellowship Opportunities through the National Sea Grant Program

New Hampshire Sea Grant would like to share the following two fellowship opportunities for graduate students.  Please distribute this information broadly.
  1. John A Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship: Class of 2012 (Graduate Students)
  2. National Marine Fisheries Service - Sea Grant Joint Graduate Fellowship Program in 
    • Population Dynamics and 
    • Marine Resource Economics (Graduate Students Enrolled in PhD Degree Programs)

Friday, November 5, 2010

AAMC, Health Groups Urge Congress to Finalize HHS Spending Bill

Government Affairs Home

Washington Highlights

Testimony and Correspondence

Member Action Center

Campaigns and Coalitions

Contact Government Affairs

Washington Highlights

November 5, 2010

AAMC, Health Groups Urge Congress to Finalize HHS Spending Bill
November 5, 2010 — The AAMC joined other health groups in a series of letters to House and Senate leaders, urging Congress to finalize the FY 2011 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill (S. 3686, S.Rept. 111-243).

In a Nov. 1 letter , more than 200 members of the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research urged leaders and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittees to support the $1 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposed by the president and approved by both appropriations subcommittees. The AAMC is a member of the Ad Hoc Group steering committee.

Additionally, AAMC supported the Coalition for Health Funding recommendation that Congress provide each of the agencies and programs of the U.S. Public Health Service – including the NIH, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and the Indian Health Service (IHS) – with the highest of the funding increases proposed by either the House or Senate. AAMC signed similar letters sent by the Friends of AHRQ and the Friends of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) , as well as a letter of the Health Professions and Nursing Education Coalition (HPNEC) regarding the Title VII and Title VIII health professions programs.

Most of the federal government is operating at FY 2010 funding levels under a Continuing Resolution (CR, P.L. 111-242), since Congress has not completed work on any of the 12 annual spending bills. The CR is set to expire Dec. 3.


Contact:


Dave Moore
Senior Director, Government Relations
Telephone: 202-828-0559
E-mail: dbmoore@aamc.org




Tannaz Rasouli
Senior Legislative Analyst, Government Relations
Telephone: 202-828-0525
E-mail: trasouli@aamc.org



.