1. Grant Writing Workshop Specific Aims Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study Boston University School of Medicine • No industry relationships to disclose • Associate Editor, Circulation • 2R01HL092577 • 1R01HL102214 • N01-HC 25195 • 1P50 HL12016

3. Resources • FDD Page Isabel Dominguez created on grant writing tips http://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/for-researchers/grant-writing/ • Russell & Morrison’s Grant Writers’ Seminars & Workshops The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook

4. BUMC Grant Writing Resources • Associate Provost for Research • Carter Cornwall’s Proposal Training • Clinical Research Resources Office • Clinical and Translational Science Institute • Corporate and Foundation Relations • Expertise and Instrumentation Search • Office of Medical Education • Office of Sponsored Programs • Vice Chair for Research (DOM)

5. How do Reviewers Work? • Hard • For virtually all grant reviewers, the study section work takes place after their day job • Your job is to make their job easy

6. Getting StartedHow do you Pick a Topic? • What excites you and experts in your field? • Is it important? Significance • Is it novel?  Innovation • Will it build an identity distinct from your mentor? • Read the everything you can find on the topic • NIH Reporter what is already funded on your topic http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm • Will it build to subsequent funding/RO1s?

7. Getting Started?The Blank Page • Ask to see colleagues’ successful grants • Ask to see colleagues’ critiques • Have you blocked out time to write your grant???

8. How important are the Specific Aims?

9. How important are the Specific Aims? • Fundamental to the Application’s Success

10. Why are the Specific Aims Important? • Reviewers often determine a grant’s merit merely after reading the S.A. • Study section silent reading period. S.A. is only section most study section members will read • Roadmap to the entire grant

11. Specific AimsChapter 7 - Grant Application Writer’s WorkbookOutline Grant – Paragraph 1 • Significance • Clinical • Current knowledge • Gap in knowledge/unmet need

12. Specific AimsOutline Grant – Paragraph 2 • Long term goal • Big picture of research program • Objective of application • Central hypothesis and rationale • Links back to first paragraph

13. Specific AimsOutline Grant – Paragraph 3 • Specific Aims – for each aim • Approach • Specific question • Sample • Design • Specific hypothesis tested

14. Specific AimsOutline Grant – Paragraph 4 • ‘Payoff’ • Expected outcomes • Why group & environment perfectly suited • What impact on patients and field

15. What dew Raveiwrs KNOT want to sea? • Details details details • A sloppy grant • NO typos / grammar problems  Correct references Clear subject headingsLogical flow • Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers • A well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science • Slick presentation cannoT RESCUE HO HUM contentA sloppy grant • NO typos / grammar problems  Correct referencesClear subject headings • Logical flowLeads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers • A well-laid out grant makes it easier for • the Reviewer to see the scienceSlick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content A sloppy grant NO typos / grammar problems  Correct references Clear subject headingsLogical flow Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out manuscript makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum contentA sloppy grant • NO typos / grammar problems  Correct references Clear subject headings Logical flow • Leads to concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers A well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the scienceSlick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content

16. What do Reviewers NOT want to see? • Slick presentation cannot rescue ho hum content • A sloppy grant  Instead aim • No typos No grammar problems • Avoid long paragraphs Correct references • Subject headings Avoid tiny font • Logical flow Avoid TNTC abbreviations • Sloppiness encourages concerns about ability to conduct careful research, publish high impact papers • Lucid writing, organized, well-laid out grant makes it easier for the Reviewer to see the science • Can scientist not in the field understand the grant?

17. What Are Common Pitfalls?Significance • Not of major public health import • Technical tour de force, but so what • Lack of a conceptual model • Lack of stated hypothesis seeking to test • ‘fishing expedition’ • Lack of generalizability

18. What Are Common Pitfalls?Innovation • Incremental

19. When should ALL investigators start working on a grant? When should an early career investigator start working on a grant? • You cannot start too early • 2 submission rule: 1st submission must be strong • Grants not discussed higher chance of ‘double jeopardy’ • S.A. formulated at least 6 months in advance • First draft 12 weeks in advance • Mentors and colleagues have time to review draft at least 1-2 months in advance • You cannot start too early