1 / 27

David Fuller Dept . of Physical Therapy McKnight Brain Institute University of Florida

R03 and R21: When A re They Appropriate?. GMS 6096: Introduction to NIH Grant writing for biomedical sciences Jan 30, 2013. David Fuller Dept . of Physical Therapy McKnight Brain Institute University of Florida ddf@phhp.ufl.edu.

marcos
Télécharger la présentation

David Fuller Dept . of Physical Therapy McKnight Brain Institute University of Florida

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. R03 and R21: When Are They Appropriate? GMS 6096: Introduction to NIH Grant writing for biomedical sciences Jan 30, 2013 David Fuller Dept. of Physical Therapy McKnight Brain Institute University of Florida ddf@phhp.ufl.edu

  2. *My thoughts on grant writing, and some comments about RO3 vs. R21 *, just my opinions David Fuller Dept. of Physical Therapy McKnight Brain Institute University of Florida ddf@phhp.ufl.edu

  3. How do grants get funded? My view: 3 key considerations

  4. How do grants get funded? VERY clearly presented Good idea Luck / Good planning

  5. The next series of slides will provide an overview of what I think are some of the most important aspects of a successful grant application *, just my opinions

  6. Assume nothing except that the reader will be intelligent

  7. Read successful grants. Lots of them.

  8. Templates usually don’t work What is great art?

  9. Use all available resources People: Equipment:

  10. A unifying central hypothesis A good idea when possible. It often makes the grant easier to read.

  11. The Aims page should read like a (good) novel Tell a story. Help the reader. Write the review for the reviewer.

  12. Choose your study section carefully Use the cover letter. Do NOT suggest specific names of reviewers.

  13. Preliminary data New vs. Senior Investigator New vs. established method Central vs. peripheral hypothesis Often new investigators have more preliminary data than they think…

  14. Never, ever “just submit and see what happens”

  15. Do not wait until the last minute for: Abstract Rebuttal Vertebrate animals Personal statements Etc.

  16. Acronyms are almost always a terrible idea

  17. Figures & tables need to be very easy to read

  18. Revise, Tweak, Proofread …. at least 100x

  19. Resubmissions Should I resubmit? Address all concerns The rebuttal is perhaps the most important part of the document

  20. Resubmissions Be prepared to admit that aspects of your initial idea (or maybe the entire idea) is/are bad Be prepared to admit that your initial writing is bad and needs to be completely “blown up”

  21. R21 vs. RO3

  22. R21

  23. R21 Consider carefully if the submission should be an RO1

  24. R21: my experience 2 grants:

  25. RO3 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm

  26. RO3: my experience http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm

  27. Thank You

More Related