The Research Strategy section of the proposal consists of 3 major topics: Significance, Innovation, and Approach. These can be done lumped together with aims underneath, or individually, grouped by aim. For example:
Aims underneath:
Significance
Innovation
Approach
By Aim:
Aim 1
- Significance
- Innovation
- Approach
Aim 2
- Significance
- Innovation
- Approach
These are the only 2 options requested by
NIH. And they make sense, since they correspond to the new review criteria. So why, pray tell, is it so difficult to get investigators to break from old habits? I have seen many people who still resort to the old A through E sections from years ago. They balk at the suggestion that they need to eliminate their 2 page "Background/Preliminary Studies" section and incorporate preliminary study information into their Approach section. I know that old habits die hard, but when we have seasoned scientists with bad habits teaching their incorrect methods to the new generation of young graduate students and junior faculty, it can cause some serious problems. If you are being mentored in your proposal writing by someone who has been around NIH funding for a while, no matter how well-funded they may be, it is good practice to always read the directions and make sure that you are following them appropriately. Just because someone has had grant funding since the
Golden Girls were a primetime staple does not mean that they are up on the latest changes in application guidelines.
No comments:
Post a Comment