Advice from Nature for Early-Career Investigators applying for their first NIH R01 grant

If you are an Early Stage Investigator seeking advice for your first NIH R01 application submission, you have likely received conflicting advice from multiple sources. Although usually well-intentioned, even experienced scientists often give unhelpful advice for preparing your grant proposal. For example, yes, there are a very small number of researchers who consistently finish gathering their preliminary data, write the grant proposal at the last minute, and manage to be successfully funded. Many of these people are individuals who work best under pressure and who are engaged in fields such as emergency medicine research. In over 20 years of working with hundreds of NIH-funded researchers at multiple high-ranking research institutions, I have come across only a small number of people who are consistently successful with this approach. Thus, taking a last-minute approach is not likely to set you up for the highest likelihood of success.

Trusted grant proposal advice can be hard to come by for new applicants, which is why I was excited to come across a series put out by the esteemed scientific journal Nature last year. There is a collection of articles titled Advice to Early Career Investigators that includes advice on various aspects of proposal preparation aimed at junior investigators. Although I found it grouped within the pediatric research section, the advice is applicable to research in many fields. For example, articles include Unexpected lifeskills for physician-scientists: advice to early career investigators and Essentials of data management: an overview. 

Perhaps the most relevant article listed that will apply to the majority of Early-Career Investigator applicants is Thirty-two steps for getting your R01: advice to early career investigators. This article is packed with direct, honest, and helpful advice. Step 1 is "At least a year ahead of the deadline, decide on the novel, clinically relevant question you would like to answer. Spend a week or two in PubMed, looking at everything that has been published. Decide how you can advance the science beyond what has been published. Look at the data differently: don’t just buy the conventional wisdom. Begin to formulate an overall aim that is novel, relevant and do-able. Dream big. If you don’t have a big vision, or if you are writing an incremental grant primarily to advance your career, stop. Begin again when you are inspired by the question." 

The authors have broken down the R01 proposal development into 32 clear and realistic steps that are likely to lead to a well-scored application. I highly recommend this particular article as well as this resource from Nature, and I hope the journal will continue to add to this collection to provide updated guidance for new NIH grant applicants.

What is an NIH parent announcement? What is a parent grant?

If you’re new to NIH grants, you may be struggling to understand the grant-speak and acronym alphabet soup that are often used by faculty members and research administrators. Given the many, continually changing rules and regulations of the grant proposal and award process, it is not surprising that individuals routinely speak in NIH terms when discussing grants. As with clinical skills, which require regular practice and upkeep, research grant knowledge must be continually applied to stay fresh in the field. Unfortunately, this means that many of us who have been working on NIH grants for many years often become accustomed to speaking in technical terms and forget to ensure that we are providing information in a way that is understandable to a novice. Fortunately, however, many resources exist to help you expand your NIH grant vocabulary, including a grants and funding glossary.

One term that is often a source of confusion is “parent grant”. Sometimes this is also stated as “Parent R01” or “Parent R03”, etc. When you hear this mentioned, your first thought might be of something like this:

Luckily for all parents who have experienced the tantrums of the terrible twos, kids have nothing to do with these grants. The official name for this grant type is “parent announcement.” NIH defines a parent announcement as follows:

Parent announcements are broad funding opportunity allowing applicants to submit investigator-initiated applications for specific activity codes. They are open for up to 3 years and use standard due dates.

It is important to note that not all NIH institutes and centers participate in parent announcements. If you are seeking funding from a particular institute, check the “Components of Participating Organizations” section listed toward the top of of the first page of funding opportunity.

Why font, margin, and spacing tricks are a bad idea in your NIH grant application

NIH has clear guidelines for formatting grant application attachments, including font and margin size, spacing, and font type. These rules are designed to provide a level playing field to ensure that researchers are all given the same amount of space in which to sell their research project in their proposal. As someone who has written and edited hundreds of NIH grant proposals over the years, I have seen many of the same attempts at gaming the system tried over and over again. Most often, the individuals who try to bend the rules regarding NIH formatting guidelines are trainees and junior faculty members who are fairly new to NIH grant proposal writing. However, occasionally I am surprised by a more seasoned investigator attempting some of the same tricks. Here I will cover some of the most common attempts at getting around the requirements.

Let's start with the NIH formatting guidelines. For all research, career development, and training grant applications (including R01, R21, R03, K01, F31, T32, etc.), the formatting requirements are described below.

Font and Line Spacing Requirements:

• Font size:  Must be 11 points or larger. Smaller text in figures, graphs, diagrams and charts is acceptable, as long as it is legible when the page is viewed at 100%.
• Some PDF conversion software reduces font size. It is important to confirm that the final PDF document complies with the font requirements.
• Type density:  No more than 15 characters per linear inch (including characters and spaces).
• Line spacing: No more than six lines per vertical inch.
• Text color: No restriction. Though not required, black or other high-contrast text colors are recommended since they print well and are legible to the largest audience.
• Recommended Fonts:
• Arial
• Georgia
• Helvetica
• Palatino Linotype

Paper Size and Margins

• Use paper (page) size no larger than standard letter paper size (8 ½" x 11”).
• Provide at least one-half inch margins (½") - top, bottom, left, and right - for all pages. No applicant supplied information can appear in the margins.

Now that you have a general idea of the formatting requirements, let's discuss what should not be done in your NIH grant proposal. Font size is one of the most common requirements that grant applicants attempt to circumvent. As written above, the font size is at minimum 11-point font and preferably the proposal should be written in one of four fonts. 

• This does not mean that 10.9 font is acceptable.
• This does not mean that 10.98 font is acceptable.
• This does not mean that 10.99 font is acceptable.
• This does not mean you should change part of your text to a different font to squeeze in a few extra words.
• This does not mean you should reduce your type density to squish your words together.

Line spacing is another common issue. I am not sure why, but well-meaning colleagues continue to suggest to new grant applicants that reducing the line spacing is the best way to edit a proposal so it falls under the page limits. Encouraging researchers to pack in their text more densely instead of revising their writing so it is clearer and more concise is well-intentioned but terrible advice. 

NIH formatting requirements specify that proposal text must include no more than six lines per vertical inch. If you are using Arial 11-point font and you change the line spacing in MS Word to "Exactly 12 point", the text will technically meet the NIH requirements for number of lines per vertical inch. However, the text appears dense and more difficult to read. If you change the line spacing to "Exactly 11 point", you will not meet the formatting requirements. This is not an automatic check that will show up as a warning or error in grants.gov; rather, you will be contacted by the Center for Scientific Review weeks or months after you thought your proposal was successfully submitted, only to find out that it is being rejected without review.

When it comes to formatting your NIH grant application, why take any changes by trying to circumvent the rules? Taking the time to review and edit your proposal text, or to seek the assistance of a senior colleague or experienced grant editor, will help you to put your best foot forward in the review process. The cardinal rule of grants is, "Don't annoy the reviewers!" Attempting any of the tricks mentioned above not only runs the risk of a proposal rejection, but also is likely to give the reviewers a headache as they tackle the dense text of your proposal.

National Institute for General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) provides grant tips for new applicants

NIGMS has provided a handy page titled Tips for New NIH Grant Applicants.  This list was compiled by soliciting advice from NIGMS staff members.  This is a very introductory list designed for novices who are just learning about the proposal development process.  I highly recommend this list in particular for trainees who are writing career development awards.  The advice may also be helpful to individuals who are writing their first R-series proposals who have had limited training in the area of grant development.

Helpful video from the Center for Scientific Review with tips for R01 funding success

This video provides some helpful tips for investigators who are trying to get their first R01 funded.  It is easy to forget that your proposal will be reviewed by actual people, who may or may not have scientific expertise specific to your area.  Watch this video for ideas regarding how to make the proposal review process work for you.

Register now for the upcoming NIH Regional Seminar

Registration for the next NIH Regional Seminar ends September 1st!  This year's seminar on program funding and grants administration will be held in the wonderful city of Chicago, Illinois at the Palmer House Hotel.  (This is a Hilton property, for those of you who are brand-loyal.)  The main seminar will be October 27-28.  It will be preceded by optional pre-seminar workshops on October 26.  Review the schedule here.

Difficulties faced by young investigators seeking NIH funding

This interesting article provides somewhat disheartening statistics regarding NIH funding levels for young faculty.  It provides information on what Johns Hopkins University is doing to try and support young investigators who are in the early stages of launching their research careers.  There are many lessons to be learned from this institution's approach.  In the current funding climate, more institutions should follow this lead and provide financial and other support to promising new investigators.  Ultimately, the entire scientific community will benefit from the addition of new ideas and fresh approaches from young investigators.

Center for Scientific Review webinars

The Center for Scientific Review presented a series of webinars this month for potential applicants.  The webinars each include presentations by experts from NIH, as well as question and answer periods at the end.  If you missed your chance to view the webinars, don't worry.  They will all be posted at this link very soon.  I highly recommend the R01 webinar for those who are new to the application process or who have not successfully competed for an R01 grant in the past. 

Just in Time for the party?

Hooray!  It's time to celebrate!  My grant was reviewed and the JIT link popped up in the era commons.  This must mean my proposal is within funding range, right? 

WRONG. 

In previous years, the JIT link only became active in the commons if scores fell within certain percentiles.  However, this has been changed, and JIT will appear in the commons after every proposal is reviewed.  The only way to know if it is really needed is if the PI receives an email request for information from NIH. 

K Award Funding Opportunity Notices Have Been Reissued

If you are planning to apply for a K Award, such as a K01 Mentored Research Scientist Development Award, be sure that you are following the newly released guidelines. The revisions include only minor changes to most application requirements, but the most significant change is the requirement that all application use Adobe Forms Version C. Also, if you plan to apply for a K99/R00(also known as a "kangaroo" award), be advised that major changes have been made to this program.

How can I get a copy of my submitted proposal?

Are you looking for a copy of the proposal that you just submitted for the June deadlines?  If you would like one big, easily printable PDF that is easier to navigate than cumbersome SF424 application packages, try logging into the NIH era commons.  If you are the PI, you can view your submitted proposal in a large, indexed PDF that includes all pages of the budget and all ancillary documents.  Keeping tabs on your proposal in the era commons will also allow you to view the assignment information for your proposal.  This is your chance to find out if your proposal was assigned to the section that you requested, as well as the date when it will be reviewed.  From this point on, the commons will be the best source of information about your proposal and its progress through the review process.

Hello, are you new here?

Are you a new or early stage NIH investigator?  If you have never been PI of an R01 and are within 10 years of completing your terminal degree (MD, PhD, etc.), you may qualify as a new or early stage investigator and receive certain priorities in reviewing.

In recent years, NIH has moved away from self-identification of "new" status.  Rather than ask new investigators to check a box, NIH now uses data from the era commons to identify new and early stage investigators.  Thus, to have a chance at being classified in this category, it is imperative that you UPDATE YOUR ERA COMMONS PROFILE.  Without current and correct data, the system is unable to put your application into the proper category. 

As a new or early stage reviewer, you will be given some special considerations in review.  For starters, you will not be expected to have as many publications under your belt as more seasoned researchers.  Reviewers will look more at your potential for contribution to the field, rather than what you have already done.  With this special consideration comes some additional responsibility on your part.  Demonstrating the resources and mentoring available to you at your institution is much more important for a new investigator.  Reviewers want to see that you not only have potential, but that you also will have advice and assistance available from qualified individuals to make your project successful.  In the Resources and Environment section, new and early stage investigators are expected to include extra information on how their institutional environment will help to contribute to the overall success of the project.  Don't overlook this requirement! 

The most important benefit of new and early stage investigator status, of course, is the higher payline.  These rules are designed to help give an extra advantage to junior faculty and new researchers, to help bring more great minds into their fields.  Having a greater chance of funding, no matter how slight, is worth any amount of extra work that NIH could possibly require! 

A grant proposal lesson from LeBron James

Wondering about whether you should refer to yourself in the third or first person as you write your personal statement? Trying to decide whether you should refer to "the research team" or "we" in the proposal text? Perhaps you should view this video of LeBron James talking about himself before you decide. Then read this previous post, which includes directions and further information about personal statements.

SWF Desperately Seeking NIH Reviewer

Slightly inexperienced aspiring researcher seeking older, experienced NIH grant reviewer. Male or female. Similar research interests preferred. Seeking advice and inspiration. Would enjoy hand-holding and long conversations about grant proposal writing.

OK, so maybe you don't need to take out a personal ad to find an experienced grant reviewer who is willing to talk to you. However, you should utilize your professional contacts, friends, relatives, alumni associations, fellow golfers, etc. to help you find someone who is willing to provide sound advice and (hopefully!) review a draft of your proposal. Even if it means waiting until the next deadline for a R01 or R03, for example, it is still to your advantage to have a skilled set of eyes review your proposal before it is sent to an NIH review committee. An individual in your specific field or area or research who has previously served as a grant reviewer will be most qualified to offer advice. Prepare to develop a thick skin - someone who is truly trying to help you will be more critical than supportive. Ultimately, you only have 2 chances to submit the best possible proposal. It is worth a little extra time to find an expert to help you.

What is the difference between an R01, and R03 and an R21?

This is a common question as you begin to prepare research grant applications. How do you select the correct mechanism when applying for a parent announcement? Contrary to popular belief, this should not just depend on how much money you need. Rather, the type of grant mechanism to apply for is dictated by your research plan. What do you hope to accomplish? Is this an exploratory project to try a new method that can then be turned into a large-scale study? If so, consider applying for the R21. Is this a smaller-scale study that can be completed in 2 years? If so, consider applying for the R03.

For more information and definitions of the various R series grants from NIH, click here.

Don't understand the acronym soup in your application guide?

NIH has a wonderful glossary that will help you to decipher all of the acronyms and abbreviations included in your application instructions or being tossed around at the latest grad student cocktail hour. Every new hire, intern, student, or new investigator I have worked with has been given a copy of this glossary at our first meeting. I highly recommend bookmarking the page and referring to it often with any questions.

Find something that isn't in the glossary? Email me or leave a note in the comments and I will work on getting you an answer.

NIH Funding and FIFA Soccer

At first glance, NIH funding does not appear to have much relationship to FIFA. How does research funding in the United States compare to the international governing body for soccer (or "football" as non-Americans call the sport)?

However, looking at the current corruption scandal, I do see some comparisons. For those who do not follow international soccer, let me explain that FIFA has been plagued in recent months with allegations of bribery, and several FIFA officials have been suspended or removed over these incidents. The latest allegation made by a whistleblower is that Qatar, the wealthiest nation competing to host the World Cup games, used bribery to be awarded the 2022 World Cup over the United States and Australia. Qatar officials, of course, deny that anyone was bribed into voting for Qatar, and insist that the country merely "leveraged its immense wealth" in a way that helped it to be awarded the games.

It is the leveraging of wealth that made me quickly think of NIH funding. Surely, with the rigorous peer review process, it is highly unlikely that anyone can be bribed into funding a specific research proposal, and that is not what I am suggesting. Rather, the larger and resource-rich universities are able to leverage their wealth and resources to receive some of the largest grants. These insitutitions have the money to hire seasoned researchers and grants management personnel, and are rich with resources such as large medical schools and libraries. When they do obtain funding, they receive a much larger NICRA (indirect rate) than smaller and less wealthy institutions, which gives them more money to further improve their programs. It is a self-perpetuating cycle and one that I believes makes it more difficult for excellent researchers at smaller, less known institutions, to be awarded major projects. In the same way that it is unfair for Qatar to be awarded the World Cup simply because it can do great things with its wealth, it is unfair for smaller institutions to be competing on an uneven playing field with large research meccas. Qatar's fit as a World Cup host should have been evaluated based solely on its ability to host a top notch competition, just as NIH proposals should be evaluated based on the merits of the research plan and the investigators' ability to successfully complete the project.

My suggestion? Give less weight to Resources and Environment in the peer review process. This will help to give a boost to researchers from less-known institutions that are fully capable of successfully completing research projects.

At least NIH knows that grant awards are skewed...

In this recent update, NIH continues to try to answer to investigators who complain about the lack of fairness in award distributions, arguing that a small number of experienced investigators hold a disproportionate number of grant awards. I am not sure where I fall in this debate. On one hand, this is taxpayer money, and I think it should be more accessible to younger and less seasoned investigators. On the other hand, if what we are focused on is real, significant advancements in health research, wouldn't we want to give the most resources to those individuals who have the most chance of success and proven track records when it comes to project completion and follow-through?

What are your thoughts on this? Do you believe that some investigators hog too much federal grant money? Or are you happy with the current distribution?

Look for free advice first

I was surprised to see the cost of this instruction manual for NIH grant applications. Don't get me wrong- I understand the value and importance of seeking advice from very experienced NIH grant applicants, especially if you are a new or younger investigator. However, the manual was not developed or approved by NIH. Before you fork over hundreds of dollars for the manual, take a look at some of these great (FREE!) resources provided by NIH. While they are maintained by specific centers and institutes, much of their advice and guidance applies universally to NIH R01, R03, and R21 applications.

Biosketch, Bibliography, and Facilities/Resources Advice from NIAID: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part06.aspx

NIH Tips for Avoiding Common Errors in Electronic Submission: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/avoiding_errors.htm

Research Plan Advice from NIAID (geared toward R01s, but useful for other mechanisms): http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part05.aspx

What should I write first?

After you review the lengthy proposal instructions (yes, you need to do this), your head will likely be spinning. "How am I going to get all of this done?", you may think, "And where do I begin?" A common mistake made by newer applicants is to begin by drafting the budget. This is actually one of the last pieces you should be worrying about.

To get started on your proposal outline, sit down and write out the specific aims that you hope to accomplish with this project. Use this process to jot down all of your ideas for the project, without regard to budget or other factors. Limit yourself to no more than 2 pages.

Then read the NIH instructions for the Specific Aims section:

• State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s) involved.
• List succinctly the specific objectives of the research proposed, e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology.
• Specific Aims are limited to one page.

Now look at your page again. How many aims have you proposed? Ideally, they should be narrowed down to no more than a handful, depending on the type and duration of project. There is a reason that NIH does not want to see more than a page worth of aims- one major complaint of reviewers is that some proposals attempt to do too much! Look at the ideas you have written down and determine which few are reasonable to expect to complete in your project's time period. Remember to focus on aims that are innovative but achievable.

Once you have completed a draft of your aims, be sure to discuss it with your collaborators and any experienced individuals in your field who may be willing to help. When you have something narrowed down that you are relatively happy with, I highly recommend talking to an NIH program officer. Typically an RFA has a contact person listed, and that may be a good place to start. If you know which institute or center your proposal will be likely to be assigned to, it can be very helpful to talk to someone there. All of the institutes and centers have websites that include contact information.