Components of a Successful AREA R 15 Grant

Components of a Successful AREA (R 15) Grant Rebecca J. Sommer Bates College

Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) Program (R 15), NIH l l l Funds small-scale, health-related research projects at institutions that are not major recipients of NIH funding Major goal is to expose undergraduate students to meritorious biomedical and behavioral research 25 - 31% of proposals funded in 2004 -2007

Fiscal Year Institute/ Center Number Reviewed Number Awarded 2007 NIAAA 2007 Total Cost Awarded** Success Rate*** 8 3 $599, 579 37. 50% NIA 37 7 $1, 232, 164 18. 90% 2007 NIAID 93 22 $4, 580, 648 23. 70% 2007 NIAMS 29 5 $966, 675 17. 20% 2007 NCCAM 13 3 $622, 249 23. 10% 2007 NCI 86 19 $3, 969, 643 22. 10% 2007 NIDA 23 8 $1, 671, 362 34. 80% 2007 NIDCD 16 2 $446, 250 12. 50% 2007 NIDCR 7 3 $667, 830 42. 90% 2007 NIDDK 43 9 $1, 942, 555 20. 90% 2007 NIBIB 21 9 $1, 956, 207 42. 90% 2007 NIEHS 31 5 $1, 035, 778 16. 10% 2007 NEI 21 5 $1, 115, 454 23. 80% 2007 NIGMS 200 63 $13, 217, 017 31. 50% 2007 NICHD 46 8 $1, 673, 536 17. 40% 2007 NHGRI 4 1 $195, 814 25. 00% 2007 NHLBI 56 18 $3, 858, 629 32. 10% 2007 NLM 2 0 $0 0. 00% 2007 NIMH 32 9 $1, 918, 513 28. 10% 2007 NINR 37 6 $1, 263, 140 16. 20% 2007 NINDS 57 11 $2, 295, 661 19. 30% 2007 TOTAL 862 216 $45, 228, 704 25. 10% http: //grants. nih. gov/grants/funding/area. htm

Recovery Act-Funded AREA Request for Applications (RFA-OD-09 -007) l l Single submission, due September 24, 2009 Increases total funding to $300, 000 direct costs Extends eligibility to Institutions receiving less than 6 million dollars annual NIH funds NIH plans to make the increases permanent by the next standard due date (October 25, 2009)

Factors Key to Success l l Important research question Focused and organized proposal Demonstration of expertise Positive impact on research activity of undergraduates and PI

Important Research Question l l l Meritorious research project Collaboration not competition Can be a new area of research

Focused and Organized Proposal l l Focused and organized at the level of both the writing style and research approach Two-four closely related Specific Aims are appropriate

Demonstration of Expertise l l More flexibility in judging potential for success (more than publication record and preliminary data) Include letters of support Provide convincing Methods and “Alternative Approaches” Perhaps include a collaborator

Positive Impact – AREA Grant Statement l l l PI experience in supervising undergraduate student research Suitability and enhancement of research environment Availability of well-qualified students Evidence of Institutional support Supports release/leave time

A Few “Nuts and Bolts” l On-line submission – – – l register in grants. gov and e. RA Commons Signing Official needs to submit the application be prepared to meet other in-house requirements Modular vs. detailed budget – modular budgets are more flexible but limited to total of $250, 000 direct costs

Get to Know AREA Program Contact Person and Institute Program Officer l Don’t hesitate to email/call your AREA Contact Person for guidance – l find most appropriate Institute, Scientific Review Group (SRG) and particular study section NIH Institute or Center (IC) – – get a measure of the IC’s commitment/enthusiasm for AREA proposals and your project in particular after review, the IC Program Officer becomes your main point of contact

Peer Review is a Two-Step Process l Center for Scientific Review – – l Integrated Review Groups, each is made up of several different study sections provides comments and funding priority score NIH Institute or Center (IC) – – Advisory Council or Board, makes funding decisions based on the review and the goals of the IC IC Program Officer can “pull a proposal up”

Writing for Step One of Peer Review Process Find and request the best Integrated Review Group and study section for your proposal http: //cms. csr. nih. gov/peerreviewmeetings/csrirgd escriptionnew/ l Write to your audience l – – know the members of your probable study section read the Guidelines for Reviewers http: //cms. csr. nih. gov/Peer. Review. Meetings/Revie wer. Guidelines/

CSR Review Criteria l l l Significance Investigator(s) Innovation Approach Environment Additional Review Criteria (Protections for Human Subjects, Resubmission, Renewal. . . )

Outcome of Step One of Peer Review Process l l Five individual core criteria scores and overall impact/priority score Summary Statements – l reviewer critiques and summary of discussion Streamlining – less competitive applications are not discussed or given a priority score at study section meetings, still receive the written critiques and criteria scores submitted by assigned reviewers

Don’t Get Discouraged l l l It usually takes more than one submission! Use comments to revise and resubmit Standard AREA submission deadlines are February 25, June 25 and October 25.

AREA (R 15) Program Website l http: /grants. nih. gov/grants/funding/area. htm – – – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section Lists eligible institutions Provides email addresses for AREA Program Contact Persons Describes NIH Institutes and Center objectives Links to Peer Review Information

l Thank l you! You can contact me at rsommer@bates. edu