What is a Grant A description of

What is a Grant? • A description of a research project you want to do? • A thoughtful explication of a great new research idea? • An intellectual magnum opus that shows that you are a brilliant scientist? • A sales pitch to get us (the reviewers) to buy (aka “fund”) you and your team for millions of dollars over the next 3– 5 years?

What Sort of Grants can you Apply for? • Federal, industry, private • NIH • NSF • NASA • Armed Forces

Prerequisites for Writing a Grant • a good idea/novel way to address/answer/solve a clinically related problem. • an excellent team of investigators • an outstanding research environment and administrative support • • Good Timing Good Reviewers (and advocates!) Good Luck Good Grantsmanship

Good Idea • SIGNIFICANT? • Does it address an important problem? • How will scientific knowledge be advanced? • INNOVATIVE? • Builds upon or expands knowledge base • Capable of making a difference • UNDERSTANDABLE?

Good Timing • Will the idea be understood by others? • Does it build upon existing knowledge? • Does it build upon similar ideas? • Do you have preliminary data? • How will the idea be received?

How to Write the Grant? • Every word in the proposal should be written with the idea of persuading the reviewer to BUY your ideas • Presentation matters a lot • How you present your ideas reflects on you as a scientist - we have to trust you • You are brilliant and creative, and yet you are also knowledgeable, thoughtful, intelligent, clear-headed, circumspect, careful with attention to details, and worthy of our trust and our money • Your project has a high likelihood of succeeding - your preliminary data convinces us that you will be able to do what you say (low risk)

Address Review Criteria • Significance • Approach • Innovation • Investigator • Environment

Outline for typical R 01 • Specific Aims (1 page) • Research Strategy (12 pages) – A. Significance – B. Innovation – C. Approach

Specific Aims - The essence of the entire proposal, do this first • Rationale – why the study is important • Beyond “to increase understanding… “, rather to change the way we think, we do, etc. • Clear, unambiguous, testable hypotheses or research questions • Logic, past observations & data • Include general methods • The Hypothesis - Clear and unambiguous path - Clear rationale - Posed in terms of variables

Considerations for Specific Aims • Slight differences in wording may make the difference in whether it’s important and whether it is testable by the methods proposed • Avoid “serial” or “contingent” specific aims • Avoid superficial goals & objectives or statement of the obvious • Limit to 2 -4 major aims • You are not going to solve the whole world’s problems in one application

Outline for typical R 01 • Specific Aims (1 page) • Research Strategy (12 pages) – A. Significance – B. Innovation – C. Approach

Significance • Does this study address an important problem? • If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? • What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?

Roll Background Section into Significance • Set the stage by precisely stating why the problem is important • Amplifies the specific aims • Findings will change thinking/practices - why it’s important to know • Your knowledge is clear, balanced and focused • Tell a complete story (concisely) • Ending with significance – specific to your findings

Innovation • Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms. • Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions to be developed or used, and any advantage over existing methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions. • Explain any refinements, improvements, or new applications of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions.

Approach • Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project • Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success anticipated to achieve the aims • Data analysis, power analysis to justify animal/subject numbers is critical • Organize by Aims, weaving in the preliminary data for each Aim in this section

Preliminary Studies • Amplify critical concepts and prove feasibility • Include appropriate references • Document your technical expertise in critical methods • Use subsections (with titles for each)

Valuation of variation of data with point cluster technique The point cluster technique is known to have a maximum potential error of 2 mm (1. 5 mm about the anterior-posterior axis, 1. 5 mm about the medial-lateral axis, and 1. 0 mm about the proximal-distal axis). To determine the effect of this variation in kinematics on the forces in the ACL and ACL replacement graft, we performed an experiment using two human cadaveric knees. A 134 N anterior tibial load was applied to the intact knee at 0, 30, and 90 degrees of flexion and the six DOF kinematics were recorded. Translation error corresponding to the error reported was then added randomly to each axis of knee motion. Using the same knee, the corresponding changes in the in situ force in the ACL were found to be 30± 15 N, 37± 17 N, 27± 15 N at 0, 30, and 90 degrees of knee flexion, respectively (Figure 7). Subsequently, ACL reconstruction using a semitendinosus/gracilis tendon was performed on the same knee and the test was repeated. The changes in in situ force in the ACL graft were 25± 12 N, 36± 4 N, and 31± 3 NH at 0, 30, and 90 degree of knee flexion, respectively. These variations in magnitude are on the order of magnitude of those found for biological variation between cadaveric specimens, where one standard deviation is approximately ± 30 N

More on the Approach • Organize this section with respect to specific aims. In each subsection, how the design/results will verify (refute) the corresponding hypothesis • Help to maintain reviewers’ enthusiasm • No design is airtight • Get the reviewers on your side by teaching & convincing them • Appropriate and adequate so the hypothesis/research questions can be addressed • Write defensively & cover your bases • Include a credible power analysis • Varying ways to organize this section • Start with an overview of design • For this grant, no need to explain methods in great detail • Generally, the more novel the method and the newer the investigator, the more the reviewers want validation

Summary - Main Points • Research design will accomplish Specific Aims • Methods are feasible and well developed so that you can reference them • Approach is original • Data will be analyzed correctly • Sufficient power to lead to conclusive results • Limitations are of minor concern • Study can be accomplished in requested time • Close the loop! • Test the hypothesis or answer the research question • Don’t take any section lightly; they’re all important!