Embryos, Genes & Development (Fall 2023)

Grant Proposal 6 pages maximum! 11 point Arial font. One inch margins.

**Your topic must be outside the area of your thesis research and research in your thesis lab**

NIH format:

• Title

• Specific Aims (1 page)

• Background/Preliminary Results/Significance (1.5-2 pages)

• Approach/Research Design and Methods (3-3.5 pages)

*Your file should be named with your last name, the assignment, and the date (e.g. Marlow_Proposal_2023).

Your aims page should concisely set up the background, communicate the big picture question, the specific hypothesis that you will test, and state (experimentally) how you will address your     hypothesis, and what you will learn if your study is successful.

Significance: This section should include background, the big picture question, what we understand and more importantly what we do not understand and need to address.

Approach: Each section (aim and subaim) should have specific supporting rationale. This is usually stated first. In addition to the rationale this section should include an “Experimental    procedures section” and an “Analysis, interpretations, and limitations” section.

All assignments should be uploaded to the blackboard assignment folder and are due by 6pm on the due date. No proposals will be accepted after the deadline without a

significant reason for tardiness. This ensures that proposals can be deidentified and

distributed in a timely manner for review prior to the study section. Proposal submission is prerequisite for participation in the study section.

STUDY SECTIONS:

There will be two student study sections 10/19/2023 (practice with proposals from the archives) and 11/16/2023 (peer review of class proposals) to discuss grant reviews (see below). **Class  will start at 9:00AM for the 11/16/2023 study section to allow sufficient time for peer review discussion.

You will each be assigned three proposals to review. Your reviews should highlight the strengths and importantly the weaknesses of the proposal. Was there sufficient background to    set up the problem, did you understand the problem that was to be investigated – it is the job of  the proposer to make sure that they clearly present the problem, and it is your job as reviewer to communicate to your peers the extent to which their goals and approach were clear. You will become and make yourselves better grant writers if you are honest about this. Specific review criteria are detailed below. Reviews should be prepared in advance and will be discussed during the study sections on 10/19/2023 and 11/21/2023.

Review criteria:

•  What question does the proposal address?

•  Is there enough background to understand the problem?

•  Significance of the question?

•  Do the proposed experiments answer the question?

•  Are expected outcomes addressed?

•  Are pitfalls / alternative approaches addressed?

•  If everything goes as expected, what will we have learned?

Score overall impact:

The NIH scoring system uses a 9-point rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor). The overall

impact score for each discussed application is determined by calculating the mean score from all the eligible members' impact scores and multiplying the average by 10; the overall impact

score is reported on the summary statement. Thus, the overall impact scores will range from 10 (high impact) to 90 (low impact).

The following guidance has been given to reviewers to determine individual review criterion and overall impact/priority scores:

1. Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses (Exceptional)

2. Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses (Outstanding)

3. Very strong with only some minor weaknesses (Excellent)

4. Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses (Very Good)

5. Strong but with at least one moderate weakness (Good)

6. Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses (Satisfactory)

7. Some strengths but with at least one major weakness (Fair)

8. A few strengths and a few major weaknesses (Marginal)

9. Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses (Poor)

Additional information for your consideration (from NIH):

Overall Impact and review Criteria. Reviewers consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit and give a separate score for each.

Reviewers provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the    project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact.   For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in

the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical

capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims

change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early-Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and

training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that     have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators   have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical  practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?