Grant submission day.
May. 5th, 2010 10:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaMy grant is technically due to NIH on Friday, but I am planning to submit it around noon today. If there are any issues with the submission and processing, that will give us time to withdraw and resubmit. Plus I just don't think I can polish it much more.
You know what, though, it is hard to let it out of my fingers. This is my last chance with this project; if it doesn't get funded this time around, I can't resubmit. My research plans for the next eight years hang in the balance here, because if I don't get to do this study I don't get to do the larger five-year study this one is supposed to set up. Is it any wonder that I keep reading and rereading and reviewing and second-guessing, looking for any tiny hole that might make a reviewer stumble?
Everything but the research plan is now in the hands of my grant administrator. I took a printout of the research plan to a coffee shop this morning and gave it one last close reading. I have a bunch of tiny wording changes and additional clauses to put in. But then I'm calling it done, and telling my grant administrator to push the button that sends it through its chain of local signing officials and on its way to NIH.
I don't think I've ever explained here what all goes into a federal research grant, so - in part because I'm still not quite ready to force myself to finish - I'm putting a list under the cut of everything I'm shipping off to NIH.
Modular budget. By NIH standards, this grant involves a trifling amount of money - $150,000 in direct costs for each of three years. Because the amounts involved are so small, I don't have to itemize my budgeted expenses. I just ask for however many $25,000 "modules" per year. I had to do an itemized budget for the university, though, so the modular budget format doesn't actually save me any time.
Personnel justification. A list of all the people expected to work on the grant, from me all the way down to the offsite expert consultants who plan to put in eight days of work over the course of the grant. For each person, their amount of effort, project role, and qualifications.
Consortium agreement. An extensive document describing exactly what my subcontractor, the AIDS Service Organization (ASO) which will serve as one of my recruitment and performance sites, will do for the grant.
Consortium personnel justification. A list of the people at the ASO who are expected to work on the grant, their amounts of effort, project roles, and qualifications.
Biosketches. For each of the "key personnel" (me, my coinvestigator, two project consultants, and the head of the ASO), a document similar to a mini CV. It includes education and employment history, selected publications, other research support, and a "personal statement" explaining why we are the right people to do this study.
Introduction to the revised application. The single most important component of a resubmission, this is a one-page letter explicitly addressing my previous reviewers' concerns and explaining how I have changed the application in response to their critiques.
Specific Aims. A one-page document explaining what the project is intended to accomplish, with mini explanations of why it is important, how it will be accomplished, and what I hope to achieve. The members of the review committee who aren't assigned to be my primary reviewers will probably only read the Specific Aims, so this document has to be persuasive as all hell.
Research Plan. Twelve pages long, the Research Plan justifies the significance and innovation of my proposal and explains the "approach," i.e., what we will do and why. This is the part that has dramatically changed under the new application rules, both in length (25 pages to 12) and in format. It's anybody's guess whether I've done it "right," because we don't know how reviewers will react to the new rules. Fun times!
Facilities and Resources. This section describes where I plan to do the work and what resources are available to support it (patients, equipment, consultation services, etc.). Because I'm an Early Stage Investigator, this section also describes what my department and university are doing to support me and encourage my development.
Abstract. A 30-line description of the research project, which will become public information if I get funded.
Project Narrative. Two to three sentences in layperson's terms about the study's potential impact on public health.
Appendices. The questionnaires, interviews, and screening tools I have developed for this program of research.
Human Subjects. A thorough description of the human subjects I intend to enroll, the information I will collect about them, the potential risks they may incur, and the steps I will take to reduce or ameliorate those risks. Includes a plan for how I will monitor their safety and well-being during the study.
Inclusion of Women and Minorities. A justification that my plan for enrollment is fair and appropriately inclusive.
Inclusion of Children. An justification for why I am not including children.
Enrollment Table. A chart of anticipated enrollment broken down by race and gender.
Letters of support. A letter, on official letterhead, from each of my offsite consultants and from the director of each of my recruitment sites. These letters express how overjoyed they are to cooperate with my study and how sure they are that (a) they will be able to help me, and (b) the study will be awesome.
Cover letter. A letter from me to the Center for Scientific Review at NIH, explaining that this is a resubmission of a former application and discussing where I think it ought to be reviewed.
My grant administrator has prepared some other sections - forms, assurances, financial documentation - but that's stuff I never see. This list just accounts for my part.
Okay, enough stalling. Back to making those tiny edits, and then done.
You know what, though, it is hard to let it out of my fingers. This is my last chance with this project; if it doesn't get funded this time around, I can't resubmit. My research plans for the next eight years hang in the balance here, because if I don't get to do this study I don't get to do the larger five-year study this one is supposed to set up. Is it any wonder that I keep reading and rereading and reviewing and second-guessing, looking for any tiny hole that might make a reviewer stumble?
Everything but the research plan is now in the hands of my grant administrator. I took a printout of the research plan to a coffee shop this morning and gave it one last close reading. I have a bunch of tiny wording changes and additional clauses to put in. But then I'm calling it done, and telling my grant administrator to push the button that sends it through its chain of local signing officials and on its way to NIH.
I don't think I've ever explained here what all goes into a federal research grant, so - in part because I'm still not quite ready to force myself to finish - I'm putting a list under the cut of everything I'm shipping off to NIH.
Modular budget. By NIH standards, this grant involves a trifling amount of money - $150,000 in direct costs for each of three years. Because the amounts involved are so small, I don't have to itemize my budgeted expenses. I just ask for however many $25,000 "modules" per year. I had to do an itemized budget for the university, though, so the modular budget format doesn't actually save me any time.
Personnel justification. A list of all the people expected to work on the grant, from me all the way down to the offsite expert consultants who plan to put in eight days of work over the course of the grant. For each person, their amount of effort, project role, and qualifications.
Consortium agreement. An extensive document describing exactly what my subcontractor, the AIDS Service Organization (ASO) which will serve as one of my recruitment and performance sites, will do for the grant.
Consortium personnel justification. A list of the people at the ASO who are expected to work on the grant, their amounts of effort, project roles, and qualifications.
Biosketches. For each of the "key personnel" (me, my coinvestigator, two project consultants, and the head of the ASO), a document similar to a mini CV. It includes education and employment history, selected publications, other research support, and a "personal statement" explaining why we are the right people to do this study.
Introduction to the revised application. The single most important component of a resubmission, this is a one-page letter explicitly addressing my previous reviewers' concerns and explaining how I have changed the application in response to their critiques.
Specific Aims. A one-page document explaining what the project is intended to accomplish, with mini explanations of why it is important, how it will be accomplished, and what I hope to achieve. The members of the review committee who aren't assigned to be my primary reviewers will probably only read the Specific Aims, so this document has to be persuasive as all hell.
Research Plan. Twelve pages long, the Research Plan justifies the significance and innovation of my proposal and explains the "approach," i.e., what we will do and why. This is the part that has dramatically changed under the new application rules, both in length (25 pages to 12) and in format. It's anybody's guess whether I've done it "right," because we don't know how reviewers will react to the new rules. Fun times!
Facilities and Resources. This section describes where I plan to do the work and what resources are available to support it (patients, equipment, consultation services, etc.). Because I'm an Early Stage Investigator, this section also describes what my department and university are doing to support me and encourage my development.
Abstract. A 30-line description of the research project, which will become public information if I get funded.
Project Narrative. Two to three sentences in layperson's terms about the study's potential impact on public health.
Appendices. The questionnaires, interviews, and screening tools I have developed for this program of research.
Human Subjects. A thorough description of the human subjects I intend to enroll, the information I will collect about them, the potential risks they may incur, and the steps I will take to reduce or ameliorate those risks. Includes a plan for how I will monitor their safety and well-being during the study.
Inclusion of Women and Minorities. A justification that my plan for enrollment is fair and appropriately inclusive.
Inclusion of Children. An justification for why I am not including children.
Enrollment Table. A chart of anticipated enrollment broken down by race and gender.
Letters of support. A letter, on official letterhead, from each of my offsite consultants and from the director of each of my recruitment sites. These letters express how overjoyed they are to cooperate with my study and how sure they are that (a) they will be able to help me, and (b) the study will be awesome.
Cover letter. A letter from me to the Center for Scientific Review at NIH, explaining that this is a resubmission of a former application and discussing where I think it ought to be reviewed.
My grant administrator has prepared some other sections - forms, assurances, financial documentation - but that's stuff I never see. This list just accounts for my part.
Okay, enough stalling. Back to making those tiny edits, and then done.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 04:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 06:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 08:48 pm (UTC)I am nervous about my first stab at this sort of thing even though I'm only going to be looking for about $10,000.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 12:43 am (UTC)