Introduction: Fear of Uncertainty—Enter at Your Own Risk

Abstract

Beginnings are some of the most confused, exciting, overwhelming, daunting times you will encounter when starting your research program. But the beginning is set even further back than most realize. This process necessarily starts from an idea, the zygote of a project nestled in your brain.

Appendices

*Addendum: Revising an Application

Many investigators are not awarded on their first attempt, especially when the NIH budget is restricted, as in recent years. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how to respond when you are preparing a revision or resubmission.

Criticism is a necessary part of growth, but sometimes it is hard to get past the initial sting. To move forward with your grant application, you must be able to accept the criticism and respond to the comments constructively, either in refutation or agreement. Do not allow a defensive reaction to inspire an arrogant response. If you portray these negative attitudes in the revised grant, especially through a written response or on a professional letterhead, they can damage your acceptability and haunt you for years in unexpected ways.

Strive for clarity and sincerity in your responses. You will have one page to respond to the reviewer’s comments, labeled as your Introduction. However, you are still limited to 12 pages for your Specific Aims and Approach, so you cannot expand on it if you are already at the limit, only replace or revise. If you do not agree with the reviewers, be prepared to defend your work. Remember that you are the PI on this project. You have done the work to bring this application together. Proceed respectfully, with grace and honor. Delete words that reveal uncertainty from your response, such as “may,” “might,” “could,” etc. Confidence can make all the difference in how someone reads your response, and by showing your own commitment to the project, you demonstrate your strength and inspire the reviewers assigned to your study section to feel more positive toward your work.

*Addendum: Sample R01 and Letters of Support (See Below)

To serve as a sample of the tools and methods we discuss throughout this guide, we have included a successful R01 grant that was awarded after one resubmission. This particular grant scored well with the NIH when it was first reviewed. However, the budget restrictions and percentile funding prevented the grant from being funded. The investigator resubmitted the grant to address the reviewers’ points and the revision scored within the funding range. The letters of support that accompanied this grant application are also included to portray how the information and tone may vary depending on the role of the supporter.

Authentication of Research Materials

It should be noted that the NIH released their update regarding a separate Authentication document in January of 2016. As such, this grant does not include that document. It does, however, include relevant information within the approach section. Transparency goes hand in hand with clarity. With these goals in mind, an investigator can write strong grants that improve the quality of research in the long run.