CLEVELAND – 91������Ʒ’s Office of Research is pleased to announce a workshop to help faculty enhance biomedical proposals directed to various agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.

Dr. Antonio Scarpa, renowned scientist and former director of the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR), will lead the workshop. Dr. Scarpa served as a director of the CSR at NIH from 2005 to 2011. CSR organizes the peer review groups that evaluate the majority of grant applications submitted to NIH. Dr. Scarpa played a significant role in helping NIH design and implement the first major changes to NIH peer review in 65 years. Between 1983 and 2003, he served as a permanent member of three NIH peer review committees, as well as a member of peer review committees for the American Heart Association.

The workshop will last approximately two hours and will cover the topics on the agenda below. Workshop offering dates will be in response to faculty needs. If you are interested or have any questions, please contact Joy Yard in the Office of Research at j.yard@csuohio.edu or 216-687-9364.

AGENDA

Research Applications for Federal Funding (NIH, NSF, DOD and DOE): An Interactive Workshop

Federal Laws and Process

• Fundamental Facts and Constraints
  • Appropriation
  • Departments
  • Federal Advisory Committees
  • Posting and Advertising
  • The View of Congress
• Difference in Budget, Appropriation, Review and Funding between NIH, NSF, DOD
• NIH Institutes and Centers
• Scientific Review Officers and Program Officers
• NIH review Structure: CSR, Institutes, IRGs and SRGs
• Ownership of Peer Review
• Program Announcements and Request for Applications (RFA)
• RFA, R01, R21, etc.
• Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs)
• 3 Main Platforms for Review
• Scoring and Percentiling
• Institutes and Advisory Committees (Councils)

Writing a Grant Application

• When to Apply
• Selecting a “Mechanism” R01, R29, RFA, etc.
• Selecting the Institute and Study Section
• Ensuring Review by the Appropriate Study Section or SEP
• Addressing Requests
• Successful Writing
• Impact and Significance
• Common Errors and Weaknesses
• Advice During Writing and Before Submitting
• Deadlines and Waivers

The Review

• The Panel
• Face to Face, Telepresence, Internet Assisted Review
• Preliminary Scores
• Posting Critiques and Scores

After the Review

• Contacts, Appeals and Resubmission
• The Revised Application
• Request for Different Institutes or Study Sections

Q & A and Individual Situations