Research Affairs: Researcher's Alert for June 27, 2016

You are Invited! "Understanding the Code Requirements and Putting Them into Practice for Lab Safety" by Brett McPherson and Tim Bradfield

Sandra Figueroa — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:31:17 -0700

Research Affairs would like to invite you to the July 12 Lunch Seminar:

Understanding the Code Requirements and Putting Them into Practice for Lab Safety

Learn best practices to minimize personal injury, property loss, fines and liability in your laboratory. See attached flyer for more about this comprehensive presentation by Brett McPherson and Tim Bradfield.

The seminar will be held in the Research Affairs main conference room from 12-1pm. Physicians attending this session will earn CME.

You must register to receive credit and so we can have lunch ready for you. Seating is limited.

Please click link Register

L:cation: Research Affairs Main Conference Room, 24887 Taylor Street, Suite 201P

NIH CSR Insider's Guide to Peer Review for Applicants

Fri, 27 May 2016 13:01:03 -0700

Belowis an article published in NIH's Center for Scientific Review Peer Review Notes (May 2016) which contains valuable tips for applicants.

To help new and established applicants submit better applications, CSR asked current and recent study section chairs to share their personal insights on producing a highly competitive NIH grant application. They responded with great enthusiasm.

Don’t jump too fast into writing your application: Since the most critical parts are the summary and specific aims sections, write a one-page summary page with specific aims first and share it with someone who is experienced, has their own funding or—ideally—someone who has served on a study section. If you can’t wow them, start again and use the time you saved to come up with some fresh ideas.

Propose something significant: It is a real turn-off to read an application that is basically a re-hash of a previous project with a new issue. The same goes for “me too” research. Identify an area of current controversy and importance within your field. Make it something that would interest more people than you and your coworkers. Will it be important to clinicians or other investigators? Are you dealing with key questions or controversies in the field?

Good ideas don’t always sell themselves: Tell me why it’s important up front in the background section, and I’ll be ready to roll. Tell me what’s known and what isn’t known and how, after you complete your studies, you’ll move the field forward or answer important questions. A lot of people really are unaware of how absolutely important it is to tell the reviewer from the beginning why it’s worth doing. If you’re seeking an incremental advance over what’s known, it’s essential to justify it.

Make it exciting: I love to see fresh, well-supported ideas that have a good hypothesis behind them that could really open up an area. And I find it both exciting and intellectually stimulating to encounter new approaches to major problems and research that could advance both clinical and basic science. Even if it’s somewhat high risk, if it comes with a good hypothesis and you can test it, I’d find it very exciting.

Probe for mechanisms and seek new models: We need to know how something happens—not just what happens. With this knowledge we can affect outcomes and design something to prevent something from happening. If you don’t know what’s happening on the bench, you’re not going to move to the bedside with any reproducible or knowledgeable treatment.

Avoid proposing to "collect more data": It might help you to set up the system, but if it is not critical to fundamental understanding, do not dwell on it. Although some experiments might take a lot of time to perform, they will not necessarily qualify as specific aims.

Be very clear and very concise about what you want to do, why it’s important, and what you expect to get out of it. Keeping it clear doesn’t mean doing away with complexity. Just make sure your general sense and key questions come across very clearly throughout your proposal.

Don’t assume too much: Not all reviewers will have the same in-depth, highly expert, knowledge you do. Avoid any unnecessary technical jargon, and write your application assuming it will be reviewed by intelligent scientists who have a breadth of knowledge around your area. So consider getting a researcher at your institution who isn’t an expert in your field to read your application and tell you how well it flows.

Be brief with stuff everyone knows: Lots of people go too far describing routine laboratory methods, which just take up space and really distract reviewers. It gives the message that the applicant isnot really as organized as they should be. New investigators, however, should make a little more effort to show that the techniques they proposed to use are within their capabilities.

Let your light shine: Don’t be bashful in telling reviewers your important strengths both in your biosketch and in relevant parts of your application.

Don’t be overly ambitious: Trying to cover too much territory with one application is perhaps the most common mistake applicants make.

Don’t overstate the significance of your research: It’s great if you can say your results could one day have an impact on treating or preventing disease. But don’t promise more than you can deliver. You really need to make more than a general case for significance. Explain the specific significance of the particular question you’re asking and how your results may fill important technical or knowledge gaps or otherwise impact your field.

Aim each aim: Lay out the rationale for each aim. Spend time on the Expected Outcomes, Data Interpretation, Pitfalls, and Contingencies section for each of them. The “expected outcomes” section shows you’ve got a logical strategy. The section on Data Interpretation gives insight into your depth of understanding the problem. The Pitfalls section shows how familiar you are with the proposed techniques and methodologies. Finally, in discussing alternative strategies, you can give us confidence you are able to deal with the problems that arise when experiments don’t work as expected.

Make your aims sing and harmonize: Quickly lay out the broad context, the scientific question to be addressed, including its significance, and exactly how you propose to advance understanding of your problem. Craft your aims carefully so reviewers will see both their individual and synergistic worth.

Pull it together: At the end of your research strategy section, have a succinct, one paragraph summary of what you intend to do, how you intend to do it and what it is going to tell you. Write it like a manuscript abstract. It is really helpful at the very end if I can get the take home message.

Focus your preliminary data: Insert a very succinct paragraph to explain what the preliminary data really tell you and how they show the feasibility of your proposed research. Make your application compelling by citing preliminary or prior work that shows the feasibility of each of your aims. Also, don’t assume your reviewers will remember all your preliminary data from the significance section. If you have a lot, you may want to briefly refer to a key bit in your research strategy section.

Sleep on it: After you’ve written your application,reflect on the details and the big picture. Shedding unnecessary details and presenting a broader view of your proposed research may make it more exciting, particularly to reviewers who are not over-the-top experts in your field.

Don’t test the waters to see how reviewers like your initial ideas or let them find the limitations for you. Find the limitations yourself and discuss them in the application.

Don’t cram your application like a suitcase: I cringe when I open up an application that is wall-to-wall words. I also have a difficult time with numbered references (because they require readers to constantly flip back to the reference section) and statements such as “See the reprint in the appendix for details.” I love to see spaces between paragraphs, spaces between sections, and figure legends I don’t need to bring up the PDF magnification to 200x to read. Try writing your application without using the maximal margins and smallest allowable font.

Proofread your application: Better yet, have someone else proofread it!

Know your audience and pitch your application to it: Explore CSR’s study sections in your area. After checking out the guidelines and rosters online, request one you think could best review your application. Contact one of CSR’s scientific review officers if you are unsure.

Seek guidance from NIH program directors before and after your reviews: They can help you focus your proposed research, understand your reviews and guide your next steps.

The key word is persistence: Half the applications reviewed are not discussed. So don’t despair. You’re in good company. Go through your critiques with your investigators. If there’s a fatal flaw, stand back and then decide the best route to take next time. But usually the weaknesses are fixable. Make a stronger application, and re-submit.

School of Dentistry 2016 FIT Requests for Applications Released

Sherie Donahue — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:58:19 -0700

The Dean of Loma Linda University School of Dentistry (LLUSD) and the Associate Dean for Research (CDR) are pleased to announce the 2016-17 LLUSD Faculty Interdisciplinary Translational Research Grant.

Purpose and Objectives

This grant is to foster collaborative translational dental research that has the potential to:

Augment prevention strategies in dentistry
Improve delivery of patient care
Treat or cure major oral diseases

It is hoped that the successful proposal will be a springboard for application for extramural grant funding opportunities.

2016 GRASP Request for Applications Released

Sherie Donahue — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:38:17 -0700

Grants for Research and School Partnerships (GRASP)

A key goal of the institutional strategic plan for research, endorsed by the LLU Board of Trustees, is to expand the population of faculty involved in extramurally funded research. One mechanism for meeting that objective is to encourage faculty from different backgrounds and capabilities to collaborate in the design of innovative, interdisciplinary research proposals.

Research Affairs is pleased to announce the Request for Application for the 2016 Grants for Research and School Partnerships (GRASP) program. These awards will provide support for new investigators from different schools to cooperate in pioneering research projects. The intent of the GRASP awards is to create a training ground for collaborative partnerships that will have the capability to apply for new extramural grant applications. More information can be found on the GRASP page.

GRASP Letters of Intent due by Monday, September 19, 2016 5:00 PM
GRASP Proposal Submissions due by Monday, October 17, 2016, 5:00 PM

2016 GCAT Request for Applications Released

Basic Sciences Administration — Tue, 10 May 2016 13:48:10 -0700

Grants to Promote Collaborative and Translational Research (GCAT)

The Office of the Associate Dean of Basic Science and Translational Research is pleased to announce the fifth annual administration of Grants to Promote Collaborative and Translational Research (GCAT). These grants are designed for teams of basic and clinical scientists, who will work together to develop insights and approaches to clinically-relevant issues that have the potential to make a difference in the lives of patients. In addition, these awards will promote collaborations between clinical and basic scientists within the School of Medicine, and allow the awardees to obtain preliminary data that will help them compete successfully for external funding. Funds from the School of Medicine are to be matched 1:1 by the clinical department, for a total award of up to $75,000 to be spent over a two-year funding period.

GCAT Letters of Intent due by August 15, 2016, 5:00 PM
GCAT Proposal Submissions due by September 12, 2016, 5:00 PM

For faster IRB approval, answer top 4 common questions at IRB meetings

Anu Diekmann — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:48:56 -0700

In case you missed the presentation (Research Affairs “Lunch & Learn,” April 5) by Dr. Travis Losey, IRB Chair, on “Controversies at the IRB,” here are the top four questions asked at IRB meetings:

Is the study ethical (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice)?
Are subjects appropriately informed of the nature of the study as well as its risks and benefits?
Are applicable federal regulations addressed (i.e. Investigational New Drug)?
Are institutional policies followed (billing, collaboration with support services)?

To avoid having your study tabled, be sure that your IRB submission answers the questions above. For copies of Dr. Losey’s presentation powerpoint, contact Anu Diekmann at x86215.

July 27 IRB meeting cancelled

Anu Diekmann — Thu, 05 May 2016 08:16:00 -0700

The only IRB meeting in July will be held on 7/13, with the deadline on 7/01. The second meeting of the month is cancelled due to scheduling issues. Plan accordingly and submit renewals early so they don’t expire. Feel free to call the Investigators Help Desk at x43042 for any questions.

AAMC Grant Writers Coaching Workshop

AAMC — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:59:13 -0700

September 15, 2016
Hyatt Regency San Antonio Riverwalk
San Antonio, TX

No one gets their research funded without writing a successful grant. Among the most arduous of tasks, it is also daunting, time-consuming and sadly, minority faculty members experience a lower level of success. According to an article in Nature News published 11/17/15, “minority researchers in the United States consistently win NIH funding at lower rates than their peers.”

The AAMC has identified a solution and we are eager to welcome your participation at the Grant Writers Coaching Group for NIH Awards, September 15, in San Antonio. This workshop offers hands-on guidance as well as ongoing support through peer-review and coaching groups designed specifically to strengthen your proposal.

The AAMC Grant Writer’s Workshop Improves Outcomes

Here’s how a 2015 participant described his experience, “I have been so enriched by this process that I have started a writing group in my Division with 6-8 other faculty. All feel that participating in the group is improving their grants and grantsmanship. Again thanks for all of your insights and constructive criticisms. I truly appreciate your investment in my success.”

We offer this learning experience to you with every confidence that you, your research and your institution, will benefit from mastering the details to prepare a successful K or R NIH Grant Proposal.

Deadline: You must apply by June 29 to attend the Grant Writers Coaching Group for NIH Awards.

Participation is limited and the deadline is approaching fast!

If you are actively writing or considering applying for a K or R NIH Grant proposal, Apply Now!

For more information, contact:
Program Information: Tai Conley
Conference Logistics: Shayna Kritz
Conference Registration: Debra K. Hollins

Science: NIH gets $2 billion boost in Senate spending bill

Science magazine — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:02:08 -0700

A Senate spending panel today approved a $2 billion boost in 2017 for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or a 6.2% increase to $34.1 billion. It's the second year in a row that the Senate has slated the agency for a large increase after 12 years of flat budgets.

For more information, see the full Science Magazine article at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/nih-gets-2-billion-boost-senate-spending-bill