NIH Launch: A four-part webinar short course

NIH Launch: A four-part webinar short course


Designed for those preparing to write an R-series submission for an upcoming grant deadline, and the people who advise them.
Four webinars — available on demand
At the end of 5.5 hours of coursework, you will:

  1. Identify and employ crucial steps to take to prepare to write
  2. Acquire key information about effective NIH writing strategies
  3. Apply those strategies as you write and revise a draft of your submission
  4. Utilize your skills to critique the work of others, which will lead to sharpening of your own skills
  5. Develop better grantwriting skills that will carry forward on all submissions, whether to NIH or other funding agencies

(Description formatted for CME application.)


PREPARATION: Key Steps to Take Before You Write a Successful NIH Submission
90 mins View On Demand Now ($250 when purchased individually)

You have a cool idea for a research project, now what? I feel strongly that my most successful clients spend a lot of time on legwork before they write a submission. I will discuss strategies for optimizing success on your NIH submission, including finding your niche in the funding portfolio via the Reporter website, shopping around draft Aim(s) to multiple ICs to find the best possible fit, and discussing with an enthusiastic program officer your study design and optimal study section and FOA.

Preview an Excerpt of This Webinar:

SPECIFIC AIMS: How To Write The Most Important Page Of An NIH Submission
75 mins View On Demand Now ($250 when purchased individually)

The one-page Aims document is arguably the most important narrative section of an NIH submission. It is the first section I write, and the one that undergoes the most revisions. It must quickly convey what you are doing, why you are doing it, and the impact your results will have on clinical care. If you learn to write a well-honed Aims document, it will open the door to success in writing other sections, and in writing persuasively about your work in general. Attendees will be given examples of funded Aims documents as well as a version into which I have inserted mistakes I typically see from grantees, in order for you to practice editing.

Preview an Excerpt of This Webinar:

SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION: How to “Sell” Your Project to NIH Reviewers
75 mins View On Demand Now ($250 when purchased individually)

Grantees often struggle to write the Significance and Innovation sections (which have no corresponding section in journal articles) and to distinguish between the two. I will walk grantees through the writing of a strong Significance section, which includes disease burden, scientific premise, strengths & weaknesses of prior research, knowledge gap, and how your project will fill the knowledge gap and reduce disease burden. I will demonstrate how the Innovation section must drive home the competitive advantage over previous and current approaches. Because reviewers tend to skim text, I provide examples from recently funded grant applications on which I have worked of newspaper-style headers that help reviewers skim and grasp key concepts. Emphasis of this course is on ensuring that reviewers both in and outside your field are persuaded of the significance, innovation, and impact of your project. A discussion of the Scientific Premise (part of 2016 Rigor & Reproducibility scoring criteria) is discussed, in light of lessons learned from dozens of 2017 Summary Statements I have read. I provide funded examples and exercises to help you edit and write more competitively.

Preview an Excerpt of This Webinar:

APPROACH: How to Write The Section That Correlates Most Closely With Your Overall Score
90 mins View On Demand Now ($250 when purchased individually)

This section is based on the classic IMRAD writing style (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), which most researchers have used since their high school lab reports and continue to use in their publications. That said, it is not easy to write this section well: The Approach section typically receives the worst score, and it is the score that correlates most closely with the overall impact score. I will discuss strategies for structuring this important section. Emphasis will be placed on concrete ways to address reviewer comments of scoring criteria for Rigor and Transparency seen in 2017, including examples from recently funded grant applications on which I have worked. These scoring criteria within Approach include rigor, reproducibility, transparency, and sex & other biological variables. There is also an overview of the myriad clinical trial changes introduced in January 2018.

Preview an Excerpt of This Webinar:


There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to review “NIH Launch: A four-part webinar short course”