NIH Panel Discussion-December 13, 2019

School of Engineering Research Panel Discussion

New Investigators and Early Career Awards NIH Panel Discussion Date: December 13, 2019

Moderator: Candan Tamerler

Welcome to the SOE Research events series targeting agency specific tips. Our 2nd event will cover the NIH`s early career and new investigator awards.

Today`s panel was initiated by the SOE ad-hoc advisory committee members with NIH focus. Our panelists review proposals at NIH as regular members across different directorates.

The goal of this panel is to help new and early investigators prepare for and receive more impactful funding. There are many opportunities offered by NIH for both young investigators and senior investigators who have not previously received NIH funding.

In addition to our panelists today, Steve Soper, Doug Wright, and Andrew Godwin serve on one of the ad-hoc advisory committees. These committees are working to promote collaboration across the school and departments, and to support research and career opportunities. Due to their prior commitments, they could not be with us today.

Panelists

  1. Peter Rowe, KUMC
    • Dr. Rowe is a professor of nephrology at the Jared Grantham Kidney Institute, and a full member of the University of Kansas Cancer Center Drug Discovery, Delivery & Experimental Therapeutics.
    • Dr. Rowe served on NIH study sections for National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive & Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) since 2005.
  2. Bill Picking, KU
    • Dr. Picking is a Foundation Distinguished Professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, and Director of the Kansas Vaccine Institute
    • Dr. Picking has served as well as chaired several NIH study sections for decades across different institutes including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
  3. Paulette Spencer, KU
    • Dr. Spencer is the Dean E. Ackers Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and the Director of the Institute for Bioengineering Research (IBER).
    • Dr. Spencer served as a regular and ad-hoc member of several NIH study sections across different institutes including serving as chair on NIH study sections for National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)..
  4. Lisa Friis, KU
    • Dr. Friis is a professor of Mechanical Engineering.
    • Dr.Friis served as both a regular and ad-hoc member at NIH SBIR and STTIR panels across Institutes.
  5. Candan Tamerler, KU
    • Dr. Tamerler is the Wesley G. Cramer Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Associate Dean for Research in the School of Engineering.
    • Dr. Tamerler has been serving as a regular member for National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research (NIAMS) since 2019 and served as an ad hoc member on several study sections across Institutes since 2014.

Please tell us about your NIH experiences:

Peter Rowe

  • Dr. Rowe has received continuous NIH funding from a number of institutes including the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).
  • Dr. Rowe served on NIH study sections for National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive & Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) since 2005. He has served on both special emphasis and ad hoc review panels since 2005, has been on larger P30 and P50 grants as well.
  • In his experience, reviewers are given specific grants and research modules to assess, and then are discussed in their entirety.

Bill Picking

  • Dr. Picking`s research involves basic mechanisms to pathogenesis, and exploring ways to fight infectious diseases. Much of his funding and reviewing has been through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). He has experience reviewing U01 and R01 grants, and has also served as chair on R21 panels.
  • He has received R01 grants, R21 grants, T32 training grants, an R29 grant (no longer exist), as well as funding from the DOD and the Gates Foundation.

Paulette Spencer

  • Dr.Spencer`s research is predominantly in biomaterials, focusing on how to repair and reconstruct tissues. Much of her previous funding has been through NIH and includes T32, R13 (short-term training), R01, R15, R29 and RR (major instrumentation) grants. She has also served as mentor on various career development grants, e.g. K25, K23. Supported by biomaterials and bio-interfaces, nanotechnology, a mix of NIH institutes have supported her!
  • Some reviewers are asked to review very diverse opportunities, there will always be gaps in their understanding.
  • Reviewers will go to references, not good to see a lot of inaccuracies in references and will affect the overall impact score. The grant must tell a clear, compelling story.
  • Grant proposals require a very high level of accuracy and sophistication, so start early!

Lisa Friis

  • Dr. Friis is the recipient of several NSF and NIH SBIR awards. She has served as a reviewer on special emphasis panels, R15 and R21 grants, and on an ad-hoc basis for SBIR’s.
  • There are no study sections for SBIR panels, so panelists are added as needed for reviews.

 

Please tell us about the NIH Mission

Peter Rowe

  • One of NIH’s primary objectives is to fund research that will have a major impact on diseases and the populations affected by them.
  • Chronic kidney disease, for example, is costing billions of dollars a year. The disease progresses chronically and people are placed on dialysis, so they are looking for medications to help control various aspects of the disease.
    • Some individuals have dialysis machines at home, but many still have to travel long distances. Any possibility of engineering and mechanical kidney could be very significant.
    • Growing cells to make an artificial kidney is very complex. There is great potential collaboration between biomedical researchers and engineers here.
    •  We were approached by a small business with a device to measure the size of the nanoparticles which cause the calcification and inflammation in kidney disease, and analyze these nanoparticles in more detail. This could hopefully be a way of monitoring the disease and give early warning of its progression.

Bill Picking

  • Preparing program grant proposals with Dr. Spencer over the past 3 or 4 years has shown me how biomaterials affect colonization of bacteria.
  • There are great opportunities for innovative collaboration between biologist and engineers. They think differently and can combine complementary perspectives to benefic public health.
  • It’s good to know that not all research is necessarily hypothesis driven. Sometimes it is more goal oriented. Blend of product and hypothesis driven research sometimes.
  • Applied side of research is often when engineers are involved. It’s great if engineers can partner with biologists to craft the writing so that it is understandable by biologists. Some more engineering-based proposals have expanded my understanding of engineering concepts like sheer stress, etc.

Paulette Spencer

  • NIH is always looking at human disease diagnosis and management.
  • I’d like to reemphasize Peter and Bill’s comments that engineers do tend to think a little differently than biologists. This collaboration is an opportunity to learn biological “jargon”, and recognize that you may use language that is also less familiar to biologists.
  • My background is diverse with engineering, biology, and chemistry. Working with Bill, Peter, and some fundamental biologists, we noticed that we used the same words to mean different things. The same terminology can mean different things to one microbiologist working on kidney disease vs another microbiologist working on lung disease.
  • I’ve had to ask Bill for a dictionary for some of the terminology I’ve encountered!
  • The overwhelming goal of NIH is diagnosis, treatment, and management of incurable diseases, and to open new avenues for the applied and translational aspects of this.
    •    One area engineers can miss is early diagnosis of disease. Early events can help to understand and characterize from the subatomic level up, and are important to realize when exploring new opportunities.
    •    Proposals must clearly speak to the NIH mission of new discoveries, new ways of treating and curing human diseases.

Lisa Friis

  • At NSF, you can submit a proposal as single investigator. This is not seen as much in NIH proposals. It’s important to have collaborators. This is a good way to get your research out.
  • Market your research in a way to be acquired by someone or picked up by a company with goal of helping people. SBIR proposals are reviewed by folks in industry, not only scientists.

Comments by Moderator Candan Tamerler

  • NIH study sections will include individuals who know the fundamentals, equations, and software. Every critical aspect will be discussed at the study sections, so they need to be addressed appropriately.
  • It is not common practice for NIH grants to have only one PI, it is common to have multiple PIs with complementary expertise. Having collaborative history among the PIs and team members received very positive.

Could you summarize the Definition and Difference between Early-stage Investigator and New Investigator

Bill Picking

  • Early stage investigators are just as they sound. These are investigators who have completed a terminal research degree or medical residency in the past 10 years.
  • For the NIH, the title of new investigator in essence has more to do with whether you have served as PI on an R01 before.
  • It’s important to note that funding percentiles can differ at institutes for new and early stage investigators. For example, an R01 may be in the 14th percentile for investigators who have received prior major funding (regardless of career stage) vs in 18th for new investigators.
  • The best collaborators are those who bring something new to the table. Don’t only collaborate with someone with the same expertise as you.
  • At NIH, modular budgets are $250,000 per year. You don’t have to do a modular grant. For anything between $250,00/year and $500,000/year you simply have to supply a detailed budget (not a modular one). You can also ask for special permission to have a budget greater than $500,000/year.

Peter Rowe

  • If you have completed a PhD and are doing a post doc is to consider a KO1 or K21 award. These are top notch awards for future research, and an accelerated way of establishing yourself.
  • Another possible method is the RO3 mechanism. This would give you 2 years to elevate your research, after which you should have the funding to enable preliminary data for an RO1 application. This is also looked at favorably by NIH. In the UK this is called an MRC fellowship.
  • Both KO1 and KO8’s are for junior investigators.

Paulette Spencer

  • There are 27 institutes under NIH umbrella.
  • KO8 awards characteristically require a clinical degree, whereas K25’s are targeted more toward quantitative sciences and engineering.
  • To reiterate, if you are an early stage investigator in the 10 year time frame since terminal degree completion, look at these K award opportunities.
  • For the RO3’s, many institutes limit these strictly to early stage investigators. It’s good to understand which opportunities are accessible to early, new, and more senior investigators.
  • NIH directors, program officers and scientific research officers want to encourage the infusion of new and diverse ideas and thus, applications from new investigators are usually positively received. They are still highly competitive, but funding levels may be more in your favor..
  • You can’t go backwards, so once you receive an RO1 you become ineligible for other awards. Look at what you’re eligible for now, take advantage of what you can, and move forward. Think of RO1 as a premier grant, but don’t only consider the R01.
  • K25’s and K23’s require specific degrees, but if eligible, consider these! They can be a way to grow your career at NIH.
  • Build a network of potential supporters, and get your name out there.

Lisa Friis

  • Is it helpful to be a new investigator or PI on an SBIR?
    • I would suggest if you are translating research to a company with another PI, still help write the grant proposal but be a coinvestigator. Don’t expect your company person to write these for you. These must have elements of NIH grants and commercial aspects of the company.

Comments by Moderator Candan Tamerler

  • There is a big emphasis on preliminary data at NIH. This is different for NSF applications. Showing extensively your preliminary data at an NSF application could be a major issue whereas it is necessary for NIH. Appreciate the differences.
  • Start collaborating early on preliminary data to show that you are following through with plans.
  • For early or new investigators, it’s common to see the urge to pursue R01’, however R03 or R21 or consider trailblazer mechanisms could be better fits for people who never received an NIH grant.

Additional Comments

Bill Picking

  • Preliminary data could be seen negatively at NIH if it does not support your premise: what are you building on? Make sure to state your premise. It should be built on literature and preliminary data.
  • It’s important to include preliminary data, but R21 reviewers are instructed not to count someone down for lack of preliminary data. Bad preliminary data can be counted down on, however.
  • R21’s are a good way to get your foot in the door. Many people here could have something to add to an NIH proposal. If you can bring something to the table, it will help get your foot in the door.
  • There is also value to serving on a study section. This is a good learning experience.

Peter Rowe

  • Engineering can interface with the biosciences through hypothesis-driven research, discovery, and problem solving.
  • DNA sequencing was manually counted in the past. Engineering helped to automate it, another engineer improved it, and then the human genome project came about. Engineering is great for problem solving things like this.

Candan Tamerler

  • Generally study sections look at whether proposals are solving a scientific problem or are a platform technology. This should be clearly identified in the writing so it’s easier for the reviewer to understand the purpose. If it’s a platform technology, think about what the next 10 years will look like.

Since our Faculty is more familiar with NSF applications, how would you describe the differences between NSF and NIH?

Lisa Friis

  • On NIH panels, about 20 people are at a table facing each other, 3 may have read the whole proposal, and everyone votes on it privately. You have the most influence through the 3 who have read it, but you have a chance to talk about it still.
  • In NSF panels, the readers have more influence. The Aims page is be a big influence on NIH panels.

Peter Rowe

  • The readers will be dealing with many grants at a time, so it’s important to have a clear, simple Aims section is are immediately understandable. Simplicity is appreciated.
  • If your application is very weighty it could still be good, but may be unfunded if difficult to understand. Some applications are naturally complicated, but try to simplify as best as possible.

Bill Picking

  • In my institute, generally there are three people reviewing, so keep in mind in the study section you’re writing for and the 24-26 others on the panel who all vote on the final score.
  • Experts will be from many areas and different levels of complexity of research, but everyone needs to understand what you’re proposing. Even if they’re not an immediate expert in your field, the panelists need to understand. One reviewer needs to be your advocate, so have a good aims page to increase your chance of being funded.

Paulette Spencer

  • I encourage you to study the NIH website. Depending on the institute, there are often examples of funded grants. This can show you what a particular institute may be looking for.
  • NIH RePORTER can access the abstracts for funded grants. It has a wealth of information available if you take the time to study it.

Bill Picking

  • A non-voting advocate is great to have. Every program officer in my past has been great.
  • Success is also about submitting the right number of proposals. Ideally, if you are writing good proposals, your number of funded grants should match the funded ones in your institute. Keep submitting!

Final Comments

  • Figures are good and flow schemes are good. Make the reviewers’ lives easy and you’ll be rewarded for it.
  • Individuals can also apply to be early career reviewers depending on how far one is in their career.

Peter Rowe

  • Make sure to include pitfalls when ascribing how to do the studies. It is important to discuss possible issues and how to compensate if they arise.

Bill Picking

  • I agree. It may show up in review if you don’t discuss possible pitfalls.

Paulette Spencer

  • There are excellent resources through Office of Research. Reach out to Doug Bornemann if there are questions!
  • Make sure to have someone outside your field reading/reviewing applications. You need to know when something doesn’t make sense to someone outside your field as there will be reviewers in this situation too. Especially focus on your Aims page.

Lisa Friis

  • At NIH you have to speak about how you addressed the reviewer comments. You have 1 page to address them and state in the resubmission the changes you have made.
  • Resubmission rates are much higher, so it can be worth the effort.

Candan Tamerler

  • It is rare to see funding after first submission at NIH. So don`t get frustrated address the reviewer`s comments and resubmit your grant! It is actually a pretty good progress if your grant is discussed at the first application cycle.

Bill Picking

  • Don’t take reviews too personally. They are not a commentary on you directly. Reviewers are there to help you improve.

Overall Message

 

“Commit to Submit” and/when necessary “Revise and Re-Submit”