Bootcamp Details

WHO

Designed for those actively writing an R01 or similar submission for an upcoming grant deadline and the people who advise them.  

WHEN

This is a 4-part series.
Thursday, October 17, 24, 31 and November 7
2-4 pm ET
 

COST

The cost is $1,500 which includes Master the R Series on-demand course for one year. This course comes with the slides and manual used in this Bootcamp, as well as all the benefits of membership.

Takeaways

At the end of this 4-part training, you will:

  • Identify and employ crucial steps to take to prepare to write

  • Acquire key information about effective NIH writing strategies

  • Apply those strategies as you write and revise a draft of your submission

  • Utilize your skills to critique the work of others, which will lead to sharpening of your own skills

  • Develop better grantwriting skills that will carry forward on all submissions, whether to NIH or other funding agencies

  • Description formatted for CME application. We will provide a certificate of attendance upon request.

About

Chapter 1: Preparation

You have a cool idea for a research project, now what? Great science is necessary, but not sufficient, to funding success. Here, I discuss preparatory strategies that distinguish my applicants who are consistently more successful at NIH from those who are not. Tips include finding your niche in the funding portfolio, 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. Emphasis is placed on the importance of building a long-term relationship with the program officer.

About

Chapter 2: Specific Aims

The one-page Aims document is arguably the most important narrative section of an NIH submission. Reviewers begin to form their funding decision based on this single page. Attendees will be given examples of recently funded Aims documents in their entirety, including one funded in 2019. You will be given numerous examples of narrative overviews, “we propose” paragraphs, impact statements, and numbered aims from recently funded grant applications, as well as formats and templates to help with your writing. The training manual contains instructions, tips, samples, and a writing exercise that consists of a funded Aims page into which I have inserted mistakes I typically see from applicants, in order for attendees to practice editing. By the end of the training, you should feel skilled and confident to construct a highly polished Aims page for your own submissions.

About

Chapter 3: Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation)

Applicants often struggle to write the Significance and Innovation sections (which have no corresponding section in journal articles) and to distinguish between the two. I walk applicants through the writing of a strong Significance section, which includes disease burden, the new Rigor of Prior Research scoring criteria, and how your project will address the strengths and weaknesses of the prior research 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 numerous 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. The training manual is packed with instructions, tips, templates, recently funded samples, and exercises to help you edit and write more competitively.

About

Chapter 4: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach)

Human subjects project? Clinical trial? Neither? What does this have to do with writing the Approach section? Everything, from which type of funding opportunity announcement (and therefore instructions & scoring criteria), to how much (if any) of your content gets stripped out of the Approach and placed in the PHS Human Subjects & Clinical Trial Information Form – because as of January 2019, no “double listing” is allowed. I will help you determine what kind of project you are doing, what kind of FOA/instructions/scoring criteria you therefore follow, and which parts of the Human Subjects & Clinical Trial Form (if any) you fill out. Based on what goes in your Approach section as a result, I will help you understand how to write a winning Approach section – the section that typically receives the worst score, and the one that statistically correlates most closely with your Overall score. Emphasis will be placed on concrete ways to address reviewer comments of scoring criteria for Scientific Rigor and Consideration of Sex as a Biological Variable, including examples from recently funded grant applications on which I have worked.

Ideal for New NIH Applicants

Thorough. Personable delivery. Wonderful resources. Thank you for answering questions during the webinars (all the time) and by email. This training has made a huge difference to my grantsmanship for an R01...and taking the training one year ago (or so) rather than 4 months prior to submission date has been the right approach.

Janet Childerhose PhD, Research Assistant Professor

Top 5 Largest Cancer Hospital

Tremendously valuable, actionable content presented clearly and engagingly! Meg's experience-informed insights, specific recommendations, and illustrative examples are a proverbial gold mine for applicants, as well as those of us who support them. I anticipated that the bootcamp would be terrific, but it far exceeded even my very high expectations. I will be thrilled if we are successful in bringing the treasure trove of resources Meg offers to benefit investigators here. Many thanks to Meg for the opportunity to tune in today!

Anonymous PhD, Attending

University of California San Diego

This was a great insight, from someone who only assists with portions of grants! There's a high level of detail to appreciate from those who spend countless hours working on R-series and larger grants! Great training!

Anonymous PhD, Attending

I always learn something from Meg. It's been several years since I have written an application and the training did a wonderful job reorienting me to the process. I will be seeking additional resources from Meg's library as I prepare for a June deadline. Many thanks!

Anonymous PhD, Attending

Arizona State University

I have attended Dr. Bouvier's live bootcamps several times over the years, and each time I learn a new way how to improve the grant structure and provide more compelling applications. She continually updates the material and provides up-to-the-minute information that helps give you an edge over the competition.

Anonymous PhD, Attending

Integrated Managed Care Consortium

There were many things about ESI in particular that I was unaware of. Great use of time. Well organized and paced session. I plan to watch again in virtual form when I start writing.

Anonymous PhD, Attending

UT Southwestern

I am currently a trainee (resident physician), and this was extremely useful for me to learn about the general framework for R-series and K-series grants as this is not explicitly taught to us in medical school. I am sure I'll come back for future sessions to learn more about the details of grant writing, but this helped provide a strong foundation as I plan my scientific career.

Shawn Kim MD
Internal Medicine Specialist

University of California San Diego

This course was extremely helpful for orienting me to the basics of an R-series application so that I can better advise my faculty on how to pull together a competitive proposal. I appreciated having options of attending live (I attended 3/4 sessions on Zoom), watching the livestream recording later, or going at my own pace through the LMS virtual course (I did that for 1/4 sessions).

Sofia D'Ambrosio, PhD
Research Development Specialist

University of Massachusetts

Fantastic training - I continue to learn every time I view the recorded videos. Thank you much for this amazing resource.

Pranav Shivakumar, Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Director

BARC, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

The training and the tips/supporting documents are so helpful. I think I will use the entire training materials while drafting and editing my grants. The AIMS page chapter helped me kind of visualize my the major components and contents of the page and how economic use of space and effective formatting is important.

Tadesse F. Teferra, PhD, Food Scientist, Cereal Quality Lab

Texas A&M University

Experienced Applicants Find Value

“I got a lot of great ideas from this training, even though I got my first R01 back in the day (in the early 2000’s when the payline for my institute was 22%!). I have never adapted well to the removal of the background section, but now understand better the options of where to put that information. I LOVE the idea of having an overall introduction to the Approach section to let the reviewers know what is coming. I usually jump right into Aim 1. I will try the new idea next time. Also appreciated many other tips and information on NIH tools like Matchmaker, tools to find a study section, etc. Thanks so much for this training!”

“Old as I am, I am embarrassed at how much I did not know. I am very grateful for having had this opportunity. maybe things will get better re: submissions. one can always hope.” “It is particularly helpful for junior faculty, but there is plenty to take away even after close to 30 years of submitting (and getting sometimes) R01 applications.”

“Every R01 applicant needs to hear how important relationship with a PO is, and ways to go about finding the right match and building that relationship. This was not mentioned in other grant writing courses I attended. I’m going to try it, and hope it works… The writing tips were useful too. Great session overall. Thank you.