Rule number one of writing: know your audience. So what is the NIH looking for when they review applications?

The NIH has five review criteria for investigator initiated grants:

Significance: ability of the project to improve health.  Key Question(s): Does your application address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Approach: feasibility of your methods and appropriateness of the budget. Key Question(s): Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?

Innovation: originality of your approach.  Key Question(s): Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?

Investigator: training and experience of investigators. Key Question(s): Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?

Environment: sustainability of facilities and adequacy of support from your institution. Key Question(s): Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?

In addition to the above criteria, the following items will continue to be considered in the determination of scientific merit and the priority score:

Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk: The involvement of human subjects and protections from research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research will be assessed (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).

Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children in Research: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).

Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research: If vertebrate animals are to be used in the project, the five items described under Section F of the PHS Form 398 research grant application instructions will be assessed.

Review criteria for training grants also include evaluation of:

• Program Direction/Administrative Structure
• Training Faculty
• Training Program
• Applicant Pool
• Trainees and Candidates for Training
• Outcomes
• Research and Training Environment
• Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan
• Training in Responsible Conduct of Research

For a comprehensive overview of the evaluation criteria for training grants, see:

Suggestions for Preparing Applications for NIGMS Institutional Predoctoral and Postdoctoral Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards, and Items Considered in the Review of Applications
[http://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/nrsatablesintro.html]

Review criteria for career development awards include:

• applicant's potential for and commitment to a research career in the areas specified;
• scientific merit of the proposed research including career development plan, research plan and chosen mentor;
• potential of the proposed research in developing the applicant as an independent investigator;
• qualifications, research expertise, and training experience of the sponsor along with adequate institutional commitment to ensure completion of the proposed training;
• for those applications involving activities that could have an adverse effect upon humans, animals, and the environment, the adequacy of the proposed means for protecting against or minimizing such effects.

For a comprehensive overview of career development awards and the review criteria for these awards see:
K Kiosk - Information about NIH Career Development Awards
[http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm]