Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of questions about the
NIH/NCRR Shared Instrument Grant program (SIG), whose once/year deadline is
approaching. More of these questions have been about mass spectrometers
than other instruments. Not many responses have been placed in this forum,
so it isn't clear whether responses have been sent directly to the
individuals or not. Since there should be more money in this important
program for the '99 fiscal year, and one hopes even more after that, there
will be more happy applicants this time next year, but also a greater
number of unsuccessful applications. However, if many good applications
need to be turned down, the NCRR will have strong justification for asking
for an increase in funds for this program. There is a great need for
instruments of many types right now, and a backlog of need for instruments
such as mass spectrometers and confocal microscopes in particular.
Just in general, it is important to read and heed the instructions.
Perhaps they aren't eloquent, but they mean what they say. A meticulously
prepared and researched application has a much higher likelihood of
success. I've written some general comments below, and a few for protein
chemists trying to get their first mass spectrometer, but may forget some
points. Others in our group may have other suggestions that they can
contribute.
More than anything, the NCRR wants to make sure that new instruments will
go into labs that use the instruments well and extensively.
Make your application easy for the reviewer to read and find information as
needed. The reviewer is supposed to be your advocate. Make him or her
happy. With a lot of applications to read, it is not easy to review either.
INSITUTIONAL COMMITMENT: This is an extremely important criterion. NIH
does not require cost-sharing of instruments in their applications unless
the dollar ceiling is exceeded. Institutional commitment to your lab can
take many forms -- salary support for your scientific staff to provide
continuity, previous purchase of small or large instruments to update your
lab, renovations, etc. Is there money to go to meetings or training
courses to help you maintain state-of-the-art? The support does not
necessarily have to be from your university's funds, but could be from your
department chair or your Cancer Center, for example. If you are a smaller
group of investigators in a small school, but have a track record of
sharing -- e.g., several different labs have pitched in to support
scientific staff or purchase instruments -- that can count, too. If this
is a new lab, and several investigators are cooperating, having each of
them write a letter to be included in the application documenting their
promise of financial support is also helpful. If you cannot demonstrate
institutional commitment to your lab in any form, then the rest of your
application has to convince the study panel that in spite of the lousy
support from your school or institute, your track record of making things
work in spite of this is so good that they should give you a good score
anyway. Being in a larger or fancier institution doesn't necessarily help.
High profile institutions that don't provide strong institutional
commitment may tell you that they have no money, but we all know that they
are just making different choices. NIH knows that, too. If your
institution has a plan for shared resources, that's a real plus. If it is
clear that they don't, then again, you have to overcompensate. Some of the
above points would need to be documented by a letter from someone else. If
grant support of various kinds has been used to support staff or
instrumentation, then making a table with grant numbers is enough. NIH can
verify this if they feel it necessary.
SHARING: Is the sharing real or contrived? It should be clear that one
prominent scientist is not going to hog the instrument, and others are
tacked on just to meet the minimum criterion of three labs sharing. If
your resource lab or sharing arrangement has been in existence for a while,
you can document the past record of successful sharing. You can also
provide documentation of productivity with projects completed, papers
published, etc. The organizational plan requested sounds boring, but this
is the way in which the NIH can judge that the instruments will be used
effectively and extensively. Planning ahead is always a good thing, even
if plans may need to be revised later.
THE SCIENCE: Technically, the science isn't supposed to matter, as long as
it is NIH funded. However, pick your group well. If your lab is in a
larger school or institute, it is nice to include not only senior
investigators, but more junior scientists as well. The project
descriptions don't have to be long, but should clearly indicate how the
project requires the instruments requested.
THE INSTRUMENTS: How did you evaluate which instrument to include? Did
you test it, rely on recommendations of others, publications? How does it
fit with your projects' needs? If the instrument is fairly new on the
market or is relatively untested in the field, it is far less likely to be
funded. What experience do you have in using this type of instrument, or
how will you go about getting that experience? This area is particularly
important for mass spectrometers in a protein chemistry lab that wants to
purchase its first mass spec. If you want a fancier mass spec right away,
your employer will have to buy it for you. Don't ask for two, but one.
You may need both eventually, but if you don't have extensive MS
experience, overreaching may kill your chances of getting your foot in the
door. An inexpensive MALDI-TOF is more approachable, and can be used by
almost anyone in your lab. Even if MS instruments are now easier to
operate, obtaining useful data and interpreting it correctly are not always
easy. Can you hire someone with MS experience at whatever academic level?
(There really aren't enough mass spectrometrists out there to fill the
need, and many are not interested in the academic environment.) Can you go
to another lab for training? Make a plan. Document it.
What you can't necessarily put into the application, but will be helpful
once you get your mass spec, are the terrific mass spectrometrists who are
active in the ABRF. Their participation in many of our research group
studies, presentation of talks at meetings and excellent practical
tutorials and workshops, as well as advice given in this electronic forum
have helped educate and inform us all. We appreciate their generosity in
sharing their knowledge, and are their enthusiastic fans.
Best wishes and good luck.
Ruth