Office of the Vice President for Research

GrantSeekers Information


The GrantSeekers 2.0 program is designed to give investigators the opportunity for an internal and external review process prior to submission of their NIH, VA or other proposals. While emphasis is on NIH/DoD/ VA grants, any grant will be reviewed. Initial reviews are provided via a review of an oral presentation provided by the investigator. The makeup of the review panel is determined by the investigator based on ability to provide critical reviews for the subject matter and can include an external reviewer. Due to the success of the GrantSeekers 2.0 program over the past few years we have developed an expanded GrantSeekers program which include addition mechanisms to support specific experiments geared to improving the likelihood of funding for a revised proposal.

Expanded GrantSeekers Program Flyer

Reviews of GrantSeekers by External Review Panel Members:

"The grantseeker program you have put together is a terrific process. I was glad to be a part of it." — Nancy Hodgson, PhD, RN, FAAN/ Anthony Buividas Term Chair in Gerontolgoy, Associate Professor of Nursing/University of Pennsylvania

"I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I think the GrantSeekers program is an outstanding resource for your investigators. I have been telling some of the leadership on our campus about it." — Paula Roberson, PhD/Chair, Department of Biostatistics/University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

“One of our faculty members recently participated as an outside expert in reviewing a NIH grant resubmission for one of your faculty members as part of the GrantSeekers program. He (Charles Glabe) was very impressed by the experience and communicated his enthusiasm to me and our Dean. …………It is clear that you have put together a program that has great value and we will be moving forward here (to develop a similar program) as there is a lot of interest. — David Gardiner, PhD/ Associate Dean for Research/University of California Irvine

"I have enjoyed my participation in the program. I can’t speak to the value you derive from it, that is told in the success of the grants. My observation is that this process has been quite effective in identifying holes in either the conceptual development or practical integration. This seems particularly useful for programmatic grants. These tend to get bogged down in the day-to-day details that are evident to the local participants, but don’t make sense or aren’t clear to outsiders. This process is very helpful in breaking up group – think. I would like to recreate something like this at Wake if we had the resources.” —Stephen Kritchevsky, PhD/ Deputy Director, Translational Science Institute, Director, Sticht Center on Aging, Professor, Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine Center on Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism/Wake Forest School of Medicine

Reviews of GrantSeekers by UT Health San Antonio faculty:

"My R01 received a good score (4%, 19). Many thanks for your help. The GrantSeeker program really helped me understand the importance of packaging the grant and how to do so."— Lily Dong, PhD/Professor, Department of Cell Systems and Anatomy

“GrantSeekers was critical to the success of my proposal. Without the changes I made based on the meetings, especially a second meeting close to the due date, I am fairly certain it would not have been funded. Preparing for a GrantSeekers presentation does not take much time, as the hard work has already been done in the preparation of the proposal itself. I only used a few slides to help discussion of the aims and aims page argument. Because the program brings together people with a large amount of experience reviewing grants and being in study section meetings, it can only help to have them look at your grant with a reviewer’s eyes and give you that feedback before the actual meeting. It’s like gaining an extra round of review at the NIH!”
– Rene Renteria, PhD/Assistant Professor of Research, Department of Ophthalmology

“Thank you for the opportunity to present at GrantSeekers. I found the experience completely worthwhile. Often we have "blinders" regarding the grants we write. The input I got from the faculty at GrantSeekers was excellent, spot-on, and will allow me to improve my grant dramatically.”– Carlos Orihuela, PhD/Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics

“My experience with GrantSeekers was extremely helpful. Without a doubt it was the best constructive criticism that I have ever received from my peers on a grant application prior to submission. What I found particularly helpful was the participation of recognized experts from outside the University. It should also be said that both of my outside experts were very impressed with the GrantSeekers concept and process and both wished that there own institutions would develop similar programs.” –Michael Berton, PhD/Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics

"I would like to thank you for allowing me to present at GrantSeekers and for being able to get these outstanding senior investigators to help with the review. I believe the discussions and recommendations were very helpful and will go a long way towards improving the proposal for our next submission.” —Joseph Agyin, PhD/Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology

"Participating in GrantSeekers was a terrific and valuable experience. The review process included both internal and external scientists with strong and clear feedback. I recommend using GrantSeekers for grant applications.” — Ken Hargreaves, DDS, PhD/Chair, Department of Endodontics


Review of GrantSeekers Editorial Review:

"I am amazed it was done in such a timely manner. The editing work is very thorough and detailed." — Jean Jiang, PhD, Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology

 

To learn more about the experiences of PI’s who have already presented to GrantSeekers contact the PI’s listed below. PI’s listed by who has presented most recently:


GrantSeekers Presenters
PI Email
Mizanur Rahman rahmanm@uthscsa.edu
Adam Salmon salmon@uthscsa.edu
Joseph Agyin agyin@uthscsa.edu
Linda Roman roman@uthscsa.edu
Amina Akoulouze akoulouze@uthscsa.edu
Thomas Jansson jansson@uthscsa.edu
Nicolas Musi musi@uthscsa.edu
Claude Le Saux lesaux@uthscsa.edu
Michael Berton berton@uthscsa.edu
Thomas Oates oates@uthscsa.edu
Barbara Taylor taylorb4@uthscsa.edu
Ken Hargreaves hargreaves@uthscsa.edu
Andrew Hinck hinck@uthscsa.edu
Rochelle Buffenstein buffenstein@uthscsa.edu
Carlos Orihuela orihuela@uthscsa.edu
JunHee Kim kimjh@uthscsa.edu
Bruce Nicholson nicholsonb@uthscsa.edu
Tyler Curiel curielt@uthscsa.edu
Manjeet Rao raom@uthscsa.edu
Rong Li lir3@uthscsa.edu
Rene Renteria renteriarc@uthscsa.edu
Bin-Xian Zhang zhangb2@uthscsa.edu
Timothy Duong duongt@uthscsa.edu
Bin Wang wangb3@uthscsa.edu
Shane Rea reas3@uthscsa.edu
Kathleen Stevens stevensk@uthscsa.edu
Veronica Galvan galvanv@uthscsa.edu
Jim Lechleiter lechleiter@uthscsa.edu
Brent Wagner  wagnerb@uthscsa.edu
Bandana Chatterjee  chatterjee@uthscsa.edu