Grant Writing
description
Transcript of Grant Writing
Sunshine Consultants, International … specializing in research competitiveness
Lynn W. Jelinski, Ph.D.
6406 Hopkins Drive
Austin, TX 78734
843-412-4331
FUNDAMENTALS OF GRANT WRITING SEMINAR:
How to Write a Winning Grant Proposal
Caution: What You are About to See is Violent in
Nature
Don’t let the reviewers smell blood.
Three Take-home Messages
The Statistics
Before the economy tanked:
In a good year, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the 70,000 proposals
submitted to NIH and NSF, combined, were funded.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/0490/how_not_to_kill_a_grant_application_part_five_the_facts_of_the_case_thus_far
A 2011 factoid: NSF received 247 preproposals for the latest round of
Science and Technology Centers, 45 were invited for full proposals,
11 were site-visited, and 5 were awarded. That’s a 2% success rate.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116378
The Statistics
No matter how brilliant you are, you’ll
need to write lots of applications.
Although many will deny it, don’t forget
that there is a “halo effect.”
Figure on a 15 – 20% funding rate.
This is hard to accept, because all of us are used to being in the
top 5% of our class.
There are Lots of Resources Out There
http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/appsamples.aspx Examples of successful RO1s in the 12-page format, annotated with what is positive. A MUST STUDY. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/tools_resources/how_to_guides/how_to_get_funding AAAS very useful site. Read: How Not to Kill a Grant Application. http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm Tip guide from NIH. Includes tips for new investigators and SBIR/STTR. All you wanted to know about NIH and were afraid to ask. http://imechanica.org/node/588 By George A. Hazelrigg, National Science Foundation program director for 18 years. 12 steps of writing a successful NSF application. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/grantwriting_mistakes.htm Five common mistakes in NIH grant applications.
And yes, even …
Before you Start to Write
Getting Ready to Write
Writing the Narrative
Don’t Forget these Details
Before Submitting the Grant
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Positioning Yourself to be Even More Competitive
1. Visit your Foundation, Program Officer, Program Manager
2. Review grants; get on review panels
3. Invite leaders in your field to present seminars at ISU
4. Participate in workshops where “the community” defines
priorities and what will be done next
Do all of the above. Do #1 this week.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
How Long Will it Take?
If you know the material cold, most people
can write 5 “polished” pages a day*.
* A day = 8 – 12 hours, ABSOLUTELY NO
DISTRACTIONS. This doesn’t count all the rest of
the material (references, budget, budget
justification, CV, facilities, support letters)
Allow twice as much time as you
think. Don’t forget about internal
ISU deadlines.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
It’s All About the Reviewer
- Put yourself in the reviewer’s
frame of mind. Don’t forget that
s/he just parachuted in.
- Do not confuse the reviewer.
- Avoid the smell of blood.
- Identify the Alpha Reviewer for
revised applications.
This is the second-most important
slide. Do all of the above.
Putting Yourself in the Reviewer’s Frame of Mind
You may have spent weeks writing your
proposal, but the Average Reviewer is
going to spend less than 1.5 hours reading
your grant and writing the critique. The
Lazy Reviewer might spend less time.
Make it easy for the Average
Reviewer to immediately grasp your
plan.
Identifying the Alpha Reviewer
The Alpha Reviewer is the one whose critique is repeated most
obviously in the Summary Statement. The Alpha Reviewer will likely be
assigned to review your grant again.
–noun A dominant dog; a dog that is an alpha male or alpha female. Often used figuratively.
Pay careful attention BOTH to the
Summary Statement and the critique by
the Alpha Reviewer in revising your grant.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Who cares? So what? What
happens if you do this?
STRONG research question
How is your approach
creative? How are you
going to do it?
Before You Start: Answer the 3 Key Questions
What are you going to do?
Why is it important to do this?
Why is your approach innovative?
This is the most important slide.
Examples
STRONG research question
What are the molecular mechanisms responsible for
the exceptional strength of spider silk?
There remains a lot to know about spider
silk so we will investigate it.
We will study ...
We will add to the fundamental
knowledge of ... Avoid overly-descriptive approaches.
Stamp-collecting
Examples, continued
STRONG research question
Mosquitoes sucked dinosaur blood and then
got stuck in resin. Dinosaur DNA, albeit
damaged, was trapped and preserved in
amber. Can we clone dinosaur DNA?
Who cares? So what? What
happens if you do this?
Silk fibroin has little long-range structure in its liquid
state, but assumes an insoluble beta-sheet
structure when spun. The theme of insoluble
protein formation pertains to diseases such as
Alzheimer’s, Jakob-Kreutzfeld, and Mad Cow.
Examples, continued
Bioinspired materials are interesting and
related to nanotechnology, which is a
field of interest right now.
Who cares? So what? What
happens if you do this?
Silk fibroin has little long-range structure in its liquid
state, but assumes an insoluble beta-sheet
structure when spun. The theme of insoluble
protein formation pertains to diseases such as
Alzheimer’s, Jakob-Kreutzfeld, and Mad Cow.
Examples, continued
Bioinspired materials are interesting and
related to nanotechnology, which is a
field of interest right now.
Relate your work to something
societally important.
Examples, continued
We’ll create an amusement park with live
dinosaurs for the education and
entertainment of children. We and our
investors will make a lot of money doing
so.
Who cares? So what? What
happens if you do this?
How is your approach
creative? How are you
going to do it?
Examples, continued
To measure short-range order and molecular motion in the
solid state, we will take advantage of our home-built
solid state NMR spectrometer capable of recording
spectra under tension.
We will use all the tools at our disposal,
including NMR and IR and genetic
engineering.
Stay focused. No need to throw in
the kitchen sink.
Examples, continued
How is your approach
creative? How are you
going to do it?
We’ll clone dinosaurs. We’ll fill in the gaps
in missing DNA with modern-day avian
and reptilian DNA. To be on the safe
side, we’ll make all the dinosaurs female
and we’ll also make them lysine-
dependent.
STRONG research question
Hypothesis-driven Research
Testable hypotheses
Clear Specific Aims
leads to …
leads to …
No more than 2 or 3 Specific Aims.
Approach small chunks at a time and
save the rest for later grant applications.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Writing the Elevator Conversation
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: Now We have Answers
to the 3 Key Questions, Hypotheses, Specific Aims
and an Elevator Conversation
The hardest part of the grant application is
already written!
The Abstract and the Specific Aims (or the
first two pages) will flow from the 3 key
questions.
The Elevator Conversation is useful for
necessary repetition --- restating goals and
significance.
Some examples …
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
A Winning Formula for Writing the Abstract
Sentence 1: What will you do?
Sentence 2: Why is it important?
Sentence 3: What has already been done?
Sentence 4: How are you going to do it and
how is your approach special?
The first 4 sentences:
Don’t forget that the abstract is
hugely important for review panels
where members who haven’t reviewed
the proposal “vote”. Don’t simply copy-and-
paste the first few sentences from your
specific aims section.
A Winning Formula for Writing the Abstract
1. What will you do?
2. Why is it important?
3. What has already been done?
4. How are you going to do it and
how is your approach special?
Here we seek to understand how structural flexibility and variation in parvoviral capsids control their ability to bind receptors leading to cell infection and also to variation in host range, and also how capsid structures control antibody binding and neutralization. Those areas of study are significant because they are features of all animal and human viruses. While parvovirus capsids appear structurally simple, they are clearly sophisticated biomolecular machines that carry out many functions using variants of a single capsid protein, and the features controlling many functions have now been mapped to specific mutations and capsid structures, presenting an opportunity to gain a complete understanding of how virus-host interactions occur in fine detail. Parvoviruses include the B19 virus, human bocavirus, and Parv4, all of which cause disease in humans. Here we use feline and canine parvoviruses as models to build on our previous studies showing that cell infection and animal host ranges are controlled by specific interactions of the capsids with the transferrin receptors type-1 (TfR) of different hosts. There are also distinct outcomes for viral infection of antibody binding, depending on the binding site and angle of attachment.
Colin Parish, Cornell University, http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/documents/parrishfull.pdf
Priority score: 20 Percentile: 7
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
The Cauliflower Method for Developing a Grant
EVERYTHING should relate to the
central question: What are you going
to do? Pare away anything else.
ST
RO
NG
re
se
arch
q
ue
stio
n
Background
supporting
Specific Aim 1
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
The VERY IMPORTANT First Two Sentences
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat; it was a hobbit hole, and that means comfort.
If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, …
Call me Ishmael. You need to hook the reviewer in the
first few sentences, and certainly
by the first two pages.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Specific Aims Microscopy has emerged as one of the most powerful and informative ways to analyze cell-based high-throughput screening (HTS) samples in experiments designed to uncover novel drugs and drug targets. However, many diseases and biological pathways can be better studied in whole animals–particularly diseases that involve organ systems and multicellular interactions, such as metabolism and infection. The worm Caenorhabditis elegans is a well-established and effective model organism that can be robotically prepared and imaged, but existing image-analysis methods are insufficient for most assays. We propose to develop algorithms for the analysis of high-throughput C. elegans images, validating them in three specific experiments to identify chemicals to cure human infections and genetic regulators of host response to pathogens and fat metabolism. Novel computational tools for automated image analysis of C. elegans assays will make whole-animal screening possible for a variety of biological questions not approachable by cellbased assays. Building on our expertise in developing image processing and machine learning algorithms for high-throughput screening, and on our established collaborations with leaders in C. elegans research, we will: Aim 1: Develop algorithms for C. elegans viability assays to identify modulators of pathogen infection Challenge: To identify individual worms in thousands of two-dimensional brightfield images of worm populations infected by Microsporidia, and measure viability based on worm body shape (live worms are curvy whereas dead worms are straight). Approach: We will develop algorithms that use a probabilistic shape model of C. elegans learned from examples, enabling segmentation and body shape measurements even when worms touch or cross. Impact: These algorithms will quantify a wide range of phenotypic descriptors detectable in individual worms, including body morphology as well as subtle variations in reporter signal levels. Aim 2: Develop algorithms for C. elegans lipid assays to identify genes that regulate fat metabolism Challenge: To detect worms versus background, despite artifacts from sample preparation, and detect subtle phenotypes of worm populations. Approach: We will improve well edge detection, illumination correction, and detection of artifacts (e.g. bubbles and aggregates of bacteria) and enable image segmentation in highly variable image backgrounds using level-set segmentation. We will also design feature descriptors that can capture worm population phenotypes. Impact: These algorithms will provide detection for a variety of phenotypes in worm populations. They will also improve data quality in other assays, such as those in Aims 1 and 3. Aim 3: Develop algorithms for gene expression pattern assays to identify regulators of the response of the C. elegans host to Staphylococcus aureus infection Challenge: To map each worm to a reference and quantify changes in fluorescence localization patterns. Approach: We will develop worm mapping algorithms and combine them with anatomical maps to extract atlas-based measurements of staining patterns and localization. We will then use machine learning to distinguish morphological phenotypes of interest based on the extracted features. Impact: These algorithms will enable addressing a variety of biological questions by measuring complex morphologies within individual worms. In addition to discovering novel anti-infectives and genes involved in metabolism and pathogen resistance, this work will provide the C. elegans community with (a) a versatile, modular, open-source toolbox of algorithms readily usable by biologists to quantify a wide range of important high-throughput whole-organism assays, (b) a new framework for extracting morphological features from C. elegans populations for quantitative analysis of this organism, and (c) the capability to discover disease-related pathways, chemical probes, and drug targets in high-throughput screens relevant to a variety of diseases. Primary collaborators Gary Ruvkun and Fred Ausubel, MGH/Harvard Medical School: Development, execution, and follow-up of large-scale C. elegans screens probing metabolism and infection. Polina Golland and Tammy Riklin-Raviv, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab: Illumination/bias correction, model-based segmentation, and statistical image analysis. Anne Carpenter, Broad Imaging Platform: Software engineering and support.
Carolina Wahlby, Broad Institute http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/documents/wahlbyresplan.pdf
Priority score: 10 Percentile: 2
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
The Importance of Preliminary Data
Make sure at least once in your proposal you say “We will build on
our preliminary data to do thus-and-so.” Or better, “Building on
our intriguing preliminary results, we will do thus-and-so.”
Ideally, you should have at least one figure of preliminary data to
support each of your specific aims/hypotheses.
Even for grants that don’t require preliminary data (such as NSF
CAREER awards), you really need preliminary data.
What To Do if You Don’t Have Preliminary Data?
Use your start-up funds to generate preliminary data.
Collaborate to generate preliminary data.
NSF has SGER “Sugar” Small Grants for Exploratory Research –
Requires only internal NSF review. Helps if you visit your program
director. Also ask about NSF EAGER (Early concept Grants for
Exploratory Research).
NIH has exploratory/developmental research grants (R21).
Beg your department chair for funds.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Style Points Count – But Not as Much as the
Main Idea and the Research Plan
Don’t use too much jargon, too many arconyms, too many
abbreviations!
Especially not in the first sentence or two. Reviewers need to keep all
these abbreviations in their head, and it makes their task difficult.
Style Points Count – But Not as Much as the
Main Idea and the Research Plan
Don’t overdo the bold and underlines and italics and all three
Style Points Count – But Not as Much as the
Main Idea and the Research Plan
Double space between paragraphs. The last thing you want is a
“dense” proposal.
Style Points Count – But Not as Much as the
Main Idea and the Research Plan
Right-justify or not?
I say “not,” as psychobiologists say it is easier to read ragged edge
text. This is especially important for NIH applications, where the
page margins are 0.5 inch on a side and uneven spacing makes it
difficult to read wide expanses of unevenly spaced text.
Most RFPs and FOAs are ragged edge.
But some think that it looks more professional to use right
justification.
It probably doesn’t matter…
Timelines and Milestones
Specific Aims and Sub Aims Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
References
Invest NOW in Endnote!
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Letters of Commitment, Support, Collaboration
Make sure they are in place.
Don’t let them be identical.
Use them to enhance your competitive
position.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Budgeting, Budget Justifications and Red Flags
Don’t bloat your travel budget.
Make sure your budget matches your
proposal. Seek help from departmental
gurus and mavens.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Requesting that an Experienced Senior
Colleague Read the Finished Proposal before
Submission
Don’t be shy. This makes a
HUGE difference!
A PROVEN key to success, cited in
almost every guide on how to
write grants.
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Handling the Section on Suggested Reviewers
It’s a good idea to provide a list of suggested reviewers. If you know
them well enough, simply e-mail them and say:
“I am preparing a proposal for the such-and-so program at NSF and
would like to list you as a potential reviewer. The main idea is insert elevator conversation. Should my proposal be sent to you, I hope
you will have time to review it.”
• Positioning yourself to be even more competitive •How long will it take? • All about the reviewer:
-Putting yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind - Identifying the Alpha Reviewer - How to avoid the smell of blood
• Matching your application with the RFP • Answering three key questions before you start • Writing the Elevator Conversation • A winning formula for writing the abstract •The Cauliflower Method for developing the grant • The VERY IMPORTANT first two sentences • The VERY IMPORTANT first two pages • The importance of preliminary data • Producing a diagram of the project “at a glance” • Style points • References • Letters of commitment, support, collaboration • Budgeting and budget justifications • Requesting that an experienced senior colleague look over the finished proposal before submission • Handling the section on suggested reviewers • Fatal flaws
Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant
Fatal Flaws
Problems with significance:
•Not significant nor exciting nor new research
•Lack of compelling rationale
•Incremental and low impact research Problems with specific aims:
•Too ambitious, too much work proposed
•Unfocused aims, unclear goals •Limited aims and uncertain future directions
Problems with experimental approach:
•Too much unnecessary experimental detail
•Not enough detail on approaches, especially untested ones
•Not enough preliminary data to establish feasibility
•Feasibility of each aim not shown
•Little or no expertise with approach
•Lack of appropriate controls
•Not directly testing hypothesis
•Correlative or descriptive data
•Experiments not directed towards mechanisms
•No discussion of alternative models or hypotheses
•No discussion of potential pitfalls •No discussion of interpretation of data
Problems with investigator:
•No demonstration of expertise or publications in approaches
•Low productivity, few recent papers •No collaborators recruited or no letters from collaborators
Problems with environment:
•Little demonstration of institutional support
•Little or no start up package or necessary equipment
From: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/grantwriting_mistakes.htm
Fatal Flaws, Continued
Insufficient innovativeness, creativity, originality
Failure to cite important literature
Problems with protections for human subjects:
•Inadequate protection of identity
•Unacceptable risks
Problems with use of vertebrate animals
Annoying the reviewer
From Jelinski observations
Summary: How to Write a Winning Grant
Who cares? So what?
What happens if
you do this?
STRONG research
question
How is your approach
creative? How are
you going to do it?
Sentence 1: What will you do?
Sentence 2: Why is it important?
Sentence 3: What has already been done?
Sentence 4: How are you going to do it and how is
your approach special?
ST
RO
NG
re
se
arch
q
ue
stio
n
Background
supporting
Specific Aim 1
1. Answer the 3 Key Questions
Answers generate hypothesis
Answers generate specific aims
Answers generate broader impacts
2. Write Elevator Conversation
3. Write first 2 sentences
4. Write first 2 pages
5. Use the “Cauliflower Method” to develop
the full proposal
6. Use 4-sentence formula to write the
abstract
7. Ask a colleague to read it before
submission
EVERYTHING should derive from a
STRONG research question.
Put yourself in the reviewer’s frame
of mind and don’t expose your soft
underbelly.
Summary: How to Write a Winning Grant
The End!