Grant writing:what’s it about?

Who does grant writing? Typically a person must have advanced to the level

of independent investigator before being eligible. This includes:

University faculty Federal agency scientist (USDA-ARS, NIH, Department

of Defense, Department of Energy, etc.) Exception: training grants may allow postdoctoral

trainees or PhD students to apply.

Why do grant writing? Grant writing allows you to obtain funding

for your independent research program. Research cycle:

Submit grant application and obtain funding Conduct research Publish results in peer-reviewed journals

Grant writing is not an endpoint; it is the beginning of the cycle.

But… To establish an “independent” research

program, we all have to do it. It’s an important criteria for promotion and

tenure.

And…

…It’s not that bad What are some benefits?

It forces you to think through experiments and make sure they’re designed properly before you start

Grant reviews can actually help you refine your experiments so they have a better chance for success

Even the literature review can be good…it forces you to make sure the work you’re planning hasn’t already been done.

What are the granting agencies?

What do the agencies fund? Biomedical research

Agricultural research

Life science research that is not biomedical or agricultural

Clinical research

Despite the different funding agencies, grant applications are much the same...Component NIH USDA NSFDescriptive title x x xAbstract/Summary x x xBudget x x xApplicant credentials x x xBackground/

Significancex x x

Preliminary data x x xNarrative description x x xCompletion schedule x x

What are the traits of a good grant application? 1. A good, original idea

2. Research that fits the mission of the agency/program

3. Research that is well designed to address the idea

4. Well written (grantsmanship)

What are the traits of a good grant application? 1. A good, original idea

2. Research that fits the mission of the agency/program

3. Research that is well designed to address the idea

4. Well written (grantsmanship = salesmanship)

Where do good ideas come from? 1. An extension of your previous research

2. Reading the literature (sometimes in unrelated fields) and applying new ideas to your area of research

3. Talking with other researchers in your field or in unrelated fields

Find the agency that fits your idea Find the appropriate program within the agency and

obtain the program’s request for applications (RFA) Read the RFA carefully to make sure your idea fits

the scope of the program you want to apply for Contact the appropriate program officer at the

agency if there are any questions Find the deadline for proposals for the program and

plan accordingly!

Design your research well Make sure the research addresses the hypothesis you

are testing Include proper controls and appropriate repetitions Use acceptable methods that address the problem Include appropriate statistical methods Anticipate problems and provide alternative

approaches

Grantsmanship Maximally convey your enthusiasm Write with maximal clarity and compelling

logic Tell your reviewers what to expect for the

agency’s investment Make your application “reviewer friendly” Avoid avoidable mistakes

Before you get started… Read the directions!

Before you get started… Read the directions! Read the directions!

Before you get started… Read the directions! Read the directions!

Read the directions!

Before you get started… Read the directions! Read the directions!

Read the directions! …and then read the directions really well.

What are the parts of a grant proposal? 1. Specific aims section (usually 1-1 ½ pages) 2. Background/significance (literature review) 3. Preliminary data (4. Sometimes results from prior support or

response to previous reviews) 5. Narrative (description of the proposed

research)

1. Specific aims section Usually 1-1 ½ pages

Briefly describe knowns and unknowns in the field, then frame the problem to be solved

Tell the long-range goal of your research program and the overall objective of this proposal.

State the central hypothesis and how it was formulated State the rationale Tell the payoff of the proposed research.

Most grant applications must be hypothesis-driven Definition:

A tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Based on your idea, develop a clear hypothesis for testing

Make sure it is testable State your hypothesis!

The difference between a hypothesis and a predetermined conclusion The central hypothesis is that components of

automobile exhaust accelerate degradation of statuary in Washington, DC

The central hypothesis is to show that components of automobile exhaust accelerate degradation of statuary in Washington, DC

Narrative Tell reviewers precisely:

What you propose to do How you propose to do it What results you expect and what they will mean

in terms of the overall project What might go wrong What alternative approaches will be used to cope

with potential problems

Background/significance Significance

Make it easy for the reviewers to identify the importance and impact the research will have

Include a clear, direct sentence stating the significance

Significance projected must be pertinent to the interests of the reviewers and the mission of the agency

Background/significance Background

This is not a comprehensive literature review! The purpose is to present a solid foundation for

your proposal. Be selective. Describe what is known Describe what is not known Describe what needs to be done Emphasize how your results will solve the problem

you have highlighted

Preliminary data It is not a good idea to submit without some

preliminary studies The more the better! You must be able to convince the reviewer

that you are not relying exclusively on the work of others.

Describe published studies first and also describe recent unpublished experiments.

Results from prior support/ response to reviews Results from prior support

Especially applies to a renewal application Demonstrate productivity (publications!)

Response to reviews Only applies to resubmissions Be polite; never write a response to reviews in

anger! Back up your response with experimental data

Other parts Resources Budget Letters of collaboration/support Biosketches Lists of conflict of interest, other current and

pending support

How are they reviewed? Peer review is the heart of the process NIH, NSF, and USDA all operate with review

panels composed of approximately 20 experts in the field. A program officer (paid professional working for

the agency) oversees panel operation and ensures it operates fairly

Panel members usually are university professors or federal researchers

Who are reviewers? The common conceptions:

Accomplished Dedicated Knowledgeable Conscientious Fair

Who are reviewers—really? They are actually:

Overly committed and overworked Underpaid for their efforts Tired Inherently skeptical Overly critical Looking for the easiest way to get the job done

well

Review panels Each member of the panel is assigned about 15

proposals to review prior to the panel meeting. Each member writes reviews for all the proposals

assigned prior to the meeting. Each proposal has a primary, secondary, and

probably a tertiary reviewer At the panel meeting, each proposal is discussed

(except NIH triage). Primary reviewer leads the discussion, followed by secondary and tertiary.

Review panels After discussion, proposals are assigned into

different categories (Outstanding/excellent, Very good/highly meritorious, Good/meritorious, Fair/low merit, Poor/do not fund

Based on panel rankings/scores, the funding agency decides which proposals to fund

Depending on the agency, program officers may have power to overturn reviewers’ rankings based on agency mission or goals (USDA most strict, then NIH, then NSF)

What does the grant submitter get? A phone call notifying of funding! ($$)

Then the real work begins… A polite letter of rejection

The panel ranking (or score) will be given Individual written reviews and a written summary

of the panel discussion (written by the primary reviewer) will be included

Persistence pays! Most grant proposals are not funded until the 2nd or 3rd try.

In summary…. Grant writing is rewarding

And yes, challenging, but also can be fun

Specific Aims format Introductory paragraph

Opening sentence—immediately establish relevance to the agency

Current knowledge—few sentences, what is currently known about your topic

Gap in the knowledge base (unmet need)—one sentence, clearly identify the need that drives the application. Should link back to current knowledge as the next

logical step to advance the field.

Specific Aims format Hypothesis / rationale paragraph

Long-term goal—tell the “big picture” of your research program Objective of this application—define the purpose of your

application Must meet the need delineated in first paragraph

Central hypothesis—link to objective, should be directional for your research

How hypothesis was formulated—based on preliminary data and literature

Rationale—why you want to do the research. Tell researchers what will become possible after the research is

completed that is not possible now

Specific aims format Specific Aims paragraph

List the specific aims of your research (typically 2-4)

Brief, informative, attention-getting “headlines” that will get reviewers’ interest

Must grow out of central hypothesis and objectively test its parts

Each aim should have a working hypothesis No aim should depend on outcome of another aim

Specific Aims format Payoff paragraph

Expected outcomes—describe the payoff that reviewers can expect if research is funded. Should link to specific aims (at least one expected

outcome for each aim)

Positive impact summary—summarize the general impact of the expected outcomes.