Research Grant Writing (HCS 7372)

RESEARCH GRANT WRITING (HCS 7372)

Editing and polishing the proposal.

A recent article by Kathryn Brown in The Scientist gave helpful tips for writing successful grant applications. Researchers who are currently in the process of writing and competing for grants were interviewed, and the following are some of their suggestions for writing a successful proposal:

"Stress how your work is new and exciting, and let your enthusiasm for the project come through in your writing. Start with a quick bit of context, then explain how your work adds to it. Keep it simple, but focus on the impact your project will have in propelling your field of research forward."
"Emphasize the creative aspects of your proposal. If you are using new methodological tools for exploring old problems, or if you are venturing into a little studied area of biomedical research, you should feel comfortable addressing this in your proposal, provided that you thoroughly explain your work."
Find out who is the program officer in your area and get in contact with that individual. Program officers are more than willing to let you know what they are looking for. It is also a good idea to educate yourself on what research trends are occurring as a result of Congress' influence on federal agencies. By researching these trends, you'll know how well your proposal fits with the goals of the agency."
"Give yourself plenty of time to write. Many of the successful grant recipients interviewed for the article suggest giving yourself at least two months just to brainstorm and write notes on your proposal. After that, the formal grant writing should flow a little easier."
"Find an objective colleague to read your work, preferably someone who will be honestly critical of the proposal. Consider their suggestions carefully and make changes accordingly."

In The Journal of NIH Research, Adolphus Tolliver, an 18 year scientific review administrator with NIH was interviewed and had the following tips for constructing a strong application:

"Cover letter. Send a cover letter expressing the critical research idea with suggestions of which institute, study section or experts should review the application."
"For example, you might say, "My project focuses on these areas of science, therefore experts in the areas of A, B and C are appropriate for reviewing it."
"Abstract. Write the abstract after the rest of the proposal is written. The abstract is usually the most-read part of a grant application, therefore it has to draw the reviewer into wanting to read the rest of the proposal. After the entire grant is written, you usually have a better overall perspective on what areas of your proposal you should emphasize."
"Budgets. Determine realistically how much money you will need, budgeting over somewhat. If you try to ask for less money than you actually need, you run the risk of the study-section thinking you don't know what it takes financially to do research in your field."
"Biographical Sketches. A biographical sketch should show the competence and availability of the people involved in the project. It is crucially important not to pad the publications section of the biographical sketch. Only list articles already published or in press because false information can come back to haunt you."
"Resources and environment. Relate the facilities and equipment to the project, but avoid asking for equipment that is unnecessary just to stock your lab."
"Study sections will sometimes approve a large piece of equipment if it is needed for the project, but more often they'll approve half the cost with the suggestion that the investigator's institution provide the other half."
"Project aims. Aims should show how the project addresses a problem or need. The question you should ask yourself when writing these is, "What is the present level of knowledge in my area, and what is the desired state of that knowledge?""
"Background and significance. State the hypothesis your proposal is built around. Many researchers will write grants that are driven by techniques rather than built around a main hypothesis."
"Preliminary studies. Though optional, preliminary data tells the study section a great deal about the applicant and their research competence. Whenever possible include previous quantifiable results in your proposal."
"Research design. " Describe how you intend to do the work, addressing honestly the difficulties and pitfalls and how you plan to deal with them."
"Human subjects and animals. Make it clear in this section that you understand the inclusion of women and minorities as human subjects. Also, be sure to address the subject of how test animals will be treated."
Literature. Cite relevant and current research. Make sure that you demonstrate a thorough understanding of the literature upon which your research is based. The most dangerous thing you can do is to propose projects based on misinterpreted literature."
"General advice. Read instructions carefully. Assume the reviewers know nothing about the subject you're working on. When writing the proposal, write more than is allowed and then reduce it to the desired length. That way you avoid leaving any large holes in the subject for the study section to find."

Another recent article in The Scientist outlined many of the pitfalls researchers encounter when preparing a grant proposal. The prevailing thought is that there are many common mistakes that are easily correctable and which can improve the applicant's chances of getting funded.

"To begin with, funding agencies want to fund projects that clearly can be completed on time and within the budget constraints outlined in the proposal. To gain the confidence of the reviewers, the applicant should provide plenty of evidence that the research team undertaking the project has the qualifications and experience to get the job done.
"Another common mistake in a grant proposal is a poorly written or poorly focused research plan. What is written needs to be free of ambiguities so there is no chance of misunderstanding on the part of the reviewers. For example an investigator wrote "lightly anesthetized animal" in a proposal intending to show that animals would be treated humanely. Unfortunately, the reviewers took this to mean that the animals would not be adequately anesthetized, and therefore mistreated. In order to avoid these types of misunderstandings, it is a good idea to complete your proposal far enough in advance to have time to circulate it among your colleagues to get their comments. These are the people who are really qualified to judge if the research proposal is realistic and makes a contribution to scientific knowledge, and if the budget is appropriate for the project."

Stanley Oaks, a scientific review administrator at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) cites several other common mistakes that investigators make when writing grant proposals:

"Failure to provide an adequate rationale for the research project: All NIH grant applications now require a discussion of how the research will address a gap or problem in scientific knowledge in the specific field of study. Without it, the significance and need for the project cannot be determined."
"Failure to address gender, minority, and ethnic group inclusion in studies with human subjects: All NIH applications require a clear explanation of this, and in multiple-project studies, this question must be addressed in each subsection of the application."
"Failure to discuss how data will be analyzed or interpreted. This is often overlooked, particularly in clinical research proposals."
"Attention to all the details is important because, 'A tight and clean grant application tends to portray you as a precise and careful scientist.'"

This page is under construction. Last updated June 17, 1999, 8 p.m.