FUNDAMENTALS OF GRANT WRITING SEMINAR: How to Write a ...

61 downloads 9683 Views 2MB Size Report
Science and Technology Centers, 45 were invited for full proposals,. 11 were ... Examples of successful RO1s in the 12-page format, annotated with what is.
FUNDAMENTALS OF GRANT WRITING SEMINAR: How to Write a Winning Grant Proposal

Sunshine Consultants, International … specializing in research competitiveness

Lynn W. Jelinski, Ph.D. 6406 Hopkins Drive Austin, TX 78734 [email protected] 843-412-4331

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_fact s_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 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.

Although many will deny it, don’t forget that there is a “halo effect.”

No matter how brilliant you are, you’ll need to write lots of applications.

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 …

Outline – The Stages of Writing a Winning Grant

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

Positioning Yourself to be Even More Competitive

1. 2. 3. 4.

Visit your Foundation, Program Officer, Program Manager Review grants; get on review panels Invite leaders in your field to present seminars at ISU Participate in workshops where “the community” defines priorities and what will be done next

Do all of the above. Do #1 this week.

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

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.

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

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

–noun A dominant dog; a dog that is an alpha male or alpha female. Often used figuratively.

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. Pay careful attention BOTH to the Summary Statement and the critique by the Alpha Reviewer in revising your 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 •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

Before You Start: Answer the 3 Key Questions

What are you going to do?

STRONG research question

Why is it important to do this?

Who cares? So what? What happens if you do this?

Why is your approach innovative? How is your approach creative? How are you going to do it?

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 ...

Avoid overly-descriptive approaches.

We will add to the fundamental knowledge of ...

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?

Examples, continued 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.

Bioinspired materials are interesting and related to nanotechnology, which is a field of interest right now.

Examples, continued 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.

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 Who cares? So what? What happens if you do this? 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.

Examples, continued How is your approach creative? How are you going to do it? 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 lysinedependent.

Hypothesis-driven Research

STRONG research question leads to …

Testable hypotheses leads to …

Clear Specific Aims No more than 2 or 3 Specific Aims. Approach small chunks at a time and save the rest for later grant applications.

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

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 …

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

A Winning Formula for Writing the Abstract

The first 4 sentences: 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?

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-andpaste the first few sentences from your specific aims section.

A Winning Formula for Writing the Abstract

Priority score: 20 Percentile: 7

1. 2. 3. 4.

What will you do? Why is it important? What has already been done? 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

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

The Cauliflower Method for Developing a Grant

STRONG research question

EVERYTHING should relate to the central question: What are you going to do? Pare away anything else.

Background supporting Specific Aim 1

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

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.

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

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. Priority score: 10 We propose to develop algorithms for the analysis of high-throughput C. elegans images, validating them in three specific experiments to identify Percentile: 2 human infections and genetic regulators of host response to pathogens and fat metabolism. Novel computational tools for automated chemicals to cure 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, modelbased 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

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

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.

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 •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

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 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

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

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

References

Invest NOW in Endnote!

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

Letters of Commitment, Support, Collaboration

Make sure they are in place. Don’t let them be identical.

Use them to enhance your competitive position.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.”

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

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 STRONG research question

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?

How is your approach creative? How are you going to do it? STRONG research question

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

Who cares? So what? What happens if you do this?

Background supporting Specific Aim 1

Summary: How to Write a Winning Grant

EVERYTHING should derive from a STRONG research question.

Put yourself in the reviewer’s frame of mind and don’t expose your soft underbelly.

The End!