Grants and Grant Writing
M.E. Maguire
Outline





Where do grants come from?
The process of grant application and
review
The review
Grant writing suggestions
Review an actual grant

Respond to the review of that grant
Why get grants?



To be able to do your own research
Feed your curiosity
Get tenure (or keep your company
afloat)
Who do you get grants from?

FEDERAL $$$$$









NIH
NSF
DOD
DOE
DARPA
STATE $
LOCAL $
Other NATIONAL Non-Profit $$
Pharmaceutical and Biotech Firms $-$$$
Federal Grants

NIH




Basic biomedical research – NIGMS only
Disease related – All other institutes
Some $$ from equipment centers and
infrastructure grants
NSF


Basic research in all fields of science
To strengthen “structure” and
“participation” in the scientific enterprise
Federal Grants

DOD




Breast cancer
Bioterrorism (also NIH)
Applications (especially weaponry in the broadest context)
DOE



Microbial genomes
Bioremediation
Energy generation

DARPA


Defense Advanced Research Project Agency
Mostly contract research, not a grant






Generous funding
Rapid, continual progress, closely monitored
Future years are not guaranteed funding
Much is technology oriented, but significant amount is
biological
Always cutting edge, speculative, pie in the sky, risky


Federal Grants
Very often will fund things that they think have less than
1% chance of succeeding or that are demonstration of
principle
“We expect you to fail”
“We hope you get filthy rich”
Other Grants

State agencies

Tend to be for facilities or specific types
of enterprises




Very targeted
Tend to be consortia of institutions
Usually only 1-2 years funding
Some politics
Local Agencies

Local Foundations


Small, not many
Tend to be extremely targeted
National Non-Profit

Disease-related (usually)
AHA
 ACS
 Kidney
AHA/ACS will support basic research if clearly connected to a disease
process
Often favor younger investigators
Less $$$/grant than NIH





Howard Hughes


They find you
Other National Foundations




Eclectic, usually very targeted
Sometimes good source of fellowships
Do not neglect. If your area matches a foundation’s, can be longterm support
Ellison Foundation


Global Infectious Disease or Aging
“Tell us why NIH won’t fund this.”
Pharmaceutical & Biotech


Drug trials or testing
Drug discovery





Some aspects of basic research
See CVs of Piomelli and Penning
Can build long term relationships
Modest $$$ ($20-100K)
Entrepreneurial and/or aggressive approach
helps
NIH and NSF

Different cultures


NIH tends to be more targeted, focused research
NSF will support more global approaches to an
informational or methodological problem


Phosphoproteome
NIH is much more money usually


NSF does not like to support PI salary
NSF requires you to consider broader aspects of
the research




Educational
Outreach
K-12
Teachers
NIH Grants

Types







R01 – Individual Investigator Grants
R03 – Small Grant Program
R15 – AREA grants
R21 – Innovative Research Grants
P01 – Program Project
Centers and SCORs
K Awards
NIH Grants

R01 – Individual Investigator Grants



The basic grant
3-5 years of support
Up to $250,000/yr, no detailed budget




Can ask for more, but requires justification
About 9,000/year new/competing renewals
Becoming less and less a percentage of
total NIH funds
Most NSF grants would be similar to R01’s
NIH Grants

R03 – Small Grant Program

Limited funding for a short period of time
Pilot or feasibility studies
 Secondary analysis of existing data
 Small, self-contained research projects
 Development of research methodology
 Development of new research technology

Up to two years
 Up to $50,000 per year

NIH Grants

R15 - AREA Grants

To stimulate research in educational institutions
that provide baccalaureate training for a
significant number of the Nation's research
scientists, but historically have not been major
recipients of NIH support.





Small research projects
Feasibility and pilot studies
Provide data preliminary to a traditional research project
grant.
< $35,000/yr, total of $75,000 for up to 3 years
Highly competitive
NIH Grants

R21 – Innovative Research Grants

Innovative, high-risk research, requiring preliminary testing
or development
Exploration of new approaches or concepts
Development of new technologies or methods
Development of data upon which significant future research
may be built, i.e., the data should have a high level of impact
on the field
Example: New models in unusual organisms

Generally $100-150,000/yr






Two years funding
Unfortunately, study sections tend to be too
conservative
NIH Grants

P01 – Program Project



Group of R01’s thematically related
Synergism among investigators should be
demonstrated
Slightly less $$/grant that R01
But can have administrative and facility cores
 Virtually always 5 years



Increasing percent of NIH budget
University administrators love these

More indirect costs and slightly longer term
NIH Grants

SCORs and Centers


Disease related – Ireland Cancer Center or CFAR
Facility Related (less common)



Genomics/Proteomics
SCOR tends to be a more disease related program
project grant
Centers are more comprehensive




Clinical
Basic
Translational
Patient care sometimes
NIH Grants

K Awards



Transitional or new direction
Somewhat advanced training
Beginning investigators

Often abused
NIH Grants – The Process

Write it and submit it


PHS398 form
Three deadlines per year

February 1, June 1, October 1



Avoid February 1 if possible – fiscal year issues
Competitive renewals due 1 month later
The big warehouse
NIH Grants – The Process

Center for Scientific Review (CSR)


Not an institute, solely for reviews
The “Review Officer”
Assigns Institute and Study Section
 You can ask for specific Institute and SS




Usually granted, not always
Switches after a previous review are granted much
less often, frowned on
Don’t shop for SSs
NIH Grants – Study Sections

IRGs (Initial Review Groups)

Several study sections under each IRG






AIDS and Related Research (8 SSs)
Biochemical Sciences
Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience
Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience
Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging, and Bioengineering
NIH Grants – Study Sections

Study Section function

12-20 members (3-4 year terms)

Often an equal number of ad hoc members


Ad hocs are not permanent members and can serve
only once per fiscal year
Mechanism to ensure adequate coverage
99% meet in Washington at a hotel
 Airfare, per diem and $100/day honorarium

NIH Grants – Study Sections

Study Section function

Meet 1-3 days
30-120 grants, average 90
 20 min per grant


Review Science only


Do NOT make funding decisions
Confidentiality is very important


Reviewers should never discuss grants with
anyone outside SS meeting
NIH is very strict about this
NIH Grants – Study Sections

Reviewers

Usually 3



Not necessarily an expert in the field


Two primary (Must write full critique)
One reader (May write a critique, usually short)
Absolutely critical that you explain the science clearly
Triage



At beginning of meeting, nominate grants for “Not
competitive” or “Unscored”, i.e., bottom 50%
If anyone objects, grant is fully discussed
Triaged grants get a full written review, just no
discussion
NIH Grants – Study Sections

Reviewers



Conflicted members leave room
Reviewers state a suggested score and then
read/paraphrase their critiques
Open floor for discussion




Sometimes brief
Sometimes lengthy
Discussion reflected ONLY in the summary
Pink Sheets


Written critiques are sent verbatim, no editing
Summary written by Exec Sec’y of SS
NIH Grants – Scoring

Grants are scored on a 1.0-5.0 basis



1.0 is best
Average score is converted to 100-500
scale
Get numerical score plus a percentile
ranking
Percentile is your score averaged against all
grants reviewed at the current SS plus the two
previous meetings of that SS
 Funding is rare for scores greater than 200 or
percentiles greater than 25.


Many institutes are funding between 15th and 20th
percentile
NIH Grants

Institute Councils

The second step in the process is to
present all scored grants to the “Institute
Advisory Council”
Mostly scientists, generally well established
 Some lay people, few administrators


The Council is the group that actually
approves funding
They do not review the science
 Their mission is to make sure the total array of
grants being funded fulfills the mission of that
particular Institute

NIH Grants

Institute Councils

Institute Program Officers each present
their “portfolio” of grants to the Council
with their recommendations for funding
Funding is strictly by percentile up to a point
 The last couple of percentiles are nebulous
 Those grants just a few percentile points below
the “payline” are reviewed by the P.O.’s and
Council for “relevance” to Institute mission
 Council can and sometimes does choose to fund
a proposal that is slightly below the “payline” if
they deem it of more relevance/importance to
the Institute’s mission

NIH Grants - Help

Two sources of help


Study Section Executive Secretary
Program Officer
NIH Grants - Help

Study Section Executive Secretary



A scientist, but now an administrator
Handles all grant materials and paperwork
regarding a review
Does not actually preside over the SS


One member is named Chair
Responsible for writing a summary of the decision
and discussion of the grant




This is the most important part of your review
Conscientious reviewers will slightly revise their critiques
to reflect discussion, changes, etc.

Most don’t, but becoming more common

However, they often don’t remember your individual grant
so sometimes helps, sometimes not
Therefore, the written critiques are what the reviewer
thought before they got there
Can call/email Exec Sec’y to get more comments
NIH Grants - Help

Program Officer


The person in the assigned institute
responsible for administering your grant
Your friend!
Cultivate your P.O.
 Be nice to your P.O., never argue or gripe


Often attend SS meetings and thus have
insight into what went on and can help you
read between the lines of the critique
NIH Grants - Help

Program Officer




Has a portfolio
Likes to build a portfolio of excellent grants
from stable, excellent investigators
Can sometimes get you interim funding or can
push your grant if you’re near the payline
Can offer advice on revisions
NSF Grants

NSF is very similar

Main differences are




Smaller study sections, less biomedical and more
biological expertise
NSF also sends grants to several outside reviewers


P.I. salary frowned on
NOT medically/disease related
You get to recommend them
Two reviewers at SS, plus outside reviews

Outside reviews are mostly used as a check on the
two reviewers


Did they miss something?
Provide expertise on a particular method or issue
NSF Grants

Not numerically scored

Categories






Within each category, grants are ranked by
“ordering”


Outstanding
Excellent
Good
Acceptable/Average
Not scientifically sound/valid
Whole SS is involved even if conflicted
Reviewers write summary during SS

Must be approved by other reviewer
NSF Grants

SS heads combine Exec Sec’y and P.O.
functions of NIH


They make the funding decisions within
certain guidelines
They can modify budget and length
Does the Review Process Work?

Yes!


My 95% rule
On the rare occasions it doesn’t, you do
have avenues of appeal, almost always
through your Program Officer and/or
Exec. Sec’y

They “trashed” my grant is NOT a valid
reason to appeal
GRANT WRITING

There are NO absolute rules

Lots of variations, most are valid

Essential points



Important BIOLOGICAL problem
Good, hopefully innovative approach
Convince them you’re competent
GRANT WRITING

Organization

The first page and abstract are crucial
Most SS members read only the abstract
 Your reviewers have formed an opinion about
the grant solely from your statement of the
problem and aims on the first page

GRANT WRITING

Organization

Introduction
Not an exhaustive review of the literature
 Selectively review what’s relevant to your ideas
 Highlight what isn’t known and why it should be


State a succinct summary of the issue(s) at end
of Introduction
GRANT WRITING

Organization

Preliminary Data/Progress Report
Data that defines the problem or defines the
importance of the problem
 Data that demonstrates feasibility of approach
 Again summarize problem at end


Maguire’s N=1 rule

Data in your papers versus data in a grant proposal
GRANT WRITING

Organization

Preliminary Data/Progress Report

Does not have to be exhaustive


Too many figures often counterproductive
Make the figures
BIG
And make sure they print well
 Write figure legends that explain the experiment
 State importance of the experiment in the text

GRANT WRITING

Organization

Experimental
Rationale – Why?
 Experiments – What?
 Anticipated Results



And their interpretation
 I expect that this experiment will show…. This
would imply that…..However, if the results show
that……, this could mean that……..
Alternative Approaches


Alternative methods to get the data you want
Alternative approaches to the question itself
GRANT WRITING

Organization
 Aims
 Aims
build on each other but are not
necessarily dependent on each other

Don’t leave yourself open to an experiment in
Aim 1 such that if you don’t get the
expected result, Aims 2 and 3 are now
irrelevant or not feasible or not important
GRANT WRITING

Organization

Aims

Maguire’s rules of grant writing




Aim 1 should be interesting but straightforward
Aim 2 should be somewhat more innovative and have
just a bit of risk
Aim 3 can be more innovative and riskier but not off
the wall
If you have a really, really “cute” experiment,
just do it, don’t put it in the grant
GRANT WRITING

During the Review Process

Submitting Additional Data
BRIEF!!!!!!
 To the point
 Important

Demonstrate feasibility of an approach
 Crucial piece of data supporting hypothesis

GRANT WRITING

During the Review Process

Submitting Additional Data

Submit 5-6 weeks before SS meets



7 complete copies
No more that 2 pages of text and 1-2 figures,
preferably less.
 The data in this figure demonstrate/show that……
This supports the idea that X is connected to Y,
thus showing feasibility/supporting hypothesis of
Aim X
Reviewers are NOT obligated to read or to
consider this additional data


Most do, but they aren’t obligated.
Most additional data submitted in my experience isn’t
very important, or its importance isn’t explained well
GRANT WRITING

Revising a Grant




The reviewers are ALWAYS right
The reviewers have ALWAYS given you good ideas
and constructive criticism
If the reviewers didn’t understand something or
misinterpreted something, it’s usually YOUR fault
Usually, reviewers really are right. Listen to them


You don’t have to actually do the experiments they suggest
Keep your replies to reviewers positive and brief

Just say “These were the main criticisms, I’ve revised
these sections to answer them, and I’ve rewritten the
entire grant anyway”
GRANT WRITING

Grammar and Spelling


Get it right!!!!!!!!!!!
Make it readable


Space
Headings
GRANT WRITING

Keep it simple



Imitate Hemingway!!!!!
Minimize compound sentences
Minimize interjections, internal clauses
GRANT WRITING

Watch your logic

Test answers from 5th and 6th graders in OH
GRANT WRITING

Watch your logic


“The Greeks were a highly sculptured
people, and without them we wouldn't have
history. The Greeks also had myths. A myth
is a young female moth.”
Make sure you understand what a method
can tell you and what it can’t tell you.
GRANT WRITING

Watch your logic


“The greatest writer of the Renaissance
was William Shakespeare. He was born in
the year 1564, supposedly on his birthday.
He never made much money and is famous
only because of his plays. He wrote
tragedies, comedies, and hysterectomies,
all in Islamic pentameter.”
Use the right words. Get the jargon right.
GRANT WRITING

Watch your logic


“The nineteenth century was a time of a
great many thoughts and inventions. People
stopped reproducing by hand and started
reproducing by machine. The invention of
the steamboat caused a network of rivers
to spring up.”
A gives rise to B. B does not give rise to A
GRANT WRITING

Watch your logic


“Johann Bach wrote a great many musical
compositions and had a large number of children.
In between he practiced on an old spinster which
he kept up in his attic. Bach died from 1750 to the
present. Bach was the most famous composer in
the world and so was Handel. Handel was half
German, half Italian, and half English. He was very
large.”
Make sure of your claims. In most
universes, 2+2 =4, but always consider the
possibility that it might not