Tips on NIH grant writing
David Nemazee
TSRI
General points
•
•
•
•
•
•
Be interesting
Be clear- even to the non-specialist
Be explicit- say the words
Be succinct as possible- feel for the reader
Be plausible- preliminary data/ citations
Manage the relationship between the
solid/boring and the exciting/speculative
NIH format
•
•
•
•
•
Abstract (fixed)
Hypothesis and Specific Aims (1-2 pages)
Background and Significance (3-4 pages)
Preliminary Results (3-8 pages)
Research Design and Methods (10-15 pages)
Abstract
•
•
•
•
Write last
Why is the topic important?
What are the Aims and long term goal?
This should be the most carefully written
part of the grant.
• Examples can be accessed in the CRISP
database
Background/Introduction
• This section must be very carefully tailored
to the project being introduced. Accentuate
what is important to know and understand,
and why, as part of an argument for why
your proposal is important. It is also helpful
to point out where appropriate which of the
upcoming Aims addresses certain gaps in
our understanding.
• Include Figure of your working hypothesis.
Preliminary data
•
•
•
•
Establish your expertise
Establish your strengths
Establish the plausibility for the hypothesis
Establish the feasibility of an unusual
proposed method/approach
• The data must be clear, but can be
incomplete or open to interpretation
Hypothesis
• Should be clear
• If complex, use pictures to illustrate
• Two competing hypotheses are better than one!
The Aims
• How many?
• Put each Aim in a single short sentence.
Reuse sentence in body of grant and abstract.
• What order? Go from most developed to
least developed.
• Aims should complement each other, should
NOT be contingent on each other.
Structure of an individual Aim
• Brief rationale- no more than a paragraph
The main purpose is to remind the reader of
the wider rationale, but then to explain the
choice of approach.
Individual Aim
• Approach- avoid gory technical detail (if
necessary provide a Methods section).
What is the key point? what are the key
controls? What back-up approaches will be
used? What complementary approaches
will be used? (Often these are taken up in
the other Aims.)
Individual Aim
• Expected outcomes, caveats, problemsgrapple directly with potential problems, do
not minimize them, but also state
affirmatively why you think a approach is
likely to work, e.g. because the method is
routine, because you have special expertise..
Tables of expected outcomes are effective
here.
Style points
• Use simple declarative sentences. Clarity is
more important than style.
• Break up the text with effective headers,
data pictures.
• Tailor the introduction to fit the project, do
not roam far afield.
• Underscore important points.
• If you can fit in the page limit with 12pt
font, you must cut stuff out!
Style points (continued)
• Say the words.
• For example: “This Aim is important
because…..” “This experimental approach is
likely to work because…” “This caveat is not
a grave concern because…”
• Let a smart friend in a different field read the
grant--you’ll be surprised at what was unclear,
and what needs to be further stressed.
Common mistakes
• No explicit hypothesis
• Not making the case for why the question is
interesting
• Not separating the Aims into natural units
• Not explaining what experimental outcomes
are expected and what will be done if
certain key experiments don’t work
Common mistakes (continued)
• Correlative research- establishing
correlations may be important for
establishing the plausibility of a hypothesis,
but can never prove the hypothesis.
• Descriptive research- ultimately an
experimental system must be manipulated
to test a hypothesis.
• Paranoia- get feedback from colleagues.
Common mistakes (continued)
• Special comment on DNA array
experiments. What are the numbers of
candidates you expect? How will they be
prioritized? How many will be worked up
and how? What criteria will be used?
• Excessive length/ technical detail (standard
methods can be cited)