Grant Writing: Specific Aims
and Study Design
Zuo-Feng Zhang, MD, PhD
EPIDEMIOLOGY 244
2009
Research Proposal
•
•
•
•
•
Abstract (5)
Specific Aims (1)
Background and Significance (4)
Preliminary Results/Progress Report (3)
Research Design (2)
Specific Aims
• A critical idea
• Original/novel
• Significant new knowledge or fill an
existing knowledge gap or have significant
policy implication
• The first important element of the research
proposal and the first impression for
reviewers
• A road map for your proposal
Specific Aims
• Introduction, including overall objectives of the
research proposal and the major hypotheses to
be tested.
• Specific Aims:
- a short sentence title
- hypothesis to be tested and preliminary
results supporting hypothesis
- Approach to test the hypothesis
- Significance of the aim
Research Design
• Needs to be consistent with each specific
aim
• Needs to describe in details the study
population, data collection, quality control,
experiment procedures, statistical analysis
and power estimate
• Strengths and limitations of the study
usually follow the study design.
A Strong Proposal
• The operational definition of scientific merit
is the priority score given to a proposal by
an Initial Review Group (IRG). The
pragmatic definition of a strong proposal is
simply any proposal that gets funded. The
strong proposal needs to be “better
written”, which means easier for the
reviewer to read and to understand.
When Preparing an Application
• Read PHS398 instructions
• Consider the review criteria
• Consider your primary audience - Reviewers
• Never assume that reviewers “will know what you mean”
• Refer to literature thoroughly and update when
submitting revised application
• Clearly state rationale of proposed investigation
• Include well-designed tables and figures
• Present an organized, lucid write-up
• Obtain pre-review from other faculty at your institution
Appearance: bad impression
and negative reaction.
• Two pounds of appendix in addition to 25 pages
of text
• It is 60 page long because it has the
Biosketches of 20 Co-investigators.
• The use of small type font with crowded pages
• Typographical errors
• Use of different style fonts or printers
• Insert obviously photocopied pages from other
proposals
• Biosketch for Co-PI or Co-Investigator are not
updated or obviously for other purposes
Good impression and
positive reaction.
• All statements in proposal, including
biosketch must be accurate and consistent.
• The proposal is taken as an example of the
products to be expected from the investigator.
• Brief, a number 12 font, Double space
between paragraph, 1.2 line spaces between
lines.
• Diagrams, figures, and paragraph titles follow
specific guidelines exactly
• Well organized and readable at the first
glance, which make the reviewer look forward
to reviewing it with pleasant anticipation.
• Time table
Important Sections: Budget,
Biosketches, Specific Aims and
abstract
• Budget must be reasonable at the glance.
• Biosketch must give the reviewer the
impression that the investigator is
absolutely capable of carrying our the
study and there is a high likelihood of
success.
• Specific Aims section and the abstract are
the most critical sections of the entire
proposal.
Review Criteria
• Presentation must be clear; there are no typos;
the science is as close as possible to state-ofthe-art; methods are supported by solid
preliminary data; the problem is important; the
specific hypotheses are presented and feasible
tests of the hypotheses are suggested; data
sought are quantitative and subject to statistical
validation, enough sample size and power; the
PI has proven record of success with the
techniques proposed, the research is well
equipped and the research group is established
group and productive.
Common Problems in Applications
• Lack of new or original ideas
• Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale
• Lack of experience in the essential methodology
• Questionable reasoning in experimental approach
• Uncritical approach
• Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan
• Lack of sufficient experimental detail
• Lack of knowledge of published relevant work
• Unrealistically large amount of work
Additional Considerations
• Research involving human subjects
– Protection from risks
– Inclusion of women, minorities, children
• Animal Welfare
• Biohazards
• Data Sharing Plans
• Appropriateness of Budget
Revised Applications
• 2 amendment limitation (no time limit any more)
• Must have received summary statement
• Cycle designed to submit every other round
(this may change- see NIH Guide notice on pilot study to shorten
cycle for New PIs http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/noticefiles/NOT-OD-06-013.html )
• Be calm and respectful of reviewers
• Be responsive to reviewer’s specific critiques
• Need to include Introduction and clearly mark text to
show changes
• Next review usually the same study section.
– Continuity of review is goal.
• Don’t give up!
Other Grant Writing Tips
• Follow format rules (don’t squeeze, don’t cheat!)
– At least 11 pt font smallest allowed
– No more than 15 characters per inch and 6 lines per inch
– At least ½” margins
• Take time
– avoid sloppy errors
– Give to colleagues for feedback
• Write clearly for whole review committee (they are
your main audience as well as judge and jury)
– Well-written applications are noticed and appreciated
• You are not anonymous – don’t embarrass yourself
with a sloppy application.