Science Grant/Proposal:
Development and Writing
Michael Hadjiargyrou
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Fall 2011
Grant Proposal: a multistep process
• Identify/Define concept/idea
• Review literature, conduct preliminary
studies
• Articulate the general question
• Formulate a set of hypotheses that address
the general question
• Design studies to test each hypothesis
• Develop methods/techniques to test, analyze
results
• Evaluate potential alternative outcomes
• Develop a realistic budget
• Obtain feedback – collaborators, consultants
• Obtain all necessary permits, authorizations,
meet all sponsor requirements (including
deadline)
Friedland & Folt, Writing Successful Science Proposals, 2000
Grant Proposal: devise a workplan
• Responsiveness to solicitation (link it to stated objectives
in the solicitation);
• study solicitation, contact program officer
• The nature of the project and how it will be conducted
• The data you will include
• Time table for project (number or years)
• Anticipated outcomes and evaluation
• Description of:
• Existing expertise (who is available)
• Facilities & Equipment
• Collaboration that make it possible to conduct the
research (who to include)
Grant Proposal: the writing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Be accurate, clear, consistent, brief, optimistic
Write with impact and emphasis
Organize the text so it is easy to follow
Avoid redundancy and unnecessary words
Have an effective (clear, concise) title that captures reviewer’s
attention
Use figures, diagrams, and tables effectively
Funnel the reader from big ideas to specifics of your research
Highlight (bold, italics, underline) important points
Start each paragraph with a topical sentence
Spell check and use a consistent format
Make sure to reference sources and check citations against
reference list
Grant Proposal (Fellowship): the components
NIH
• Section I – Applicant/Fellow
• Face page
• Form pages
• Table of Contents
• Biosketch
• Previous Research Experience
• Research Training Plan
• Checklist
• Personal Data on KirschsteinNRSA Individual Fellowship
Applicant Page
• Section II – Sponsor
• Biosketch
• Information
• Section III – References
• Letters of support
•
•
•
•
NSF
Cover Sheet
Project Summary
Table of Contents
Project description
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Rationale
Preliminary Studies
Research Design and Methods
Broader impacts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Integration of Research and
Education
Scientific/Technological
Understanding and Benefits to
Society
References
Biosketches
Budget & personnel justification
Current and Pending Support
Facilities/Equipment
Letters of Support
Fellowship review criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
NIH
Candidate: previous academic and research
performance and the potential to become an
important contributor to biomedical, behavioral, or
clinical science.
Sponsor and Training Environment: The quality of
the training environment and the qualifications of
the sponsor as a mentor within the proposed
research training experience.
Research Proposal: The merit of the scientific
proposal and its relationship to the candidate’s
career plans.
Training Potential: The value of the proposed
fellowship experience as it relates to the
candidate's needs in preparation for a career as an
independent researcher.
•
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed
activity?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Importance of proposed activity
Qualification of PI
Creativity and originality
Conception and organization
Sufficient access to resources
What are the broader impacts of the proposed
activity?
•
For each the strengths and weaknesses are
outlined.
Additional Review Criteria
•
Protections for human subjects
•
Vertebrate Animals
•
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
•
Biohazards
•
Responsible Conduct of Research
NSF
Advance discovery and understanding
while promoting teaching, training, and
learning
Broaden the participation of
underrepresented groups
Enhance the infrastructure for research
and education
Dissemination of results
Benefits to society
Scoring is Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair,
Poor
Grant Proposal: common mistakes
The writing isn't succinct or intelligible.
To avoid this situation, give the finished proposal to a colleague to read before you submit it. This
will help you to identify parts that needed to be clarified.
The estimated costs for the proposal are inaccurate, incorrect, or inflated.
Never guess at the cost of any item. Chances are that a reviewer or a staff person will identify the
inaccuracy, which will affect the credibility of your entire proposal.
The proposed budget doesn't match the narrative or there are costs in the budget that are not
mentioned or explained in the narrative.
Always be sure that the budget accurately reflects the costs of the project's activities. Otherwise,
the reviewers are likely to suggest that unexplained costs not be included in the grant award.
The proposal contains typographical and grammatical errors.
Although a proposal with such errors will be read, what kind of message does it send to a reviewer?
Take time to have other people proofread your proposal before you submit it.
The objectives are too vague and open to individual interpretation.
Objectives must be measurable! Objectives that are not specific or measurable will lead to vague
evaluations and, in all likelihood, rejection of your proposal.
"The Top 10 Grant-Writing Mistakes," by Deborah Ward. Principal, Volume 81, Number 5, May 2002
Grant Proposal: common mistakes
The proposal was hastily assembled.
Reviewers can easily spot proposals that were written at the last minute. Items are missing, budgets
are incomplete, and the proposal sounds choppy and unfinished. Never underestimate the time needed
to develop a project idea and complete the paperwork.
The proposal is filled with jargon and acronyms.
Don't assume that grant reviewers are experts in the subject area and that they understand your
jargon and acronyms. Make sure that your proposal has substance and clarity, and that you explain
what you mean.
The proposal is full of buzzwords and clichés.
What may seem perfectly clear to you may be mystifying to the reviewers. Be clear!
The writer ignores instructions.
Every grant has rules and directions that must be followed. If you want your proposal to be read and
considered, read and re-read the directions. Otherwise, you risk having your proposal disqualified
without being read.
The proposal doesn't match the funder's objectives.
Sometimes individuals are more interested in the funding than what the funding is supposed to
accomplish. Don't expect sponsor to depart from its objectives just because you have a good project
idea. In fact, if your project doesn't match a sponsor's interest, your proposal will likely go unread. So
be sure you do your research and find a sponsor that closely matches your project idea.
Grant Proposal: common mistakes
•
•
•
Problems with significance:
•
•
•
Not significant nor exciting nor new research
Lack of compelling rationale
Incremental and low impact research
•
Too ambitious, too much work proposed
Unfocused aims, unclear goals
Limited aims and uncertain future directions
Problems with experimental approach:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Problems with specific aims:
•
•
•
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
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
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/
Lack of appropriate controls
grantwriting_mistakes.htm
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
NIH Fellowships: National Research
Service Award (NRSA)
NIH Fellowships (F31): Application,
Awards, Success Rates
Trends in major fields of study of
NIH-supported Ph.D. recipients
Budget / Awards
NIH Budget/Award
Stipend: $21,180
Tuition and Fees : 60%, up to $16,000/per year
Institutional Allowance: $4,200 for health insurance, research
supplies, equipment, books, travel to scientific meetings
Maximum of 5 years of support
NSF
Three years of support
$30,000 annual stipend
$10,500 cost-of-education allowance
Grant Proposal: Resources
• National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program
(GRFP)
• http://www.nsfgrfp.org/
• http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04016/start.htm
• National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research
Service Awards for Individual Predoctoral Fellows (Parent F31)
• http://grants.nih.gov/training/nrsa.htm
• http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-11-111.html
• http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/416/phs416.htm
• http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_Fello
wship_VerB.pdf
• http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm
• Writing Successful Science Proposals, Andrew J. Friedland and Carol L.
Folt, Yale University Press, 2000.
• Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to write an effective NIH grant
application, Otto O. Yang, Springer, 2007