How to Write a Successful Grant Proposal: Problems and Solutions

1
How to Write a Successful Grant Proposal
Problems and Solutions
Guo H. Zhang, PhD, MPH Program Director Physiology
, Pharmacogenetics and Injury Program Division
of Basic and Translational Sciences National
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
(NIDCR) National Institutes of Health (NIH)
2
Grant Application is Very Competitive

• Every cycle there are some 15,000 applications
  received by the NIH
• The successful rate is about 25 (20-30)
• About 30-40 applications are unscored, another
  35-45 are scored but not good enough for funding

3
(No Transcript)
4
Common Mistakes

• 1. Scientific flaws
• wrong hypothesis
• wrong studies
• wrong methods
• 2. Mistakes in presentation
• Poorly organized
• Language errors and wrong format
• Unclearness
• 3. Other problems
• independency, publication, credential

5
Overall Solutions

• 1. To pursue perfection in science
• -- Long term effort, but can be improved in
  short time
• 2. To pursue perfection in presentation.
• -- Can be achieved in short term
• 3. To control other factors
• -- Should try hard, but not easy

6
Common Mistakes and Solutions

• Use R01 application as an example
• Overall
• Selecting project
• Establishing Hypothesis
• Setting goals (specific aims)
• Showing preliminary data
• Developing research plan
• Choosing methods

7
Common Problems in General

• 1. Write a proposal in two weeks
• 2. Difficult to read
• 3. Too ambitious

8
Write a proposal in two weeks?

• Never do it!
• Solution
• 1. Plan your grant-writing as early as possible
  (at least one month before deadline)
• 2. Never submit it if you dont feel comfortable
• --One application can be submitted only 3 times
• --A failure will produce a bad record
• --Revision will take at least 6 months
• 3. Leave enough time for modification

9
Difficult to read

• This is a common critic on applications from
  Chinese applicants
• Problems
• -- Not clearly presented
• -- English errors (grammar, spelling,
  punctuation)
• -- Not well-organized
• -- Bad format

10
Difficult to read or too many errors

• Solutions
• -- Outline the whole proposal clearly before
  write
• -- Write in plain language (correct, concise,
  clear)
• -- Explain science clearly in simple language
  dont assume reviewers know everything
• -- Use correct format (edge, fond, sizesee
  later)
• -- Read at least 3 times before submitting
• -- Ask an expert to read it (really read it)
• -- Ask an American to check English

11
Difficult to read

• Solutions for incorrect format
• 1. Follow instructions for PHS398
• 2. At the beginning of a paragraph, use Tab.
  For better result, leave one empty line between
  paragraphs
• 3. Margins for best result 0.75 or 0.8 inch
• 4. Font Times New Roman or Arial is suggested
  and should not be smaller than 12 for Times New
  Roman, or 10 for Arial
• 5. Line spacing not smaller than 13

12
Too ambitious

• This is a typical mistake of Chinese applicants
• Problems
• -- Goals are gigantic
• -- Hypothesis is vague
• -- Specific aims are unfocused
• -- Too much work planned

13
Too ambitious

• Solutions
• 1. Understand it is not the more, the better
• 2. Establish a realistic goal
• 3. Develop a testable hypothesis
• 4. Set reasonable specific aims
• 5. Plan doable experiments

14
What should I do if I really need a couple of
pages more?

• Consider the following options
• -- Reduce the Background section
• -- Describe some methods more concisely
• -- Present some preliminary data, e.g., figures,
  in Addenda
• -- Reduce figure size (using smaller figures)

15
Common Mistakes in Selecting a Project

• I like this issue.
• Should be based on significance, not your
  interest
• Although this is not new, I have been doing this
  for years
• Innovation is critical
• Although it is controversial, I can resolve it
• Avoid too much controversy
• This issue has not been studied
• Should be based on actual need

16
Common Mistakes in Selecting a Project

• I select this project because it doesnt need new
  methodology
• Should select a project that can use new methods
• This issue has been resolved in other cell types,
  but this is new to my cell type
• Innovation will be questioned

17
Ideal Project

• Very important and needed
• Innovative
• Not too much controversy
• You have a strong background
• Doable
• Large room for new methodology
• You have plenty of preliminary data
• Easy to establish a team

18
Common Mistakes in Setting Goals

• 1. Too ambitious
• 2. Descriptive
• 3. Technology-driven

19
Too ambitious, or descriptive

• Example
• Grant Title Hormonal regulation of bone
  remodeling
• Specific aims 1) To characterize effects of
  hormones on bone formation and resorption 2) To
  characterize the regulatory role of growth
  factors and 3) to characterize the effects of
  cytokines on bone remodeling.
• Solutions too ambitious focus on one
  important issue descriptive study underlying
  mechanisms

20
Technology-driven

• Using a technology is not a purpose, but a
  measure
• Solutions
• 1) Develop a hypothesis
• 2) Select necessary methodologies which are
  necessary to demonstrate the hypothesis

21
Ideal Goals

• Hypothesis-driven
• To study mechanisms
• Realistic and focused
• Doable in the time frame

22
Develop a Hypothesis

• Chinese applicants usually do very well in
  developing a hypothesis
• An Ideal Hypothesis
• Should increase understanding of normal biologic
  processes, diseases, or treatment and prevention
• Testable by current methods

23
Where is the place to describe hypothesis?

• 1. Abstract (1-2 sentences)
• 2. Specific Aims (a few sentences)
• 3. Experimental Design (in detail)
• How to do it keep consistency but not simply
  repeating

24
Common Mistakes in Background and Significance

• Purpose Demonstrate the significance of the
  project, show critical issues need to be
  delineated, and justify how you developed your
  hypothesis.
• Problems
• --Not focused, too long
• Solution only review the related materials
• --Too many references
• Solution cite only critical papers
• --Ignored the critical or new reports
• Solution cite newest and influential
  references

25
Common Mistakes in Showing Preliminary Data

• Purpose to demonstrate your hypothesis is
  correct, and you have the ability, methodology
  and equipment to do it
• Common mistakes
• Not enough data
• Too much data
• Results are far-fetched
• Results are not solid or novel
• Data are poorly presented

26
Not enough data?

• Problems
• Unable to demonstrate your hypothesis does work
• Unable to demonstrate your are able to
  accomplish it
• Solutions
• 1) Wait until you have enough data
• 2) Apply for a grant which doesnt require a
  lot of preliminary data, e.g., R21 or R03

27
Too much data?

• Consequences
• Reviewers will say a lot of work you proposed
  has been done
• Use too much space
• Solution
• Focus on the goals 1 or 2 figures or tables
  for each aim

28
Results are far-fetched

• Problems
• 1) Cannot demonstrate proposed hypothesis
• 2) Results look not solid
• Example Plan to study Ca2 channels in
  osteoclasts, but show patch-clamping data
  produced in muscle cells
• Solution
• Show direct evidence

29
Results are not solid or novel

• Advises
• Never show questionable data
• Never use data which are not new

30
Data are poorly presented

• Problems
• 1) Reviewers feel difficult to follow you
• 2) Conclusion will be you are unable to
  summarize your data
• Solutions
• 1) Organize your data better in the same
  order as your specific aims
• 2) Right style and size (easy to understand)
• 3) Clearly explain the experiments and the
  labels in legends (some grants dont give figure
  legend)

31
Common Mistakes in Developing Research Plan

• Descriptive
• Too ambitious
• No hypothesis
• No anticipated results
• No alternative plan
• Scientific flaws

32
No anticipated result

• Reviewers hope to see your anticipated results.
• Solution
• Explain what results you expect to get
• --Real anticipation, not imagination
• List potential problems
• Show possible solutions

33
No alternative plan

• If you anticipate to have some difficulties, you
  need show an alternative plan
• --Only for critical issues
• --Clearly explain your alternative studies
• --Dont use too much space

34
Flaws

• Hypothesis is wrong
• Planned studies cannot demonstrate the hypothesis
• Methods are wrong or obsolete

35
Common Mistakes in Choosing Methods

• Methods are not new
• Misusing methods
• No details for methodologies
• Too much details for auxiliary methods

36
Methods are not new

• Reviewers hope to see using new methods.
• Common mistakes
• We dont have new technology, so we just use what
  we have.
• We dont need any new technology, we can do it
  using common methods.
• I have some novel ideas, but we cant do it
  because we dont have new technology.

37
Methods are not new

• Solutions
• --Use new technology as much as possible
• --Never reset your goal to a lower level because
  of the lack of technology or expertise
• --If you need, but dont have some technologies,
  establish a collaboration or cooperation teem,
  such as, invite co-investigators or consultants,
  or develop a sub-project

38
Misusing technology

• If you have an grand error in methods, you will
  not get the grant
• Solutions
• --Fully understand all the methods you are using
• --Dont use a method you dont need
• --Dont use a method solely because it is fancy

39
No details or too much details

• Solutions
• --If it is a new method, give details in clear
  and concise language
• --If it is a common methods, dont need details
  e.g., protein content will be determined as
  described by Lowry et al (1951).

40
Other Mistakes

• --No evidence for collaborations
• Solution Attach letters from collaborators
• --Budget too large or too small
• Chinese applicants usually ask for too small
  budget.
• Solution Understand that budget size will not
  influence your score and reviewers will make
  suggestions for your budget.
• Solution request the amount you need

41
Some Tricks

• Find out who are Scientific Review Agent (SRA)
  and the reviewers from CSR Home Page -
  http//www.csr.nih.gov
• Write a cover letter to request that certain
  people NOT review your application
• Request the assignment of your application to a
  particular Institute and/or IRG. If you have been
  in contact with a program staff, mention this by
  providing name and telephone number

42
Thank you for your attention and good luck!