How to write a fundable grant

1
How to write a fundable grant
Panelists Drs. Goldie Byrd, Adrienne Cox,
Douglas Cyr, Robert Duronio, Linda Dykstra, Allyn
Howlett
IRACDA Conference Chapel Hill, NC June 10, 2008
2
Goals of session

• Funding sources and grantwriting resources
• Grant structure and practical advice
• dos and donts
• Mock study section - grant review process
• QA

3
Funding mechanisms and resources for new
investigators
NIH - see New Investigators Program
http//grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/in
dex.htm Small Grant (R03) Academic Research
Enhancement Award (AREA) (R15) Exploratory/Develo
pmental Grant (R21)
NSF Undergraduate Research, Education,
Education Research, Discipline-specific,
Broadening Participation Others Private
foundations, Department of Education, other
government initiatives
4
NIH resources for new investigatorshome page
http//grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/ind
ex.htm
5
NIH resources for new investigatorsresources
page
http//grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/res
ources.htm
6
http//grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/res
ources.htm
7
http//grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/res
ources.htm
8
Resources before you go, and after youre gone
UNC-CH institutional resources Office of
Sponsored Research its newsletter http//rese
arch.unc.edu/rs/ Office of Postdoctoral
Services/Affairs GrantSource Library
http//research.unc.edu/grantsource/index.php
Getting boilerplate language for the
non-science parts Grantwriting sites
www.theresearchassistant.com/index.asp Science
Magazines Next-Wave Program officers at funding
institutions
9
UNC Research Support newsletter Links to
funding opportunities and funding tips
http//research.unc.edu/rs/
10
How to choose a funding mechanism - identify an
agency and a type of grant

• Area/topic of your research - who is the right
  audience for your work?
• Scope of your research - large? small?
• Maturity of your research - have preliminary
  data already? Need funding to generate
  preliminary data?

11
Matching your proposal to the funding agency -
part I

• What kinds of research (topics, approaches,
  degree of risk) does the funding agency support?
  A proposal to study a given protein or process
  should be pitched differently to the American
  Heart Association than to the American Cancer
  Society than to the Department of Defense.
• Why will the particular agency care about _your_
  work?

12
Matching your proposal to the funding agency -
part II

• What criteria will the agency apply to decide
  if they want to fund you? Study the
  instructions that come with the application
  packet and structure your proposal accordingly.
  Is there an RFA (request for application) for a
  particular type of project that matches yours?
• Consult with the funding agencys program
  officer for help BEFORE you begin - program
  officers want their applicants to succeed, and
  are happy to offer advice.

13
The review process

• Assignment of your proposal to appropriate
  reviewers - luck of the draw
• Primary, secondary and tertiary reviewers
• Study section discussion of review - Advocacy
  to the group is important, so make your reviewers
  happy - clear writing, good models/figs

• Scientific vs. Programmatic review - in
  addition to the science, does your proposal fit
  the agencys program? Other considerations.

14
The reviewers job
is to evaluate each proposal on the basis of
specific criteria that are important to the
funding agency and the type of grant
sought. Find out what these criteria are, so you
can devise and structure your proposal
accordingly.
15
Grant components, critiques and practical advice

• Goals of a successful grant proposal
• Matching your proposal to the funding agency
• The review process - what are they looking for?
• How to write a fundable proposal - anatomy of a
  successful grant
• Common pitfalls and how to avoid them
• Timeline for grant preparation and submission

16
Your goals - convince the reviewers that you are
asking important questions, and that you can
accomplish your aims
Sell the importance (significance) and
feasibility of your studies, so the reviewer
concludes "I want to see this work done, and I
think the PI can do it".
Specifically state, this work is important
because
17
Anatomy of a grant - the research plan
Rationale
Experimental Approach
Abstract
Anticipated Results
Specific Aims
Background and Significance
Potential Pitfalls
Preliminary Results
Future Directions
Experimental Design Methods
18
Anatomy of a grant - the administrative part
Biosketches
Internal processing forms
Cover letter
Resources
Face page
Research plan
Abstract
Table of contents
Letters of support
Budget
Appendix
Budget justification
19
Top 12 pitfalls in grant writing and how to
avoid them
20
12. Statements are not referenced
Back up your important statements with references
to published literature. Reviewers often dont
appreciate the importance of work outside their
field, so citing significant papers helps them
appreciate this.
21
11. There are typos everywhere it looks like
the applicant was in a rush and didnt spend a
lot of time in preparing the grant
Reviewers are always insulted by sloppy grants
They didnt think my time was valuable enough to
put together a carefully-written grant. Also,
someone who isnt careful with writing may also
not be careful with science.
22
10. The proposal is diffuse and overly
ambitious
Make sure the aims are linked, and closely
related but not interdependent. You dont want
each aim to be considered a separate grant, but
you also dont want them to be dependent on each
other. Each aim should stand on its own, but
ideally, the aims should be synergistic. The
scope of work should be reasonable considering
who will be performing it (new PI, young
students, etc). What you could do in your old,
established lab is too much for a new
investigator.
23
9. The studies are not well justified it is not
clear why the applicant has proposed these
studies
Why should we care? Assume that the reviewers
are NOT experts in the field. Explain WHY it
is important to do the things you are proposing
to do this is important because we know X
but not Y we need to know Y because.
24
8. It is not clear that the applicant can
perform the experimental approaches that are
proposed - I
Can you really do that procedure, or get or make
that reagent? If you have published on it, be
sure to make this clear (as we have done
previously ref, or we have used this approach
successfully for ref). If not, then
either get preliminary data supporting your
ability to perform the technique or else sign on
collaborators.
25
8. It is not clear that the applicant can
perform the experimental approaches that are
proposed - II
How much experimental detail? Just enough to
make it clear you know what you are talking
about. Be sure to include the proper controls
for good experimental design.
26
7. Alternative experimental approaches are not
presented potential pitfalls and limitations are
not addressed
No single approach is ever perfect or without
limitations. Propose back-up approaches, and
state the limitations of each approach. Anticipat
e and mitigate the concerns of a reviewer (a
potential limitation of this approach is.To
overcome this, we will).
27
6. The feasibility of some aims are critically
dependent on the success of others
Don't ever have one aim require the success of
another (We will clone gene X in Aim One, then
characterize the biology in Aim Two).
28
5. The studies proposed are descriptive
Are you just collecting data (Lets see what
would happen if), or are you answering a real,
specific question? State scientific goals,
rather than technical ones (We will determine if
overexpression of X causes a reduction of Y
versus We will do western blots to assess levels
of protein expression).
29
4. It is not clear how the results will be
interpreted
Tell the reviewer what lessons can be learned
from different possible outcomes of the proposed
experiments (If we find this, then it means X
if we find that, then it means Y). Even if you
think it should be obvious, say so - sometimes
the reviewer will think he or she knows, but
isnt sure if you do!
30
3. The rationale for the questions that are
posed is not clear
What is the logic behind the aim or experiment?
(We know that X does this and Y does that.
Therefore, we hypothesize that Z does the
other) ANDWhy should anyone care that you
are asking these questions? (It will be
important to determine this because)
31
2. There are insufficient preliminary results
to support the feasibility or scientific merit of
the proposed studies
Feasibility problems the experiments cant
actually be done. Scientific merit problems
even if the experiments worked technically, you
dont learn anything useful. Solutions
convincing preliminary results to support that
the proposed experiments can be done successfully
and informatively, AND an experimental design
assuring that any probable outcome will be of
interest (not just one right answer).
32
1. The study is not hypothesis-driven
The major cause of death of most grants. Why
are these studies being done? Make sure the
hypotheses are clearly stated and not buried in
the text. (We hypothesize that) Non-hypothesis
-driven experiments are also known as fishing
expeditions - often the kiss of
death. Occasionally, it is appropriate to
develop hypothesis-generating aims. If so,
this should be stated explicitly and justified.
33
State your hypothesis very clearly
Present a focused set of aims avoid descriptive
studies!
Make each aim independent, yet linked
Emphasize why you are doing this work
Explain how the work will help you reach your
goals
Discuss how your results add to our knowledge
Justify clearly the importance of the work
Use clear figures and models leave white space
Choose validated protocols and methods
Address limitations and present alternate methods
Reference important statements use full citations
Make the document perfect be neat
34
Timeline of proposal preparation and submission

• When to start?
• WAY ahead of timeSEVERAL MONTHS
• Allow plenty of time for others to see and
  critique your proposal, and for you to make edits
  in response people are busy, and wont get back
  to you right away.
• Time needed to create and then to repeatedly
  revise your proposal is always longer than you
  think.
• Allow time for forms and administrative
  approval!!

35

• Basic Grant Components
• Title of the Project
• Budget
• NIH Biosketch
• Facilities
• Animals/Human Subjects
• Specific Aims
• Background and Significance
• Preliminary Data
• Research Design
• E. References

Modifications for Grant Types Theme and
Collaborations Faculty Development Student/Postdoc
Training Curriculum Design Institutional
Enhancement
36
Details about specific sections of a typical NIH
R01 grant
37
Scope of aims and proposal

• How much is enough? How much is too much?
• Per aim
• 1 Aim 1 paper?
• Proposed experiments vs. future directions -
  Scope, feasibility, reagent availability, etc.
• Per proposal
• Can you get all your aims finished during the
  grant period?

38
Abstract

• Provide a very concise and short paragraph that
• Restates the background for your project,
  emphasizing the important questions and
  uncertainties in the field.
• States the problem and questions that your
  studies will fill what is the hypothesis?
• State the general approaches that you will take
  to complete this study.
• State the aims of your study.
• State the anticipated information that will come
  from your study and why this is important.

39
Specific aims

• State in one or two short paragraphs what is
  known, and what is not known, and what you are
  trying to accomplish.
• State why this is important to do.
• Then list 3 to 5 closely related, but not
  interdependent, aims that will address this
  question. State them as scientific questions and
  not as experimental/technical goals.

40
Background and significance - I

• Assume the reviewers are not experts in the
  field, and provide just enough background so that
  they understand and appreciate what you are going
  to do.
• Set up your aims in the background by indicating
  what is known, what holes in knowledge need to be
  filled, and that you will fill it in one of your
  aims.
• This section is not a review of the field do not
  provide information that is not relevant to your
  aims. Reviewers appreciate being educated about
  an area, but only on that needed to understand
  what has been proposed.

41
Background and significance - II

• Use bold headings to summarize the main points
  you want to convey to the reviewer.
• Use figures and models, introduce your terms and
  explain your abbreviations.
• Link this section to your aims ( remains to be
  understood. Therefore, studies proposed in aim
  one will determine).

42
Preliminary results

• Include preliminary results for those aims that
  are less certain of success.
• If the worst case scenario for any aim is that
  it will not be accomplished, then you'd better
  get some data to get it to a point where it will
  at worst be partly successful.
• Dont put just any results here they have to
  support your proposed studies. If the data do
  not do this, dont put it in just to impress the
  reviewer with what you have done.
• State clearly how the results strengthen your
  proposal (support the feasibility or
  significance of studies proposed in aim three).

43
Experimental design and methods

• Format Use appropriate headings to make sure
  all aspects of each aim are clearly covered.
• Content
• Restate, concisely, some of the information from
  the Background and Significance, to help/remind
  the reviewer as to WHY you are doing this.
• State just enough detail to convince reviewer of
  feasibility and importance of outcome.

44
Experimental design and methodsformat and
content of each subsection
45
Specific aims

• State the scientific (not the technical) question
  that is being addressed.
• Example To determine if ERK activation is
  critical for Ras transformation of epithelial
  cells (not To check for ERK activation).
• Package each aim with the same format.

46
Rationale

• Restate what is known, and what remains to be
  determined.
• State why it is important to determine this.
  This should be a few sentences, concise and to
  the point.
• Example Although ERK upregulation is
  associated with Ras transformation, whether it is
  necessary or sufficient to promote Ras
  transformation has not been determined. The goal
  of experiments proposed in this aim will be to
  (one short paragraph).

47
Experimental approaches

• Summarize what experimental methods and
  approaches will be used to answer this question
  (one short paragraph).
• This is the overview/summary of your
  experimental approaches. Give the big picture
  before you assault them with the details.

48
Its not science, its a grant

• Grant proposals are tailored to the funding
  agency science isnt
• An interesting and worthwhile experiment might
  not meet all the criteria for inclusion in a
  grant
• Simple curiosity isnt a good enough rationale
  for a grant
• High risk, high gain experiments are often
  anathema to a fundable grant (depends on the
  agency)
• Fishing expeditions are often frowned on

49
Favorite experiment doesnt fit? Get rid of it!

• Never be afraid to dump a previously favored
  experiment or aim better earlier than later
• Cant figure out how to justify it in terms of
  your hypothesis?
• Not sure if results will really be
  interpretable?
• Dont care if the result is B, only if it is A?
  (i.e., leads somewhere only if A?)

50
Anticipated results

• Speculate on the likely outcome of your
  experiments, best case and worst case (If this
  happens, then it means this. However, if that
  happens, it means something else. In either
  case, we learn something).
• Be confident, but be reasonable. State what
  you genuinely believe, but dont be cocky. (We
  anticipate that ABC will happen. However, an
  alternative possibility is XYZ, although we dont
  feel that is likely, because) (one short
  paragraph)

51
Potential concerns and alternative approaches

• State what may go wrong in these experiments
  AND what you would do to overcome these pitfalls.
  
• Make sure the reviewer understands that you
  know what is likely to go wrong with your
  experiments and what you will do if that is the
  case. (We are aware that a limitation of this
  approach isIf this turns out to be the case, we
  will then do this instead.) (one short
  paragraph)
• Pitfalls may be technical or scientific

52
Future directions - I

• Describe other questions that need to be asked
  once you have done these studies you don't want
  dead end projects.
• This is also a way of proposing other
  experiments to impress the reviewers with your
  other ideas the reviewer may actually like
  these better than the ones you did choose to do
  (Although beyond the scope of this proposal, it
  will also be important to determine if An
  important aim of our future studies will be to
  determine if).

53
Future directions - II

• Sometimes, you can place here experiments that
  are beyond the scope of the current proposal, not
  yet feasible, or have other weaknesses but are
  still interesting or clever, so you can get
  credit for having thought of them, without
  getting docked for proposing something that
  doesn't belong in the main proposal.
• But don't use this paragraph as a catchall for
  experiments that you couldn't figure out how to
  justify elsewhere.

54
Summaries

• Summary of Aim In a few sentences, describe
  what will emerge from this aim, and its
  importance. (one very short paragraph)
• Summary of Proposal At the very end of the
  proposal, after all the aims are described, wrap
  it all up. This is another opportunity to give
  the big picture. Then state your thoughts on
  where the next big questions are after you
  complete these studies. This is the Future
  Directions of the grant as a whole. The best
  studies are those that generate more questions.

55
Bibliography

• Always use FULL CITATIONS, not just Author 1,
  Author 2, et al., unless the funding agency
  explicitly instructs otherwise, which is very
  rare.
• Article titles are important, and senior
  authors are important. Dont make the reviewers
  go to PubMed to find this out if they need to
  know it.
• Providing incomplete citations is a sure way to
  tick off reviewers, who use the bibliography to
  learn what is being cited and how important it
  is.