Getting Funded: How to write a good grant

1. Getting Funded:How to write a good grant Xander HT Wehrens, M.D. Ph.D. Dept. of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics

2. Overview of Presentation • Applying for the Right Grant • Research Plan: • Hypothesis and Specific Aims • Background and Significance • Preliminary Data • Research Design and Methods • Resources and Facilities • Budget and Justification • Tips and Reference Materials

3. Applying for the Right Grant • Sponsor : research topic matches mission of agency/ foundation ? • Apply at the right career stage • Project feasible in 2-3 years 2nd/Sr. postdoc student 1st/Jr. postdoc Asst. professor Assoc. prof.

4. Typical Fellowship Evaluation Criteria • Candidate • Track record (training, publications) • Potential to become independent scientist • Proposal • Merit • Relation to career development • Environment • Sponsor (other funding for project?) • Institute, department, collaborators

5. Reviewers Focus on the Four Cs • Clarity. Cross-reference current literature in laying out your premises. • Content. Organize your ideas around aims linked to your hypothesis. • Coherence of concepts. Present coherent set of ideas predicated by previous work. • Cutting edge. Be ready to take legitimate risks.

6. Hypothesis and Specific Aims • Focus reviewer on main points in 1 page • Introduction: Definition of problem/ critical need • Proposed Solution: Objectives and rationale • Specific Aims: Steps to addressing critical needs • Significance: Novelty, Expectations & Impact • Reviewers will often form a general opinion of the grant by the end of the Specific Aims page !

7. Hypothesis and Specific Aims • Introduction: • Highlight significance of problem, aligned with mission of the agency, critical need to solve this. • Solution: • Objective = Long term goal of research • Hypothesis: • Sound, specific • Specific Aims: • 2-4 feasible aims, hypothesis-based, address critical need • Not interdependent, ‘win-win’ outcome • Significance: • Likely outcome, importance for human health?, NOVELTY

8. Background and Significance • Convey background of your research to 1) increase scientific knowledge, and 2) improve public health. • References reflect your knowledge of the field • State clearly gaps in knowledge in field • State significance explicitly • Well organized, with subheadings • Tell a story, keep it understandable • Provide justification, establish competence, educate reviewer

9. Fatal Flaws • Problems with significance: • Not significant, not exciting, not new • Lack of compelling rationale • Incremental or low impact research • Innovation is not always critical, but results should have a compelling significance

10. Preliminary Data • May take most time to prepare • Consider to write this section first • Data have to be pertinent to the application • Establish experience and competence • Draw on past productivity • Emphasize what is novel about your findings • Demonstrate feasibility of methods • All major methods needs to be included • Link your preliminary data to the experiments in the experimental design

11. Preliminary Data • Important: • Only show high (!) quality data • Show raw data + numbers if previously unpublished • Include controls on your experiments • Inclusion of important ‘negative’ experiments may be helpful • Include color pictures or other data of high quality/clarity • Figure legends must be self explanatory • Consider a final schematic model or cartoon to summarize your major point(s) • Underline for reviewer key points of each section

12. Research Design and Methods • Demonstrate knowledge and logic • DEVELOP aims • Divide into subheadings • Rationale (relation to hypothesis) • Methods (general approaches first) • Anticipated results • Problems and fitfalls • Time table

13. Resources and Facilities • Availability of major equipment • Space in mentors lab • Computer • Core facilities • Animal facilities • Collaborators

14. Budget and Justification • Direct vs. indirect costs • Direct: goes to PI • Indirect: goes to institution • Direct costs: • Salary for postdoc • Bench fees • Travel

15. Independent Grant • How do I distinguish myself from my mentor if I want to continue in the same research area? • Get a letter from your mentor explaining that he/she is pleased to know you continue project X which he/she will not pursue.

16. General Tips 1 • Style: • Use most recent form • Follow guidelines (font, size, margins, etc.) • Spell check, correct grammar • Highlight signposts (italic, bold, underlining) • One main idea per paragraph • Use topic sentences • Use transitions (e.g., in contrast, however, likewise, etc) • End paragraph with closing sentence • Start early, write, read, re-read, revise • Give yourself and sponsor enough time !

17. General Tips 2 • Make sure your proposal addresses the following: • Impact on human health? • Novelty of the studies? • Expected advancement of the field? • Potential weaknesses in design + alternatives. • How the fellowship will help you advance your career

18. Common Mistakes • Specific Aims too ambitious or vague • Lack of compelling rationale (significance) • Little or no expertise with approach • Lack of original ideas (innovation) • No letters from collaborators • Little institutional support

19. References • Making the Right Moves, 2nd Ed (2006) Bonetta L. (Ed.) • http://www.aats.org/EducationTraining/Grantsmanship/workshop.html • http://ora.stanford.edu/ora/ratd/nih_04.asp