Grant writing: Tips and tools of the trade

Gerry Wright

Disclaimer

Not me

Here’s what you need for success1. A great track record in the field2. An important problem3. Creative ideas that will answer key questions

related to the problem.4. A logical and REALISTIC plan of action that can

be accomplished in your lab (know your limits before they are pointed out to you)

5. Increasingly, direct relevance to tangible outcomes (not just cool papers) Knowledge Transfer

6. Appropriate collaborators to fill in technology gaps

7. A supportive and appropriate environment8. Preliminary data9. A bulletproof application

Tip #1. Understand the process Pick the right agency/panel and write to its

mandate CIHR = health; NSERC ≠ health; ORF = provincial

priority areas; Disease specific agencies ≈ direct impact on disease

Typical reviewers are not the same people who review your papers (most of the time) Avoid jargon Scientific American style introduction

Your application is one in a pile, assume it will get picked last (or first)

Get some insight from someone who is on a panel for that agency

The CIHR Process Chair Scientific Officer (SO) Panel members Only 3 people read the grant: primary & secondary

reviewers, reader but everybody (except Chair & SO) votes

1o and 2o reviewers give their scores 1o reviewer summarizes the grant, strengths &

weakness 2o adds to the discussion Reader chimes in Round table discussion Consensus score Panel secret ballot score±0.5 You are ranked to the others applicants in the panel

Tip #2. Know your audience Reviewers are folks

like your colleagues: too busy and not an expert in your field Write for a grumpy

reviewer who has procrastinated and is reading your grant a 2 AM the night prior to posting on Research Net after 3 sleepless nights with a teething baby

Rule of thumb: 1 hypothesis with 3 specific aims. Avoid a programmatic approach if possible.

Expect 2 careful reviews with 5 min discussion. Reviewers have >10 grants to read and assess. Likely only 1-2 will be funded, make yours the best in the pile.

Start your proposal with an ‘elevator pitch’

A well crafted bullet-proof story that speaks to the mandate of the panel will outperform an overly ambitious hodgepodge every time

Tip #3. Play by the rules Take note of:

Margins Fonts Page numbers Watch content in all sections (Lay abstract, CV,

Appendices)

Be mindful of agency rules regarding salaries, travel, services, etc.

Tip #4. Neatness counts The importance of ‘white space’

Times New Roman

Organization Headings Numbering

Avoid Tables except where absolutely necessary

Highlight papers from your lab in bold

Be wary of Spell-check

Tip #5. A (clear) picture is worth 103 words To embed or not to embed Use Figures to:

demystify jargon Outline a model Show preliminary data

Build in complexity over several panels A complex Fig 1 showing 4 intersecting signal

transduction pathways may be reality, but it is not a good way to get your point across

Watch resolution of microscopy images Keep Legends concise, but entirely self contained If you embed, short statement that you played by

the page number rules

Tip #6. Reviewers can count better than they can read (Eric Brown). Crafting your CV Emphasize your publications (number and

quality)

Be clear about any interruptions in your

Careful of the % allotment of time/grant (worse yet actual hrs/month)

Training is a big deal. Includes all levels of folks in your lab.

CIHR uses Common CV for generic stuff and funding and 5 attachments on your papers, awards etc.

Tip #7. Spend lots of time on the budget Know salary details. Mention collective agreements if

appropriate.

Name everyone and use a paragraph to connect them with the aims in the proposal

Justify, justify, justify Explain everything (reviewer might be from a small university

or a place where certain services/facilities e.g. autoclaving are free)

Watch inflated travel budgets, figure out the cheapest WestJet or Tango flight

Equipment needs to be vital to the program

Summer students?

Tip #8. Appendices: not just vestigial organs Write drafts of letters to make sure you get what you

want

Letters of support from all collaborators, even your neighbors

Letters from facility managers explaining costs

Letter from the Chair/Dean/Director spelling out that the research program is supported by special infrastructure

New faculty careful of competing with previous boss. Get a letter to show your independence.

Tip #9. Get help Internal peer review

Ask someone outside your field to read it (spouse, admin assistant…)

Institutional review (especially wrt budgets)

Grant writing links: www.cihr

-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/ig_guide_for_new_pis_e.pdf http://www.mcmaster.ca/ors/guide/

guide_proposal.htm http://muhc.ca/research/page/grant-writing-tips (lots

of links here)

Tip #10 The Research Proposal Background and Significance (Scientific American, News &

Views style) 2 pages Preliminary data (or link it into each Aim) Hypothesis/Rationale 0.5-1.0 page Specific Aims 2+Pages each

Articulate the question clearly Preliminary data Discussion of your experimental approach (Detail will vary

depending on your track record, but could include types of buffers, antibodies, etc.)

Availability of facilities, expertise Alternate methods if your favorite one doesn’t work (limitations of

approaches) Acknowledge the Null Hypothesis Aims should never be dependent on the success of other Aims Being too dependent on a collaborator for vital data can be the kiss

of death Significance & Timelines (0.5 page) PS It’s OK to be mildly redundant

Tip #11. Don’t forget… That the Summary Page is the most important one

in the proposal To get all signatures, safety permissions, ethics, etc. To name all trainees in the grant To read letters of collaboration (check dates, make

sure they agree with what you state in the grant, etc.)

To check your math To be exciting but avoid hyperbole To avoid alphabet soup! To not rely on Spell-Check (non-scientist spouses,

teenagers, or friends are helpful here) Better to overachieve after you get your $ than to

write down the 12 aims you really want to do (Avoid laundry lists! FOCUS).

The dreaded revision Pay attention to the SO notes in particular. If they

re vague, call up the Chair especially if you’re close to the pay line. If you’re not, then don’t bug them.

Fight the temptation to point out the faults in the previous reviewer's logic and question their intelligence in the Response to Previous Review section

It’s OK to respectfully disagree. Go with your strengths.

Remember your going right back into a competition, but with some valuable feedback. Cosmetic surgery may not be enough…

Time management during grant season This is VITAL!!! Start 3 months ahead of submission deadline Make a plan and stick to it. Write at least 1 hr every

day. Summary Specific Aims Experimental design Figures Introduction Integrate Iterate, edit, cut out weak sections, build up strong ones

When you’re not feeling creative, work on your CV, budget, Progress Report, etc.

Get all the Letters of Collaboration done ASAP

Is a skill that can be learned Read widely (not just technical papers) Remember to construct paragraphs properly Remember your audience Avoid jargon and alphabet soup Make sure the Big Picture doesn’t get lost in the

details Consult style guides like: Strunk & White’s Elements

of Style; The Practical Stylist, Getting the Words Right

Successful applications are a coherent arguments of what should be done, not a list of what can be done.