- Come up with a unique idea
- Find a matching funding opportunity
- Understand the funding agency
- Get the background information
- Write the technical portion
- Make sure the administrative parts are in order
- Submit and forget about it
Let's first do a brief overview of the steps that you need to follow to generate a grant proposal. Where do you start? You should always start with an idea for a new and exciting research project. We want to emphasize that this is something in which you will have to invest some significant time upfront and over the next few years, so always try to pick something that excites you. The best grants are always idea-driven.
Of Comeurse, if an idea is interesting to you, it does not necessarily mean that other people will be interested in it, so you do have to find a matching funding opportunity. Chances are that no funding call is written to match your idea, so you should be flexible and scan the funding calls with an open mind. However, this is where you still need to be realistic - writing a proposal to an unsuitable call just wastes several weeks of your time without much to show for it.
Understanding the funding agency is important; it's not your money and you're not entitled to it. You need to develop a grant proposal that demonstrates that you can be a good partner with the funder and help them accomplish their goals. You must have the following information about the funder: - Funder overview, including mission and organization - Program officer - Review process and criteria
Once you have an idea and a good call, you need to get the background information, do the literature search, and prepare an outline.
When you have everything in place, you can write the technical portion.
And don't forget about the broad impact portion of the proposal; some agencies really put a lot of weight on it.
One last step would be to Make sure the administrative parts are in order such as the budget, facilities, CVs, and letters of support.
These items sometimes require a surprisingly large effort.
When you get everything together, submit the grant proposal, and then forget about it until you hear back from the funding agency!
Effort | Time
------------------------|------------------------
Looking for a funding call | 25%
Planning the proposal | 25%
Writing the technical narrative| 35%
Administrative | 10%
Submission | 5%
Grants are like an ideal gas. They fill all the space available to them, so it's important to keep track of the time that you spend on different parts of the process. This pie chart gives you some suggestions of a typical time allocation for different stages of the process. Note that the actual writing part takes only a little more than a third of the overall time spent on the submission. Also, note that almost half of the time is consumed by preparation, background work, and searching for the right opportunity.
Typically, you will spend 25% looking for the suitable funding call, 25% planning the proposal and 35% of your time writing the proposal. The final 15% of your time will be reserved for administration and submitting. In this scenario(6 months to go) you should look to spend only 6 weeks on finding the suitable call for funding, a further 6 weeks on planning your proposal and 8-9 weeks on writing the proposal. Leaving only 3-4 weeks for administration and submitting your proposal.
- Why is this interesting and who cares?
- Who will benefit if the work is successful?
- How crazy is this idea?
- Why am I the best person to do this?
- Do I have the time and resources to do it?
How do you know that your idea is fundable? The two critical questions that you need to ask are "Why is this interesting and who cares?" Funding agencies have their overarching goals, and different sponsors support different kinds of research. A pure basic science research topic will have very little chance of success in an agency that has a very practical, near-term oriented mission statement.
One question that often helps you target your ideas is "Who will benefit if the work is successful?" For example, if your idea could lead to a new treatment or a better understanding of a disease mechanism, chances are National Institutes of Health or the NIH in the USA could be interested in it.
Another important question to ask would be "How crazy is my idea?" While there are no hard and fast rules about that, different agencies have a different appetite for risk. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA often funds blue-sky type projects that are on the verge of the physically impossible and have some degree of failure built into its business model. NIH on the other hand has a reputation of funding projects that have a high probability of success.
Another question you need to ask is "Why am I the best person to do this?" Whether you like it or not, agencies do like to fund winners, so the more convincing case you can present, the better your chances would be.
The final question you need to ask is "Can I realistically do that given the time and resources I have or can realistically acquire?" Different agencies have different expectations, but nobody wants to invest money in a task that is simply unrealistic. The review panels are composed of seasoned professionals well aware of the realities in the lab, so don't set yourself up for failure by biting off more than you can chew.
- Look at who funds similar research
- Scan for available calls
- Be willing to cast a wider net
- Use funding search tools
- Keep your mind open
The best way to find a funding opportunity for your idea is to look at an agency that funds similar research. Notice who funds the work of the colleagues in your field. Keep in mind that different agencies support different types of projects; it pays to learn what they are looking for.
These days,days everything is available on the internet, so spend some time scanning the websites for available calls. It also pays to be willing to cast a wider net and look beyond the usual list of big government agencies. Nowadays, the funding pool available to you is not limited to the big players like NIH, Research Councils UK or other national or international bodies.
Use funding opportunitytunity search tools such as SciVal Funding where you can search and browse comprehensive, accurate and current funding opportunity content and discover new sources of funding, especially smaller foundations or charities that may be interested in investing in less traditional projects. Alternatively you can usually find out a lot of information through a Google search.
Above all, try to keep youour mind open. You never know when you will see that perfect opportunity.
- Read the call again
- Read the call yet again
- Be realistic about the time it takes to write the grant
Now that you have found a suitable funding opportunity, it's time to read the call again. Try to tailor your idea to the call goals. One pitfall to watch for here is you should not modify the idea to the point that it is barely recognizable; otherwise, you won't have fun doing it and 3-4 years is a very long time to work on something that is not fun.
Now read the call yet again. Lookook for the deadlines and additional requirements. Does the call mention matching funds, support letters, or additional institutional commitments? All of these items take time to arrange, so it is best not to discover them at the last minute. Finally, we want to remind you again about the time it takes to write the grant. Even a perfect opportunity discovered two days before the deadline is a very risky proposition: A string of all-nighters rarely pays off.
Ask yourself whether you have a suitable team. Some calls are very specific to what disciplines or skills they want to pull in. Here is an example from a recent National Science Foundation solicitation that says very clearly that one of the senior investigators has to be from a bioengineering field. So, even if you have a dream team of faculty from a Chemistry department at your institution, you may be out of luck.
Different agencies have different styles
- Emphasize basic science for NSF
- Make sure you describe significance for healthcare for NIH
- Emphasize the applicability of the technology for DARPA
Different agencies have different styles and your application should ideally reflect that style. Some U.S. examples are shown here, but please remember that the main point is that you research and understand the key priorities of those bodies.
It is impossible to go over every agency, but for example, an NSF grant should always emphasize basic science and education opportunities. A connection to the broad area of healthcare is paramount for an NIH grant. People sometimes say that an ideal NIH application has to have someone die in the beginning and have someone be cured at the end. The technological possibilities, clear milestones, and significant practical impact are some of the required elements of a good DARPA proposal, and emphasizing basic science is a poor recipe for success with this kind of sponsor.
National Science Foundation
- Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process,
- Programs to strengthen scientific and engineeringneering research potential,
- Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering, and
- An information base on science and engineering appropriate for development of national and international policy.
The goals of the agency are:
- to foster the interchange of scientific and engineering information nationally and internationally,
- to support the development of computer and other methodologies,
- to maintain facilities in the Antarctic and promote the U.S. presence through research conducted there, and
- to address issues of equal opportunity in science and engineering.
So for example, here is the mission statement for NSF. It is very clear where their priorities and direction lie and submitting a proposal that is not in line with their mission is a recipe for failure.
**National Institutes of Health ** **The goals of the agency are: **
- to foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis for ultimately protecting and improving health,
- to develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources that will ensure the Nation's capability to prevent disease,
- to expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation's economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research, and
- to exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.
NIH's mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.
Again the NIH are also very clear on where they stand in terms of research funding and yet you would be surprised to learn that many proposals for all different kinds of research funding bodies are simply rejected due to not being in scope with the funding bodies goals and mission.
- Grant calls include the contact information for a reason
- Use email to contact and phone to connect
- Be realistic about what you can get from those calls
- Prepare your questions in advance
Ideally, you should try to contact the program manager before you start to write your application. Grant calls include the contact information for a reason, so try to use it.
Program managers seldom answer emails; instead pick up the phone and call. They are used to getting cold calls and will likely be happy to talk to you.
Be realistic about what you can gettingt from those calls as:
- Program managers probably __won't__ tell you whether they will fund your idea or not.
- Program managerss probably will tell you if the broad idea fits in their programmatic vision.
- Program managers probably will give you some hints on how best to tailor your idea to fit the call.
- Before you dial, however, do some background work and be prepared with a list of questions, and try not to waste much of the other person's time.
George is a Program Manager for the National Institutes of Health. He receives a phone call from Janet, a researcher who has written a proposal for a NIH grant.
- George is able to provide Janet with information on whether Janet's idea is unique F
- Janet can ask George if her proposal fits into the mission of the NIH and George can tell her the answer T
- George can inform Janet on whether her proposal will be accepted F
- Program Managers cannot comment on how unique a proposal idea is
- Program Managers can usually inform you if your broad idea fits in their programmatic vision.
- Program Managers usually won't tell you whether they will fund your idea or not.
- Also Program Managers probably will give you some hints on how best to tailor your idea to fit the call.
- Peer or expert review
- Mandatory review criteria
- Multi-step process
Each funding agency has its own review process.
- Federal agencies generally have formalized review panels of experts
- State agencies generally use staff as reviewers
- Foundations Grantenerally rely on staff and boards for review and funding decisions
- Additionally, agencies have certain mandatory review criteria. Also, the review process is a multi-step process.
Review criteria examples
Reviewers will always consider the mandatory criteria|Reviwers are usually provied a proposal socring/rating form and introduced to review proposals based on how well the mandatory review criteria are met
During the review process, reviewers consider the mandatory criteria. They are provided a proposal scoring/rating form and instructed to review proposals based on how well the mandatory review criteria are met.
This form of review allows for an element of standardisation and reduces risk levels.
- Do a literature search and previously funded research search
- Assume that review panels do not know anything about your work, but everything about the work of your competitors
- Do not expect panel members to be experts in your field; put your ideas in context
Before writing a review, always do the literature search because it can save you painful weeks of writing and worse an embarrassment of having a reviewer point out a published work that you were not aware of. Sponsors like to find winners and they fully expect you to be an expert in your field. Same is true for the review panels, however they usually know nothing about your work, but everything about the work your competitors are doing. So, don't give them an easy chance to shoot down your proposal.
Useful sourceses for finding literature are Scopus the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature and ScienceDirect, home to almost one-quarter of the world's peer-reviewed full-text scientific, technical and medical content.
Other sources also include Mendeley and Google.
Curiously, you still should not expect the panel members to be experts in your field. So, you have to make sure that you can put your idea in the broader context.
Tasks vs Time
- Write down a brief list of tasks and an approximate timeline
- Identify how thee tasks fit together and how much time it would take to execute them
Resources vs Budget
- Write down a resource list and a rough budget
- Check that your scope of work matches your resources
Delivery
- Can I do this work on time and on budget?
- If Not, start thinking about hiring additional people and whether the project budget can accommodate those people
Contingency
- Allow for the time to procure equipment and hire people
- Consider equipment downtime and other contingencies
Start with an outline
Read the call again: most grants require a very specific section structure and there are significant differences.
Allow enough time for writing
Grants are like an ideal gas; they fill all the space/time available for them.
OK, now the rubber meets the road and it's time to start writing the proposal. Start by reading the call yet again. Most grants require a very specific section structure, and you have to follow it very precisely. For example, NSF puts background and technical rationale before the description of the actual work. DARPA likes to see the actual work upfront. Again, you should allow enough time for writing, but try not to stretch the process for too long. Remember, grants are like an ideal gas – they fill all the space/time available for them. If you did your groundwork, then the writing process should proceed relatively quickly. If you are stuck on one section, try to work on another instead of wasting your time struggling with writers' block.
- What problem are you addressing? Why is it important? Who will benefit? Who cares?
- What have you and others done up to now to address this problem? Why hasn't it been solved yet? Why is it difficult?
- How do you plan to address it? Why do you think you will succeed? What is your hypothesis?
- What is your work plan and milestones?
- How will you measure success?
Some of the questions that need to be addressed in your narrative are:
What problem are you addressing? Why is this problem important? Who will benefit from the solution that you propose? And ultimately, who cares and why?
Keep in mind that the problem solution should be interesting not just to you, but to others. "If you fund this, I will be able to show that my idea works" is not a good enough reason for most of the sponsors.
Explain what you and others have done up to now to address this problem? Why hasn't it been solved yet? Why is it difficult?
Then tell how you plan to address it and why you think that you would succeed. Explain your hypothesis, your work plan, and your milestones. You don't have to put in excruciating details, but be precise and avoid general statements; those only irritate the reviewers. Finally, try to be very specific about how you plan to measure your success. This is where having clear quantitative milestones would be very helpful.
- Target a technical person who is not an expert in your field
- If you have preliminary data (and you always should), make sure the reader knows that it is your data
- Outline your hypothesis
- Outline the experiments that you want to do
Your work plan description should target a technical person who is not an expert in your field. Therefore, you should always include a background section that puts your work in context and explains the most important concepts in your proposal. If you have preliminary data (and you always should), make sure the reader knows that it is your data.
- Do not use tiny follownts
. 11 point is probably as low as you can go.
. Times New Roman font usually gives the smallest page count.
- Leave ample margins
. ¾ inch is pushing it;
. a majority of the calls specify 1 inch margins.
. Believe it or not, the grant agency staff does measure margins that appear suspiciously thin.
- Highlight the key points
. Use italics or underline them, but be sparse with it, otherwise your text will look like a mess
- Write the review for the reviewers
. Think what questions they will raise, and answer them; address all review criteria
Try to be kind to the review panel. Do not use tiny fonts, even if the call doesn't have a low page limit. 11 point is probably as low as you can go. Times New Roman font usually gives the smallest page count. Leave ample margins (3/4 inch is pushing it); a majority of the calls specify 1 inch margins. Believe it or not, the grant agency staff does measure margins that appear suspiciously thin. It is not about trying to get you on a technicality, but rather about keeping everyone on a level playing field.
Highlight the key points by italicizing or underlinerlining them, but be sparse with it, otherwise your text will look like a mess. When you write, try to do the work for the reviewers. Think what questions they will raise when reading the proposal and address them preemptively in your narrative. Also, address all review criteria.
- The *significance* of this result is...
- The *feasibility* of this approach is demonstrated by...
- The *outcome* of these experiments will be...
- The *innovation* of this project is defined by...
- The potential *transformation* by this research is evident by...
- Our *team* is especially well-qualified to undertake this project because...
- Our *environment* contributes siginificantly to the aims of this project in that...
- This *proposal* will *advance knowledge*/ have a *broader impact* by
Try to tell a compelling story with your proposal. Remember that Reviewers read many similar proposals to yours so how are you going to get yours to stand out? Be clear on the impact, outcomes, and all your thinking behind your proposal – but be judicious with the use of bold.
You are writing a grant proposal. Which of the following presentation guidelines should you follow?
A. Use a very small font if the call has a low page limit. B. Use the Verdana font to get the smallest page count. C. Leave 1-inch margins on all sides. D. Be judicious with the use of bold.
C.D. You should not use tiny fonts. 11 point is probably as low as you can go. Times New Roman font usually gives the smallest page count. You should also leave ample margins; a majority of the calls specify 1-inch margins. Bolded words are those the reviewers will use when writing their reviews, so you should be judicious with the use of bold.
It rarely does | Include discussion of risk factors
--------------------------|----------------------------------------
Be honest about your risks| Always propose motigation approaches
one important aspect that some applications often overlook is risk mitigation. Don't assume everything will work like a charm as it rarely does. You should include some discussion of risk factors. Be honest about your risks because the reviewers are not stupid, and ALWAYS try to propose mitigation approaches.
Figures need to be:
- Clear
- Informative
- High quality
- Readable
Figures are another critical part of the proposal. They need to be clear, informative, and visually appealing. Never delete a figure to save space for text – it's a trade-off that rarely pays off. Make sure your figures are of high quality (see an article by Rolandi and colleagues referenced at the end of this presentation for some detailed guidance on preparing your figures and graphics). Make sure that all fonts in graphics are readable both on paper and in electronic format. Don't reduce the graphics to a size where the fonts are barely visible. These days, people often review proposals on tablets, therefore try to check how your PDF looks on one of such screens. You also need to make sure that your captions are clear and informative. Try not to duplicate your captions in the text. It's a pet peeve for some reviewers.
- Include quantitative milestones
- Some agencies Informativesist on very quantitative milestones and make them a go/no-go decision
- Include a detailed timeline
- Make Sure the references are in order: use specialized software, such as Mendeley
Milestones is another frequently overlooked aspect of a grant proposal. They should be quantitative – a rule of thumb is that the sponsor should be able to use them without any modifications to assess your performance at key junctions of the project.
Some agencies insist on very quantitative Milestonestones and make them a go/no-go decision – make sure that you can hit them within the time limits, otherwise you put yourself at risk of losing your hard-earned funding.
Do include a detailed timeline:
This is also another chance for you to test whether your scope of work is realistic and see how the project timelines fit together. If you can, use project planning software; it makes establishing timelines much easier and it lets you check how different parts of the project fit together.
Don't forget about the references. Use referencesencing software (such as Mendeley) to make sure everything is in order. The reviewers won't have time to track mislabeled references. You have one shot at getting them right.
- Avoid passive voice
- Be original in your writing
- Tell a story
- Read They call again
- If you reuse parts of your older grants, make sureure that they fit
- Watch for the items specific to older grants in those texts
Some of the general stylistic guidelines for writing the narrative are:
- Avoid passive voice. Even though you may have heard that scientific writing needs to be done in passive voice, it makes the text feel lifeless and un-engaging.
- Be original in your writing.
- Tell a story; a narrative arc always makes for a more lucid read.
- Read the call again - try to include the program goals in your narrative.
- If you have to reuse parts of your older grants (and everybody does that these days), make sure that they fit seamlessly. Watch for the items specific to older grants in those passages, as nothing reveals a quick hack job to a reviewer like such an "oops" moment.
- They do matter!
- Try to be original and passagesropose ideas that make sense, not just the "boilerplate"
- boilerplateReviewers have read the "boilerplate" many times before
Don't forget the broader impact sections because they do matter!
A lot of these sections contain standardized texts theseat have very little practical value, so it is best to try to be original and propose ideas that make sense, not just follow the "boilerplate". Reviewers have read the "boilerplate" many times before, so having an interesting idea there would immediately separate you from the pack.
- Read the call
. Calls usually are fairly specific about the forms that they require
. "Required" and "must include" means just that – you must Includee those items
- Work on your budgets and other documents in advance
. The administrative staff at your institution won't work overnight for your grant – give them enough time
. Be mindful of internal deadlines
- If you need external letters, give people time to get them to you
. The letters are short, but people still need to find time to write them, and they may need to get internal approvals on their side – give them enough time
. Be prepared to give them a draft or a set of bullet points that you think would be important for them to emphasize – only if they ask
Now let's talk about the administrative parts. Start by reading the relevant sections of the call again.
Calls usually are very specific about the forms that they require. The words "required" and "must include" mean just that – you must include those items even if they don't make much sense to you.
Try to work on your budgets and other documentsuments in advance. Here is where you most likely have to interface with a number of other people at your institution who are much less invested in the success of your grant than you are. The reality is that the administrative staff at your institution would rarely work overnight for your grant – so give them enough time and be mindful to their internal deadlines.
If you need external letters, give people enough time to get them to you. The letters are short, but people still need to find time to write them, and they may need to get internal approvals on their side – give them enough time. Be prepared to give them a draft or a set of bullet points that you think would be important for them to emphasize – but only if they ask for that material.
- Be frugal,li but realistic
- Don't forget to write the detailed budget justification
- If you have subcontracts, then make sure their budgets are in the proper format
Budgets is another area that does not get enough attention. Generally, in this era of tight research budgets, it pays to be frugal, but still stay realistic.
- Program Managers respond well to frugal budgets.
- Program Managers don't respond well to the underfunded proposals. Generally, they know very well what it takes to do the work and they won't be fooled by a low-ball budget.
The average size of the award specified in the call is a good indication of the scope of work the Program Managers has in mind, so try to keep your budget within that ballparc.
Don't forget to write the detailed budget justification.
- Explain all the items that look unusual. Some of the examples include expensive consumables or frequent travel to a user facility for experiments. Make sure that those are properly justified.
If you have subcontracts, you needed to make sure their budgets are in the proper format, and do it in advance to give your administrative staff time to incorporate them into your budget package.
- Check PDFs for Readablebility and errors
- Give enough time to upload the files
- Upload a near-final copy early because agencies' systems get busy during submission times
- Forget about the proposal until you hear from the review panel
- Make sure that the agency communications don't get filtered into your SPAM folder
You are done!
When you have everything ready, it is time to submit. Before submission, double-check PDFs for readability and typos. Always make sure you have enough time to upload the files. Murphy's law always rears its ugly head when the deadlines are near, and many agencies' systems get very busy during submission times, which only aggravates the problems.
-
Make sure to upload a near-final copy early. You can always replace it with a new version, and if the system crashes at the last minute, you will still have something in.
-
You are done! Now you can forget about the proposal until you hear from the review panel, but do make sure that the agency communications don't get filtered into your SPAM folder!
- Many agencies will return detailed reviews
- Use the review to revise and resubmit your grant
- Assume any problems were from you, not the reviewer
- Make sure you invest considerable work in the revision
After you hear back from the review panel, you may or may not have a cause for celebration. However, even if you didn't make it this time, the work does not stop there. Many agencies will return detailed reviews, and you should use the review to revise and resubmit your grant.
Generally, you should assume any problems were from YOU, not from the reviewer, and fuming about unfair treatment may feel nice, but it will not get you anywhere.
- If the reviewer misunderstood something, then YOU did not explain it clearly enough.
Make sure you invest considerable work in the revision and try to address the comments that the panel gave. It is likely that the review panel composition for the next cycle will be substantially similar or even the same, so it is wise to be responsive to their feedback.
And finally – Good luck! No one gets ALL their proposalls funded, and writing them is a lifelong learning process, so be persistent.