Tips for Grant Preparation
I. To be successful, your application must possess two characteristics:
- Excellent science.
- Flawless packaging.
Excellent science
Without excellent science, there is no possibility of funding. Excellent science contains the following three elements:
- A basic idea that is novel, significant, and based upon sound, logical principles.
- An experimental approach that is technically feasible.
- A study design that is adequate to achieve an answer (adequate number of experiments, suitable planning for controls, and a workload that is appropriate both to the dollars requested and the time).
Flawless packaging (preparation of your application)
Flawless packaging includes the following:
- Follows all technical rules to length and type size.
- Is absolutely clear, concise, and lacks needless repetition.
II. Seven fundamental questions grant reviewers ask about an application:
- Is the hypothesis valid?
- Are the aims logical?
- Are the procedures feasible, adequate, and appropriate for the research proposed?
- Is the research likely to produce new data and concepts or confirm existing hypotheses?
- What is the significance and originality of the proposed study in its scientific field?
- Are the principal investigator and staff qualified to conduct the proposed work, as judged by their demonstrated competence, academic credentials, research experience, and productivity?
- Are the facilities, equipment, and other resources adequate for the proposed work, and is the environment conducive to productive research?
III. Specific pointers to keep in mind:
- State your study objectives and specific aims clearly.
- Use the literature review to justify the need for a proposed project.
Provide a concise summary of the literature. You can group this section by subtopics. Be efficient and conserve space, but at the same time be sure that the reviewer is:- convinced you know what others have done and
- can discern your thought process.
- State the general strategy of the study, including a discussion of the rationale for the choice of methods, e.g., historical study, survey, experiment, use or not of comparison group.
- Seek expert consultation, with a biostatistician, methodologists, grant office personnel, ethics committees, or others who have well-developed skills in the field of grantsmanship. Reviewers look very carefully at your consultant or mentor. Make sure that your application includes a letter of agreement from each consultant as well as his/her CV. Letters should indicate what the mentor or consultant will do and what facilities he/she is prepared to let you use. A sense of enthusiasm should be communicated.
- Specify the criteria you will use to evaluate the answers to your study question and the success of your project. Keep in mind: The success of a study or project is not determined by the verdict it yielded but by the quality of the evidence it produced.
- Be clear and concise. Organize paragraphs to permit intelligent skimming. Tell reviewers up front what is in each paragraph. Reviewers don’t want creative writing; they want accuracy, clarity, and brevity. Misspelled words, typographical errors, and poor grammar reflect a careless attitude, not exactly what reviewers are looking for in investigators.
- Keep appendices and supporting documents to a minimum.
- Be realistic and honest in your assessment of the available and required resources.
- Follow all instructions to the T and meet all deadlines.