10 Habits of Successful
Grant Writers
10 Habits of Successful
Grant Writers
1. Think ahead, plan 5. Think like a
backwards reviewer
2. Develop a concept 6. Write well
that is SMART 7. Get feedback
3. Have a secret 8. Be persistent
weapon 9. Respond well to
4. Talk to the criticism
program officer/ 10. Behave
funding agency responsibly
1. Think Ahead, Plan Backwards
submit application 0 days
get approvals 2-60+days
outline, write, and edit 2 months
develop concept > 3 months
Don’t be in a hurry
2. Develop a concept that FITS
and is SMART
•Fills a gap in knowledge
• Important to
- you
- the field
- funding agency
• Tests a hypothesis
• Short-term investment in long-term
goals
•Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant, Time-bound
3. Have a “ Secret Weapon”
4. Talk to the Program Officer
• Is concept relevant?
• Funding
- Rate?
- level (amount years)?
• who reviews?
• What are the criteria?
5. Think like a Reviewer
• Estimate of time spent considering a
proposal
primary reviewer 7-8 hr
secondary reviewer 1 hr
discussion at review 20 min
Implications
• Anticipate questions, provide
answers
• Know and use the review criteria
- significance
- approach
- investigator
- environment
- also: ethical conduct of research
6. Write well
1. simplify your writing tasks
2. make application easy to appreciate
Simplify writing tasks
• outline
• write first draft
• revise
If you try to write well and edit at the
same time, you will do neither well.
George Sides
Easy to appreciate
• Write in paragraphs
- 1 major idea per paragraph
- topic sentences
- initial paragraphs of section most
important
Easy to appreciate
• Have a table of contents
• Use their organization, numbering
• Use headings frequently
• Make it easy to find key points
- bold face
- cross reference (see Methods, page X)
- some redundancy
Appearance
• Use type size > 11 pt.
• Let your text breathe
- indent paragraphs
- skip line between paragraphs
B. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
The importance of training in “Survival skills.” Success in
science requires a solid background in a specific scientific
discipline as well as extensive laboratory experiences. However,
for individuals to develop into accomplished professionals, they
must acquire survival skills, that is, they must be able to
communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, obtain
employment and funding, manage stress and time, teach, and
behave responsibly (1,2,3). This has always been the case and is
becoming even more true as our doctoral and postdoctoral
trainees need to be prepared for a variety of vocations (3,4).
In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of our
Trainees will ultimately find themselves doing research in
industry, teaching in 4-year colleges, or serving in some
administrative capacity. Others will combine their PhDs with
professional degree in medicine or law and become clinical
researchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in the
formulation of public policy. With many of these new vocations,
extra-laboratory skills become even more essential (3).
Traditionally, higher education in the sciences has focused
almost exclusively on the content of the scientific discipline
and on research methodology. Indeed, individual employed in
research and related fields often complain that although their
academic training provided them with a sound foundation in their
B. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
The importance of training in “Survival skills.” Success in
science requires a solid background in a specific scientific discipline
as well as extensive laboratory experiences. However, for individuals to
develop into accomplished professionals, they must acquire survival
skills, that is, they must be able to communicate effectively, both orally
and in writing, obtain employment and funding, manage stress and
time, teach, and behave responsibly (Bloom 1992; Bird 1994; National
Academy of Sciences 1995). This has always been the case and is
becoming even more true as our doctoral and postdoctoral trainees
need to be prepared for a variety of vocations (National Academy of
Sciences 1995: Varmus 1995)
.
In addition to traditional jobs in academia, many of our trainees
will ultimately find themselves doing research in industry, teaching in
4-year colleges, or serving in some administrative capacity. Others will
combine their PhDs with professional degree in medicine or law and
become clinical researchers, patent lawyers, or become involved in
the formulation of public policy.
7. Get Feedback and Revise
• Aims
• Background
• Preliminary data
• Experiments
• Writing (including English)
• Appearance
8. Be Persistent
9. Respond Well to Criticism
• Reviewer comments…
- can be depressing to read
- may be incomplete
- may contain contradictions
• Read carefully
• Seek advice
- peers
- program officers
• Respond carefully and completely
Reason for rejection:
Research proposals
• not innovative, • overambitious
important • lacks experimental
• inadequate rationale detail
• uncritical approach • lacks experience w/
• not well reasoned • essential methods
• unfamiliar with uncertain future
literature directions
• diffuse, superficial, • ethical concerns
or unfocused research
plan
Revised application
• Deal with each comment in introduction
- insert “critique” from reviewer
- response
• agree and indicate change, or
• disagree (politely) and explain
• mark all changes
10. Behave responsibly
• subject welfare • accuracy of cvs
• preliminary data • collaborators
• fabrication • unique resources
• falsification • budget
• graphics • funding overlap
