Grant-Writing Tips

Lynne Hutchison
VUMC Grants Writer & Awards Administrator
lynne.hutchison@vanderbilt.edu

 

Before You Write

 

Know the funding agency. Funding agencies, whether federal or private, support work that furthers their mission. That mission is stated in program announcements (PAs), requests for grant applications (RFAs), and requests for contract proposals (RFPs). Analyze these documents and clearly demonstrate in your application that you meet their requirements. Call and talk to the program officer assigned to the RFA. Tell then your research idea and ask for advice on the topic.

 

Know your colleagues and ask for help. Research is highly interdisciplinary and no one person can do it all. Colleagues are essential for ideas, critiques, and guidance. Know your weak areas and collaborate with colleagues who are strong in those areas.

 

Writing the Grant

 

Make time. It takes ~ 120 hours to write an NIH R01 grant. Give yourself more time to write than you think you need: six months is good; three is a bare minimum. Anything less is begging for trouble.

 

Read the instructions. Follow to the letter the NIH PHS 398 rules on format, length, and necessary elements. Give the reviewers the information they need in the format they require. Get a copy of a successful grant as a model.

 

Write clearly. Clearly communicate the hypothesis, aims, methods, and significance of your work. Demonstrate that your hypothesis is sound, your aims are logical and feasible, you understand and have prepared for potential problems, and you can analyze the data. Don't assume your reader knows what you mean; explain complex concepts or terms. Keep abbreviations, acronyms, and discipline-specific jargon to an absolute minimum. Write the abstract last, as an accurate summary as well as a preview of the grant. Get help from a scientific editor. The better the writing, the better your chances for success.

 

Tell a story. Be sure your proposed research is innovative, exciting, and worthy, then tell that story in your application. Write your proposal as a lucid, persuasive narrative—like a compelling piece of scientific journalism. Find and highlight your application’s “wow” factor. Tell why it is important to science and how it will better human health.

 

Answer these questions: Who, What, When, Where, How, Why?

 

  • Who: Biographical sketches, key personnel, contributors, human subjects
  • What: Hypothesis, specific aims, research design/methods
  • When: Background/significance, preliminary data, research design/methods, timelines
  • Where: Research design/methods, performance sites, resources
  • How: Preliminary data, research design/methods, budget
  • Why: Backgound/significance, preliminary data, research design/methods

 

Edit! Revise! Allow about two weeks for each draft revision, including time to toss it in a drawer and came back later with fresh eyes. Ask a colleague in your field, an intelligent non-expert, and a good scientific editor to review your application. A professional editor IS worth the time and expense. They fix what you’ve missed and catch poor structure, missing elements, vague ideas or methods, etc.

 

Editing Checklist:

  • Have I written my application to the educated layman?
  • Did I use an outline to structure my proposal clearly and logically?
  • Are all elements in the right place?
  • Did I ask an expert colleague to review the application?
  • Did I ask an educated layman to review the application?
  • Did I ask a professional scientific editor to edit the application?
  • Am I correct and consistent in style (grammar, spelling)?
  • Have I purged excess jargon, obscure acronyms, and highly technical terms?
  • Have I explained anything that isn’t clear?
  • Have I written in the active voice?
  • Have I pruned run-on sentences?

 

The Review Process

 

What they do. A primary reviewer, who reads the proposal and writes a critique, spends ~ 7-8 hours reviewing the grant. A reader averages less than 1 hour reading the proposal. In the Study Section, members spend ~ 20 minutes discussing and voting a priority score on the grant. Reviewers don’t have time to waste on vague ideas, disorganized structure, poor writing, and messy format.

 

What they want. Reviewers want clear scientific reasoning (lucid hypotheses and well-designed experiments), innovative ideas, focused writing, evidence of productivity, and knowledge of techniques. Reviewers want good grammar, correct spelling, no typos, an easy-to-read format, and neatness. Organize your research plan exactly as described in the PHS 398 instructions. Label sections clearly (A. Specific Aims, etc.). If you can't write carefully, how can you research carefully?

 

What they hate. Some reviewers may not be experts in your area and they don’t want to wade through excessive jargon, acronyms, etc. Reviewers don't like surprises: altered format, ignored instructions, information missing or abandoned to the appendix rather than placed in the body of the proposal.

 

Revising and Resubmitting

 

Even the best researchers have submitted unsuccessful grants. But persistence pays: over half of NIH applications eventually receive funding. If reviewers liked your idea and though it important, it’s worth fixing problems and resubmitting. Address all critiques in the Summary Statement (pink sheets) when you resubmit, seek expert help from the grant program administrator, a colleague, and/or an editor, and be persistent (applications may be resubmitted a total of 3 times).