How to Write a Successful Grant

How to Write a Successful First Grant An Overview Juanita L. Merchant, M.D., Ph.D. University of Michigan The Major Do’s of Grant Writing  Tell A Good Story  Tell A Better Story Tell the BEST Story August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Give Yourself Enough Time  First submission from New Investigator  (9 months to Plan; 2 months to write)  Senior Investigator  (9 months to Plan; 1 month to write) August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Preparing to Write  READ THE INSTRUCTIONS – Take note of Fonts, Lines/inch, Insert Formatting  Review YOUR results  Identify basic conclusions  Impact of results on the field  Are your results Important and Novel?  Be CRITICAL! Everyone is “In Love” w/ Their Own Data  Formulate hypothesis  Begin an outline August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Personnel  Will you need additional expertise? – Consultants- provides advice – Collaborators-provides critical reagents – Co-investigators- receive salary to execute critical experiments. Local expertise preferable  Need letters from ALL of these individuals  Need their Biosketch  Request early August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Special Permission  IRBs for human studies  Animal license for animal studies  Permission to use hazardous compounds or infectious agents (OSEH) August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Seed Money To Generate Initial Results August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© The ABCs of Sitting Down To Write The grant is NOT written in the ORDER it is Read. START with your EXISTING DATA Do you have a clear STORY to tell? Identify a HYPOTHESIS Formulate SPECIFIC AIMS Think of Aims as the 3-4 manuscripts that will be generated from the Proposal. ORDER of Sections to Write: Specific Aims>Preliminary Results>Experimental Design> Methods>Background> Abstract Juanita L. Merchant© August 2005 Refine Hypothesis  State your overall “far-reaching” goals  State the major idea to test in the Current Proposal  Pose as an interesting question  Is your idea Feasible? August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© A. Specific Aims (One Page)  First paragraph is a concise statement of what lead to the hypothesis  List Specific Aims--Major categories of experiments to test hypothesis  Order of the aims important  Risky to propose new animal models or cloning of a new factor August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© C. Preliminary Results Section (6-8 pages)         Organize results according to Specific Aims Ideally should have some results for each aim Critical feasibility studies MUST be included Demonstrate competence with new or difficult techniques Interpret the results critically USE Diagrams Judicious use of COLOR for emphasis Summarize Key Conclusions from Preliminary Data according to each Aim. Juanita L. Merchant© August 2005 Preliminary Results Section Include unpublished data. • DO NOT include “submitted manuscripts”, BUT key results may be included in the text. Manuscripts IN PRESS can be submitted • Published work <6 months old can be included, but use sparingly.  August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© D. Experimental Design and Methods (10-13 pages)  Most important section  Makes up half to 1/3 of 25 page grant  No experiment is guaranteed – (technical execution NOT only reason for failure) – Have an intelligent conversation w/the Reviewer  Specific Sections (organized by Aim) – Rationale, Design, Expected Results, Limitations, Alternative approaches  Experimental Design ≠ Methods  Time Line August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© B. Background and Significance (3 pages)  Be SUCCINCT (3 pages)  What is the essential information the reviewer needs to know to understand and evaluate your proposal?  Identify “gaps” in field of study  The Hypothesis should address A Gap in the field  The “AIMS” are the Categories of Experiments directed towards testing the Hypothesis  Organize additional background around Aims August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Background Avoid – Citing mostly your own work. – Presenting unpublished results. – Failing to cite important papers inconsistent with your review. Consider – USE a DIAGRAM (“picture worth 1000 Words”) August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© USE FIGURES TO ILLUSTRATE PATHWAYS AND SPECIFIC AIMS Aim 2: TRA-1, TRA-2 interaction Aim 1: Characterize nuclear protein complex Aim 3: Nuclear-cytoplasmic trafficking NXF-1 and TRA-2 Abstract  Specific areas included – Area of interest, Knowledge gap – Methods, Aims – Significance  Word limitation  Will be read by initial screeners  Public access August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© The Title  Broad  Specific  Note character limitations (56)  Targets grant to Institute, Study Section  Changing Title Means a New Grant= new submission (payline differs) August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Grant Writing in a Nutshell Begin w/ YOUR Data August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Title Cover Letter Review study section rosters from NIH homepage  Specify Study section  Specify Institute August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Budget  Modular – Must state what personnel will be doing  Itemized >250K – Not recommended for first submissions August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Leave Enough Time to...  Proof read – formatting  Allow for computer glitches  Generate copies  Obtain institutional signatures  Collaborator Letters August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Common Pitfalls  Using incorrect statistical analysis  Order of Specific Aims not logical  Assuming proposed experiments will work  No alternative explanations for data  No alternative experiments proposed  Figures too small, not labeled, out of order or duplicated  Incorrect data interpretation  Not Feasible August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Common Pitfalls  Dense, repetitive writing (Less is MORE!!!)  BORING! (me too approach to science)  Lack of Diagrams to Explain Concepts  Improper use or interpretation of the literature  Insufficient preliminary data  OLD idea  Approach NOT state of the Art  Not innovative (everyone else is doing it!) August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Common Pitfalls  Fishing expedition (The “F” Word) – You are not sure where to go with the question – There are too many potential outcomes to permit a clear direction to the experimental design – Microarray analyses with out a hypothesis to test often falls into this category August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant© Which Grant Would You Want to Read ? A Successful Grant Is… 1. Hypothesis driven, solid foundation 2. Mechanistic, insightful, feasible 3. Clearly illustrated 4. Logical flow 5. Thoughtful contingency plans 6. Centered on strong preliminary findings 7. “Clutter” Free Nick Davidson’s Top Ten List 10. Plan ahead. Outline aims and sketch out what the ideal 10+ things for supporting studies would show.your preliminary data set to do to increase Do chances in advance. Tough to funded: this ~9 months of getting do. 9. Focus on completing key experiments that will complement preliminary data sets. 8. At least 6 months prior to deadline, share your outline with mentor or senior colleague/ collaborator. Rework as necessary. Very tough to do. 7. Finish and submit manuscripts 3 months prior to deadline. Get letters, animal care approvals, radiation safety forms and agreements into a file. 6. Refine specific aims in line with preliminary and published data. Nick Davidson’s Top Ten List 5. Invest time in assembling figures and diagrams. Use color. This pays dividends. 4. Focus on connecting preliminary findings to current objectives. The goal is to fashion the proposal into an extension of your current work. 3. Generate a series of paragraphs for background and significance. Goal is to outline comprehensive overview of field, placing your objectives in context. The key is balance. 2. Challenge yourself to prioritize. What are the five MOST important things you want to know about your area of work? Eliminate #4 and #5. Justify the top 3. 1. Stay on task. Details count. Leave time to correct typos, paginate application. Nick Davidson’s Top Ten List 10. Starting writing less than two months prior to deadline. Poor planning shows. It takes time to write a grant. 9. Citing mostly your own work. Background needs balance. 10- things to avoid to increase your chances of getting funded: 8. Rambling background review. It’s a grant, not a review article. Don’t try and educate the reviewer. Stay focused on your proposal. 7. Dangling anecdotes and oblique references to “interesting” findings. 6. Too much text, not enough figures and diagrams. But the figures have to be clear, well illustrated and ideally stand alone. Nick Davidson’s Top Ten List 5. Experimental plan with different wording than Specific Aims. KEEP THE AIMS AND THE PLAN IDENTICAL. 4. Proposing aims for which there is no preliminary data. Asking for trouble. Doesn’t need to be extensive, but something for all aims. 3. Trying to undertake too much in too many areas. Particularly for new investigators. Scope and focus are important disciplines. 2. Proposing experiments for which key reagents have to be developed or are not yet in hand. 1. Aims built around microarray, proteomic or other profiling methodology for which no a priori hypothesis can be built. This leads reviewers to use the “F” word. Convey Excitement About YOUR PROPOSAL No one will be excited about the proposal if You Are NOT!!! August 2005 Juanita L. Merchant©