Grant Writing Keys to success Types of Grants to Apply for NHMRC Grants to Create New Knowledge e.g. project grants Grants to accelerate Research Translation e.g Development grants, Centres for Research Excellence, Targeted and Urgent Calls for Research, Dementia Research Team Grants Grants to Build Australia s Future Capability e.g. Postgraduate Scholarships, Early Career Fellowships, Career Development Fellowships etc Work with partners aims to improve the availability and quality of research evidence to decision makers who design policy and to inform the policy process by supporting more effective connections between the decision makers and the researchers. Collaborative Grants e.g. aims to improve the availability and quality of research evidence to decision makers who design policy and to inform the policy process by supporting more effective connections between the decision makers and the researchers e.g. Human Frontier Program 1
Types of Grants to Apply for ARC e.g. Discovery Early Career Research Awards The objectives of the DECRA scheme are to: support excellent basic and applied research by early career researchers advance promising early career researchers and promote enhanced opportunities for diverse career pathways enable research and research training in high quality and supportive environments expand Australia s knowledge base and research capability enhance the scale and focus of research in the Science and Research Priorities Future Fellowships: Future Fellowships provides four year fellowships to outstanding Australian mid career researchers. Types of Grants to Apply for Philanthropic Cass Foundation Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Viertel Ramaciotti 2
Success Rates for NHMRC Grant applications 2015 Grant Type Success Rate Gender balance Early Career Fellowships Australian Biomedical (Peter Doherty) 21.3% Over 500 applications 337 (W): 182 (M) 20.2% vs 23.6 22% 21.9% (W) vs 22.7% (M) Career Development 12% 12.6% (W) vs 11.3% (M) Awards Research Fellowships 24.3% 26% (W) vs 22.6% (M) 104 apps vs 186 Project Grants: New 15% 10% (W) vs 19.5% (M) Investigators Project Grants 13.7% 12.7% (W) vs 14.7% (M) Writing an Application for a Research Project Grant Writing a grant application is a major undertaking. There are several components to a strong grant application. 1. The subject of your application must be creative, exciting, and worthy of funding. 2. The project must be developed through a rigorous, welldefined experimental plan. 3. You must make sure that the information is presented in clear language and that your application follows the rules and guidelines detailed in the grant application rules. 3
Eight Basic Questions Reviewers Ask How high are the intellectual quality and merit of the study? What is its potential impact? How novel is the proposal? If not novel, to what extent does potential impact overcome this lack? Is the research likely to produce new data and concepts or confirm existing hypotheses? Is the hypothesis valid and have you presented evidence supporting it? Are the aims logical? Are the procedures appropriate, adequate, and feasible for the research? Are the investigators qualified? Have they shown competence, credentials, and experience? Are the facilities adequate and the environment conducive to the research? Before you start writing the application, make sure you have done your homework: know the field, choose an excellent idea to pursue, and equally important, read the entire grant application kit e.g funding rules, instructions to applicants Begin by focusing on the big picture. It is critical that you are intimately familiar with the field in which you are considering applying for funding. You must be aware of the field's directions, knowledge gaps, and research already being done. Your application will be reviewed by your peers, investigators who are knowledgeable about the research area of your proposal. To succeed, you will have to be at least as knowledgeable as they are. Consider the reviewers to be "informed strangers." You must include enough detail to convince them your hypothesis is sound and important, your aims are logical and feasible, you understand potential problems, and you can properly analyze the data. 4
Developing the Hypothesis Most reviewers feel that a good grant application is driven by a strong hypothesis. The hypothesis is the foundation of your application. Make sure it's solid. It must be important to the field, and you must have a means of testing it. Provide a rationale for the hypothesis. Make sure it's based on current scientific literature. Consider alternative hypotheses. Your research plan will explain why you chose the one you selected. A good hypothesis should increase understanding of biologic processes, diseases, treatments and/or preventions. Your proposal should be driven by one or more hypotheses, not by advances in technology (i.e., it should not be a method in search of a problem). Also, avoid proposing a "fishing expedition" that lacks solid scientific basis. State your hypothesis in both the specific aims section of the research plan and the synopsis/abstract. Problems and Concerns Commonly Cited by Reviewers Below is a list of the most common reasons cited by reviewers for an application's lack of success: Lack of significance to the scientific issue being addressed. Lack of original or new ideas. Proposal of an unrealistically large amount of work (i.e., an over ambitious research plan). Scientific rationale not valid. Project too diffuse or superficial or lacks focus. Proposed project a fishing expedition lacking solid scientific basis (i.e., no basic scientific question being addressed). Studies based on a shaky hypothesis or on shaky data, or alternative hypotheses not considered. Proposed experiments simply descriptive and do not test a specific hypothesis. The proposal is technology driven rather than hypothesis driven (i.e., a method in search of a problem). 5
Rationale for experiments not provided (why important, or how relevant to the hypothesis). Direction or sense of priority not clearly defined, i.e., the experiments do not follow from one another, and lack a clear starting or finishing point. Lack of alternative methodological approaches in case the primary approach does not work out. Insufficient methodological detail to convince reviewers the investigator knows what he or she is doing (no recognition of potential problems and pitfalls). Most experiments depend on success of an initial proposed experiment (so all remaining experiments may be worthless if the first is not successful). The proposed model system is not appropriate to address the proposed questions (i.e., proposing to study T cell gene expression in a B cell line). The proposed experiments do not include all relevant controls. Proposal innovative but lacking enough preliminary data. Preliminary data do not support the feasibility of the project or the hypothesis. Investigator does not have experience (i.e., publications or appropriate preliminary data) with the proposed techniques or has not recruited a collaborator who does. The proposal lacks critical literature references causing reviewers to think that the applicant either does not know the literature or has purposely neglected critical published material. Not clear which data were obtained by the investigator and which others have reported. Project has already been done need to balance preliminary data with having completed the study prior to funding Most Common Reasons for a Low Score (in priority order)* Lack of new or original ideas. Hypothesis ill defined, superficial, lacking, unfocused, or unsupported by preliminary data. Methods unsuitable or defective and not likely to yield results. Data collection confused in design, inappropriate instrumentation, poor timing or conditions. Data management and analysis vague, unsophisticated. Inadequate expertise or knowledge of field for PI, or too little time to devote to the work Poor resources or facilities; limited access to appropriate patient population. 6
Poor writing. Insufficient information, experimental details, or preliminary data. Significance not convincingly stated. Approach not shown to be feasible, but applicant can demonstrate feasibility. Insufficient discussion of obstacles and alternatives approaches. Not fixable or more difficult problems Philosophical issues, e.g., the reviewers believe the work is not significant. Hypothesis is not sound or not supported by data presented. Work has already been done. Methods proposed were not suitable for testing the hypothesis. NHMRC Early Career Fellowships In 2011, successful applicants typically, in the past 5 years, had: 1. On average published 11 (range 2 60) peer reviewed journal articles where: 2. The average number of papers published by basic science fellows was 9 (median 8). 3. The average number of papers published by clinical fellows (including preventive health) was 12 (median 10) 4. The average number of papers published by public health fellows (includes health services research) was 14 (median 13). 5. Approximately 50% of the published articles were as first author, with no distinction between the different broad research areas. 7
Presented at national or international meetings at least once (average was 5 national (median 4) and 3 international (median 3) meetings), where: Basic science fellows attended an average of 4 national and 2 international conferences Clinical and public health fellows attended an average of 7 national and 4 international conferences Received NHMRC funding as a named Chief Investigator (10% of fellows, but rarely as Chief Investigator A) or from a postgraduate scholarship (19% of Fellows) 11% of basic science early career fellows had received NHMRC funding 33% of clinical and public health early career fellows had received NHMRC funding More than once, acted as a reviewer for a journal, member of a committee, volunteered for community presentations, wrote articles for news, or have been interviewed by the media. Approximately 25% of Fellows reported career disruptions 8
Example profiles of successful Biomedical applicants Profile 1 Publications: 1 review, 7 first author, 5 mid author Selected Journals: Tissue Eng, Acta Biomat, J Cell Mol Med, Ann Nutr Metab. Conference presentations: 2 national, 8 overseas Supervision: 2 PhD, Grants: NIL, Awards: 3 Profile 2 Publications: 2 reviews, 13 first author, 8 mid author, 1 last author, 1 book chapter Selected journals: BMJ, AmJ Kidney Dis, Nephrology, J Paed, Int J Qual Health Care Conference presentations: 11 national, 13 overseas Supervision: 3 Masters, 2 Hons; Grants: $33,000, Awards: 1 Community (reviewer, panels, committees): 15 Clinical Medicine Profile 1 Publications: 7 first author, 5 mid author Selected journals: Acta Crystallo, Bioorg Med Chem Lett, J Med Chem, Eur J Med Chem Conference presentations: 1 national Supervision: 1 PhD; Grants: NIL, Awards: 5 Community (reviewer, panels, committees): 2 Profile 2 Publications: 11 reviews, 2 first author, 8 mid author, 3 book chapters Selected journals: Lancet, J Infect Dis, BMC Infec tdis, Clin Infect Dis, Int J Infect Dis Conference presentations: 4 national, 6 overseas Supervision: 1 PhD; Grants: $1.55M, Awards: 5 Community (reviewer, panels, committees): 19 9
Public Health & Health Services Research Profile 1 Publications: 5 first author, 5 mid author, 1 patent Selected journals: JVirol, JCellPhysiol, Virology, VirusRes Conference presentations: 3 national, 4 overseas Supervision: 1 PhD, 4 Hons Community (reviewer, panels, committees): 36 Profile 2 Publications: 4 reviews, 10 first author, 2 mid author, 1 last author, 8 book chapters Selected journals: JClinEpi, Lancet, Stroke, BMC MedResMethods, IntJStroke, AmJEpi, Health Manager, BMC Public Health. Conference presentations: 13 national, 2 overseas Supervision: 1 PhD, 4 Masters, 5 Hons; Grants: $1.55M, Awards: 2 Community (reviewer, panels, committees): 15 Career disruption: 5 years 10