Guide to Effective Grant Writing

Guide to Effective Grant Writing

Guide to Effective Grant Writing How to Write an Effective NIH Grant Application Otto O.Yang Departments of Medicine, and Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics Gejfen School of Medicine, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California Springe]

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Yang, Otto O. Guide to effective grant writing : how to write a successful NIH grant application / by Otto O. Yang, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-306-48664-4 (pbk.) - ISBN 0-306-48665-2 (ebook) 1. National Institutes of Health (U. S.) - Research grants - Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Proposal writing for grants - United States - Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title RAIL D6Y36 2004 2004051680 ISBN 0-306-48664-4(pbk.) ISBN 0-306-48665-2 (ebook) Printed on acid-free paper. 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed in the United States of America. (SPI) 10 98765432 springer.com

This book is dedicated foremost to my parents, who have provided constant support for all my endeavors. It is further dedicated to all my teachers, who provided me the tools to think and write. Finally, it is dedicated to my wife Wendy, without whose patience and understanding my work would not be possible.

Foreword The bane of the academic existence is grant writing, and yet without grants most of us would not be able to continue to ply our trade. With this enormous importance of grants, it is surprising that we are so well trained to do research, with almost no formal attention given to grant writing, which is the lifeblood of academic research. Help is now at hand this book by Otto Yang MD is the first truly helpful guide to grant writing. The book is likely to be of great help to anyone writing a grant, even those of us who are more seasoned grant writers. Organized in similar fashion to an actual NIH grant, with specific sections on specific aims, background and rationale, preliminary results, and experimental design, it outlines in very readable fashion specific suggestions for convincing study sections that the ideas being presented are worthy of funding, and turning the reviewer into an advocate for the project being proposed. It also points out common errors that make reviewers lose enthusiasm even when the experiments are highly worthy of funding. Frequent use of examples makes the points very clear, and the clear style makes the book an enjoyable read. As a person who is often asked to serve on study sections to review grants, I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Yang, since anyone using this book will undoubtedly deliver a grant that is much more accessible to the reviewers. Although there is no substitute for great ideas, all too often these are hard to dissect from the disorganized and poorly presented grants. For those who follow the suggestions in this book, the outcome is certain to be improved. BRUCE D. WALKER Boston MA 4/27/04 (Dr. Walker is a Professor of Medicine and the director of the Partner's AIDS Research Center at Harvard Medical School. He is also a former chairman of an NIAID/NIH study section, and recipient of the Doris Duke Distinguished Clinical Scientist Award.)

Preface A crucial skill as an academic faculty member in the health sciences is the ability to get research funding. Doctoral and postdoctoral training are highly focused on acquiring the scientific tools required to pursue a career in research, but learning the complementary skills of building and managing a research operation is usually left to observation, trial and error, and occasional elective seminars. In my own career as a physician-scientist, I've been extremely fortunate to have outstanding role models and mentors who have walked me through the process of grant writing and helped me navigate the process of submitting grant applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Without such guidance, trial and error would have been an inefficient and perhaps disastrous method to learn these skills. Serving on an NIH "study section" (IRG) that reviews grant applications in HIV pathogenesis, I've now had the opportunity both to assess hundreds of grants and to see the process from the perspective of the reviewer. The central importance of writing effectively has become especially obvious after being in this role. It has been surprising to what degree certain mistakes and problems recur, and how much impact the presentation of a grant affects its reception during review. It struck me that many of these errors are simply due to lack of experience or formal guidance, and that many grants could be significantly improved with just a few pointers. This guide to grant writing is therefore intended to fill a gap in the formal instruction of academic faculty in the skills of presenting a research project to NIH for funding, a chief mechanism of support for many academic researchers. The information and advice provided here are intended to assist in the process of applying for NIH grants, which are a major funding staple for

X Preface developing and established scientists in the health sciences. However, this guide absolutely is not a substitute for the detailed step-by-step instructions and advice provided by NIH. Those resources are essential to the mechanics of producing and submitting a grant, and should be followed strictly. The focus of this guide, however, is writing to present scientific ideas clearly and avoid common mistakes that detract from the application. The principles given here are based on my own opinions, which have been shaped by numerous helpful discussions and critiques from my mentors and colleagues, and my reading of applications as an NIH grant reviewer. In the end, the strength of the scientific merits of any application in the eyes of the reviewers will determine its score and ranking. Far and above any other consideration is the quality of the ideas and research plans; a weak project, no matter how well presented, will not score well. Obviously, no brief guide can provide instructions on how to be an outstanding scientist. However, even a very innovative and promising project may be presented in a manner such that the reviewers fail to appreciate its quality and promise. The presentation of the grant is, justifiably or not, perceived as a reflection of the thought process and carefulness of the investigator, and therefore carries significant weight. Given the large number of applications received and the intense competition for funding, the quality of writing, sometimes referred to as "grantsmanship," is commonly a factor that tips the scale between acceptance and rejection. This guide is by no means a definitive presentation on the ideal application, as there is no single "best" method to construct an NIH grant application. Obviously, there are no tricks or strategies to guarantee success. The style of presentation depends greatly on the subject matter. However, there are certain characteristics shared by almost all well-written grants, and recurrent themes co^nmon to many poorly written grants. The following chapters are intended to illuminate some of these concepts. Finally, while the advice given here pertains specifically to NIH grant applications, the principles are applicable to applications to other institutions, such as the Doris Duke Foundation, National Science Foundation, American Cancer Society, and numerous others that provide research funding. The structures of most grant applications are usually very similar or even identical to that of NIH, because the same questions need to be answered regarding the rationale and plans for your work, no matter which institution. I hope that this guide will assist you the reader in presenting ideas clearly to grant reviewers, to ensure that your applications will be seen in the most positive light possible. I welcome any comments, criticisms, and corrections, because undoubtedly this guide, much like most grant applications, will have ample room for revisions and improvement.

Contents 1. Overview: Overall Goals When Writing Grant Applications 1 Getting (and keeping) the attention of the reviewers 1 Balancing between clarity and depth 2 Telling an interesting story: the art behind writing the application 2 2. Organization and Use of This Guide 5 3. Preparing to Write 7 Deciding the grant for which you want to apply 7 Determining whether your research falls in an area targeted by NIH 8 Timing of Deadlines 9 Institutional Approvals 9 Application Strategy 9 Estimating the Budget 10 Collaborators and consultants 10 Familiarization with the NIH format 11 Obtaining NIH forms for the application 11 4. Types of NIH Grants 13 "F" awards 13 "K" awards 13 "R" awards 13 Targeting the content and emphasis of your writing to the type of grant 14 What is the goal of the grant from the standpoint of the NIH? 14 What research results are expected from the grant? 14 What is the research focus of the grant? 14 What are the administrative requirements for the application? 14

xii Contents 5. Anatomy of the NIH Grant Application 15 The purpose and importance of adhering to the standardized format 15 Structure and organization of the standard format 16 Specific Aims 17 Background and Significance 17 Preliminary Results/Progress Report 17 Research Design and Methods 17 Literature Cited 17 Page limits 17 6. Organization and Aesthetics 19 Making a first impression 19 Basic rules set by NIH 19 Text and figure organization 20 Writing style and organization: following an outline structure 20 Attention to details 23 Layout 23 Getting a fresh perspective 23 Common errors 24 Using small font or font compression to save space 24 Having long paragraphs that contain too many ideas 24 Unnecessary content 24 Illegible figures or tables 24 Poorly designed figures or tables 24 Jargon 25 Errors in the text 25 Crowded text layout 26 7. Specific Aims 27 Introducing your project 27 Summarizing the rationale 27 Stating the aims of the project 28 Types of aims 28 Giving further details on the aims (or not) 29 An example 29 Common errors 30 Unrealistic aims 30 Poorly justified aims 30 Purely descriptive aims 31 Unnecessarily complicated aims 31 Lack of cohesiveness of the aims as a unit 31 Excessive interdependence of aims for success 31 8. Background and Significance 33 Laying the foundation for your project 33 Why the area of research is important 33

Contents xiii What is known thus far about the area of proposed research 34 Implications of the proposed work in the field 34 Organization and structure 34 An example 35 Common errors 35 Too little detail 35 Too much detail 36 Poor organization 36 Lack of objectivity 36 9. Preliminary Results 37 Demonstrating the feasibility of your project 37 Purposes 37 Amount of data to include 38 Format 38 Supporting hypotheses and demonstrating techniques 38 Organization 39 Common errors 40 Failure to indicate the source of data 40 Unnecessarily complicated figures or tables 40 Showing data not clearly related to the proposed work 40 Poor organization 41 Omission of important points or procedures 41 10. Research Design and Methods 43 Describing your experimental plans 43 Importance of logical organization 43 Subsections under each aim 44 Hypothesis 44 Rationale 44 Experimental Approach 44 Interpretation of Results 45 Potential Pitfalls and Alternative Approaches 45 Overall Summary and Significance 46 Common errors 46 Lack of "Hypothesis" and "Rationale" sections 46 Inadequate experience of the investigator in proposed techniques 47 Excessive or lacking experimental detail 47 Missing controls 47 Inadequate details on clinical subjects or specimens 47 Lack of "Pitfalls and Alternative Approaches" 48 Overly ambitious experimental plans 48 Plans that are not hypothesis-driven 48 Complete dependence of the whole project on a single unproven premise 49 Excessive dependence of experimental plans 49

xiv Contents Lack of "Interpretation of Results 50 Over-optimism concerning the implications of the results 50 Lack of logistical organization and justification of the work 50 11. Use of Literature Citations 51 Importance of documentation 51 Format 51 Demonstrating familiarity with the literature 52 Acknowledging the work of others 52 Common errors 52 Incomplete references 52 Failure to reference alternative viewpoints 52 Misuse of references 53 Overuse of citations 53 12. Use of Appendices 55 Supplemental and not primary material 55 Giving peripheral details for the convenience of the reviewers 55 Documenting technical capabilities 56 Common errors 56 Using appendices to circumvent page limitations 56 Appending unpublished manuscripts 56 Appending the work of others 57 Irrelevant appendices 57 13. Administrative Sections 59 Importance for acceptance of the grant application 59 Specific Administrative Components 60 Face page 60 Description 60 Biosketch 60 Personnel 61 Resources and Environment 61 Consortium Agreement 61 Budget and Budget Justification 61 Human Subjects 62 Vertebrate Animals 63 Checklist 63 Cover letter 63 14. Collaborators and Consultants 65 Adding skills, expertise, or reagents to the project 65 Defining the role 65 Letters of support 66 Maintaining an independent role 66 Common errors 66 Missing letters 66

Contents xv Vague letters 66 Lack of sufficient effort 66 15. Scoring Process 67 Processing of the application by the CSR 67 Grant assignments and the study section (IRG) 68 Scoring criteria for independent investigator grants 69 Scoring criteria for training grants 70 Study section meeting 71 The "priority score" and "streamlined" scoring procedure 72 The reviewers and conflicts of interest 72 Administrative sections 73 The "percentile score" and funding decision 73 16. Resubmitting an Application 75 Analyzing the critiques 75 Interpreting the score 76 Whether to change your aims 76 Modifying the experimental plans 76 Deciding the focus of your changes 76 Highlighting revisions 77 Writing the "Introduction to the Revised Application" 78 Common errors 79 Misinterpretation of critiques 79 Being overly defensive in the "Introduction to the Revised Application" 79 Not being responsive to the critiques 79 Taking the advice of the reviewers too literally 80 17. Submitting a Competing Renewal 81 Differences from a new grant application 81 Reporting progress from the previous funding period 81 Scoring of the competing renewal application 82 Common errors 83 Failure to address prior specific aims 83 Presentation of work that is not relevant 83 Ignoring prior aims 83 Repeating prior aims 83 Disregard for prior reviews 84 Submitting the renewal late 84 18. Non-NIH Grants 85 19. Conclusions 87 Appendix: Useful Web Resources 89 Index 91