Getting Funded: How to write a good grant Xander HT Wehrens, M.D. Ph.D. Dept. of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics

Overview of Presentation Applying for the Right Grant Research Plan: Hypothesis and Specific Aims Background and Significance Preliminary Data Research Design and Methods Resources and Facilities Budget and Justification Tips and Reference Materials

Applying for the Right Grant Sponsor : research topic matches mission of agency/ foundation ? Apply at the right career stage Project feasible in 2-3 years student 1st/Jr. postdoc 2nd/Sr. postdoc Asst. professor Assoc. prof.

Typical Fellowship Evaluation Criteria Candidate Track record (training, publications) Potential to become independent scientist Proposal Merit Relation to career development Environment Sponsor (other funding for project?) Institute, department, collaborators

Reviewers Focus on the Four Cs Clarity. Cross-reference current literature in laying out your premises. Content. Organize your ideas around aims linked to your hypothesis. Coherence of concepts. Present coherent set of ideas predicated by previous work. Cutting edge. Be ready to take legitimate risks.

Hypothesis and Specific Aims Focus reviewer on main points in 1 page Introduction: Definition of problem/ critical need Proposed Solution: Objectives and rationale Specific Aims: Steps to addressing critical needs Significance: Novelty, Expectations & Impact Reviewers will often form a general opinion of the grant by the end of the Specific Aims page !

Hypothesis and Specific Aims Introduction: Highlight significance of problem, aligned with mission of the agency, critical need to solve this. Solution: Objective = Long term goal of research Hypothesis: Sound, specific Specific Aims: 2-4 feasible aims, hypothesis-based, address critical need Not interdependent, ‘win-win’ outcome Significance: Likely outcome, importance for human health?, NOVELTY

Background and Significance Convey background of your research to 1) increase scientific knowledge, and 2) improve public health. References reflect your knowledge of the field State clearly gaps in knowledge in field State significance explicitly Well organized, with subheadings Tell a story, keep it understandable Provide justification, establish competence, educate reviewer

Fatal Flaws Problems with significance: Not significant, not exciting, not new Lack of compelling rationale Incremental or low impact research Innovation is not always critical, but results should have a compelling significance

Preliminary Data May take most time to prepare Consider to write this section first Data have to be pertinent to the application Establish experience and competence Draw on past productivity Emphasize what is novel about your findings Demonstrate feasibility of methods All major methods needs to be included Link your preliminary data to the experiments in the experimental design

Preliminary Data Important: Only show high (!) quality data Show raw data + numbers if previously unpublished Include controls on your experiments Inclusion of important ‘negative’ experiments may be helpful Include color pictures or other data of high quality/clarity Figure legends must be self explanatory Consider a final schematic model or cartoon to summarize your major point(s) Underline for reviewer key points of each section

Research Design and Methods Demonstrate knowledge and logic DEVELOP aims Divide into subheadings Rationale (relation to hypothesis) Methods (general approaches first) Anticipated results Problems and fitfalls Time table

Resources and Facilities Availability of major equipment Space in mentors lab Computer Core facilities Animal facilities Collaborators

Budget and Justification Direct vs. indirect costs Direct: goes to PI Indirect: goes to institution Direct costs: Salary for postdoc Bench fees Travel

Independent Grant How do I distinguish myself from my mentor if I want to continue in the same research area? Get a letter from your mentor explaining that he/she is pleased to know you continue project X which he/she will not pursue.

General Tips 1 Style: Start early, write, read, re-read, revise Use most recent form Follow guidelines (font, size, margins, etc.) Spell check, correct grammar Highlight signposts (italic, bold, underlining) One main idea per paragraph Use topic sentences Use transitions (e.g., in contrast, however, likewise, etc) End paragraph with closing sentence Start early, write, read, re-read, revise Give yourself and sponsor enough time !

General Tips 2 Make sure your proposal addresses the following: Impact on human health? Novelty of the studies? Expected advancement of the field? Potential weaknesses in design + alternatives. How the fellowship will help you advance your career

Common Mistakes Specific Aims too ambitious or vague Lack of compelling rationale (significance) Little or no expertise with approach Lack of original ideas (innovation) No letters from collaborators Little institutional support

References Making the Right Moves, 2nd Ed (2006) Bonetta L. (Ed.) http://www.aats.org/EducationTraining/Grantsmanship/workshop.html http://ora.stanford.edu/ora/ratd/nih_04.asp