1. 9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m.
Getting started
Massimo
9:45 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.
Grant writing hints and tips
Maria
10:15 a.m. – a.m.
A reviewer’s perspective
10:45 a.m. – 11:00a.m.
Break
11:00a.m. – 11:45a.m.
Personal experiences:
Ben, Emma, Mandy, Sam
11:45 a.m. – p.m.
Discussion

2. CVR Postdoc Prize
Purpose: To offer the CVR postdoc community the opportunity to secure a small grant to support the pursuit of an independent project, and to gain experience of preparing and defending a grant proposal. Timeline: 13th May MRC funding presentation from Dr Ghada Zoubiane (MRC Head Office) 6th August ‘Grants Workshop’ 8th September Submissions due October Shortlisted applicants present to the assessment panel and awards announced November Feedback to all applicants Budget: Project budget should be in the region of £3k

3. CVR Postdoc Prize
Assessment criteria: Innovative project that takes current work to a decisive point, or explores a new avenue arising from an ongoing project; Potential to enhance the applicant’s personal career development by developing their vision, awareness and expert skills; The project has the full support and approval of the applicant’s supervisor. Assessment panel: Scientific Advisory sub-group: Massimo Palmarini, John McLauchlan, Jim Neil, Roman Biek, Richard Elliott, Alain Kohl

4. Grantsmanship Hints & Tips
Maria McPhillips

5. Grantsmanship The art of acquiring peer-reviewed research funding
Great grantsmanship can’t elevate unexceptional science, but poor grantsmanship can make an exciting project unfundable
There is no magic formula, grant writing is a learned skill
But there are some general ‘do’s and don'ts’ that are worth keeping in mind
Writing a good grant takes (lots of) time
I was responsible for the administration of a peer-reviewed research grants programme for the Wellcome Trust, and dealt with more than 700 grant applications.

6. The building blocks of a successful application
Person- An excellent CV + publication record
for your career stage
Place- A vibrant environment with excellent
facilities and respected sponsors/mentors
Project- An achievable, high quality project
addressing an important research question P P P
Preparation

7. Laying the groundwork
Familiarise yourself (now) with the eligibility criteria and deadlines of the funders you’re interested in
Aim to be at your most competitive at the time of application – get current work published/accepted
Talk to others who have been through the process, both as applicants and reviewers
Understand the remit and priorities of each funder - you’ll need to align your research plan accordingly
Generate preliminary data
Initiate partnerships with collaborators
Write your ‘one pager’ outline
Get involved in grant reviewing if possible
Remember that you’re not writing a grant for yourself, you need to persuade experts in your field, the review panel and the funding agency –

8. Getting started with an application
Give yourself plenty of time
Read all instructions very carefully and follow them to the letter – font type and size, margins, word count, page limits etc
Read successful and unsuccessful applications
Think about the sections first read by a reviewer e.g. title and abstract – this should be a stand alone, succinct and accurate description of the proposal - but it should be the last section you complete.
Academic impact and economic and societal impact
This is probably the most important section in your application. Take it seriously . Write it last. Work on it extensively after the bulk of the proposal has been fine-tuned. It is the first part that is read, and this sets the first impression.
 It is often used to route the application to the appropriate external reviewers, grants committee, and to the primary reviewer(s) in the grants committee.
 It must be understood by both experts in your field and by "generalists".
 The primary reviewer(s) read the entire application for which they are responsible, but others on the review committee may only read the abstract. (see also Appendix - the process in the review committee).The abstract may be the only part of the application that is read by all the members of the grants committee who are not primary reviewers, even though ALL members may have to give their independent scores (given equal weight to the scores of the primary reviewer(s)).
 Review committee members often study the application (and prepare written reports, if required) weeks or months before the meetings. They then quickly review all the abstracts just before the meetings in order to recall the essentials.
 The contents: to include hypotheses, objectives, approaches, research plan, and significance.
o State the hypotheses to be tested. Give the long-term objectives.
o State the specific aims.
Make reference to how the proposal is directly related to the mission and objectives of the agency to which application is being made.
o Describe concisely the research design and methods.
o Tell why the proposal is unique, important, significant, and worth supporting.
 Stay within the allotted space. But it is not necessary to fill this space. When you have nothing more to say, then stop.

9. Person
A strong background, solid training and extensive knowledge of the research topic
Demonstratable potential as a career scientist – publications...
Show how this fellowship is important to advance your career. What are your future plans? How does this fellowship help?
Clear ‘ownership’ of the proposal, taken the lead in its development, carving a research niche

10. Project What is the question? Why is it important?
Novel, interesting, timely
High scientific merit – hypothesis driven
Mix of risk and safe bets
Ambitious – but feasible, within the timeframe & budget

11. Research Plan
Hold the reviewers by the hand – don’t make them have to work too hard
Think about the look and flow of the document – use headings, sub-sections, figures etc
Communicate with all members of the review panel
Explain your ‘Plan B’ – don’t base everything on the success of Aim 1
Include a realistic timetable – who will do what, when (& where)
Reference accurately
Proof read and spell check

12. Questions to ask yourself
Steps to take
Key elements of each step
What is the problem and why should it be studied?
Selection, analysis and statement of the research question
Identify the problems
Prioritising the problems
Analysis of the issues
Justification for studies
What information is already available?
Literature review
Published literature
Databases
Prelim data
Why do you want to carry out the research and what do you hope to achieve?
Formulation of research objectives
General aims
Specific objectives
Hypotheses to be tested
What additional data do you need to meet your research objectives? How are you going to collect this information?
Research methodology or study design
Type of study
Variables
Data collection technique
Sampling
Plan for data collection
Data processing and analysis
Ethical issues
Preliminary data or pilot study
Safety issues
Additional training, if required
Collaborators

13. Questions to ask yourself
Steps to take
Key elements of each step
What is the problem and why should it be studied?
Selection, analysis and statement of the research question
Identify the problems
Prioritising the problems
Analysis of the issues
Justification for studies
What information is already available?
Literature review
Published literature
Databases
Prelim data
Why do you want to carry out the research and what do you hope to achieve?
Formulation of research objectives
General aims
Specific objectives
Hypotheses to be tested
What additional data do you need to meet your research objectives? How are you going to collect this information?
Research methodology or study design
Type of study
Variables
Data collection technique
Sampling
Plan for data collection
Data processing and analysis
Ethical issues
Preliminary data or pilot study
Safety issues
Additional training, if required
Collaborators

14. Questions to ask yourself
Steps to take
Key elements of each step
What is the problem and why should it be studied?
Selection, analysis and statement of the research question
Identify the problems
Prioritising the problems
Analysis of the issues
Justification for studies
What information is already available?
Literature review
Published literature
Databases
Prelim data
Why do you want to carry out the research and what do you hope to achieve?
Formulation of research objectives
General aims
Specific objectives
Hypotheses to be tested
What additional data do you need to meet your research objectives? How are you going to collect this information?
Research methodology or study design
Type of study
Variables
Data collection technique
Sampling
Plan for data collection
Data processing and analysis
Ethical issues
Preliminary data or pilot study
Safety issues
Additional training, if required
Collaborators

15. Questions to ask yourself
Steps to take
Key elements of each step
What is the problem and why should it be studied?
Selection, analysis and statement of the research question
Identify the problems
Prioritising the problems
Analysis of the issues
Justification for studies
What information is already available?
Literature review
Published literature
Databases
Prelim data
Why do you want to carry out the research and what do you hope to achieve?
Formulation of research aims and objectives
General aims
Specific objectives
Hypotheses to be tested
What data do you need to generate to answer your research questions? How are you going to collect this information?
Research methodology
Type of studies
Variables
Data collection techniques
Sampling – power calculations
Plan for data collection
Data processing and analysis
Preliminary data or pilot study
Collaborators
Additional training, if required
Ethical issues
Safety issues

16. What do you want to do?
Why do you want to do it ?
Why is it important?
How are you going to do it?
What is the expected outcome?

17. Structuring your Research Plan
Hypothesis
Aims of the project
Background and importance
Work leading up to the project, including prelim data
Experimental design and methods
Summing up statement – helps to refocus the distracted reviewer
Timetable

18. Budget Work within eligible/ineligible costs for each funder/scheme
Realistic for the work proposed – offer value for money
Fully justified

19. Preparing an application
University requirements:
Work with Maria to plan your budget – you’ll need to complete a Costing Request Form so that a Project Application Form (PAF) can be prepared
A PAF must be prepared for all applications
Once finalised, a PAF is signed by the applicant, Massimo and MVLS
Applications cannot be submitted until the signed PAF is returned to R&E
For all electronic applications, R&E have responsibility for final submission
A Project Approval Form (PAF) is a document (for internal use only) providing a breakdown of the project costing and records Department, Faculty, and University authorisation for the grant and contract application and award.
A PAF/CPF is used to communicate information about a project and enables Depts/Faculties and the University to manage the staff and resources at their disposal. It informs R&E that the project has the support of the Department and Faculty and allows R&E to confirm that the project is in accordance with University Court policy.

20. Place Which host laboratory? Supervision, expertise, facilities
Additional skills, new ideas, fresh challenges
Training acquired – generic, specific
Other training elsewhere?
If not moving, why?
Mentorship – monitoring progress, assessment
Record of supervisor/mentor
Provide strong justification for choosing the host laboratory in terms of your research project and career plans.
The location for the research must be appropriate to provide a training environment, with sufficient supervision, range of expertise and facilities.
A good training programme should provide the opportunity to develop new skills, generate fresh links, expose you to the latest scientific approaches, and challenge you to continue asking the right questions.
Give details of the training, whether generic like data handling, statistical analysis, clinical trial design, science communication and biomedical ethics, or specific like cryo-electron microscopy, pathogen culture and mosquito dissection.
If the techniques are not available in the host laboratory, explain how they will be obtained and who would provide the training for their use and interpretation of results.
If not moving to a new location, it is helpful to explain what additional training will be gained by remaining.
There should be plans for managing and monitoring scientific progress, such as regular planning, appraisal and progress meetings eith the supervisor. Ideally there should also be independent assessment of progress, such as through a postgraduate training advisor or advisory committee, or mentoring schemes for junior scientists. Can the training location provide these?
The qualtiy of supervision during the research training period is closely examined. Good grantsmanship in the proposal often is a gauge on how accessible is the supervisor. The supervisor’s record in training previous PhDs, post-doctoral assistants and fellows is an important indicator.

21. Preparation
Give yourself plenty of time – everything will take longer than you expect
The input of others will be hugely important and you need to give them sufficient time to do this properly
Box filling electronic applications and uploading required documents is rarely hitch free
The university’s costing and PAF processing can get backed up around major deadlines

22. Lifecycle of an application
4-6
months
Full Applications
External referees
Relevant Funding Committee
with referees’ reports
Rejected
2-3
months
Short-listed for interview
Relevant Interview Committee
Rejected
Awarded

23. How are reviewers selected?
A programme officer, grants manager etc reads through your application picking out key themes, techniques etc
They then trawl though Pubmed, Google etc looking for ‘hits’ against these search items
The list of references for a proposal can also be a useful source of potential reviewers
Reviewers can’t be current collaborators with the applicant/co-applicants and they should not have published together recently (for example in the last 5 years)
As an applicant, it can be helpful to identify individuals who could be used as suitable reviewers
Equally important, if there is anyone who the applicant really doesn’t want to be used as a reviewer then this should be highlighted
Take advantage of the opportunity to suggest suitable reviewers.
You can also ask for potential reviewers to be restricted

24. Why review a grant? Some funders pay their reviewers, many don’t
Some reviewers take this ‘duty’ quite seriously, others less so
Some reviewers are fairer and more knowledgeable that others

25. What are reviewers asked to do?
Importance
Potential impact
Is the research question hypothesis-driven and clearly stated?
Is research in this area needed?
How important is it to do this work now? Is there a ‘window-of-opportunity’?
Does the proposal realistically set out the ultimate potential benefits with respect to improving human and/or animal health?
Is success likely to lead to significant new understanding in this research area, will it move the field forward?
Is the research question hypothesis-driven and clearly stated?
Is research in this area needed?
Are there potential benefits for human/animal health?
Will this work significantly advance the field

26. What are reviewers asked to do?
Can this project realistically be completed in the time available?
Is preliminary data included?
Is there a plan B?
Does this work fit with the applicant’s track record?
Has the applicant been productive with previous funding?
Are they competitive for their career stage?
Is the right place to do this work?
Importance
Potential impact
Are the scientific objectives achievable in the stated timeframe with the resources requested?
Is this an original and innovative approach to addressing this research question?
Are the most appropriate scientific techniques being used? Are the methods and study designs competitive with the best in the field?
Has preliminary data been provided? Does it provide a firm foundation to take this work forward?
Have major scientific or technical challenges been identified, how will they be tackled – is there a plan B?
Does the applicant have a track record in the field? Are appropriate collaborators involved?
How well does the work fit with other relevant research pursued by the applicants?
In the case of grants for pilot or proof of principle work, how will the work be developed and how feasible are follow-on plans?
Does the applicant have a competitive track record for their career stage?
Based on their track record, is the applicant capable of delivering the
proposed project?
Are the applicants uniquely placed to deliver the work?
Research environment
Feasibility
Track record

27. Data management & sharing
What are reviewers asked to do?
Does the project offer ‘value-for-money’ relative to the potential outcomes?
Are the requested resources fully justified?
Is the work ethically acceptable?
Is animal usage justified?
Importance
Ethical considerations
Data management
& sharing
Potential impact
Have the applicants and co-applicants committed a sufficient amount of time
relative to their proposed involvement? Is this adequate for the successful
management of the research?
Are the number of other research staff appropriate for the work described?
Are the requested resources clearly justified?
Given the potential outcomes of this research balanced against the resources
requested, does the proposal represent good value for money?
Is the work ethically acceptable?
Is the use of animals and the particular animal species necessary and justified
in terms of the likely outcomes of the research?
Have the applicants provided adequate justification for the numbers of animals
to be used?
Is there potential for improvement in the research approach which would replace,
reduce or refine the use of animals?
Feasibility
Value for money
Track record
Research environment

28. Impact
Scientific (academic) impact: how much value could the application add to the knowledge base in the area; is it addressing a key gap or question; is it high risk with the potential for high payback?
Economic and societal impact: how does this application fit into the wider societal context? Is likely to have scope to impact on treatment practices; or the wider policy context; or lead to novel technologies or improve the quality of life or economic competitiveness in the UK?

29. Peer review: Comments you don’t want to receive
...it involves techniques with which the applicant appears to have no prior experience and for which no preliminary data are proposed.
...the work described in this application is over-ambitious, it could not be achieved in the life time of the investigator.
The poor writing, referencing and proof reading of this application significantly detract from its overall quality.
I had only one problem with this application, I had no idea what they were trying to do...”

30. Preparing for an interview
Practise, practise, practise
Know your proposal thoroughly
Keep up with pertinent literature
Speak to people who have been through this before
Know what to expect on the day
Bring your proposal with you

31. If your application is not successful - don’t give up…
What next?
If your application is not successful - don’t give up…
Get as much feedback as you can – referees’ comments and interview performance
Speak to your contact at the funding agency
Is there an opportunity to resubmit? Does the application have to be completely different?
Keep trying…

32. Intermediate career: 3 to 6/7 years postdoc
BBSRC: David Phillips fellowship
CRUK: Career development fellowship
ERC: Starter Grants
Marie Curie Fellowships
MRC: Career development award
Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research: Junior fellowship
Royal Society: Dorothy Hodgkin fellowship
Royal Society of Edinburgh: Biomedical personal research fellowship
Wellcome Trust: Sir Henry Dale Fellowship

33. Senior career: More than 6 or 7 years postdoc
BBSRC: David Phillips fellowship
ERC: Consolidator Grants
Marie Curie Fellowships
MRC: Senior non-clinical fellowship
Wellcome Trust: Senior fellowship

34. Career Re-entry
A number of schemes are offered to specifically encourage woman (usually…) back to research after a career break of at least 2 years:
British Heart Foundation: Career re-entry fellowship
Daphne Jackson Trust: Daphne Jackson fellowship
Wellcome Trust: Career re-entry fellowship

35. Want to be a PI? What are the odds?
issues/articles/2014_06_02/caredit.a %2814%