1. 1 National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research How to Write a Successful Grant Proposal: Problems and Solutions Guo H. Zhang, PhD, MPH Program Director Physiology, Pharmacogenetics and Injury Program Division of Basic and Translational Sciences National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) National Institutes of Health (NIH)

2. 2 Grant Application is Very Competitive Every cycle there are some 15,000 applications received by the NIH The successful rate is about 25% (20-30%) About 30-40% applications are unscored, another 35-45% are scored but not good enough for funding

3. 3

4. 4 Common Mistakes 1. Scientific flaws wrong hypothesis wrong studies wrong methods 2. Mistakes in presentation: Poorly organized Language errors and wrong format Unclearness 3. Other problems independency, publication, credential

5. 5 Overall Solutions 1. To pursue perfection in science -- Long term effort, but can be improved in short time 2. To pursue perfection in presentation. -- Can be achieved in short term 3. To control other factors -- Should try hard, but not easy

6. 6 Common Mistakes and Solutions Use R01 application as an example Overall Selecting project Establishing Hypothesis Setting goals (specific aims) Showing preliminary data Developing research plan Choosing methods

7. 7 Common Problems in General 1. Write a proposal in two weeks 2. “Difficult to read” 3. “Too ambitious”

8. 8 Write a proposal in two weeks? Never do it! Solution: 1. Plan your grant-writing as early as possible (at least one month before deadline) 2. Never submit it if you don’t feel comfortable --One application can be submitted only 3 times --A failure will produce a bad record --Revision will take at least 6 months 3. Leave enough time for modification

9. 9 “Difficult to read” This is a common critic on applications from Chinese applicants Problems: -- Not clearly presented -- English errors (grammar, spelling, punctuation) -- Not well-organized -- Bad format

10. 10 “Difficult to read” or “too many errors” Solutions: -- Outline the whole proposal clearly before write -- Write in plain language (correct, concise, clear) -- Explain science clearly in simple language; don’t assume reviewers know everything -- Use correct format (edge, fond, size…see later) -- Read at least 3 times before submitting -- Ask an expert to read it (really read it) -- Ask an American to check English

11. 11 “Difficult to read” Solutions for incorrect format: 1. Follow instructions for PHS398 2. At the beginning of a paragraph, use Tab. For better result, leave one empty line between paragraphs 3. Margins: for best result 0.75 or 0.8 inch 4. Font: Times New Roman or Arial is suggested and should not be smaller than 12 for Times New Roman, or 10 for Arial 5. Line spacing: not smaller than 13

12. 12 “Too ambitious” This is a typical mistake of Chinese applicants Problems: -- Goals are gigantic -- Hypothesis is vague -- Specific aims are unfocused -- Too much work planned

13. 13 “Too ambitious” Solutions: 1. Understand it is not the more, the better 2. Establish a realistic goal 3. Develop a testable hypothesis 4. Set reasonable specific aims 5. Plan doable experiments

14. 14 What should I do if I really need a couple of pages more? Consider the following options: -- Reduce the Background section; -- Describe some methods more concisely; -- Present some preliminary data, e.g., figures, in Addenda -- Reduce figure size (using smaller figures)

15. 15 Common Mistakes in Selecting a Project I like this issue. Should be based on significance, not your interest Although this is not new, I have been doing this for years Innovation is critical Although it is controversial, I can resolve it Avoid too much controversy This issue has not been studied Should be based on actual need

16. 16 Common Mistakes in Selecting a Project I select this project because it doesn’t need new methodology Should select a project that can use new methods This issue has been resolved in other cell types, but this is new to my cell type Innovation will be questioned

17. 17 Ideal Project Very important and needed Innovative Not too much controversy You have a strong background Doable Large room for new methodology You have plenty of preliminary data Easy to establish a team

18. 18 Common Mistakes in Setting Goals 1. Too ambitious 2. Descriptive 3. Technology-driven

19. 19 Too ambitious, or descriptive Example: Grant Title: Hormonal regulation of bone remodeling Specific aims: 1) To characterize effects of hormones on bone formation and resorption; 2) To characterize the regulatory role of growth factors; and 3) to characterize the effects of cytokines on bone remodeling. Solutions: too ambitious: focus on one important issue; descriptive: study underlying mechanisms

20. 20 Technology-driven Using a technology is not a purpose, but a measure Solutions: 1) Develop a hypothesis 2) Select necessary methodologies which are necessary to demonstrate the hypothesis

21. 21 Ideal Goals Hypothesis-driven To study mechanisms Realistic and focused Doable in the time frame

22. 22 Develop a Hypothesis Chinese applicants usually do very well in developing a hypothesis An Ideal Hypothesis: Should increase understanding of normal biologic processes, diseases, or treatment and prevention Testable by current methods

23. 23 Where is the place to describe hypothesis? 1. Abstract (1-2 sentences) 2. Specific Aims (a few sentences) 3. Experimental Design (in detail) How to do it: keep consistency but not simply repeating

24. 24 Common Mistakes in Background and Significance Purpose: Demonstrate the significance of the project, show critical issues need to be delineated, and justify how you developed your hypothesis. Problems: --Not focused, too long Solution: only review the related materials --Too many references Solution: cite only critical papers --Ignored the critical or new reports Solution: cite newest and influential references

25. 25 Common Mistakes in Showing Preliminary Data Purpose: to demonstrate your hypothesis is correct, and you have the ability, methodology and equipment to do it Common mistakes: Not enough data Too much data Results are far-fetched Results are not solid or novel Data are poorly presented

26. 26 Not enough data? Problems: Unable to demonstrate your hypothesis does work Unable to demonstrate your are able to accomplish it Solutions: 1) Wait until you have enough data 2) Apply for a grant which doesn’t require a lot of preliminary data, e.g., R21 or R03

27. 27 Too much data? Consequences: Reviewers will say a lot of work you proposed has been done Use too much space Solution: Focus on the goals; 1 or 2 figures or tables for each aim

28. 28 Results are far-fetched Problems: 1) Cannot demonstrate proposed hypothesis 2) Results look not solid Example: Plan to study Ca 2+ channels in osteoclasts, but show patch-clamping data produced in muscle cells Solution: Show direct evidence

29. 29 “Results are not solid or novel” Advises: Never show questionable data Never use data which are not new

30. 30 Data are poorly presented Problems: 1) Reviewers feel difficult to follow you; 2) Conclusion will be: you are unable to summarize your data Solutions: 1) Organize your data better: in the same order as your specific aims 2) Right style and size (easy to understand) 3) Clearly explain the experiments and the labels in legends (some grants don’t give figure legend)

31. 31 Common Mistakes in Developing Research Plan Descriptive Too ambitious No hypothesis No anticipated results No alternative plan Scientific flaws

32. 32 No anticipated result Reviewers hope to see your anticipated results. Solution: Explain what results you expect to get --Real anticipation, not imagination List potential problems Show possible solutions

33. 33 No alternative plan If you anticipate to have some difficulties, you need show an alternative plan --Only for critical issues --Clearly explain your alternative studies --Don’t use too much space

34. 34 Flaws Hypothesis is wrong Planned studies cannot demonstrate the hypothesis Methods are wrong or obsolete

35. 35 Common Mistakes in Choosing Methods Methods are not new Misusing methods No details for methodologies Too much details for auxiliary methods

36. 36 Methods are not new Reviewers hope to see using new methods. Common mistakes: 1. We don’t have new technology, so we just use what we have. 2. We don’t need any new technology, we can do it using common methods. 3. I have some novel ideas, but we can’t do it because we don’t have new technology.

37. 37 Methods are not new Solutions: --Use new technology as much as possible --Never reset your goal to a lower level because of the lack of technology or expertise --If you need, but don’t have some technologies, establish a collaboration or cooperation teem, such as, invite co-investigators or consultants, or develop a sub-project

38. 38 Misusing technology If you have an grand error in methods, you will not get the grant Solutions: --Fully understand all the methods you are using --Don’t use a method you don’t need --Don’t use a method solely because it is fancy

39. 39 No details or too much details Solutions: --If it is a new method, give details in clear and concise language; --If it is a common methods, don’t need details; e.g., protein content will be determined as described by Lowry et al (1951).

40. 40 Other Mistakes --No evidence for collaborations Solution: Attach letters from collaborators --Budget too large or too small Chinese applicants usually ask for too small budget. Solution: Understand that budget size will not influence your score and reviewers will make suggestions for your budget. Solution: request the amount you need

41. 41 Some Tricks Find out who are Scientific Review Agent (SRA) and the reviewers from CSR Home Page - http://www.csr.nih.gov Write a cover letter to request that certain people NOT review your application Request the assignment of your application to a particular Institute and/or IRG. If you have been in contact with a program staff, mention this by providing name and telephone number

42. 42 Thank you for your attention and good luck!