Title: Getting funded
1Getting funded
- Scientific focus
- Writing a grant dos and donts
- Where and when to apply
- The review process
- Budgeting
2Scientific focus
- State a specific over-arching hypothesis and
Specific Aims that are testable and important - Stay away from the trivial
- Balance between the do-able and the overly
ambitious - Pick an important problem advice for your
scientific life - Focus on the problem, not the method
- Not we will use a newly-developed mouse to test
this idea but we will test this idea. One
approach is to use a newly-developed mouse
3 4What goes into a grant?
- The science
- Specific aims
- Background and significance
- Preliminary data
- Methods
- Other stuff that might influence a score
- The investigator
- The environment
- Stuff that doesnt usually influence a score
- The budget
5Some grant writing dos and donts
- Reviewers are not infinitely patient.
- Make your case on page 1 abstract, Specific Aims
Page - Make it clearly
- Make it legibly
- Spell-check
- Learn to like to write
- Finish the first draft weeks ahead of time
- Time for you to re-review (pretend you didnt
write it) - Time for your mentor and other colleagues to
review - Daily (at least!) backups use dropbox or
something like it
6Grant writing dos and donts
- By the time a reviewer gets to a description of
what you propose to do, they should already be
convinced that - the problem is important.
- Dont characterize, describe, etc. Rather,
test hypothesis, identify, determine the
role of - Avoid elevator science A and C go up B and D go
down - the experiments are do-able
- you can do them
7Some specifics
- Writing the Specific Aims section
- Background and significance
- Dont review everything there is to know review
what is important to your proposal, introduce new
methods. Self-citation is OK in moderation here. - Preliminary data
- They know what you want to do. Convince them you
can do it. - As soon as you think you are going to write a
grant, think about what preliminary data you will
need. Dont leave this for later - Methods
- My preference describe the experiments,
pitfalls, interpretation that will address each
Specific Aim put the details in a separate
section at the end.
8Form issues
- The Figure 1 Strategy
- Fonts and figures
- Every paragraph should have a header
95 sentences describe the preliminary data and the
question to be addressed in Specific Aim 1
10(No Transcript)
11(No Transcript)
12(No Transcript)
13If you are the reviewer, what word might you use
to describe the likelihood this grant will get
funded?
14- Inconceivable!
- I dont think that word means what you think it
means
15(No Transcript)
16(No Transcript)
17A picture is worth more than a thousand words
its worth hundreds of thousands or millions of
dollars
18A visual issue in graphics generation
19A visual issue in graphics generation
20The review process
- Imperfect
- Usually impersonal
- Participate on grant review committees if the
opportunity arises - Find out who will review your grant. Cite them
(moderately) in the text.
21A bad attitude to the review process
- Leave the gun bring the cannoli
22NIH Review Criteria
- Significance
- Approach
- Innovation
- Environment
- Investigator
- Importance of each component varies during career
development - An unfunded grant is a re-submittable grant
- Also, thanks to the miracles of modern
word-processing, a written grant need not be
submitted to only one funding agency.
23- It's not spaghetti, it's linguini
- Now it's garbage.
Throw enough linguini against the wall, and some
of it will stick
24Timetables
- At the end of the Methods section
- Reviewers will pillory you for not presenting
them - They are near-meaningless, in my opinion.
25Conclusions
- Successful grant competition requires attention
to form and to content. Both need to be
excellent. - Variety of opportunities for support for young
investigators. - While review process is similar for all agencies,
application details and eligibility vary - I cant believe they pay me to do this.