Suggestions for Grant Writing
- Start early and meet the deadlines. Allow plenty of time to put the application together.
- Read the instructions.
- Follow the instructions.
- The review committee likes to see thoughtful writing and planning. Grants that are hastily put together, have grammar/spelling errors, or don’t make sense are not funded.
- A common rule of thumb for many experienced grant writers is to have a final draft of the grant completed at least a month prior to its deadline. Ask for a respected colleague not involved in the work to critically review and proof the grant prior to submitting.
- Write the grant so that it is readable. Make the font large enough to be comfortably read. Make the content understandable for someone who is not an expert on your topic. The more understandable the grant, the better the review will be, and if everything else is equal, it will more likely be funded. If you take parts from a paper make sure the tenses match. Make sure the separate parts flow well.
- Read carefully and avoid typos-it creates concerns that your work is sloppy.
- Don’t copy another person’s grant. It usually shows. If you must take parts from another grant, make sure the fonts match.
- Tell us why this work is important and what it might lead to.
- Have a specific overall hypothesis that asks a specific question. There should also be a hypothesis for each specific aim. Be very clear about what your hypothesis is.
- Provide preliminary data if allowed. Preliminary data can be of 2 types: data that supports the hypothesis or data that may not be relevant to the grant but shows that you can perform a technique (especially a difficult one). Tell the reader how the preliminary data supports your application, don’t make them figure it out.
- Read your letters of support if possible. Make sure that you get the pertinent letters of support from the colleagues involved in the study and appropriate mentors as required.
- Make sure the letters have your name and the title of your project correct.
- Make sure the writer knows something about the project and that the letter reflects that understanding.
- Make a timeline of the study grant to go along with the proposal.
- Make sure the project is feasible – with the funds, the time period, and with the personnel. The methods section is very important in this regard.
- Make us believe that you can actually do the work you say (you have the resources, the track record, the expertise and the time).
- Make sure the budget is appropriate for the grant.
- If your proposal will cost 40K to do and the grant is only for 30K explain where you are going to get the extra 10K (department funds for example) if you are funded.
- Make sure the budget is reasonable. The review committee has an idea of what things cost – so embellishing the figures is not wise.
- Tell the reader what you expect the results to be.
- Don’t assume reviewers are thoroughly familiar with the literature in your specialized field.
- Don’t assume reviewers are familiar with the validity of all of your experimental techniques as they pertain to the area being studied. Cite literature that supports that your technique will reliably answer your question.
- Help the grant reviewers understand the significance of the grant proposal. Why is your project so important to fund? Do not assume the reviewer will understand. Make it crystal clear.
- Think like a reviewer. Identify the challenges, limitations, biases, and then address them as best as possible. The more these issues are addressed, the better. Tell the reader what alternatives you will try if your proposed experiments don’t work.
- When using animals in experiments a chart that shows the animal groups is often helpful.
- When using animals make sure that you accurately count how many you will need based on the experiments proposed.
- Have the appropriate animal or IRB approval that the instructions request (some grants will want to see approval; some grants will accept pending).
- Don’t forget that animals have housing and shipping costs in addition to purchase.
- When submitting a revised grant, make sure it is absolutely clear the changes that are made in response to the critiques. Use the comments of the reviewers to strengthen your rejected grant for the next application cycle.
- Do a thorough check of granting organizations to arrive at one likely to be interested in funding you.
Suggested
Consult the book “Grant Application Writer’s Handbook” by Liane Reif-Lehrer, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, International,
"The Grant Application Writer's Workbook - Guide to a Successful Proposal" for the NIH (and any other public health service agency for the PHS SF424 application guide (04/2006). The authors are Stephen W. Russell and David C. Morrison, of Grant Writers' Seminars and Workshops, LLC. The url is http://www.grantcentral.com. While this won't help with the subject choice or the hypothesis, per se, perhaps it will help with the level of content, organization, and structure.
Make sure the project is feasible – with the funds, the time period, and with the personnel. The methods section is very important in this regard.
Make us believe that you can actually do the work you say (you have the resources, the track record, the expertise and the time).
Make sure the budget is appropriate for the grant.
If your proposal will cost 40K to do and the grant is only for 30K explain where you are going to get the extra 10K (department funds for example) if you are funded.
Make sure the budget is reasonable. The review committee has an idea of what things cost – so embellishing the figures is not wise.
Tell the reader what you expect the results to be.
Don’t assume reviewers are thoroughly familiar with the literature in your specialized field.
Don’t assume reviewers are familiar with the validity of all of your experimental techniques as they pertain to the area being studied. Cite literature that supports that your technique will reliably answer your question.
Help the grant reviewers understand the significance of the grant proposal. Why is your project so important to fund? Do not assume the reviewer will understand. Make it crystal clear.
Think like a reviewer. Identify the challenges, limitations, biases, and then address them as best as possible. The more these issues are addressed, the better. Tell the reader what alternatives you will try if your proposed experiments don’t work.
When using animals in experiments a chart that shows the animal groups is often helpful.
When using animals make sure that you accurately count how many you will need based on the experiments proposed.
Have the appropriate animal or IRB approval that the instructions request (some grants will want to see approval; some grants will accept pending).
Don’t forget that animals have housing and shipping costs in addition to purchase.
When submitting a revised grant, make sure it is absolutely clear the changes that are made in response to the critiques. Use the comments of the reviewers to strengthen your rejected grant for the next application cycle.
Do a thorough check of granting organizations to arrive at one likely to be interested in funding you.
Suggested
Consult the book “Grant Application Writer’s Handbook” by Liane Reif-Lehrer, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, International,
"The Grant Application Writer's Workbook - Guide to a Successful Proposal" for the NIH (and any other public health service agency for the PHS SF424 application guide (04/2006). The authors are Stephen W. Russell and David C. Morrison, of Grant Writers' Seminars and Workshops, LLC. The url is http://www.grantcentral.com. While this won't help with the subject choice or the hypothesis, per se, perhaps it will help with the level of content, organization, and structure.



