Writing a Successful Grant Application
Lois Tully, Ph.D.
Program Director, Institutional Training &
Genetics Portfolios
Objectives
• Describe the elements of a successful
grant application
• Provide the tools needed to assemble the
application
• Highlight common mistakes and how to
avoid them
• Discuss the final check of the application
Elements of a Successful Grant Application
• Topic is creative and exciting
• Project has a well-defined research plan
• Information is presented in clear
language
• Guidelines of grant application kit are
followed
Starting the Process
Before you begin….
Think About the Big Picture
• Make sure the timing is right
• Form an interdisciplinary team early
• Vet your ideas with colleagues and
mentors
• Assess organizational resources and
collaborators
Think About the Big Picture
• Know the competition
• Determine the best mechanism
• Review funding announcements and
guide notices
• Discuss your concept with Program
Directors
• Set a timeline
Basic Questions Reviewers Ask
• Does the study have merit?
• What is the potential impact?
• How novel is the proposed work?
• Is the hypothesis/research question valid,
and is there evidence supporting it?
Basic Questions Reviewers Ask
• Are the aims logical?
• Are the procedures well designed?
• Are the investigators qualified?
• Is the environment conducive to the
research?
Developing the Hypothesis/ Research Question
• Strong and important to the field
• Testable
• Provide a strong rationale
• Consider alternative hypotheses
• Not a method in search of a problem
• Avoid a “fishing expedition”
Assembling Your Application…..
Is it Feasible?
Scope
Budget Timeline
Research Plan Sections
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
– Significance
– Innovation
– Approach
• Introduction (required for a
resubmission)
Specific Aims
• Should be highly focused
• Relate directly to the hypothesis/
research question
• Can be assessed by reviewers
Research Strategy Section
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
Research Strategy: Significance
• Should demonstrate the importance
of the work
• Should demonstrate how the
research will advance the field or
improve clinical practice
• Consider the longer term, bigger
picture impact of the research
Research Strategy: Innovation
• Should seek to shift paradigms
• Build upon existing research
• Develop new theories, tools,
approaches
• Accelerate and/or strengthen
research
Research Strategy: Approach
• Why this approach?
• Limitations of approach
• Include sufficient details
• Describe statistical methods
• Well-designed tables and figures
• Project timeline
Preliminary Studies
• Should support hypothesis/research
question to be tested
• Consist of publications and/ or
unpublished data
• Demonstrate how early studies will be
expanded in scope
• Include manuscripts in press (if not
publically available)
Other Considerations
• Human subjects
– Data Safety Monitoring Plan/ Board
– Targeted/Planned Enrollment Table
• Vertebrate animals
• Literature cited
• Consortium/Contractual arrangements/
Consultants
• Biosketches/Personal Statements
Biographical Sketch
• Personal Statement added
• Briefly describe why your experience
and qualifications make you
particularly well-suited for your role in
the project
Other Considerations
• Budget
• > $500K
• > $350K
• Appendices (see NOT-OD-10-077)
• Letters of Collaboration/Support
• Facilities and Resources (Environment)
• Page limits/Format specification
The Multiple PI Option
• Use when project requires a team approach
• New Investigator status will be applied to
multi-PI applications when all PIs qualify as
New Investigators
• Serving as a PI on a multiple PI grant is
equivalent to serving as a sole PI on a grant
Common Mistakes
Common Mistakes: Specific Aims
• Too ambitious
• Unfocused aims/unclear goals
• Limited aims/uncertain future
directions
Common Mistakes: Significance
• Will not advance science
• Lack of compelling rationale
• Incremental and low impact research
Common Mistakes: Innovation
• Does not advance research or
clinical practice
• Is not new
• Does not generalize
Common Mistakes: Approach
• Too little or too much detail
• Not enough preliminary data to
establish feasibility
• Feasibility of each aim not shown
Common Mistakes: Approach
• Little or no expertise with approach
• Lack of appropriate controls
• Not directly testing hypothesis or asking
appropriate research questions
Common Mistakes: Approach
• Experiments not directed towards
mechanisms
• No discussion of alternative models or
hypotheses
• No discussion of potential pitfalls
• No discussion of interpretation of data
Common Mistakes: Investigator
• No demonstration of expertise or
publications in area of proposed research
• No collaborators recruited
• No letters from collaborators
Common Mistakes: Environment
• Little demonstration of
institutional support
• Insufficient resources to conduct
the study
After you write it….
The Final Review
• Check for typos and grammatical errors
• Ask someone outside of your project
team to review it
• Hold a mock review panel
• Think about the questions you would
ask if you were a reviewer
Inclusion of a Cover Letter
• NIH recommends a cover letter
• Indicate the primary Institute that may
be interested in your research
• Indicate expertise needed to review
your study
http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/Submission+And+Assignm
ent+Process.htm
Components of a Cover Letter
• Application title
• Funding Opportunity (PA/RFA)
• Request assignment to an Institute or
Scientific Review Group. NIH makes final
determination
• Disciplines involved, if multidisciplinary
Final Thoughts
• Presentation is key
• Leave yourself enough time
• Know the field
• Know the competition
• Make sure project is feasible
• Be clear, concise, comprehensive
Useful Websites
• SF424 Application Guide:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_Gene
ral_Adobe_VerB.pdf
• Frequently Asked Questions about NIH Grants:
http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/faq.htm
• Research Involving Human Subjects:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/
• Center for Scientific Review:
http://www.csr.nih.gov/
