1 / 16

Tips on NIH grant writing

Tips on NIH grant writing. David Nemazee TSRI. General points. Be interesting Be clear- even to the non-specialist Be explicit- say the words Be succinct as possible- feel for the reader Be plausible- preliminary data/ citations

media
Download Presentation

Tips on NIH grant writing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tips on NIH grant writing David Nemazee TSRI

  2. General points • Be interesting • Be clear- even to the non-specialist • Be explicit- say the words • Be succinct as possible- feel for the reader • Be plausible- preliminary data/ citations • Manage the relationship between the solid/boring and the exciting/speculative

  3. NIH format • Abstract (fixed) • Hypothesis and Specific Aims (1-2 pages) • Background and Significance (3-4 pages) • Preliminary Results (3-8 pages) • Research Design and Methods (10-15 pages)

  4. Abstract • Write last • Why is the topic important? • What are the Aims and long term goal? • This should be the most carefully written part of the grant. • Examples can be accessed in the CRISP database

  5. Background/Introduction • This section must be very carefully tailored to the project being introduced. Accentuate what is important to know and understand, and why, as part of an argument for why your proposal is important. It is also helpful to point out where appropriate which of the upcoming Aims addresses certain gaps in our understanding. • Include Figure of your working hypothesis.

  6. Preliminary data • Establish your expertise • Establish your strengths • Establish the plausibility for the hypothesis • Establish the feasibility of an unusual proposed method/approach • The data must be clear, but can be incomplete or open to interpretation

  7. Hypothesis • Should be clear • If complex, use pictures to illustrate • Two competing hypotheses are better than one!

  8. The Aims • How many? • Put each Aim in a single short sentence. Reuse sentence in body of grant and abstract. • What order? Go from most developed to least developed. • Aims should complement each other, should NOT be contingent on each other.

  9. Structure of an individual Aim • Brief rationale- no more than a paragraph The main purpose is to remind the reader of the wider rationale, but then to explain the choice of approach.

  10. Individual Aim • Approach- avoid gory technical detail (if necessary provide a Methods section). What is the key point? what are the key controls? What back-up approaches will be used? What complementary approaches will be used? (Often these are taken up in the other Aims.)

  11. Individual Aim • Expected outcomes, caveats, problems- grapple directly with potential problems, do not minimize them, but also state affirmatively why you think a approach is likely to work, e.g. because the method is routine, because you have special expertise.. Tables of expected outcomes are effective here.

  12. Style points • Use simple declarative sentences. Clarity is more important than style. • Break up the text with effective headers, data pictures. • Tailor the introduction to fit the project, do not roam far afield. • Underscore important points. • If you can fit in the page limit with 12pt font, you must cut stuff out!

  13. Style points (continued) • Say the words. • For example: “This Aim is important because…..” “This experimental approach is likely to work because…” “This caveat is not a grave concern because…” • Let a smart friend in a different field read the grant--you’ll be surprised at what was unclear, and what needs to be further stressed.

  14. Common mistakes • No explicit hypothesis • Not making the case for why the question is interesting • Not separating the Aims into natural units • Not explaining what experimental outcomes are expected and what will be done if certain key experiments don’t work

  15. Common mistakes (continued) • Correlative research- establishing correlations may be important for establishing the plausibility of a hypothesis, but can never prove the hypothesis. • Descriptive research- ultimately an experimental system must be manipulated to test a hypothesis. • Paranoia- get feedback from colleagues.

  16. Common mistakes (continued) • Special comment on DNA array experiments. What are the numbers of candidates you expect? How will they be prioritized? How many will be worked up and how? What criteria will be used? • Excessive length/ technical detail (standard methods can be cited)

More Related