Grant writing: Tips and tools of the trade

1. Grant writing: Tips and tools of the trade Gerry Wright

2. Disclaimer Not me

3. Here’s what you need for success • A great track record in the field • An important problem • Creative ideas that will answer key questions related to the problem. • A logical and REALISTIC plan of action that can be accomplished in your lab (know your limits before they are pointed out to you) • Increasingly, direct relevance to tangible outcomes (not just cool papers) Knowledge Transfer • Appropriate collaborators to fill in technology gaps • A supportive and appropriate environment • Preliminary data • A bulletproof application

4. Tip #1. Understand the process • Pick the right agency/panel and write to its mandate • CIHR = health; NSERC ≠ health; ORF = provincial priority areas; Disease specific agencies ≈ direct impact on disease • Typical reviewers are not the same people who review your papers (most of the time) • Avoid jargon • Scientific American style introduction • Your application is one in a pile, assume it will get picked last (or first) • Get some insight from someone who is on a panel for that agency

5. The CIHR Process • Chair • Scientific Officer (SO) • Panel members • Only 3 people read the grant: primary & secondary reviewers, reader but everybody (except Chair & SO) votes • 1o and 2o reviewers give their scores • 1o reviewer summarizes the grant, strengths & weakness • 2o adds to the discussion • Reader chimes in • Round table discussion • Consensus score • Panel secret ballot score±0.5 • You are ranked to the others applicants in the panel

6. Tip #2. Know your audience • Reviewers are folks like your colleagues: too busy and not an expert in your field • Write for a grumpy reviewer who has procrastinated and is reading your grant a 2 AM the night prior to posting on Research Net after 3 sleepless nights with a teething baby

7. Rule of thumb: 1 hypothesis with 3 specific aims. Avoid a programmatic approach if possible. • Expect 2 careful reviews with 5 min discussion. Reviewers have >10 grants to read and assess. Likely only 1-2 will be funded, make yours the best in the pile. • Start your proposal with an ‘elevator pitch’ • A well crafted bullet-proof story that speaks to the mandate of the panel will outperform an overly ambitious hodgepodge every time

8. Tip #3. Play by the rules • Take note of: • Margins • Fonts • Page numbers • Watch content in all sections (Lay abstract, CV, Appendices) • Be mindful of agency rules regarding salaries, travel, services, etc.

9. Tip #4. Neatness counts • The importance of ‘white space’ • Times New Roman • Organization • Headings • Numbering • Avoid Tables except where absolutely necessary • Highlight papers from your lab in bold • Be wary of Spell-check

10. Tip #5. A (clear) picture is worth 103 words • To embed or not to embed • Use Figures to: • demystify jargon • Outline a model • Show preliminary data • Build in complexity over several panels • A complex Fig 1 showing 4 intersecting signal transduction pathways may be reality, but it is not a good way to get your point across • Watch resolution of microscopy images • Keep Legends concise, but entirely self contained • If you embed, short statement that you played by the page number rules

11. Tip #6. Reviewers can count better than they can read (Eric Brown). Crafting your CV • Emphasize your publications (number and quality) • Be clear about any interruptions in your • Careful of the % allotment of time/grant (worse yet actual hrs/month) • Training is a big deal. Includes all levels of folks in your lab. • CIHR uses Common CV for generic stuff and funding and 5 attachments on your papers, awards etc.

12. Tip #7. Spend lots of time on the budget • Know salary details. Mention collective agreements if appropriate. • Name everyone and use a paragraph to connect them with the aims in the proposal • Justify, justify, justify • Explain everything (reviewer might be from a small university or a place where certain services/facilities e.g. autoclaving are free) • Watch inflated travel budgets, figure out the cheapest WestJet or Tango flight • Equipment needs to be vital to the program • Summer students?

13. Tip #8. Appendices: not just vestigial organs • Write drafts of letters to make sure you get what you want • Letters of support from all collaborators, even your neighbors • Letters from facility managers explaining costs • Letter from the Chair/Dean/Director spelling out that the research program is supported by special infrastructure • New faculty careful of competing with previous boss. Get a letter to show your independence.

14. Tip #9. Get help • Internal peer review • Ask someone outside your field to read it (spouse, admin assistant…) • Institutional review (especially wrt budgets) • Grant writing links: • www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/ig_guide_for_new_pis_e.pdf • http://www.mcmaster.ca/ors/guide/guide_proposal.htm • http://muhc.ca/research/page/grant-writing-tips (lots of links here)

15. Tip #10 The Research Proposal • Background and Significance (Scientific American, News & Views style) 2 pages • Preliminary data (or link it into each Aim) • Hypothesis/Rationale 0.5-1.0 page • Specific Aims 2+Pages each • Articulate the question clearly • Preliminary data • Discussion of your experimental approach (Detail will vary depending on your track record, but could include types of buffers, antibodies, etc.) • Availability of facilities, expertise • Alternate methods if your favorite one doesn’t work (limitations of approaches) • Acknowledge the Null Hypothesis • Aims should never be dependent on the success of other Aims • Being too dependent on a collaborator for vital data can be the kiss of death • Significance & Timelines (0.5 page) • PS It’s OK to be mildly redundant

16. Tip #11. Don’t forget… • That the Summary Page is the most important one in the proposal • To get all signatures, safety permissions, ethics, etc. • To name all trainees in the grant • To read letters of collaboration (check dates, make sure they agree with what you state in the grant, etc.) • To check your math • To be exciting but avoid hyperbole • To avoid alphabet soup! • To not rely on Spell-Check (non-scientist spouses, teenagers, or friends are helpful here) • Better to overachieve after you get your $ than to write down the 12 aims you really want to do (Avoid laundry lists! FOCUS).

17. The dreaded revision • Pay attention to the SO notes in particular. If they re vague, call up the Chair especially if you’re close to the pay line. If you’re not, then don’t bug them. • Fight the temptation to point out the faults in the previous reviewer's logic and question their intelligence in the Response to Previous Review section • It’s OK to respectfully disagree. Go with your strengths. • Remember your going right back into a competition, but with some valuable feedback. Cosmetic surgery may not be enough…

18. Time management during grant season • This is VITAL!!! • Start 3 months ahead of submission deadline • Make a plan and stick to it. Write at least 1 hr every day. • Summary • Specific Aims • Experimental design • Figures • Introduction • Integrate • Iterate, edit, cut out weak sections, build up strong ones • When you’re not feeling creative, work on your CV, budget, Progress Report, etc. • Get all the Letters of Collaboration done ASAP

19. Writing Good Well • Is a skill that can be learned • Read widely (not just technical papers) • Remember to construct paragraphs properly • Remember your audience • Avoid jargon and alphabet soup • Make sure the Big Picture doesn’t get lost in the details • Consult style guides like: Strunk & White’s Elements of Style; The Practical Stylist, Getting the Words Right • Successful applications are a coherent arguments of what should be done, not a list of what can be done.