Guide to Effective Grant Writing : How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application

by Yang, Otto O.

• ISBN13: 9780306486647
• ISBN10: 0306486644
• Edition: 1st
• Format: Paperback
• Copyright: 2005-04-04
• Publisher: Springer Verlag

Summary

"Guide to Effective Grant Writing is a straightforward, common-sense guide to one of the most important skills required of all academic researchers: getting funding from the NIH for your research. A successful scientist, Otto O. Yang, shares his perspective from both ends: as a pioneering researcher applying for funding as well as an NIH scientific consultant reviewing grants. Guide to Effective Grant Writing gives the reader a step-by-step account on how to write a grant application while highlighting the important areas that are often neglected or erroneous. It is the definitive guide to the NIH review process, explaining how the NIH assesses grants and how one approaches the process of grant applications from start to finish."--BOOK JACKET.

Table of Contents

1. Overview: Overall Goals When Writing Grant Applications	1	(4)
Getting (and keeping) the attention of the reviewers	1	(1)
Balancing between clarity and depth	2	(1)
Telling an interesting story: the art behind writing the application	2	(3)
2. Organization and Use of This Guide	5	(2)
3. Preparing to Write	7	(6)
Deciding the grant for which you want to apply	7	(1)
Determining whether your research falls in an area targeted by NIH	8	(1)
Timing of Deadlines	9	(1)
Institutional Approvals	9	(1)
Application Strategy	9	(1)
Estimating the Budget	10	(1)
Collaborators and consultants	10	(1)
Familiarization with the NIH format	11	(1)
Obtaining NIH forms for the application	11	(2)
4. Types of NIH Grants	13	(2)
"F" awards	13	(1)
"K" awards	13	(1)
"R" awards	13	(1)
Targeting the content and emphasis of your writing to the type of grant	14	(1)
What is the goal of the grant from the standpoint of the NIH?	14	(1)
What research results are expected from the grant?	14	(1)
What is the research focus of the grant?	14	(1)
What are the administrative requirements for the application?	14	(1)
5. Anatomy of the NIH Grant Application	15	(4)
The purpose and importance of adhering to the standardized format	15	(1)
Structure and organization of the standard format	16	(1)
Specific Aims	17	(1)
Background and Significance	17	(1)
Preliminary Results/Progress Report	17	(1)
Research Design and Methods	17	(1)
Literature Cited	17	(1)
Page limits	17	(2)
6. Organization and Aesthetics	19	(8)
Making a first impression	19	(1)
Basic rules set by NIH	19	(1)
Text and figure organization	20	(1)
Writing style and organization: following an outline structure	20	(3)
Attention to details	23	(1)
Layout	23	(1)
Getting a fresh perspective	23	(1)
Common errors	24	(3)
Using small font or font compression to save space	24	(1)
Having long paragraphs that contain too many ideas	24	(1)
Unnecessary content	24	(1)
Illegible figures or tables	24	(1)
Poorly designed figures or tables	24	(1)
Jargon	25	(1)
Errors in the text	25	(1)
Crowded text layout	26	(1)
7. Specific Aims	27	(6)
Introducing your project	27	(1)
Summarizing the rationale	27	(1)
Stating the aims of the project	28	(1)
Types of aims	28	(1)
Giving further details on the aims (or not)	29	(1)
An example	29	(1)
Common errors	30	(3)
Unrealistic aims	30	(1)
Poorly justified aims	30	(1)
Purely descriptive aims	31	(1)
Unnecessarily complicated aims	31	(1)
Lack of cohesiveness of the aims as a unit	31	(1)
Excessive interdependence of aims for success	31	(2)
8. Background and Significance	33	(4)
Laying the foundation for your project	33	(1)
Why the area of research is important	33	(1)
What is known thus far about the area of proposed research	34	(1)
Implications of the proposed work in the field	34	(1)
Organization and structure	34	(1)
An example	35	(1)
Common errors	35	(2)
Too little detail	35	(1)
Too much detail	36	(1)
Poor organization	36	(1)
Lack of objectivity	36	(1)
9. Preliminary Results	37	(6)
Demonstrating the feasibility of your project	37	(1)
Purposes	37	(1)
Amount of data to include	38	(1)
Format	38	(1)
Supporting hypotheses and demonstrating techniques	38	(1)
Organization	39	(1)
Common errors	40	(3)
Failure to indicate the source of data	40	(1)
Unnecessarily complicated figures or tables	40	(1)
Showing data not clearly related to the proposed work	40	(1)
Poor organization	41	(1)
Omission of important points or procedures	41	(2)
10. Research Design and Methods	43	(8)
Describing your experimental plans	43	(1)
Importance of logical organization	43	(1)
Subsections under each aim	44	(2)
Hypothesis	44	(1)
Rationale	44	(1)
Experimental Approach	44	(1)
Interpretation of Results	45	(1)
Potential Pitfalls and Alternative Approaches	45	(1)
Overall Summary and Significance	46	(1)
Common errors	46	(5)
Lack of "Hypothesis" and "Rationale" sections	46	(1)
Inadequate experience of the investigator in proposed techniques	47	(1)
Excessive or lacking experimental detail	47	(1)
Missing controls	47	(1)
Inadequate details on clinical subjects or specimens	47	(1)
Lack of "Pitfalls and Alternative Approaches"	48	(1)
Overly ambitious experimental plans	48	(1)
Plans that are not hypothesis-driven	48	(1)
Complete dependence of the whole project on a single unproven premise	49	(1)
Excessive dependence of experimental plans	49	(1)
Lack of "Interpretation of Results	50	(1)
Over-optimism concerning the implications of the results	50	(1)
Lack of logistical organization and justification of the work	50	(1)
11. Use of Literature Citations	51	(4)
Importance of documentation	51	(1)
Format	51	(1)
Demonstrating familiarity with the literature	52	(1)
Acknowledging the work of others	52	(1)
Common errors	52	(3)
Incomplete references	52	(1)
Failure to reference alternative viewpoints	52	(1)
Misuse of references	53	(1)
Overuse of citations	53	(2)
12. Use of Appendices	55	(4)
Supplemental and not primary material	55	(1)
Giving peripheral details for the convenience of the reviewers	55	(1)
Documenting technical capabilities	56	(1)
Common errors	56	(3)
Using appendices to circumvent page limitations	56	(1)
Appending unpublished manuscripts	56	(1)
Appending the work of others	57	(1)
Irrelevant appendices	57	(2)
13. Administrative Sections	59	(6)
Importance for acceptance of the grant application	59	(1)
Specific Administrative Components	60	(5)
Face page	60	(1)
Description	60	(1)
Biosketch	60	(1)
Personnel	61	(1)
Resources and Environment	61	(1)
Consortium Agreement	61	(1)
Budget and Budget Justification	61	(1)
Human Subjects	62	(1)
Vertebrate Animals	63	(1)
Checklist	63	(1)
Cover letter	63	(2)
14. Collaborators and Consultants	65	(2)
Adding skills, expertise, or reagents to the project	65	(1)
Defining the role	65	(1)
Letters of support	66	(1)
Maintaining an independent role	66	(1)
Common errors	66	(1)
Missing letters	66	(1)
Vague letters	66	(1)
Lack of sufficient effort	66	(1)
15. Scoring Process	67	(8)
Processing of the application by the CSR	67	(1)
Grant assignments and the study section (IRG)	68	(1)
Scoring criteria for independent investigator grants	69	(1)
Scoring criteria for training grants	70	(1)
Study section meeting	71	(1)
The "priority score" and "streamlined" scoring procedure	72	(1)
The reviewers and conflicts of interest	72	(1)
Administrative sections	73	(1)
The "percentile score" and funding decision	73	(2)
16. Resubmitting an Application	75	(6)
Analyzing the critiques	75	(1)
Interpreting the score	76	(1)
Whether to change your aims	76	(1)
Modifying the experimental plans	76	(1)
Deciding the focus of your changes	76	(1)
Highlighting revisions	77	(1)
Writing the "Introduction to the Revised Application"	78	(1)
Common errors	79	(2)
Misinterpretation of critiques	79	(1)
Being overly defensive in the "Introduction to the Revised Application"	79	(1)
Not being responsive to the critiques	79	(1)
Taking the advice of the reviewers too literally	80	(1)
17. Submitting a Competing Renewal	81	(4)
Differences from a new grant application	81	(1)
Reporting progress from the previous funding period	81	(1)
Scoring of the competing renewal application	82	(1)
Common errors	83	(2)
Failure to address prior specific aims	83	(1)
Presentation of work that is not relevant	83	(1)
Ignoring prior aims	83	(1)
Repeating prior aims	83	(1)
Disregard for prior reviews	84	(1)
Submitting the renewal late	84	(1)
18. Non-NIH Grants	85	(2)
19. Conclusions	87	(2)
Appendix: Useful Web Resources	89	(2)
Index	91