After you enable Flash, refresh this page and the presentation should play. Get the plugin now.
Toggle navigation. Help Preferences Sign up Log in. To view this presentation, you'll need to allow Flash. Click to allow Flash After you enable Flash, refresh this page and the presentation should play. View by Category Toggle navigation. Products Sold on our sister site CrystalGraphics. Title: Grant Writing Description: Frank Waxman, Ph. Tags: critique grant write writing. Latest Highest Rated.
For the purpose of this presentation, TN is not shown. What do you want to do? Will the proposed research impact significantly on the field and can you convince others that it will?
Do you have an adequate foundation of preliminary data to launch a grant application? If Yes - Outline three or four concise specific aims. Find something else to do for awhile. Assess your field. Do you want to go it alone or are there opportunities for collaborating with a more experienced grantee?
Check out the competition see which other projects in your field are being funded. A day or two perusing these databases will be invaluable! Evaluate yourself How do your strengths match up with the topics you uncovered in your database search? Can you capitalize on your expertise and fill in any gaps with mentors, consultants or collaborators? Figure out what resources and support your organization has and what other support you'll need.
One should be dead-on in the discipline that is the topic of your nascent grant application. The other should be generally conversant with the field, but not an expert in the subject area of your planned application.
Both should be experienced grantees, preferably from the agency to which you are applying. At least one should be on your campus. Ask them if they will share a successful grant they have written. Show them a one page overview that includes the base of knowledge on which the work would build, the gap in knowledge that needs to be filled, the central hypothesis that will be tested, the specific aims of your proposal, and why the results of your work would be important.
Show them your recent peer reviewed publications that are relevant to the subject matter of your proposed application some reviewers look at your pubs first, if they dont like the quality and quantity, they wont pay serious attention to your application. True colleagues will be critical as well as being supportive. Dont be thin skinned!
Grant writing 101 ppt to pdf
Dont be reluctant to revise your plans as needed. Email a Program Officer for an opinion of your idea. What you want to propose is not always what is most important. What is important is finding a program that can fund what you want to propose!
Schedule a follow up phone conversation if feasible. Look at receipt dates for new applications.
Give yourself plenty of time to prepare your application, probably 3 - 6 months. Write the application in the Project Description sequence.
But, if you get stuck, move on to another section. Write the Summary last, but not at the last minute.
Its the one thing everyone reads. A reviewer should not have to read a sentence more than once to understand it. If you have an urge to use a comma, ask yourself if a period would be better!
To succeed in peer review, win over the primary reviewers, who will act as your advocates in guiding the discussions. Peer reviews work this way because time is limited and discussions are short. During the discussion of your application during peer review, the other reviewers will ask the primary reviewers questions about your application, and they'll also skim it during that time and possibly before the meeting as well.
Most likely, they will read only your summary abstract , significance, and specific aims. But all reviewers are important because each reviewer gets one vote.
Label all materials clearly. Make it easy for reviewers to find information. Keep it short and simple. Start with basic ideas and move progressively to more complex ones.
State the key points directly, and write basic concepts as non-technically as possible. You may want to use Scientific American as a model for the level of writing to use for your non-technical parts. Guide reviewers with graphics.
A picture is worth a thousand words, probably more. Graphics can help reviewers grasp a lot of information quickly and easily, and they break up the monotony of hundreds of pages of text each reviewer contends with.
Edit and proof.
Your presentation can also make or break your application. Though reviewers assess science, they are also influenced by the writing and appearance of your application.
If there are typos and internal inconsistencies in the document, your score can and likely will suffer. How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer individual or team to conduct the project? If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work. To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources? How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups e.
Grant Writing 101: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? Here is the template they use for NIH other agencies are similar Significance ability of the project to improve health Approach feasibility of your methods and appropriateness of the budget Innovation originality of your approach Investigator training and experience of investigators Environment suitability of facilities and adequacy of support from your institution 25 NIH Research Plan Specific Aims.
What do you intend to do? If you dont get the reviewers attention here, all is lost! Background and Significance. Why is the work important? What has already been done?
Research Design and Methods. How are you going to do the work? Take advantage of these opportunities! Don't risk having your application returned because you exceeded the page limits or used an improper font, font size, or margins.
Your hypothesis must be testable during your three- to four-year award with the level of resources you are requesting. Keep in mind that your topic should fit with the mission of the granting agency. Reviewers also want to see how your project fits into the big picture in your field. Make this clear and explicit. Search agency databases to see what other projects in your field are funded, so you can carve out your niche.
Don't confuse your hypothesis with your methods. Methods are the means for performing your experiments. Your experimental results will prove or disprove your hypothesis.
It should be based on previous research. An example of a good research hypothesis Analogs to chemokine receptors can inhibit HIV infection. Examples of a poor research hypothesis Analogs to chemokine receptors can be biologically useful.
A wide range of molecules can inhibit HIV infection. Applicants often overshoot their mark, proposing too much.