Preparing Grant Proposals

- Martha Gillette -

PURPOSE. To prepare a written document that will convince representatives of a funding agency that you have an important new hypothesis or technology to test and are worthy of their investment.

To do this, you need to convey clearly and convincingly:

what you want to do,
why you want to do it,
how you want to do it,
what you think you will learn,
that you can do it,
why it is important to do it,
that you are the best person to do it.

STRUCTURE. Developed over the years to help the writer to propose complete, well thought-out experiments AND to help reviewers read the proposal. Short proposals will permit only a portion of this structure to be developed, but the same issues will apply in review.

Specific Aims:

State your general goals in a sentence or two.
Break your general goals into a sequence of focused aims.
State research aims as specific questions or hypotheses to be tested.
Focus your aims so they are clear and can be accomplished in the duration of the award.
Background and Significance:

Set the stage for the proposal, esp. your specific aims and approach.
Present a brief review of current status of the field.
At the end of the review, state the present limits of knowledge and what needs to be answered.
Describe why this study needs to be supported.
Describe why it represents a significant advance not only in your field, but in a broader context as well.
Describe its relation to disease and technology
Preliminary Results:

Discuss recent observations of yours that lead you to propose the work.
What is your (unique) insight?
What is your general approach?
Explain why you are well positioned to do this work.
State in general terms why the work is feasible.
Research Design and Methods:

Explain how you plan to address your aims.
Explain your plan of attack, including the proposed experiments and specific methods you will use.
Explain why the approach is feasible and can be done in your lab.
What results do you anticipate?
How will you interpret them?
What are potential problems, and how will you deal with them?
Timeline:

Project the order and time you will use to attack the aims and conduct the elements of the research.
This should reflect the progress anticipated by the personnel and resources in your lab.
Facilities:

Address the relation of the environment in which you work to the proposed study.
Is the equipment adequate?
Are there other faculty or labs that can help you with technical aspects?
Are there appropriate support facilities?
Compliance Issues:

Are you using vertebrate animals or humans in your work?
Have you complied with institutional and federal requirements to assure their safety and humane treatment?

EVALUATION. Some points used by reviewers when critiquing grant proposals include:

Is the project interesting? Useful?
What are the pertinent hypothesis?
Which specific aims are not useful?
Is the system good for the analysis?
Is the research plan well defined, focused, logical?
Are the methods detailed adequately? Are you confident that they can be carried out?
Are their unrecognized leaps of faith in the system?
Is the scientific merit Outstanding (1.0 - 1.5), Excellent (1.5 - 2.0), Very Good (2.0 - 2.5), Good (2.5 - 3.5, Acceptable (3.5 - 5.0)? Proposals judged in the bottom half of the percentile ranking by initial review are Not Recommended for Further Consideration.

Please send any comments, suggestions, or questions to:

Stanley Maloy

Last modified, March 16, 1998.