Research Education > Activities and Resources > Grants for Lunch

The following comments have been compiled, not only from NIH-published Study Group comments, web sites, and NIH Regional Seminar presentations, but also from UTMB researchers who serve as NIH reviewers. This information is provided as a reference tool for researchers seeking advice on how to strengthen their research applications.

We acknowledge the following UTMB faculty who have contributed thus far to this project: Constance Baldwin, Robin Froman, James Halpert, Claire Hulsebosch, David Konkel, Edward Postlethwait, Randall Urban, and Elbert Whorton.

Primary Goals of a Grant Proposal
Common NIH-Cited Reasons for Grant Rejections
Tips & Advice
To Wow A Study Section
If You Are a New Investigator
If Your Application is a Renewal or Supplemental Request
If Your Application is a Resubmission
Determining the Best Study Section
NIH Instructions to Reviewers
Related Links  

Primary Goals of a Grant Proposal

• Persuade reviewer of the importance of the work.
• Persuade reviewer of Investigator's ability to do the work.
• Describe the study clearly and completely.

Common NIH-Cited Reasons for Grant Rejection

• Lack of new or original ideas.
• Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan.
• Over-ambitious research plan (too much work proposed within the time period).
• Lack of knowledge of relevant published work.
• Lack of preliminary data or Investigator experience in essential methodology.
• Uncertainty of future direction based on outcome.
• Lack of sufficient experimental detail.

Back to the Top 

Tips and Advice

• Follow instructions! Proposals will be returned with no review if they do not follow the application and formatting instructions. (See http://www.format.nih.gov for the NIH Guide Notice and the Frequently Asked Questions page concerning these issues.)
• Start each paragraph with a good topic sentence.
• Don't use excessive/unusual jargon, abbreviations, or acronyms.
• When using acronyms, however, make sure they are spelled out when used initially, or make a list of abbreviations.
• Don't use large or uncommon words if shorter, more common words will suffice.
• Use same style, order and approach throughout.
• Pursue original science. This is an area that Study Sections are most concerned about.
• Provide a well focused research plan.
• Don't let your ideas wander from the main theme.
• Demonstrate a critical approach to the project.
• Discuss potential problem areas and alternative approaches.
• Develop a logical outline (presentation sequence).
• Use Section Headings - this will help reviewers "find things". Use both major and minor section headings.
• Use a detailed table of contents.
• Never assume that the reviewers will know what you mean.
• Do everything to help reviewers to understand your ideas, why they are important, and why the project is reasonable and feasible.
• Be explicit, give examples to illustrate important generalizations.
• Plan a realistic amount of work for the years requested.
• Address potential pitfalls and alternative approaches. Science never works as we think it’s going to, and thus it’s important that you demonstrate what you will do if/when the unexpected occurs. Simply stating that you have done this type of work before and thus it will all work out reflects both naivety and a lack of careful consideration as to what might go wrong.
• Do not use photo reductions on a copy machine, particularly graphs and gels, unless they are easily readable.
• Include only those graphs, tables, etc., that are essential to the narrative; these should complement the text and be appropriately inserted.
• Make sure all citations are complete: title, authors, book or journal, volume number, inclusive pages, year of publication.
• Proofread carefully by reading aloud. Do not rely on computer "spell check" to point out all mistakes.
• Supplement the text material by including additional information in the appendices. Remember, appendices should contain supportive or supplemental, rather than essential material. Essential data should be included within the body of the application. Provide a table of contents of the appendices for easy reference by the reviewers.
• Be sure you have addressed each of the evaluation criteria in your proposal.
• Have the proposal read by someone (a colleague or mentor perhaps) in the institution who has not been actively involved in the proposal preparation. You need constructive comments about whether the proposal makes sense and is understandable. Having an impartial colleague review the proposal will be most helpful to you and improve the possibility of funding. Also, it's better to receive comments/criticisms from peers than from a study section - along with their rejection notice.
• Make sure the application is signed and dated by you (the Principal Investigator) and by the designated institutional business official.
• Be sure that your application is received at the Center for Scientific Review by the appropriate deadline.
• Always keep in mind, reviewers generally want you to succeed and many work hard to provide constructive comments to improve your research project.

Back to the Top

To Wow a Study Section

• The best way to establish credentials and gain reviewer confidence is to provide preliminary data that inspired the project/hypothesis.
• The Abstract and Specific Aims are perhaps the most important sections to reviewers. Why? Reviewers are generally Associate and full Professors. They are at the peak of their own research careers and thus are very busy. They have limited time to spend on grant application reviews so they rely heavily on information in these two sections.
• The Specific Aims section is where you want to sell your ideas. If you don't, you're sunk.
• The importance of the Specific Aims statement cannot be exaggerated. That may be the single most important thing in getting and keeping a reviewer's attention.
• Tie the Specific Aims to the research questions, to the hypotheses, and to the analyses. Number them and keep them systematic throughout.
• Develop a unifying hypothesis linking the Specific Aims together. This can be tricky because the Specific Aims also must remain independent (avoid dependence of one Specific Aim on another).
• Your document is likely to be read by people facing time constraints. Reviewers often read a large number of similar proposals in a relatively short time (may be late at night or in-flight). Yours must be well-organized and concise in order to make your point and stand out in the crowd.
• Make it easy for the reader. Use tables or figures to summarize. DO NOT use tables or figures that are too busy or have poor legends. You'll get creamed in a discussion.
• Find out who is on the review panel and get their names in the reference list if at all possible. (See section on Advice for Determining Best Study Section for additional information).

Back to the Top

• New investigators need to be sure to check the "New Investigator" box on the NIH cover page.
• For new investigators, it is imperative that they include documentation of departmental/institutional support. While this is not listed as a requirement, study sections do view it very positively. A letter of commitment from the chair, a clear description of the available laboratory space, equipment, and/or other supportive resources all help a study section understand that the new Investigator is working in an environment that will both protect their research time and facilitate success.
• Ask for 5 years. The sentiment at NIH is to award sufficient time and funds for new Investigators to establish their programs.
• Make sure that you have collaborators who can compensate for your deficiencies and who add credibility to your innovative ideas.
• Don't appear intellectually isolated.

Back to the Top

• Be aware that Study Section members will not have the benefit of your previous application but rather only the previous summary statement.
• Be sure to explain your progress carefully in the current application.
• In your progress report, plan carefully to both describe your productivity and lay groundwork for new aims.
• Publish, publish, publish - be productive.

Back to the Top

• Answer reviewer comments/critiques completely.
• Provide an introduction section that explains the changes you have made.
• Many find it helpful to have at least two readers, other than the PI, read and summarize the reviewers’ comments into 12 or so major points. Two additional readers help the PI to eliminate defensiveness and to focus the revision right from the start. Also, the major points easily become the framework for the introduction to the revised application.
• Leave your irritations with the review out of your resubmission.
• Don't argue or be hostile - you will not help yourself if you force the Study Section into a defensive posture.
• Bite your tongue and specifically thank the reviewers for their efforts and comments that led to your now strengthened application.
• Remember that the Study Section will have the previous summary statement, but not the previous application.
• Do not refer to the previous application for details.
• Remember that reviewers are generally trying to help you become better research scientists.

Back to the Top

• Decide the appropriate scientific area.
• View the study section roster index.
• Search to find the members of the study section and research their interests, areas of expertise, etc.
• Choose those with areas and expertise compatible with yours.
• See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/sitemap.htm for information on study section rosters, meeting dates, etc.
• Use the CRISP database to find study sections that have previously funded proposals like yours.

Back to the Top

Please use the following guidelines when preparing written comments on research grant applications assigned to you for review. The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health. In your written review, you should comment on the following aspects of the application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. NOTE: Your written reviews should not bear personal identifiers because unaltered comments will be sent to the investigator.
Back to the Top

Significance

• Does this study address an important problem?
• If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced?
• What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?

Back to the Top

• Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project?
• Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?

Back to the Top

• Does the proposed research employ novel concepts, approaches or methods?
• Are the aims original and innovative?
• Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?

Back to the Top

• Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work?
• Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers (if any)?

Back to the Top

• Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?
• Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements?
• Is there evidence of institutional support?

Back to the Top

How to Apply for NIH Funding (slide presentation) at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/apply_nih/apply_nih.htm

Policy, Procedure & Review Guidelines for NIH Referral and Review at http://www.csr.nih.gov/REVIEW/policy.htm

NIH Site Map (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/sitemap.htm) provides information about NIH including Funding Opportunities, NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, Policies, Study Section Rosters and Meeting Schedules, Award Data, and much more.

The Modular Grants application requirement updates, reminders, and peer review updates may be accessed at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm

Elements of Style, by William Strunk, Jr., at http://www.bartleby.com/141/ covers the principal requirements of good English style with attention to commonly violated rules of usage.

The following articles are referenced from UTMB's electronic journal subscription services through Moody Medical Library. These urls are available to UTMB employees via an on-campus computer or via the UTMB modem pool.

Time Management 101 for Grant Applicants by Vid Mohan-Ram (10/8/99) and related articles: http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/10/06/1.

Grantsmanship: What Makes Proposals Work? By Anne Simon Moffat (9/23/94) and related articles: http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/09/01/13.
Back to the Top