A strong grant application begins with a good idea. This idea must be developed by a good scientific approach coupled with a rigorous, well-defined experimental plan. Finaily the job is not done until the information is presented in clear language that follow the rules and guidelines set forth in the grant application form.

• THE FIRST QUESTIONS
  • Do you know what is important in your field?
  • Do you know the field and its literature?
  • Is the field overpopulated?
  • Is the scope of the problem achievable?

  If you answered 'yes' to the third question or 'no' to any of the others, go back and reassess what you want to do -- you are going to have difficulty getting it funded.

• THE HYPOTHESIS
  • A meaningful hypothesis and a means of testing it
  • Rationale for the hypothesis
  • A set of related aims
  • Aims that are focused and not diffuse

• PRELIMINARY DATA
  • Proper training to do what you propose
  • Interpret the results criticaily
  • Alternative meanings to the results

  Preliminary data may consist of your own publications, publications of others, unpublished data from your own laboratory or from others, or some combination of these.

  If your idea is not hypothesis driven, or if you have no preliminary data from either your own work or others to indicate that the idea is scientifically sound, stop now and think again -- you're not likely to get this work funded no matter how clever you think the idea is. Two good rules of thumb are good to remember:

• EMPHASIZE MECHANISM
• AVOID "DESCRIPTIVE DATA GATHERING"
  A grant application that emphasizes descriptive science and fails to ask questions about mechanism is not going to be successful.

  GOOD SCIENCE

• LOGICAL, ORGANIZED RESEARCH PLAN
• RATIONALE FOR THE METHODS CHOSEN
  • Experimental pitfalls
  • Alternative approaches
• SUFFICIENT EXPERIMENTAL DETAIL

  Remember:

• USE appropriate controls
• AVOID "shotgun" approaches and "fishing expeditions"
• DO NOT assume the reviewers will know what you mean: SPELL IT OUT

  A GOOD APPLICATION

• READ AND REREAD THE INSTRUCTIONS
• FOLLOW THE RULES
  • Page limitations
  • Appropriate and justified/justifiable budget
  • Human subjects and animals

  Your institute's grants and contracts office can help you with administrative details and reviews for things suchas human subjects.

• PREPARE THE APPLICATION CORRECTLY
  • Clear, grammatically correct English
  • A pleasing format presentation
    • Clean, legible type
    • No typographical errors
    • No crowding

  If you do not follow the rules, your application may be returned without being reviewed.

• GET AN OUTSIDE OPINION
  Find colleagues in your field who are experienced and successful grant writers and preferably grant reviewers (that is, they have been members of NIH Study Sections). The more critical and nasty they are, the better. Have them review your application before you submit it. Better to know the problems now then learn about them from the NIH Study Section when your grant gets an unfundable score.

  Remember that to get funded, two things need to happen -- YOU need to write a strong application -- AND someone who is interested in the subject of your research (your PEERS) needs to review it. That is what we mean by peer review. The information given above has told you how to write that application. At least the first time through, let the NIH referral system decide who the right peers /Study Section) should be to review your application -- they are correct the vast majority of the time. But if you have questions about the suitability and/or expertise of the Study Section after you read their review (summary statement), you can do something about it as detailed below.

  HOW TO REVISE AN UNFUNDABLE GRANT APPLICATION

  What if you submit a grant application and it does not get funded? DON'T GIVE UP -- YOU ARE IN GOOD COMPANY. The NIH allows you to revise and resubmit the application and get the amended version reviewed again.

• READ AND REREAD THE SUMMARY STATEMENT
  That's the document that is the official summary of the Study Section review (old timers may remember that it is also called a pink sheet because it used to be printed on pink paper) .
• WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS?
  • Poorly written? Confusing information? Insufficient information experimental plan)?
  • Have I clearly and convincingly stated the significance of the problem?
  • Is the research feasible? Can I do it? Can anyone do it?
  • What is unique about my research? Have I told the reviewers?
  • Productivity?
  • Have I clearly indicated the obstacles to accompiishing my goals and what are the alternatives should my approaches not work?

• WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?
  • The problems are repairable
    > REVISE AND RESUBMIT TO THE SAME STUDY SECTION
  • The problems are not repairable.
    • Philosophical problems, e.g., they do not believe the work is important; they are not interested in the subject [they are not the proper peers]; they are never going to get sufficiently excited about the grant to give it a fundable score.
    • Suitable expertise is not available on the Study Section that reviewed your grant
    • Perceived bias
      But REMEMBER, even your direct competitors have to like your subject -- after all, they do their research on that subject too. Bias is often counterproductive. The rest of the reviewers will be alert to bias and argue against it vigorously if they perceive that a competitor is not being fair and objective.
    > REVISE, RESUBMIT AND REQUEST A DIFFERENT STUDY SECTtON
    See directions under Cover letter below.
    
  • Fatal flaws and weaknesses
    Are the reviewers are correct? - the work may not be feasible, or sufficiently important, or you may not be capable of doing it.
    > RETHINK THE PROBLEM -- should you revise??

• THE RESPONSE
  • Introduction to revised application
    Use this section to summarize all deletions, additions and other changes in the revision. Address all aspects of the critique of the previous review (you need not agree with all of them but you must address them all). Add any new preliminary data. Indicate changes in the text [a bar in the margin is the best way].
  • Cover Letter
    Should you wish to request a different Study Section, do so in a cover letter addressed to the Referral Office, Division of Research Grants, NIH. Give reasons for the request [lack of expertise, lack of peer interest in the subject, differing philosophies (e.g., a molecularly oriented review group reviewing a functional application and vice versa, etc.). Try to suggest an alternate Study Section.