AnalyzeDirect

As most people in the science community know, obtaining research funding has become more challenging than ever. With increased competition for fewer available resources, only those projects holding the greatest promise for positively impacting our world earn their rightful place in the lab. But even the best and brightest ideas can fall prey to quick dismissal if a weak grant application undermines the project’s true merits. Indeed, applications today are subject to intense scrutiny and strict standards, whereby a keen demonstration of value, rigor and clarity is proving to be the hallmark of the handful that succeeds.

Based on review criteria established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), five key areas possess the greatest potential to wreak havoc on your application: significance, aims, approach, investigator and environment. Successfully navigating a few key pitfalls can mean the difference between winning funding for breakthrough research that advances the field, and merely championing a well-intentioned (but poorly presented) project that ultimately must retreat to the drawing board.

1. The So What? Pitfall

Your research must matter, and you must be able to show that it matters. Is it new, exciting and worthy of funding? What scientific question will it answer? Will your research have a strong impact? Are you able to provide a compelling rationale for why it is significant?

In order to answer these questions, make sure you have a good overall understanding of the field, its current state and where it’s headed. Identify other research that is already being done, where the knowledge gaps exist, how your research relates to those gaps and the relative impact you can make. Remember, according to the NIH, innovation is not a necessary product of your research, but your results should have compelling significance.

2. The Out-of-Focus Pitfall

The focus of your project needs to be sharp, and its scope well defined and manageable. Are you proposing an unrealistic amount of work or an unfeasible timetable? Do you have well-articulated objectives and a coherent direction?

If it isn’t crystal clear where your work is intended to go, if the aims seem diffuse, superficial or do not directly relate to your hypothesis, if you can’t state your objectives with clarity and specificity, it’s a good time to re-evaluate this defining aspect of your proposal. When the review committee cannot easily assess the objectives of your research project, you will lose them early on.

3. The Low Design IQ Pitfall

An experimental design that lacks substance and coherence significantly weakens your project’s overall intellectual quality and merit, and is among the factors having the greatest potential to tank your grant application.

Some of the problems that contribute to “low design IQ” are:

• Inappropriate level of experimental detail and rationale
• Feasibility of each aim and its relationship to a hypothesis not shown
• Lack of appropriate controls
• No direct testing of hypothesis
• Correlative or descriptive data
• Experiments not directed toward mechanisms
• No discussion of alternative models or hypotheses
• No discussion of potential pitfalls
• No discussion of interpretation of data

4. The Missing P’s Pitfall

An investigator who is able to demonstrate little or no productivity, publication and preliminary data is an investigator looking for a rejection. These three P’s are the calling card of the credentialed, experienced and competent investigator, and they are essential for getting reviewers to give your proposal serious consideration.

If you don’t have experience with the proposed techniques, recruit someone who does to collaborate with you. If your proposal lacks critical literature references, make sure you become intimately familiar with what has been published, understand its relevance to your project and cite it. Clearly present the source of the data and related references.

5. The Institutional Misalignment Pitfall

You may have a winning research proposal, but without the necessary infrastructure to successfully execute it, your project cannot succeed. And reviewers are sure to recognize this ill fate. Are you aligned with an institution that has sufficient resources to support your research? Does the facility provide an environment conducive to your needs? Do you have access to a suitable patient population to meet the requirements of your research design and methodology? Be sure to consider whether an institution is an appropriate match — one that will help, rather than hinder, your success.

To most scientists, these tips may seem obvious, yet significant numbers of grant applications fail because the authors did not pay attention to all of these areas. Taking care to avoid these pitfalls will make for a better application and increase your chances of successful grant funding.

For more information on writing NIH research grant applications, click here

Tags: Grant Funding