Archives

In Part I of my series on the Specific Aims page I talked about the first paragraph of this page, which sets up the problem. Although a whole paragraph dedicated to the problem might seem like a lot, remember that the problem includes: (1) a couple background sentences to put the problem in context for your reviewer, (2) what has been tried and failed, (3) the gap or obstacle that has to date prevented solving the problem. In paragraph 2, the hero in a red cape and carefully quaffed hair (that’s you), swoops in and saves the day with a solution. A solution, of course, that is not quite there yet but can be had with 1.25 million dollars over 5 years. Because that’s a big chunk of change, bestowing this award on a hero such as yourself requires a strong premise (supporting data). Read on, dear hero, to see how I transition from problem to supporting preliminary data and to the next logical conclusion, your hypothesis.

Second paragraph

As previously stated, in the second paragraph you introduce your solution and any information the reviewer will need to understand your specific aims. I usually transition between the first and second paragraphs by indicating there is an overlooked area that may provide a solution or there is information necessary to move the field forward and your work will provide it. By taking the space to clearly define the problem the reviewer is now interested in your solution. You begin by introducing the solution, and then follow with the rationale as to why this solution will work. The rationale is, of course, any background information and your preliminary data that supports the hypothesis.

In this paragraph, you need to provide any information that is essential to your hypothesis. This information is still fairly general – you’ll have space for details later in the proposal. The second paragraph is also a place to mention or define anything critical to the understanding of your specific aims. In my work, for example, I’m using a “home grown” peptide to change the intracellular location of a receptor. Because I used this peptide in one of my aims, I introduced it in the second paragraph. You don’t have a lot of space for explaining in the aims themselves, so you want to make sure you’ve set the stage properly in the paragraph above. If care is not taken to set up the aims properly, your reviewer might be confused. As we know, confusion = no.

To see these ideas in action, I’ve continued the sock theme below. I’m starting with paragraph 1 from the last blog post, so that you can see how the two paragraphs fit together.

Every household is plagued by lost socks in the laundry. In the United States alone, lost socks cost on average 48 hours per person per year in wasted search time.¹ Replacement costs for new pairs of socks reached a staggering 1.2 million dollars last year, resulting in a particularly high burden for families of 4 or more.² Sadly, the psychological cost of the shame and embarrassment caused by wearing mismatched socks to school or work cannot be measured.  Efforts by the sock industry to decrease the number of lost socks have, to date, been ineffective. Strategies such as selling 6 pairs of socks in a pack or 3 socks at once have only increased costs and sidestepped the true problem. Without ways to specifically find the lost sock, this problem will only continue to grow. Given the exponentially rising costs of replacement socks, plus the burgeoning number of feet worldwide, by 2040 the problem of lost socks will be the number one drain on family budgets unless a way to recover lost socks is found.

One underdeveloped resource used to find lost items is tracking technology. Tracking technology has improved significantly over the past decade and is now used to find many lost items such as pets, cars, and teenagers. Our laboratory has developed an electronically sensitive yarn (e-yarn) that can be woven into clothing for detection by passive radiofrequency identification (RFID). This yarn was generated through our development of a new metal alloy, nikean, which allows the production of smaller microcircuits with enhanced detectability (insert lab reference here). Our preliminary data show that 1 g of yarn can be detected from 100 feet away, using a standard RFID detection application on a cell phone. Our data also show that incorporation of blue/red clothing dyes into the yarn does not change the magnitude of the RFID signal, and that the signal is resistant to a 30-minute exposure to water. Based on this preliminary data, we hypothesize that socks made from e-yarn are colorful, washable, and trackable. This hypothesis will be tested through the following specific aims:

In the above example, I segue from the urgency of the lost sock problem in the last sentence of the first paragraph to the next by connecting back to the topic of lost items, but in this sentence, I’m changing direction by talking about a general approach to finding lost items. From there, I narrow things down by mentioning how tracking technology is used and what types of things can be found with tracking technology. From there, I introduce the lab’s preliminary data. Although I don’t repeat any words from the prior sentence, I repeat the concept by using the word detection rather than tracking. I tell the reader what the grant will be about, specifically electronic yarn for tracking. I then state the breakthrough from our lab that allowed us to take this step of making electronic yarn, the generation of a new alloy. Here I include a reference from the lab. Although I typically minimize references in the specific aims page (to avoid distractions), this can be a great place to reference your own work as you build your rationale/foundation for your hypothesis. Following this major finding, I add additional preliminary data that supports the hypothesis. In other words, the second paragraph builds toward the key pillars on which your aims are built. As previously mentioned, the foundational data is described in general terms sparing the details; you’ll have room for specifics later in the grant. The last sentence in this paragraph is your hypothesis.

Your entire grant is built around your hypothesis, so it’s worth putting some time into making it a good one. In fact, the hypothesis so important that I’ve decided to give it a separate blog post. Until next time!

Additional reading

https://edgeforscholars.org/specific-aims-part-1-the-problem/ – Part I of the SA page series, the first paragraph.

https://edgeforscholars.org/your-grant-as-story-the-rogue-character/ – my blog post on what happens when an unknown “guest” ends up in your specific aims.

Unless you are totally new to NIH grants, you already know that the specific aims page is the most important page of the entire grant. The specific aims page sets the tone for the grant. Will the grant be easy to read and understandable, or dense and frustrating? Unlike you and your organic chemistry textbook in college, your reviewer is not obligated to spend days trying to understand your grant. He/she will do their best in the context of their “grant workload” and move on. Although you can lose a reviewer after the specific aims page, if you lose them at the specific aims page you’re done. In fact, one reviewer told me they scored an entire grant based on the specific aims page. This reviewer then read the entire grant, but the score didn’t change. I mention this to underscore the importance of this page. So, let me show you how to make a good first impression.

First paragraph

The first paragraph is your explanation of the problem. You need to start broad enough to capture the attention of your reviewer, but not so broad as to be meaningless. For example, your problem should not be cancer or cardiovascular disease, these are too broad. You could start with a type of cancer or a subset of cardiovascular disease. From there, you quickly (in a couple sentences) narrow the focus to the specific problem you are addressing. As you narrow, it may be appropriate to include a statistic that demonstrates the scope of your problem. For example, if your research involves a relatively unfamiliar disease, a statement about the monetary impact or numbers of people affected can be helpful, especially if you think this information might be surprising. Getting the reviewer’s attention with a “Hmm I didn’t know that” thought is a great way to start your proposal. Although I’ve read this in proposals, telling the reviewer that cardiovascular disease affects millions of people or is a significant part of health care dollars spent is not a particularly engaging fact. If your grandmother wouldn’t be surprised by this information, don’t use it.

Narrowing the focus of the problem you’re addressing can be easily done if you connect sentences, as described in one of my prior blog posts (see resources). As you lead the reviewer to your problem, think about what you want to emphasize in each sentence. The location of the phrase within the sentence (beginning, middle, or end) determines its emphasis. See Writer’s toolbox: Creating Sentences that Flow for more details. Once you’ve set up the problem, you want to mention what solutions have been tried to date and why these haven’t worked or are imperfect. You, of course, have developed a better widget, so before you describe your widget you need to tell the reviewer what’s wrong with the current ones. You describe that all important “gap in knowledge”. I tend not to use the word gap, although I’ve seen it in many proposals. I prefer to describe the gap without stating “here’s the gap”. This might seem counterintuitive, as I keep talking about the importance of clarity. Why not come out and say here’s the gap? Because it’s formulaic and boring. Anyone who has read more than a handful of grants knows that the gap is coming, but using the phrase “gap in knowledge” is akin to slipping the reviewer a Xanax.  Make your grant interesting by showing the gap rather than using the word “gap”. Of course, the onus is on you to be sure the gap is clear.

After “The Big Gap”, you should state what will happen if this problem isn’t solved and solved fast. What earth shattering event will happen? You want to be somewhere between critical need and Armageddon. Here is another spot where you can throw in an interesting factoid if you can find one. What is the rate of increase of this problem? Is it becoming more widespread? Epidemic? Perhaps not in the current climate but you get my point. I typically leave my reviewer with this “cliff hanger” and end the paragraph on this note.

As with your problem statement, you don’t want the gap to be too general. “Little is known” is a vague, general gap. A lack of understanding is also not a good gap, although I’ve read it in several grants. The NIH typically does not want to pay large sums of money to understand a disease process. I know, I hear the “but” coming. But, you say, you need to understand a disease process before you can cure it. Yep. I get that. But when you discuss the gap, you want to state how filling that gap will lead to progress in treating the disease you’re targeting. This progress does not have to directly lead to a cure for X but needs to have some relevance to human health or you’re barking up the wrong funding tree.

Make sure that you take enough time to clearly define the problem before jumping to the solution. Many newbie grant writers are so eager to get to their work, or solution, that they don’t clearly define the problem. If you do a poor job in defining the problem, you significantly decrease the interest in or value of your solution. This is an area where the “curse of knowledge” comes into play. You’re so close to your area of research that you think the problem is obvious. Remember that your reviewer will be in your general field of research but may not be familiar with your specific area.

I’ve put the above ideas together in an example below, where I revisit that age old quest for lost socks.

Every household is plagued by lost socks in the laundry. In the United States alone, lost socks cost on average 48 hours per person per year in wasted search time.¹ Replacement costs for new pairs of socks reached a staggering 1.2 million dollars last year, resulting in a particularly high burden for families of 4 or more.² Sadly, the psychological cost of the shame and embarrassment caused by wearing mismatched socks to school or work cannot be measured.  Efforts by the sock industry to decrease the number of lost socks have, to date, been ineffective. Strategies such as selling 6 pairs of socks in a pack or 3 socks at once have only increased costs and sidestepped the true problem. Without ways to specifically find the lost sock, this problem will only continue to grow. Given the exponentially rising costs of replacement socks, plus the burgeoning number of feet worldwide, by 2040 the problem of lost socks will be the number one drain on family budgets unless a way to recover lost socks is found.

Now let’s “unpack” the above example. The first sentence states the problem and hints at the magnitude of the problem “every” household has problems with lost socks (unless you live in a culture where no one wears socks but let’s assume you do). This statement is followed by two “facts” to help the reader understand the impact of the problem. Although I suggest leaving smaller details out of the specific aims page, this is one place where they can be useful. As I mentioned above, the use of statistics to convey impact depends on the problem. Try to find information that will surprise the reviewer and get his/her attention. The next sentence builds on the problem, and I lead off the sentence with an adverb for accent. Although you’ll want to minimize the use of adverbs, sometimes they can signal the reader to pay attention to what is coming next. In this case I use the adverb “sadly”, which signals that something negative is going to follow. Adverbs are ok in small doses, just don’t overdo them. After defining and providing an idea of the magnitude of the problem, I go on to say what’s been tried so far and why this hasn’t worked. Finally, I project what will happen if the problem isn’t solved, generating a sense of urgency.

There you have it! The first paragraph is done. Now that I have you on the edge of your seats (The Handmaid’s Tale, anyone?) you’ll need to wait for the next installment. Tune in next time for, wait for it, the second paragraph.

With so many funding opportunities, choosing which grant to apply for can be hard to know. This is an especially important consideration for early-career scientists. Grants are time-consuming to write, but are important for getting the funding needed to complete your research.

Some advisors have a “shotgun” approach, meaning that they apply for all grants for which they are eligible. Each grant application takes time, however, and it can be hard to give each grant the attention needed to be successful.  Multiple rejections can also be discouraging. Instead, in my own career, I thought carefully about the next logical grant that I felt I could get funded. I tried to build up to larger, more competitive grants.

I started with a $5000 grant from a campus-wide committee. An average of 16 of these grants were awarded each year. My next application was to a larger internal grant competition for $40,000 and about five such proposals were awarded annually. I then applied for a $150,000 grant that was awarded by our university system (four separate institutions and campuses). Next, I led a research project grant on a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center of Biomedical Excellence.

Meanwhile, I worked to develop my collaborative team. For me that included two physician-scientists, an orthotist, a statistician, and an implementation scientist. I served as a co-investigator on grants led by my collaborators, actively published our results, and gave presentations at national meetings in my own discipline as well as my colleagues’ discipline. Our team developed a strong reputation and became known as leaders in our area of research.

After being productive during these projects, I was ready to submit for an independent investigator award, an NIH R01. Fortunately for me, my grant was funded on the first submission, and we are nearing the end of my first large project as the PI.

For junior faculty, I often advise a similar strategy. Start with small grants and projects that can demonstrate your ability to complete the work, lead to publications, and provide preliminary data for the next proposal. Find strong collaborators who strengthen your team and are committed to advancing your collective line of research. All of this shows reviewers that you have a track record of productivity, you have built a strong team that works well together, and you are ready to grow and lead at the next project level.

Additional Resources

Diversity Your Funding Portfolio

Growing Opportunities: Research Funding Bulletin Board

Discover What’s Getting Funded With NIH Matchmaker

By Rebecca Helton and Raymond D. Blind

Just like a retirement portfolio, a wise strategy to maintain your research funding is to diversify. You never know how funding priorities at agencies will change, so the more baskets holding your eggs the better. You can do this both within the NIH and via foundation funding.

NIH

Getting multiple, concurrent grants through the same institute is usually far more difficult than getting that first big grant.  Some institutes prioritize more equitable distribution of limited resources, i.e. funding more investigators each with less support, while other institutes tend to fund fewer investigators each with more support. This is something you can talk to your program official about.

Reading the funding priorities and RFAs of your relevant institutes will help get your proposal to the right study section and to the institute most likely to fund your work. But you should also think a little more creatively. Perhaps you can tweak your questions a bit to get your proposal into a different study section. For example, its often possible that more disease-centric experiments can be re-purposed to address more fundamental aspects of biology, which might get your proposal sent to a more basic science-centered study section. The same principle holds for which institute you request in your applications. If you already have an R01 from Institute X, it’s a wise plan to imagine how you might tweak your next submission so it’s a fit for Institute Y. The NIH Reporter tool allows you to search all grants funded through a particular study section – this can be helpful in seeing what a study section tends to fund. You can also use NIH Matchmaker to see what different institutes are funding.

Another way to leverage your expertise is to consider new and different ways to re-use data.  An experiment you originally did for funded Project X could (and should) be used as preliminary data for new Project Y. Experiments designed such that the data can easily be used to answer multiple distinct scientific questions can help you do that. For example, many disease models are based on recapitulating a “physiologically relevant” environment. However, an experiment done under physiological conditions can also be thought of as a purely orthogonal validation of an observation made in vitro.  Two birds one stone, so to speak.

If you have time and can pace yourself appropriately, it’s also possible to submit independent proposals within the same cycle for review by CSR/NIH, or “adjacent cycles.” Submission rules change so you should always check with your program official. Of course, you should always only submit your best, highest-quality work, and never send two proposals to the same study section. But why might you want to do this? Your early stage and new investigator status is determined by the date you submit a proposal to CSR, not by the date your proposal is reviewed, goes to council, or the standard due dates for proposals. Until a notice of grant award is issued, any proposal is just pending, and anything can happen at Council, including a decision not to fund. Thus, your early stage and/or new investigator status remains intact until the day that a notice of grant award is issued, regardless of how many of proposals you have  pending.

Also, study sections often review new investigators first thing in the morning, before reviewers get cranky. I consider that alone to be a huge advantage, and of course you need every advantage you can get. 

Building a relationship with your program official is critical. The PO can help you understand how to tune your work to a study section’s interests or an institute’s goals. Some POs will read your aims page and tell you if it’s the right fit for a particular RFA or study section, or give you other options to consider. A good PO you have a relationship with can also go to bat for your proposal if it’s on the bubble. At council, if there’s money left, POs can pull up grants with slightly-less-than-fundable scores and advocate for them. Be the first one your PO thinks of for this kind of opportunity! While you’re chatting with your PO, ask when your proposal has been officially funded – the answer is always when the notice of award is issued. 

Program officials are the “deciders” in many ways, providing recommendations to Council as to what grants should be funded, based on CSR review and institute priorities. Thus, if you’re starved for information about the likelihood your proposal will be funded, a good question you might ask your program official after you’ve gotten your score might be, “Do you intend to recommend my proposal for funding at Council?”

You can also communicate with your PO the importance of funding a particular proposal in guiding what path your research program will follow. It’s hard to do research that meets the goals of an institute without the funding to do so, and it can be even harder to justify to your chairperson why you’re submitting those grants, especially when another institute is funding at better paylines. That’s a problem that your PO might be sympathetic to. POs have the discretion to make recommendations to Council on funding decisions. That discretion can turn a close-but-not-quite proposal into a funded proposal. It almost can’t be overstated how important the relationship with your PO is to your career.

Foundations or Other Federal Agencies

Whether we like it or not, external funding can validate you as an investigator to other review panels. If your biosketch includes funding from ABC Big Famous Foundation (or even XYZ Little Special Foundation), reviewers of your next proposal can begin to think of you as “externally validated” by another group of independent scientists, even though review panels often try hard not to. It’s unfair, biased, and hurts women and historically under-appreciated groups more than majority groups, but if you can manage to get an award through these mechanisms, it can dramatically improve your scores on other applications.

There are many private foundation funding opportunities, ranging from a few hundred to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, so focus is important. One strategy can be to submit proposals to foundations where you get a summary statement / feedback comments from the review committee.  Many private foundations do not provide that feedback, but some do. For example, the American Cancer Society provides complete written comments back to the PI for Research Scholar proposals. Further, this foundation has allowed two resubmissions per grant, for a total of three “tries”. Even if you don’t get the proposal funded, it’s now a more refined and improved proposal, which can become an outstanding first draft for your next submission to another agency. Receiving comments and using them to refine your proposals is a valuable learning opportunity. Wouldn’t it be great if all private foundations made proposal review comments available to investigators?

Another point to make is how your grant-writing will improve with practice. I literally cringe when I read my earlier proposals. The bolding and italics and over-use of abbreviations makes me ever so grateful for the patience of my reviewers as I developed better grant-writing skills.  However, my first “cohort” of proposals was sent out to private foundations and internal review panels at my home institution. I’ve started to think this may have been an advantage for me, by allowing me to cut my teeth with more transient groups of reviewers, rather than with a permanent standing NIH study section. Study sections have memory, and you should want their memory of you to be positive. By unwittingly “practicing” on more transient groups of reviewers, I certainly had a more refined style by the time I submitted proposals to permanent study sections at CSR/NIH. I can’t know for sure, but I think that practice was helpful in getting my first proposal funded.

When looking for foundation funding opportunities, consider how your work might fit their goals, even if it’s not obvious at first glance. Everyone needs an edge to get funded. Knowing how to tweak your ideas to fit the goals of different institutes and foundations can help give you that advantage!

Additional Resources

Discover What’s Getting Funded with NIH Matchmaker
Tips for Scoring a VA Career Development Award
Taking Flight – timing the first major research grant

In the final post of this three part series, I share insight from a dozen faculty who review NRSA fellowship applications on the mentor’s role in the application, metrics used to assess the strength of an applicant, who to ask to write letters, and interacting with your PO post submission. Be sure to also read Part 1 (when to submit and developing an easily reviewable document) and Part 2 (crafting strong training and research plans).

Role of Mentor(s)

A mentor should have a strong record for developing prior trainees into successful independent researchers. If your mentor is early career and has not trained others to date, include a co-mentor with a well-established training record.

• If adding a co-mentor, clearly state what they bring, how often will you see them (once a month, join their lab meetings, etc.), and how often the three of you will meet. Be sure to state why you chose them and what specifically they bring to your training. Co-mentors who are highly accomplished with the proposed work/techniques can improve the scientific merit and add educational value to your application and training.
• Include a network of mentors, often one for each major training goal (i.e., thesis committee, mentoring panel). Mentors should ideally be faculty with objective markers of expertise such as papers and grants in the area of training.
• One reviewer suggested to always include a statistician as at least a collaborator.
• Your mentor needs to state how research is going to be financially supported. If your mentor has no external funding, he or she must talk about start-up funds or other available financial sources. If a grant is expiring, how will it be renewed or attempted to be renewed?
• Show evidence that you and your mentor put together a well written document.  If it looks like you did most of the work, that will lead to questions about whether the pairing between you and your mentor is productive or not.  It is also a concern if it looks like huge chunks of the application were simply cut and pasted from other applications. Overall, the panel wants to see a well crafted document but in a way that is obviously put together by you, yourself–with polishing help from your mentor.

Metrics

Reviewers look at your background/training to confirm you are well prepared to undertake the proposed area of study.  So what metrics are they looking at when trying to determine which applicants will be successful?

• For predocs it is your undergraduate record (GPA, school, and publications).  For post-docs it’s publications, publications, publications.
• Reviewers want an applicant with strong potential because they do not want to fund people who have no background in science and are starting from square one.  They state there’s too little evidence that those applicants can learn and/or conduct research in the space of interest.
• Study sections tend to look for evidence of potential.  This could include authorship on papers, letters of support that indicate research capabilities, and honors and awards to date.

Letters

• Recommendation letters need to be tailored to the application. Strong letters from highly accomplished leaders are common, but when they are personalized and tailored to you and your proposed research, reviewers pay more attention.
• Recommendation letters should come from someone you have interacted with who can write about you and your mentor/training environment.
• Letters of Support are not necessary unless evident additional support is needed, especially if that support adds to the training plan. If you will be working with a core facility to conduct part of the research or working with a collaborator to gain training in a technique new to you and your lab, ask those individuals to write you a letter of support.

Contact the Program Officer (PO)

I previously provided advice to reach out to your PO prior to submission in order to start building a relationship with the institute. The faculty I spoke with also suggested reaching out to the PO post-submission.

• When you receive your score, contact the PO. They can provide insight into whether or not you received a fundable score. If you need to prepare for a revision, they may have additional notes to share that didn’t make the summary statement. When crafting the resubmission application, be as responsive as possible to the critiques.
• If information in the summary statement doesn’t seem to fit who you are, reach out to the PO for clarification. Sometimes mistakes do happen.

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 1

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 2  

In this three part series, I share advice received when I asked a dozen faculty from my institution who review fellowship applications what they look for in a strong application. Part 1 discussed when to submit and logistics around submitting an easily reviewable document. Part 3 provides insight on the mentor’s role, letters, and interacting with the PO. Here, in Part 2, I share the advice they provided on crafting strong training and research plans.

Training Plan, Training Plan, Training Plan

Almost every reviewer I spoke with said the training plan was the most important element of fellowship applications. One faculty member stated, “Remember, this is a training grant. The science has to be good, but what makes the best applications is the training plan.” Additional advice shared regarding the training plan:

• Start with the training plan and work outwards; great science and a bad training plan will not get funded. Great training plan and ok science likely will get funded.
• Have a personalized training plan that discusses your short and long term goals. List specifically what you want to get out of your training experience and what events/training you will participate in (what, when, where). This can be similar to others in your lab or training program, but it should reflect your goals and long term career plans.
• Make clear what the award will offer that your current training does not. If you receive the award, what additional skills will you develop and why are these fundamental to your long-term goals?
• What is the mentor’s role in the training plan? The mentor’s statement and the training plan should mirror one another.

Strong Research Plan

Having a well written and thought out research plan was the second most common piece of advice. One reviewer stated, “Research isn’t supposed to dominate scoring for these applications, but always does if it’s not very well written.” Additional advice:

• How does the science relate to your training and the training relate to your career goals? Integrate training goals into the research plan. Describe how a specific method or type of science gets you to your training goals.
• Don’t try to make the science too exciting. Demonstrate science that will meet your training goals and make the research possible. What makes R01 science good is not the same for a fellowship.
• If you’re writing an application early in your training, you may not have much preliminary data and that’s ok. If you didn’t personally gather the data you’re referencing, be sure to be clear about what you did and didn’t do. Also, show evidence from undergrad that you can be an experimentalist.
• However, if you’re submitting an application later in your training (third year or beyond) and it doesn’t include gathered data, that becomes a red flag.
• Make sure aims have threads in common but can stand alone. Dependent aims are the kiss of death.
• Reviewers look at the feasibility of your proposed research plan.  It’s better to have a smaller, well focused plan with a potential path to completion (along with a description of risks and alternative paths to completion), than a grandiose plan that suggests you don’t know how to systematically investigate a problem.

And the Winner for My Favorite Piece of Advice…Alien Abduction Model

My favorite piece of advice came from a senior faculty member. “If the person writing this application was abducted by aliens would it affect science? If yes, then we should fund them.”

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 1   

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 3        

To craft the strongest fellowship application, know what review criteria are in place. A good place to start is Section V. Application Review Information of the program announcement for the technical definition of the review criteria. However, another great source of insight is to ask advice from faculty at your institution who sit on study sections for fellowships . I chatted with a dozen faculty on this topic from my institution and compiled their advice in a three part series. Below is Part 1. Also check out Part 2 on training and research plans and Part 3 on the mentor’s role, letters, and interacting with the PO.

Submit Early in Career

These awards are training grants. Their purpose is to support your training. As such, it is better to apply early rather than wait until your third or fourth year. By then you’ve (hopefully) already collected data so why do you need this training?

• Reviewers usually want to see that pre-docs have passed their qualifying exams. Postdocs need to submit within their first year.
• Sufficient time should be available to complete the aims. You can’t be too junior (not competitive) or too senior (not enough time left to warrant support).

Give Yourself Enough Time to Write and Receive Feedback

• Successful grants require good ideas, good grantsmanship, and good luck. Start early and have your mentors and collaborators review your grant and edit relevant sections (often only a few paragraphs per mentor). If prospective mentors are unresponsive or too busy for this then they are likely also too busy to be a good mentor, so seek out mentors who are accessible and accomplished in the desired area of training.
• There are lots of non-science components that need be superb in order to out compete others. If you start writing early, you’ll have time to craft well-written statements.
• Participate in a mock study section if available.
• Learn from others. Many institutions have a funded grants library. By reading others’ applications you can pull together models of successful elements that make a grant stand out.
• Edit, edit, edit.

Instructions are Important

Take time to read through the application instructions. When applicants don’t read the instructions very carefully it can be frustrating.

• Sometimes applicants state future career goals that don’t align with the purpose of the fellowship award. They’ll state they want to teach or work in policy, but the purpose of these awards is to develop researchers. It is ok if you to want to teach or work in policy, but you must integrate those goals with a career in research.
• Look closely at what the NIH expects for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Make sure your training plan aligns with their requirements. Clearly state how each topic will be covered and how often. Highlight faculty participation in RCR training. Reviewers are seeing training in RCR and for equity & diversity become more and more important pieces of the application.
• A tip from me. Pay close attention to page limits, font sizes, margin requirements, etc. Failure to do so could cause your application to be rejected before it ever gets in front of reviewers.

Simplify, Simply, Simplify

Simplify as much as possible. Whatever you think is simple, multiply that by 10.

• Make it easy for the reader. Highlight important pieces. Use the same terms and vocabulary throughout the application (call training opportunity A the same thing throughout every document).
• Reviewers are unlikely to be an expert in your exact “thing,” so make it easy for them to understand. Convey which areas you have expertise in and which part is new that you’re going to get training in.
• What is the gap in the field? What are you going to bring to it that is special or beyond what people think they know about it?
• Be precise and crystal clear. Don’t use too many acronyms. When a reviewer reads an application that is not clear, it shows lack of training from the mentor, which makes reviewers wonder how engaged the mentor will be throughout the training.
• Know the big picture of why you’re doing this and convince study section its important.

Further Reading

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 2         

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 3        

What the F? An Introduction to the NRSA Fellowship

Help! I’m submitting an NIH fellowship application and need a Commons ID. How do I get one?

Let’s start with what eRA Commons and a Commons ID are.

eRA Commons

The NIH describes eRA Commons as “an online interface where grant applicants, grantees and federal staff at NIH and grantor agencies can access and share administrative information relating to research grants. You will use eRA commons throughout the lifecycle of a grant – from application submission to grant closeout.” It’s helpful to learn how to work with the eRA Commons interface early in your research career as you will use it throughout your career to submit and manage NIH grants.

Commons ID

In order to use eRA Commons you must establish a Commons ID and have appropriate roles associated with your profile. This account follows you from one organization to the next throughout your NIH research career. If you were listed on a NIH training grant as an undergraduate you may already have a Commons ID. If you’re unsure, reach out to your grants manager for assistance. (If you aren’t sure who your grants manager is, your graduate or fellowship program administrator can typically point you to the right person.)

In addition to the Commons ID, the NIH also now requires you to establish an ORCID for grant submissions. Information on the ORCID and how to create an account.

Creating a Commons ID

If you have determined you do not have a Commons ID from a previous institution, the first step to creating one is reaching out to someone at your institution who has the appropriate eRA Commons role (SO, AO, AA, BO) to do so. Typically, grants managers and those in your institution’s sponsored programs office can assist with this process.

That individual will create a user ID in eRA Commons that is between 6 and 30 characters and should NOT contain special characters except the @ sign, the hyphen, the period, and the underscore. You may suggest a user ID to your grants manager and they can confirm whether it is available for use.

Once the user ID is created, you will receive an email from eRA Commons asking you to finalize your profile creation. To do so, log in to eRA Commons and complete the “Personal Profile” section, which asks you to enter items such as your name, title, demographic information, and education.

What Role Do I Need?

Now you have your eRA Commons account established and are ready to submit a fellowship application. Contact your grants manager and ask them to add the role of PD/PI to your account as you will be the Principal Investigator of the grant.

Additional Help

If you still have questions about your eRA Commons account, you can call the eRA Service Desk Monday – Friday from 7:00AM to 8:00PM Eastern Time (except for Federal holidays) toll-free at 1-866-504-9552. Alternatively, you can submit a web ticket (the preferred method of contact) at https://grants.nih.gov/support

Additional Resources

What the F? An Introduction to the NRSA Fellowship

What the F? When to Submit a NRSA Fellowship

What the F? Reference Letter vs Letter of Support

What the F? Childcare Costs Now Allowable on NRSA Fellowships

I am often struck by the similarities between selling methods and grant writing. Of course, grant writing is selling, but scientists don’t usually think of themselves as salesmen. I recently read a blog post about the PASTOR method, which was conceived by a well-known copywriter named Ray Edwards. This framework is used to write better specific aims…, oops I mean sales copy. Besides being an acronym, Edwards says that the word should engender a loving, caring, protective attitude towards your customer/reviewer. Now that you’ve picked yourself off the floor following your laughing fit, give that attitude some thought as we go through the acronym.

P is for problem

 All grants have a problem they are trying to solve. However, the problem must be one the reviewer cares about. For example, you could be selling the best tennis shoes in the world, but if the customer is looking for loafers you’re barking up the wrong study section. Excuse me for mixing metaphors, but you need to make sure that your problem is of interest to the study section you’ve picked. If you’re not sure, use NIH Reporter to see what grants your target study section has funded. If you’re in the right study section, make sure that your problem is of interest to the field. Edwards quotes another copywriter Robert Collier who said that you have to “join the conversation that is already taking place in the reader’s mind.” Get reviewers engaged by agreeing that your problem is one of urgency that needs solving.

A is for amplify

Next, Edwards advises that we amplify the consequences of not solving the problem. Here’s where you create urgency through information such as cost, lives lost, etc. Even though a reviewer will likely be aware of the problem in general terms, he/she may not be aware of details that make this problem compelling. Urgency also addresses the questions “why this grant, why now?” Each field has lots of problems. Show your reviewer why your problem needs solved now.

S is for story and solution

You’ve described the problem, brought the reviewer to the brink of despair with the urgency of the situation, and now it’s time for you to swoop in like Luke Skywalker and blow up the Death Star. While your solution may not be as dramatic, now is the time for you to present your solution to the problem. Edwards advises us to explain the solution as a story, like how Uncle Joe, while desperately trying to stop his early onset alopecia, mixed plant food and mayonnaise to generate world’s best hair tonic. Of course, space is limited on the aims page so we need to be strategic about the story. In my opinion, your story should introduce the key preliminary data that supports your hypothesis and that makes the aims understandable. Although space is limited, make sure that you introduce all “characters” needed to make your aims understandable. Avoid rogue characters! (for those that missed my blog on this, see resources)

T is for transformation and testimony (and trust)

People usually buy things because they think the item in question will make them happy at some level – whether it is a brief escape with a good novel or movie, or a fitness program that will help them look and feel better. For example, I recently purchased driving lessons for my son. The “happiness” I’m seeking is that my son be a safe driver and not kill himself or anyone else. In considering this program, I noted that the lessons are given by former police officers, which I felt gave the program credibility. When I stumbled across a review from a friend of mine who used this school for all 3 of his kids, I was sold. In the world of grantsmanship, these “T”s are scored as environment, investigator, and significance  – none of which actually start with T. Supported by resources, biosketch, co-investigators/collaborators, letters of support, and the rigor of your preliminary data (NIH emphasis),  this information builds trust that you can get the job done.

O is for offer

In the world of sales, O is the offer of what you are selling. In the world of grants, you are selling your aims or approach. Edwards advises that 80% of the copy be spent on transformation and 20% on the deliverable. In the world of grants, you want to be sure to spend sufficient time on the problem. Defining a clear solution is, of course, important but a common mistake is to jump to the solution (everyone loves their own work, right?) before the problem is sufficiently developed. Make sure to take the time/space to create that sense of priority and urgency.

R is for response

Here’s where you ask the customer to buy. In the world of grants, you’re asking the reviewer to fund your grant. Of course, in the world of grants direct pleas to reviewers are a no no. However, part of his advice is applicable when he says we should not shy away from strong language when outlining the options of buying vs remaining stagnant. In writing your “copy”, your word choice will determine whether you come across as apologetic, uncertain, or overly confident. Words like perhaps, maybe, hopefully, probably, can come across as weak if used too often or in the wrong place. For example, the last paragraph of the specific aims page typically describes the pay off, or what the government will get for its money, if your hypothesis is true and your aims are completed successfully. This is not a time to be wishy washy or vague.

What not to say…

This proposal, if completed successfully, may lead to the development of new therapeutics in the field of cardiovascular disease.

Versus…

Successful completion of this proposal will result in defining how protein X alters metabolism of lipids, which contributes to cardiovascular disease. Determining protein X’s mechanism of action is the next step in developing novel approaches to treating atherosclerosis.

Taking out the word “if”, using “will” instead of “may” and being more specific about the successful outcome of the proposal leads to a stronger impact statement.

One way to write in a more confident tone is to “get in the mood” before you write. What I mean by this is get excited about your work. Think about what’s cool about your project, the novel things you’re finding out that no one knows (yet) and how your work might have an impact. Put on some inspiring music. Pump your fists. Get fired up! Getting in a confident, excited mood will make subtle shifts in your word choices that will come across on the page. If you’re not excited about your work, no one else will be.

There you have it – the PASTOR method. Did you see yourself lovingly caring for your reviewer? Probably not. However, if you care for your reviewer by writing with clarity and breaking up rows of text with an occasional space or two, your reviewer just might buy what you’re selling.

Resources

A Six-Part Framework for Writing Better Sales Copy

https://edgeforscholars.org/your-grant-as-story-the-rogue-character/

Acing Your Observational Research Aims