STUDENT’S CORNER
How to Write a
Research Grant Proposal
Renfei (Iris) Yan
W
riting a good research grant pro-
posal is never an easy task. The
first and most obvious thing to
do is to read the advice offered by the
funding agency. For this column, I will
use the case of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) as an example and guide
you through the writing of a research
grant proposal.
Before starting, there are several vital
facts to bear in mind.
▼ Your proposal will not only be read
by experts in your field but also by
several judges who won’t be experts.
You must write your proposal for
their benefit also.
▼ Remember that reviewers see tens or
hundreds of applications for support,
so you have only a minute or less to
grab your reader’s attention.
▼ What’s more important than innova-
tion is that your results should have
compelling significance.
Writing a grant application is a major
undertaking. Advice from experienced
NIH staff to help you succeed is listed
below.
What Do the Reviewers Want
Most NIH grant applications are re-
viewed internally and by an external
panel made up of experts in the field of
the application. There are five criteria
scores that are determined by the ex-
ternal reviewers: significance, investi-
gators, innovation, approach, and envi-
ronment. The principal reviewers of the
application give a score for each of these
criteria, and they and the entire review
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPUL.2011.942598
Date of publication: 11 October 2011
8 IEEE PULSE ▼ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011
NEURO ENGINEERING
panel score the overall impact that the
research will have on the biomedical
field if it is successful. This all-inclusive
score does not have to be an average of
the five criteria scores, although there is
usually some relationship to them.
There are several components in a
strong grant application. First, the sub-
ject must be creative, exciting, and wor-
thy of funding. Then, the project must
be developed through a rigorous, well-
defined experimental plan. Finally, you
must make sure that the information
is presented in clear language and that
your application follows the rules and
guidelines detailed in the grant applica-
tion kit.
Read through your case for support re-
peatedly and ask whether the answers to
the questions below are clearly answered.
▼ How high are the in-
tellectual quality and
merit of the study? Writing a grant
▼ What is its potential application is a major
impact? undertaking.
▼ How novel is the pro-
posal? If not novel, to
what extent does potential impact over-
come this lack? Is the research likely to
produce new data and concepts or con-
firm the existing hypotheses?
▼ Is the hypothesis valid, and have you
presented evidence supporting it?
▼ Are the aims logical?
▼ Are the procedures appropriate, ad-
equate, and feasible for the research?
▼ Are the investigators qualified? Have
they shown competence, credentials,
and experience?
▼ Are the facilities adequate and the
environment conducive to the re-
search?
Research Plan Development
A top-quality research plan is the most
important factor determining your ap-
plication’s success in peer review. As with
a scientific publication, developing your
ideas is the key. Here are some general tips:
▼ Your application should be based on
a strong hypothesis.
▼ Be sure your project has a coherent
direction.
▼ Keep the sections of the plan well coor-
dinated and clearly related to the focus.
▼ Don’t be overly ambitious—your plan
should be based on a feasible timetable.
▼ Specific aims and experiments
should relate directly to the hypoth-
esis to be tested.
Budget
The five criteria scores and the overall
impact are based strictly on the science
and not the budget. Once the commit-
tee has determined the scores, they will
review the budget and advise the NIH if
they think it is appropriate or needs re-
vision. Thus, the budget has no effect on
the overall impact score, but the commit-
tee’s comments on the budget may affect
the amount of funding that the applicant
receives if her/his applica-
tion is recommended for
funding.
The reviewers try to
ensure that the grant is to
be used in a cost-effective
manner. If the proposal is
too expensive for the probable gain, you
might want to cut the request for people/
equipment/travel to something more rea-
sonable. Or if it looks like your proposal
might be done by a Ph.D. student on a
computer, then it may also be rejected.
Research agencies will usually fund re-
search that requires resources beyond the
proposers’ current ability.
▼ Reviewers evaluate a requested bud-
get to see if it is realistic and justi-
fied by the aims and methods of the
project. Complete the budget section
after you have written your research
plan and have a good idea of costs.
▼ Request only enough money to do
the work. Significant over- or under-
estimating suggests that you may not
understand the scope of the proposed
work. Avoid requesting expensive
equipment unless you absolutely need
it and justify it well. Don’t request
funds for equipment already listed in
the resources section unless you can
provide an adequate explanation. Re-
viewers look for any discrepancies and
will delete funds for equipment that
should be available to you.
Common Problems
With regard to the five review criteria,
there are few common mistakes when
writing the applications:
▼ Significance
■ not significant nor exciting or new
research
■ lack of compelling rationale
■ incremental and low-impact research
Innovation doesn’t just happen.
Read first-person accounts of
IEEE members who were there.
IEEE Global History Network
www.ieeeghn.org
▼ Specific Aims
■ too ambitious, too much work pro-
posed
■ unfocused aims, unclear goals
■ limited aims and uncertain future direc-
tions
▼ Experimental Approach
■ inappropriate level of experimental
detail
■ feasibility of each aim not shown
■ little or no expertise with approach
■ not directly testing hypothesis
■ experiments not directed toward
mechanisms
■ no discussion of alternative mod-
els or hypotheses
■ no discussion of potential pitfalls
▼ Investigator
■ no demonstration of expertise or
publications in approaches
■ low productivity, few recent papers
■ no collaborators recruited or no
letters from collaborators
▼ Environment
■ inadequate institutional sup-
port.
Finally, after sending out your pro-
posal, make a call to the grant agency to
make sure they received it. During the
review period, if you have major new
results or success, send a letter and let
them know. Be patient, the review pro-
cess can be quite time consuming.
Renfei (Iris) Yan is currently studying at
Pennsylvania State University.
References
[1] National Institute of Neurological Disor-
der and Stroke, NIH. How to write a re-
search project grant application. [Online].
Available: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/
about_grants.htm
[2] National Institute of Health. Grant pro-
cess. [Online]. Available: http://grants.
nih.gov/grants/about_grants.htm
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 ▼ IEEE PULSE 9