Sponsor Background is Crucial

I recently reviewed a grant drafted for a family foundation focused on a particular disease. As I began reading through the application, it occurred to me that I did not understand who the audience was for the grant, and that I could not provide any useful feedback until I had a better understanding.

But, figuring I'd read through the proposal first, I found the introductory summary very clear and understandable and the project description extremely technical. I was lost in the first paragraph.  It felt as though the two parts were written for different audiences, and indeed they were.

As I started researching the sponsor, I discovered the process they used to review and fund grants was first to send them through a technical review where experts in the field assessed the science and viability of the project, and then they selected a smaller number to pass along to the board to determine which projects to fund. The board was composed of family members of the founder who had lost a loved one to the disease that their foundation was dedicated to curing.

Armed with this information, I took another look at the proposal. It now made perfect sense that the summary and project description were on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of how complicated they were. But, I noticed in the summary, which the board of family members would presumably use to determine whether the project was funded, spent a large amount of real estate on describing the disease and how it worked.

I tried to put myself in the shoes of the family/board member who had lost someone to the disease as well as someone who has reviewed a multitude of proposals on the disease. I probably would understand the disease at least at the basic level it was being described in the proposal so it might not be necessary to spend so much time on. I thought what might be more compelling for me would be to describe the impact of the disease - how many people are affected by it? Or, perhaps sharing a personal interest story of someone living with the disease that would be easily relatable to someone else either living with the disease or that has had a loved one living with the disease.

So, I use this example to reaffirm how essential knowing your sponsor is to writing a good grant. You could be the most accomplished persuasive writer in the world, but if you don't understand who you're talking to and what they will do with your writing (i.e., the review process), you're trying to hit a target blind-folded.

Know thy audience and thy purpose are truly the most important rules of good grant writing.

Resources:
Applying to Funding from Family Foundations: Results of a New Survey at Guidestar
How to Make a Grant Proposal to a Small Family Foundation by Joanne Fritz

Grant Resubmissions

When your grant is not funded, it is disheartening. Developing grants takes a substantial amount of time and energy, and having a grant sent back with a "thanks, but no thanks" might make you feel that your idea and work are being rejected.

However, as funded researchers will attest, having a grant rejected should really just be a step in your process of seeking external funding, not the end of the process.

In 2013, the NIH reported a success rate of 9.3% for new proposals, but 31.5% for resubmissions. This threefold difference shows the importance of continuing to develop your project and resubmit for grant funding.

In a recent blog, called Persistence Pays Off by Gigi Rosenberg, she states "If you don’t apply, it’s a 100% guarantee you won’t be accepted. If you do apply, your chances are better," and goes on to talk about her delight in receiving a fellowship for which she'd been rejected six times prior.

Hopefully, those sorts of statistics are encouraging, but how do you decide when to resubmit and when to look at other options, e.g., find a new sponsor or re-tool your project?

David Felson, MD, Professor at the Boston University Medical Center offered a PowerPoint on the topic and suggested the following decision making criteria:

What types of reviewer concerns should be addressed quickly and resubmitted?

• Lack of prelim data (get data)
• Lack of innovation (market better)
• For Career awards, lack of institutional support
• High level of expense

What types of reviewer concerns cannot be addressed quickly?

• Lack of productivity
• Lack of significance

Dr. Felson also suggests that for NIH, if your grant is not discussed and is unscored, then it may not be worth submitting that same project again.

If however, it does make sense to resubmit, and often it will, below are some tips to consider.

Tips for Resubmission

• Put your grant in a drawer for about a week to give yourself some distance and to move past your disappointment.
• Then read reviewer comments carefully. Dr. Felson suggests that if two or more reviewers made the same comment, it needs to be addressed.
• Get a peer or mentor to go through the comments and give their take on what they mean and what should be done.
• Have a conversation with a Program Officer to see if you can get further clarity on what you might change to be successful in your resubmission.
• Don't think of a rejection as a "no," but instead think of it as a "no, but..." The latter opens the door to what can be done to get to "yes."

Resources:
Gigi Rosenberg's blog: Persistence Pays Off
Dr. Felson's PowerPoint: Resubmitting a Grant Application
Drugmonkey: Structural Aspects of Revising Your NIH Grant

NSF CAREER Program

Recently, the National Science Foundation (NSF) posted their updated program announcement for their Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program and Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE).

These awards are notably some of the most significant career development awards for early career investigators in the sciences and education. The CAREER award is generally a five-year award for $400,000 ($500,000 for those in the Biological Sciences and Polar Programs). PECASE awards are given to the most meritorious CAREER award winners, and uses no application process and awards no additional funds.

For those considering applying for the CAREER award, it is important to understand the NSF's emphasis on the integration of research and education. Funded applications will show clearly how their five-year project will both advance research and education and show the two as mutually beneficial and reinforcing.

In evaluating grant proposals, NSF focuses on two primary criteria:

Intellectual Merit: the potential of the project to advance knowledge
Broader Impacts: the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific desired societal outcomes

Additionally, because the CAREER program is focused on the development of the most promising early career investigators, it is also important to show how your project will continue to contribute to your work and achievement of your research/education goals past the five-year project duration.

Your application should also be able to show how your work in research and education is aligned and supported by your department and its goals. This is shown primarily in the Departmental Letter, submitted by your department chair and included as part of your application.

As you start thinking about your CAREER grant application, consider the following suggestions from NSF Program Directors and CAREER awardees:

·       Begin work on a CAREER Award proposal early. This is a very competitive program, awarding just 600 proposals each year. It is also unlike any other proposal you will submit to NSF because it involves planning your career objectives and illustrating how the CAREER Award will contribute to your professional development over the next 5, 10 and 20 years.

·       CAREER Awards represent a true balance between your faculty research and education roles. The required educational component may focus on any level: K-12 students, undergraduates, graduate students and/or the general public. When planning this component, design innovative outreach efforts that go well beyond what you normally do in your faculty role.

·       Partnerships, especially industrial partnerships, are considered a positive aspect, but keep in mind that no co-principal investigators or senior personnel are allowed on CAREER proposals. International collaborations are also encouraged.

Access additional information and resources:
ORDE NSF Career Award Toolkit
NSF CAREER/PECASE Program Announcement

Recruiting Research Partners and Co-PIs

We meet with many individual faculty who have amazing research projects for which they are seeking funding. However, in our competitive funding climate, funding sponsors are favoring projects that take different perspectives and involve different areas of expertise, and even different disciplines.

Researchers realize that they need different expertise for their projects, but oftentimes in the midst of developing their research, they assume they need to develop these other areas of expertise for themselves instead of seeking out partners.

Recently, a researcher asked me how they could incentivize a researcher in another field to partner with them, which I think is an important and not a simple question. So, today I offer a couple of key considerations for reaching out to potential collaborators.

Define your project but be flexible
Before you approach a potential collaborator, create and practice the pitch. What is your project idea? Why is it important? Who will it help? What will success look like? When you have your pitch down, sit down with your potential partner and get their feedback. Perhaps send them an email with a short description of who you are and your project and tell them you'd like to take them to coffee to get their perspective.

When you sit down with them, ask them for their perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the project? This initial dialogue and feedback session serves a few purposes. First, it engages the collaborator with you and with your project. Second, they make a small initial investment in you and the project by meeting with you, learning about the project, and providing their thoughts (in the fundraising world, this is how you develop interest/investment by potential donors too). Third, you get a sense of how they might be able to contribute to the project and if they will be a good complement to you and your expertise.

It is important that you can clearly describe you project, but also important that you be open to new ideas and alternative approaches. If you are just trying to recruit a "partner," so you can put their name on your grant and up your chances of funding, the chances of this being a productive partnership and your ability to effectively recruit someone are slim. Remember, partners do need to see what is in it for them.

Make a clear ask for their commitment and agree on roles, work, and outcomes
In a serendipitous scenario, once you have presented your project and discussed it with the perfect collaborator to complement your expertise, they will suggest that they partner with you on it. If they do not, gauge their interest. Ask them if they might be interested in developing the project with you and partnering on it.

When they say, "Yes, I thought you'd never ask!" your work is not yet done. It is essential that all members of a research team understand their roles and the roles of each other. Who is going to do what and by when? Who will be the PI and Co-PI? What publications do you expect and what authoring order makes the most sense? You want all team members going into a collaborative project with their eyes open. So, have the discussion, and be upfront with your expectations and contributions to create a productive partnership and a game-changing research project.

Additional Resources
Please find more research collaboration resources on the ORDE Website.

Defining the Need

Generally, as you are developing your grants, you may be focusing on the difference your research will make or the impact your project will have. This makes good sense, but it is important that you do not neglect to discuss the need you are addressing in your haste to describe the solution.

Oftentimes, PI's assume that reviewers will understand the need for their research and therefore intuit the significance of their work. However, even if your reviewers do understand the problem you are addressing, they likely do not understand how big or complicated the problem you are addressing is.

Thus, before you jump to your solution, give the problem some attention. The Center for Nonprofit Excellence suggests in their CNPE Toolkit - The Needs Statement that to define the need for your project, you should address the following:

• What is the problem?
• Why is it a problem? Who does it affect?
• What is the cost of not addressing the problem? (financial, human, social, quality of life, etc.)
• Why is it difficult to address the problem? (what are the anticipated barriers?)
• Why does it need to be addressed now?
• How would your project address the problem? And, how will the sponsor's funding really make a difference?
• How does it affect real people? Is there a human interest story to make the problem and solution more compelling?

Again, don't assume that your reviewers know all or any of these things. Dr. Amy Brooks-Kayal, Chief and Ponzio Chair Chair in Pediatric Neurology, shared in an ORDE seminar last year that she begins her grant by sharing the national statistics in Epilepsy, including how many people are affected and how they are affected (it's not just seizures). Then later on in her grant, she'll describe global statistics to emphasize the largess of the problem without repeating the information she shared earlier on.

Now, this might go without saying, but to write a compelling description of needs in your research, you have to really understand the needs yourself. In their new book, Developing a Winning Grant Proposal, Donald Orlich and Nancy Shrope suggest that PI's use any of the following methods to assess needs before designing a project:

• Use testimonials from relevant stakeholders
• Committee reports
• Planning documents
• Literature reviews
• Statements from professional/scientific societies

Although their suggestions are focused on education research projects, their suggestions still make sense for many disciplines. Remember, that when it comes to conducting a literature review, there are librarians available to help you form and execute a comprehensive literature review at the Auraria Library and the Health Sciences Library

In addition to using these or other methods, it is also a good idea to look at relevant project descriptions from grants that have been funded to make sure you are not proposing to duplicate the same work, especially with the same sponsor.

Remember that without adequately describing the problem or need that your research addresses, you cannot clearly show the impact and significance of your solution!