The Gift of Active Voice

As we enter the holiday break, I am feebly searching to make connections between the season and grant development. This week, I wanted to return to a grant writing pitfall that is one of the most common - using the passive voice. And, offer you the gift of an active voice. :)

Many PIs have been trained to do their writing in the passive, third-person voice rather than the active, first-person voice. As a quick reminder, here's the difference:

Passive, third-person: The research will be conducted by the research team.

Active, first-person: We will conduct the research.

Researchers are often taught to use the passive, third-person in both their manuscripts and grant proposals because it sounds more objective. It's not that you think something is happening, it's that a thought has been considered, like the thought is derived from the ether.

Writing in the active, first-person in your grant proposals is a better choice for a couple of reasons: it is easier to read and it cuts out extra words.

Now, I don't mean to pick on anybody. I recently got a review on a manuscript that critiqued my abrupt switch to the third person in discussing my methods. I reported my interview protocol in first-person, active voice and then stated, "the interviews were transcribed." Because I didn't transcribe the interviews myself, I just removed the subject from the sentence.

It is true that most proposals I review are not completely in passive voice. They often start off in active, first-person voice and then slip into passive a couple paragraphs in and proceed to move back and forth between the two. So, when I am giving feedback, I'm often on a hunt to find those little slips into the passive. Below, are some of the clues that usually make those passive slips stand out.

• will be collected
• can be assessed
• was determined
• It is plausible that
• It has previously been shown
• less is known

These phrases tend to be in passive and third-person sentences. To correct them, you'll generally switch the order of the object and subject of the sentence from their inverted position and identify the subject if it's been removed. Here's an example.

Passive, third-person: The samples will be collected by the team. Or The samples will be collected.

In this first sentence, "samples" are the object and "team" is the subject. In the second, the subject is missing altogether. To correct this, revise to the following.

Active, first-person: We will collect the samples.

Again, we identify the subject, "we" and we flip the subject and object so that we begin with the subject.

By looking out and correcting these slips in your grant writing, you'll find yourself writing a proposal that is much easier to read and your reviewers will thank you for it - it's a gift after all!

Resources:

Use the Active Voice - the University of Wisconsin Writing Center

How to Effectively Use Active and Passive Voice in Research Writing - editage insights

Diversifying Your Funding Portfolio

Yesterday, our Vice Chancellor for Research, Dr. Tom Flaig, gave our "state of the research" talk and in it showed how researchers at our Anschutz Medical Campus were largely funded by federal sources. It's great to see how successful our researcher are at agencies like the NIH, but it's still a good idea to diversify your funding sources. This can allow you new opportunities to find funding for projects you have brewing that aren't a good fit for the usual suspects.

Private foundations can be a good funding source to consider. However, the first challenge researchers face in considering private foundations, especially if you're used to going after R01s at NIH, is setting your sights quite a bit lower in terms of dollar amount.

Besides smaller funds, private foundation generally have the following attributes:

• They are unique and differentiated from one another in terms of mission, approach, cause, etc.
• They do not want to fund projects that are fund-able by federal or other public sources
• They want to fund projects that are innovative or even risky
• They want to fund projects that will further their specific cause
• They are sometimes a good place to find seed funding (when they see themselves as partners with government or institutional funders)

Susan M. Fitzpatrick and M. Bren Dolezalick expand on these attributes in their book chapter: Diversifying Your Portfolio: The Role of Private Funders in Writing Successful Grant Proposals: From the Top Down and Bottom Up.

In his book, The "How To" Grant Manual, David G. Bauer differentiates private foundations into four basic types:

National General Purpose: These organizations fund projects across the nation and are looking for research that will have an impact on a broad scale.  An example would be the Rockefeller Foundation.

Special Purpose: These define the scope of research they will fund much more narrowly and generally focus on one target area. An example would be the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (focused on American Health Care).

Community: These foundations focus on issues or areas of focus that are important to a particular region or community.  An example would be The Denver Foundation.

Family: These foundations are often created as memorials by a family and the projects they fund must be in line with the family's goals and ideologies.

Clearly, you want to understand the type of foundation that will be a good fit for your research based on the foundation's goals and your own.  But, private funding can serve as a good source for supplementary funding or initial funding as a seed grant.

For CU faculty, oftentimes you need to work with the Office of Advancement or through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research when pursuing private foundation grants so that the university communications are coordinated and consistent, so be sure to check on the appropriate processes when pursuing a private foundation grant.

Resources:
Diversifying Your Portfolio: The Role of Private Funders
What is a private foundation?

Notes from "Writing a Successful Science Proposal"

 As some of you may know, this semester ORDE hosted its first virtual book club. We read the book "Writing Successful Science Proposals" by Andrew Friedland, Carol Folt, and Jennifer Mercer. Yesterday, we held our book club meeting and highlighted strategies from the book and from our own experiences, which I outline below.

What to include in the Specific Aims/Project Overview

The Specific Aims/Project Overview is the most important component of your proposal. Given this, you should focus on offering an overview of your project, as well as making a case for why this project is so important. One PI recommended including the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" in your Specific Aims. It's important to give your reviewers a clear understanding of your project as well as why it's needed right at the get-go. Another tip is to make sure you end your Specific Aims/Project Overview with the vision of your research. Where are you going from here? What's the ultimate goal of your research trajectory? This helps your reviewer get excited about the possibilities of your research.

Taking a Reviewer Perspective

When writing your grant proposal, it is crucial to consider your reviewer. Remembering that reviewers look at many proposals at once, anything you do that might frustrate them can really sink your chances for funding. Our group agreed that, because of this, it's important to make your proposal easy to read - leave space between paragraphs and include a conceptual diagram and other visuals that can quickly communicate what you're doing. Also, as we discussed, some reviewers still print out proposals before reviewing them, while others review them completely online. Make sure that your final proposal is proofed and is easy to read in different forms. Also, consider ability when putting your proposal together, remembering that some people can't see color. Some people who are sighted still have difficulty seeing really small text that might be in your figures.

Discussing authorship early for research teams

As more and more researchers are participating in team research, strategies for collaboration and considering team dynamics are significant. Our group talked extensively about the importance of discussing and agreeing to authorship and order of authors at the start of a team's work together. Even as you begin working together to develop a project and grant proposal, discuss how many publications you anticipate and who will do what work on those, and who will be first, last, or in other author positions. This can help prevent confusion, frustration, and conflict down the line.

Overall, our group found the book to be a valuable resource for grant development, particularly for early career investigators. Stay tuned for ORDE's Spring 2021 Book Club!

Resources:

ORDE Book Club Meeting Video

"Writing Successful Science Proposals"

Demonstrating Grant Stewardship

 As we get close to Thanksgiving, I think about stewardship, particularly as it relates to both gratitude and giving. Stewardship plays a significant role in grant development in a couple of ways. It is important to be a good steward of any grants you receive, but it's also important to demonstrate to your reviewers that you will be a good steward, as I discuss below.

Stewarding Your Grant

When you receive a grant, you receive with it a load of responsibility. I've heard some PIs joke that when they receive a grant, they're temporarily elated, but then filled with dread when they realize they now need to do the project. But, it's true, once you get the grant, it's time to do what you said you would do. One of your commitments is to share project reports with your Program Officer (PO), and to stay in communication with them. POs express frustration over needing to track down reports from PIs, and that's understandable. Timely communications and reports for POs are a key responsibility and how PIs show they are good stewards of their grants. But, additionally, POs remember how good of a steward you were with your grant. If you've been lackluster, this may affect your success in attaining future grants from that same agency. 

Demonstrating Stewardship in Your Proposal

Certainly, there's no way of proving that you'll get reports to your PO in on time before you receive your grant, but it is important to show that you will be a good steward of a grant, should you be awarded. There are a couple of ways to do this. One is to include a lean and judicious budget in your proposal. Make sure that the funds you're asking for are truly necessary to execute your project. Also, make sure that you know what things will cost and that you're not padding your budget. Reviewers are researchers themselves, and they know how much things cost. So, if they catch you inflating your budget, it will likely call into question how good a steward you will be. Another place to demonstrate stewardship in your proposal is in your timeline. Show your reviewers when you will do things and how you will benchmark success as you move through the project. Layout your plan clearly so that your reviewers can have confidence that your project will get done well.

In closing, I adapt the old adage to remind you that with grant funding comes great responsibility. Be a good steward with your grants and prove to reviewers that you will continue to be. Have a restful fall break.

Resources:

Stewardship - An Important Grantsmanship Component - Lynn DeLearie
8 Great Ways to Thank a Funder - grants edge

The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)

The NEH is a unique grant-making agency that is often overlooked by researchers. In efforts to build awareness and understanding around the NEH, ORDE has created a website dedicated to just this.

Below, we offer some background on the NEH, but we encourage you to check out our site and of course the NEH's site to learn more!

NEH Overview

In 1963, three organizations - the American Council of Learned Societies, the Council of Graduate Schools in America, and the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa - established the National Commission on the Humanities. This Commission was charged with conducting "a study of the state of the humanities in America", and it released its final report in 1964 outlining the imbalance of science versus the humanities throughout all levels of the American educational system. Its recommendation was creation of a federal National Humanities Foundation to act as a cultural mediator to the nation's growing dependence on, and investment in, science and technology. The federal government adopted the Commission’s recommendation, creating the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) as an independent federal agency in 1965. (NEH History website). 

Specific Interests 

Promoting excellence in the humanities and making lessons offered through humanities disciplines accessible to the American people are major goals of NEH. To reach these goals, NEH supports research, public programming, access, and educational outreach projects designed to ensure the humanities are relevant to Americans and our dialogue on democracy. 

Agency Organization

NEH is headed by a Chairman who is advised by the 26- member National Council on the Humanities. The Chairman and Council members are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the US Senate. All Council members are humanities experts and most are drawn from academia. NEH has seven program divisions and offices that provide competitive funding through 39 funding programs. Divisions and programs supporting University researchers are the: 

• Division of Research Programs 
• Division of Preservation and Access Programs 
• Division of Education Programs 
• Division of Public Programs Office of Digital Humanities

Each Division sponsors a variety of funding programs to meet their mission.

Resources: 

ORDE NEH Site

NEH Know Your Agency Brief - ORDE

NEH Site

PCORI

This week, we offered a Know Your Agency e-Seminar on the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and released a brief on PCORI. Below is more info on PCORI, but if your research is a fit, it's a great time to consider applying to PCORI given that they were recently reauthorized by Congress and will be going strong for the near future!

OVERVIEW

PCORI was created as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and signed into law by President Obama in 2010. The agency was recently reauthorized by Congress for an additional 10 years. PCORI is charged with providing a better understanding of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options for patients, their caregivers, health care providers, and other stakeholders. This charge is met through 1) research, 2) an emphasis on research methodology and 3) efforts to encourage other funding agencies to incorporate patient-centered research methods. PCORI is supported through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund, combining federal and fee-based revenue for agency operation.

Specific Interests

Patient-centered is not just in this agency’s name, it drives their every action. Patients and caregivers are involved in every step of the research process and PCORI has become an expert on proper engagement tactics, all with the goal of influencing healthcare for the betterment of patients. PCORI’s National Research Priorities are:

1.       Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options

2.       Improving Healthcare Systems

3.       Communication/Dissemination Research

4.       Addressing Disparities

5.       Accelerating Patient-Centered Outcomes Research and Methodological Research

6.       Strategies for Improving Maternal Mortality*

7.       Improving Health for Individuals with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities*

*Note the last two priorities were added in the 2019 Reauthorization legislation (Executive Director’s Blog, 9/8/20).

AGENCY ORGANIZATION

PCORI is a 501(c)(1) corporation, not a federal agency. It is governed by a 21-member Board of Governors, drawn from academia, the health care industry, corporations outside of health care and non-profits, as well as the Directors of the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. PCORI’s Methodology  Committee’s role is to identify best practice patient-centered research methods and to ensure these methods are employed in all research supported by PCORI. Committee members are experts in science, medicine, epidemiology, health care technology and the health care industry. Both the Board and the Committee are appointed by the US Comptroller General. 

PCORI is unique, particularly in the way that they truly focus on and indeed center patients in the healthcare research they fund. We encourage you to check out the resources below to see if PCORI might be a good funding opportunity for you!

Resources:

PCORI Brief - ORDE

PCORI e-Seminar - ORDE

PCORI Site

Using Images in Your Proposal

This week, I wanted to offer you some more practical tips and ideas for creating and using visuals in your grant applications. Visual displays can be used to help you analyze your results and clarify your thinking, some may help your reader understand your results, and some can do both. Below I discuss some different visual display options.

Matrices
Matrices can serve as an excellent tool for organizing and cross-analyzing information. I've seen them used in education research proposals where the researcher communicated the tasks, outcomes, and assessment plans by research goal. They're also great for showing timelines in a proposal and outlining due dates for key deliverables. These sorts of matrices can help both the PI and the reviewer understand the project and its organization. However, matrices lose their effectiveness when they are too big, and include so much information that the reader can't get a gist of what it means from looking at it briefly. Also, if a matrix gets too complex (e.g., it is trying to cross analyze more than two categories), the reader can get lost in it and at that point, a visual display does more harm than good.

Comparative images
I have seen some quite compelling comparative images in proposals. When PIs have lab results that are self-evident and they can show a picture with their test results next to the control, this can be powerful for the reader. Of course, this means that the images must have a clear contrast for them to be striking for the reviewer. Also, consider the knowledge base that interpreting your images will require. If you have mass spectrometer results, but your review panel includes laypeople, you may want to reconsider or you may need to include a bit more explanation to allow all of your readers to understand why the images are so remarkable. 

Conceptual model
One of the first challenges that confront a grant reviewer when reading a proposal is to get an overall sense of what the PI wants to do. The research project is often complex and can be challenging to understand how it all fits together even for someone in the same field. A conceptual model for the project included early on in a proposal can offer the reader a tool for making sense of your project visually as well as through prose. Basically, a conceptual model is a visual representation of your project and its goals; think of it as a map of your plan that will give your reader a big picture before they start digging into the nitty-gritty. Using a conceptual model, you can show how your research goals, aims, and/or hypotheses fit together and give a sense of the results you expect as well as their impact.

Decision model
I've always been captivated by "choose your own adventure" books. As a kid, I was terrible at them and my character always died right away, but I still loved the idea. Even today, I'm always struck by how many problems or projects can be illustrated using a choose your own adventure style. A decision model is similar to this concept in that it is a flow chart that shows where and how you will choose the path of your research project. When you want to show that even though there are undecideds within your project, you will achieve important results and meet your goals regardless of the path, decision models can help you do that. Of course, a pitfall is that in using a decision model, you are bringing attention to the unknowns in your project, and depending on your plan and how comprehensive your back-up plan is, you could feasibly cast doubt in the minds of your reviewers, so use decision models carefully.

Resources: 
Effective Visual Design in Proposal Writing - Allegra Johnston 
The Incorporation of Visuals into Grant Proposals - Jennifer Platte

On Using Bullets

Recently, in one of our e-seminars, the topic of bullets came up. And this really awakened my inner Technical Writer. I have very strong feelings about bullets, and I think that's because they are really the pinnacle of technical writing. They are meant to be short, clear, and concise clauses that communicate a list of some sort, and I love the crisp and condensed nature of them. True story: In college, I vetted a guy who was asking me out on a date by asking him how he felt about bullets.

So, you get it, I have a strange affinity for and loyalty to bulleted lists! Because of this, I also suffer an unusual frustration when I see bullets misused. So, that brings us to the topic at hand: the proper use of bullets. Below I offer some dos and don'ts to help guide you in avoiding my wrath ;)

Do keep them short

Bullets at their best should set off a list of words or short phrases. I will at times bullet a sentence (maybe two), but each bullet is communicating only one idea.

Don't use them for paragraphs

I frequently see folks bullet paragraphs in their grant proposals, and this is absurd! If it's a paragraph, it is already its own entity and a bullet does nothing for it. Just keep it as a paragraph already!

Do begin each bulleted phrase with the same type of word

When people read a bulleted list, they expect consistency; they expect that each bullet will share the same type of information. For this reason, it's a best practice to start each bulleted phase with the same type of word. Consider the following example:

Naomi's day consists of the following activities:

• checking email
• grant proposal review
• e-Seminars
• Corralling her children

This bulleted list follows both of our first two tips (which are of course the same tip written differently), but you can see that the items in my list are not written consistently. The first phrase starts with a verb in the present tense, and the second starts with an adjective. The last phrase is capitalized for Pete's sake! What would make it easier for folks to read is if I revised it as follows:

Naomi's day consists of the following activities:

• checking email
• reviewing grant proposals
• offering e-Seminars
• corralling her children

Do opt for a numbered list when the sequence matters

In the example above, if I were trying to communicate the order in which I do things (which let's be honest, they're all woven together these days), it would be better for me to use a numbered list, because the order would matter in what I was saying. For example:

Naomi's Friday consists of the following order:

1. drink coffee
2. check email
3. write the weekly blog
4. review grant proposals
5. force her kids to stop watching tv

Do identify what's in your list before the colon

This last tip is really a bonus, because it is tricky to do sometimes. But, the idea is that the last word you use (usually before a colon) to signal that you're going to use a bulleted or numbered list should identify the items that will be in the list. So, for instance, in the first two examples, my last word before the colon and the list is "activities" and then I give you a list of activities. In the third example, my last word is "order."

So, although, I often see (and sometimes write lists) like this:

The colors of the rainbow include:

• red
• yellow
• blue

I could stick to my last rule, by revising to the following:

A rainbow includes the colors:

• red
• yellow
• blue

In this revised example, I identify the type of information I'm going to identify in my list - colors. And, I agree, the original color example above is fine, but depending on if you're as big a nerd as I am, it can be fun to try and challenge yourself to reframe leading sentences to end with the word that identifies what's in your list.

So, that's it; those are the rules. You now have the tools to use bulleted lists properly, and inadvertently, you have the key to my heart! :)

Resources:

Bulleted Lists - APA

Specific Aims/Project Overview Checklist

I'm happy to report that this week we concluded a great virtual Grant Writing Symposium focused on strategies and tips in writing your proposal. We walked through such things as how to craft the narrative in your grant proposal and tips to keep your writing clear and concise. We ended with a Specific Aims checklist, which I've shared below.

Offer a hook in the first paragraph – why is your project important/urgent:

Be sure to hook your reviewers right at the getgo of your proposal. Show your reviewers how dire your problem is and build a sense of urgency for your research to be done.

State your project goal/what your project’s about in the first couple sentences:

As you're showing them how big and bad the problem is that you're solving, don't forget to include a sentence that describes what your project is about.

Give an overview of cutting edge research in your field:

Describe the latest findings related to your project and be sure to position yourself as a leading thinker in the area.

Identify the gap in current research and justify why this gap needs to be filled now:

After stating the cutting edge, identify the gap in the research and explain the importance of focusing on this particular gap now.

State your hypothesis clearly:

Make sure that your hypothesis is succinct and testable.

State your aims clearly (make sure they’re interrelated but not dependent on one another):

State your aims in short and succinct statements as well. They should fit together and each work to test your hypothesis.

Include a conceptual diagram (visual):

Including a visual that gives an overview of your project is a great aide to reviewers who are trying to understand what it is your project is about and quickly.

Close with the vision/impact of your research:

Be sure not to end your Specific Aims with a statement on logistics. Seize the opportunity to highlight the importance of your research into the future to cement the excitement you've built with your reviewers.

Write in an active, first-person voice:

Saying "We will do the research" instead of "The research will be done by the research team" is easier to read and it is a much shorter sentence. The former is in active, first-person voice.

Offer visual breaks in your text (particularly between paragraphs):

Make sure that you keep space between paragraphs and do not justify the right edge of your aims (a jagged edge doesn't look as clean, but it's easier to read).

Provide a MEAL in each paragraph and keep sentences short:

Make sure in each paragraph that you include a Main (topic) sentence, Evidence to support it, Analysis of that evidence, and a Linking sentence to your next paragraph or a Last paragraph.

In case you missed any of the 2020 Symposium, they're all recorded, and we encourage you to check them out for yourself!

2020 ORDE Grant Writing Symposium

Part 1: The Grant Development Process

Part 2: What Reviewers Want

Part 3: Honing Your Grant Writing

The Grant Development Process

This week, ORDE kicked off our 2020 Virtual Grant Writing Symposium, with an e-Seminar on the Grant Development Process with Dr. Chris Phiel, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, serving as our Faculty Expert.

Oftentimes, people think that all there is to grant-writing is finding a grant, writing a proposal, and submitting that proposal. But, to truly be competitive for a grant, it takes engagement in a more comprehensive grant development process, as outlined below.

Literature & Fund Search:

The first step of this process is to search for the grants that might be a good fit for you and your research. It's a good idea to start assessing funding opportunities when you are narrowing in on your next research project and conducting your literature review. If you wait to look for funding opportunities until you have a fully developed project, you will create more work for yourself as you try to tailor your work to the program announcement on the back end.

ID and Research Sponsor:

Once you've identified a sponsor and program for your research project, it's important to do your homework. What is the mission and vision of the agency? What are their priorities? What have they funded in the past? Who are their reviewers? What is their review process? Knowing the answers to these questions will allow you to craft a proposal that is in line with and speaks to the agency's goals.

Work with the Program Officers:

Many funding agencies have POs who serve as the agency's liaison for researchers. The POs are responsible for making sure the agency is funding the best research and most important research aligned with the agency's goals. The PO is an important person to talk with as you develop your research to make sure that you and your research are a good fit!

Hone Project:

Once you've done your research on the agency and talked with a PO about what you can do to ensure that your project is a good fit, make the revisions and adaptations necessary to ensure that your proposal will be competitive.

Revise/Resubmit:

There's a reason why the image above is in a cycle instead of a line. Most times, researchers do not have their proposal funded in the first go-round. The good news is that resubmissions have a much higher rate of being funded. So, be prepared to re-work and resubmit your proposal, and remember the best-funded researchers have also generally been the most rejected.

To learn more about this process, I encourage you to watch the recording of our e-Seminar: The Grant Development Process.

Ingredients for a great grant proposal

I was recently reviewing a well-written grant proposal. The PI outlined the project and illustrated what she expected to learn from the project as well as some of the publication products she anticipated. But, as I finished reading it, I had a nagging feeling. I realized that the question I was left with after reading the proposal was "so what?" I wasn't clear on what difference the project was going to make besides just understanding something better.

I realized that building a case for a grant is really about comprehensively answering the question "so what?" To demonstrate the importance of this question, I turn to an expert, George Heilmeier. Heilmeier is the former Director of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and is known in the grant development world as he who created "Heilmeier's Catechism" for grant writing. He asserted that all good proposals answer the following questions:

1. What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
2. How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
3. What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
4. Who cares? If you succeed, what difference will it make?
5. What are the risks?
6. How much will it cost?
7. How long will it take?
8. What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success? 

The fourth question gets to my "so what?" It asks, who will this project make a difference for and why is that difference important? So, given how grant funding agencies really stress the importance of the "so what?" I wanted to offer you a simple exercise to better hone your answer to this question.

Step 1: Describe why your research project is important and to whom
Step 2: Based on your response, ask yourself, "so what?"
Step 3: Repeat step 2 until you can't come up with anything else
Step 4: Integrate the key stakeholders and important contributions your research will make into your proposal 

You can do this exercise in your head, or have a colleague ask you the questions and they can vary the "so what?" type questions based on your answers. But, make sure to capture your responses so that you can use them when you're writing up your case in your proposal.

Resources:
The Heilmeier Catechism
How not to kill a grant application: The facts of the case thus far - Science

Considering Paragraph Structure

Oftentimes, writers break to a new paragraph without a lot of thought. When you have a new idea, start a new paragraph is the guideline under which most of us operate. Yet, when we think about it from the reader's perspective, when a paragraph does not contain a complete thought or when a new paragraph makes a giant leap to a new subject without warning, our heads are left spinning!

So, as writers, there are a couple of things we can do to keep our readers from getting lost or frustrated. Using the mnemonic device MEAL, we can remember what should be in most paragraphs...

M - ain idea: This is your topic sentence; it sets up your reader to know what the paragraph is about

E - vidence: Of course, most main ideas need a little justification, so your evidence portion is a couple of sentences that back up your main idea.

A - nalysis: You're writing about this topic, because you have something to say about it, so what is your take on the main idea and the evidence you've cited?

L - ink or Last thought: This is a sentence or two where you conclude your thoughts and/or provide a linking sentence to the next paragraph.

Let's look at an example from an NIH award abstract:

Main  Evidence  Analysis  Link/Last thought

Excessive anxiety and fear leads to anxiety disorders, which impact many aspects of life, from the interpersonal to professional spheres. Although each anxiety disorder has different symptoms, they all share a core feature: mal-adaptive expression of high levels of anxiety. In our study, we will study how the brain suppresses anxiety. Prior studies showed the amygdala is largely responsible for generating high anxiety and fear, while the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) decreases these behaviors, possibly by inhibiting amygdala output. Indeed, in humans higher vmPFC activation correlates with lower amygdala activation and decreased anxiety. These data suggest the vmPFC-amygdala pathway may decrease anxiety and fear, but they rely on correlative measures, and can't directly test this hypothesis. We used optogenetics to directly test if the vmPFC-amygdala projection suppresses anxiety and fear. 

Remarkably, optogenetic activation of the vmPFC-amygdala pathway robustly inhibits innate anxiety and learned fear, while inhibition of this pathway increases anxiety.... 

As with any writing rule, there are exceptions and easily-readable paragraphs that leave out one component or another. Yet, when you pull all of the paragraphs together in a section, they should include all of the MEAL components pretty regularly.

In terms of paragraph organization, Otto Yang, in his book, Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application, offers a technique to better construct and organize your paragraphs.  For one section, take the first line of every paragraph and put them together to see if those lead sentences alone give you an understanding of the piece.  This is important especially for grant-writing where reviewers often skim the numerous proposals they review. Giving your reviewers clear sign posts at the start of a paragraph will be much appreciated.

Although these techniques are helpful when you're writing, often they're more useful to apply when you are re-reading and revising.  You've already gotten your thoughts down and they seem to flow, but perhaps you'll realize in making revisions that your reader will have to read half-way through many of your paragraphs before they understand your main point.  In this case, it may serve you and your reader well to apply some paragraph revisions.

Resources:
Paragraphing with the MEAL Plan - Capella University
Paragraphs - University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Writing Center

Writing an LOI

This week, I was asked to review a Letter of Intent (LOI), and it had been a minute since I had, so I figured it was a great time to brush up on best practices and to focus our blog on the same!

LOIs are generally brief pre-proposals that are requested by a foundation. The foundation reviews the brief LOIs and requests full proposals from those groups who submitted the best projects. This culls the best ideas and limits the number of full proposals the foundation needs to review.

Your LOI should respond to the needs of the funding agency to be most competitive. Also, if the agency offers you guidelines to use for the LOI, use them! Aside from this, as the name implies, the LOI should be short (letter length) and it should give a brief and compelling overview of your project. It should be written for the layperson and should be written in the first person and active voice.

If the funding agency does not specify guidelines for an LOI, UMassAmherst recommends the following format:

Summary Statement: Give a summary of your project, what it is, what need it meets, and how much you're asking for.

Statement of Need: Why is this project important?

Project Activity: What will the project entail?

Outcomes: What do you expect to achieve?

Credentials: Why are you and your team the best team to do this work?

Budget: How much are you asking for and briefly what will the money be used for?

Closing: Briefly return to why this project is important and offer your vision. Give any final contact information and offer to answer any questions they may have.

Signature: Make sure you know who is designated to send LOIs on behalf of the university to a particular agency (sometimes an Advancement Officer is the liaison for an agency and LOIs must go through him or her).

LOIs are your opportunity to pique the interest of funders. Once you are invited to submit a proposal, you are already competing with a much smaller pool of applicants. So, always make sure your project aligns with the agency's needs and mission and pitches your project clearly and succinctly.

Resources:
Guidelines for a Letter of Intent - UMassAmherst
How to Write a Winning LOI - Grant Writer Team

Bolster your proposals with tips from the summer

This summer, given that folks were stuck at home, ORDE offered our first ever summer e-Seminar series, focusing on a few key strategies for bolstering your proposal development game. I'm happy to announce that these are all now available on our Vimeo site in case you missed them. Below is the run-down of these seminars and a couple of tips from each. Click on the e-Seminar title to go back and watch these for yourself. 

Writing Your Specific Aims

If we think of the grant proposal as real estate, then the Specific Aims or Project Overview is the front door of our proposal. It tends to be where reviewers start when reading your proposal, and it tends to be where they decide if they like your proposal or not. Given its importance, in this seminar, I suggest that you start your overview with a hook or sentence that grabs your reviewer's attention and highlights the necessity of the work. I also suggest that you end your overview with a vision of your research that reminds your reviewer of the importance of your work.

Working with Program Officers

Program Officers (POs) often can give you additional insight into an agency or grant program to which you may be considering applying. I recommend that you reach out to POs early and often. The two most important times to connect with a Program Officer is early on as you are developing your grant proposal. Once you have a solid one-pager on your research project, reach out to your PO and ask to have a conversation about the fit of your project and solicit advice as to how to best hone your project for their program. The other important time to reach out to a PO is when you are not funded and are making decisions related to resubmissions. After considering the feedback and your options, reach out to a PO to get their advice as to what revisions should be made before resubmitting.

Revising and Resubmitting Your Proposal

When your grant proposal is not funded, it's a bummer (to say the least), however, remember that the researchers who are the most well-funded tend to also be those who have had the most rejections. So, take heart in knowing this too shall pass and funding may lie in your next resubmission. So, once you've gotten past the heartache and read your reviews, you have a decision to make. At the NIH, you can resubmit your grant as a revised proposal with a response to reviews (an A1), or you can submit as a brand new proposal (an A0) - this might make sense if you've done a major overhaul of your proposal. Your last choice is to resubmit to another institute or agency. If, after going through the reviews and talking with your PO, you feel that the problem was really one of fit, it might be time to go in search of a program where your project is a great fit!

Resources:

ORDE Vimeo site

Fall 2020 ORDE e-Seminar Schedule

I'm happy to announce ORDE's fall e-Seminar schedule. Faculty at our CU Denver /Anschutz Medical Campuses as well as our affiliates can register here: https://research.ucdenver.edu/research-development-and-education/home/faculty-seminars-and-events/faculty-seminar-registration. For others, these will be posted on our Vimeo site the day after the presentation, so you'll be able to find them there.

ORDE Faculty Seminars Fall 2020

Grant Writing e-Symposium

The Grant Writing Symposium this year will be completely online and will consist of the three parts below. Each piece will be offered separately, approximately a week apart. Participants from both campuses and our affiliates can sign up for any or all of the e-symposium components.

 e-Seminar: The Grant Development Process

September 23, 2020 / 12:00 – 1:00

Faculty Expert: Chris Phiel, Associate Professor, Integrative Biology

This e-seminar will orient participants to the grant development process, from researching the grant-making agency, through working with Program Officers, and writing the grant proposal. A faculty expert will discuss their own process for developing successful grant proposals.

e-Seminar: What Reviewers Want

September 30, 2020 / 12:00 – 1:00

Faculty Expert: Jeff Stansbury, Professor, School of Dentistry

This e-seminar will discuss some of the strengths and weaknesses of grant proposals from the reviewer perspective. A seasoned reviewer, will discuss their experience as a reviewer and offer advice to PIs on how to craft proposals with the reviewer in mind.

 e-Workshop: Honing Your Grant Writing

October 7, 2020 / 12:00 – 1:00

Faculty Experts: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director for Educational Outreach, ORDE

For this e-workshop, participants will attend an online mini-seminar to receive instruction on grant-writing tips and strategies. They will then use a provided grant-writing checklist to revise a Specific Aims page or Project Overview. Following their revisions, participants will submit their revised project overview to Naomi and receive additional feedback via email.

ORS/ORDE Orientation (Denver only)

October 6, 2020 / 12:00 – 1:00

Speakers: Bob Damrauer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research; Michael Jenson, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research; Lynette Michael, Director, ORDE; Naomi Nishi, Associate Director, ORDE; Stefan Reiss, Senior Research Development Analyst; Rachel Sturtz, Research Communications Specialist

In this e-Seminar, ORS and ORDE staff will describe the services and opportunities available to Denver research faculty, walking them through who to contact for what and when as they conduct research. This will target new research faculty on the Denver campus, but will also be open to other early career Denver faculty who want to better understand what’s available to them through ORS and ORDE.

NIH Review Process

October 14, 2020 / 12:00 – 1:00

Faculty Experts: Michael Schurr, Associate Professor, School of Medicine

This e-Seminar will walk through the NIH review process, offering tips on selecting the right study section and institute. A seasoned reviewer will talk about their experience in the study section, in terms of process and what happens “in the room where it happens.”

Know Your Agency: PCORI

November 2, 2020 / 12:00 – 1:00

Faculty Experts: John Corboy, Professor, Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine

In this e-seminar, a seasoned PI, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), will discuss PCORI’s priorities, and offer insight into how to work with PCORI and how to develop a competitive application for PCORI.

Tips on Developing Your K

November 9, 2020 / 12:00 – 1:00

Faculty Expert: Elena Hsieh, Assistant Professor, Pediatrics, School of Medicine

This e-Seminar will offer an overview of the NIH K mechanism and feature an interview with a recent K awardee to get at their experience, along with tips and potential pitfalls in developing this unique grant application.

Resubmitting at the NIH

Today, ORDE offered an e-Seminar on Revising & Resubmitting Your Grant Proposal, and Dr. Jennifer Kemp, Director of Research in the Department of Medicine within CU's School of Medicine offered us fantastic insight into what to consider when resubmitting your proposal to the NIH,

and I condense some of her key points below:

When you submit to the NIH and you're not funded, you have three options when it comes to resubmissions. You can resubmit as an A1 proposal where you make revisions based on reviewer feedback and submit your revised proposal with a summary statement of responses to reviewer concerns. The second option is to overhaul your proposal and resubmit it as a brand new proposal (A0). This means you will have no summary statement and it will go through the review process as if you submitted if for the first time. Third, if you realize that there was not a good fit at the study section you submitted to, you can resubmit the proposal to a different study section, Institute, or agency altogether.

So, how do you choose? Here's what Dr. Kemp recommended:

Submit an A1

This is a good option for you if your score was near the funding line and it seemed that reviewers were overall enthusiastic about your project. If the changes reviewers allude to are relatively minor, an A1 with the responses and revisions requested might be enough to push you over the pay line.

Submit an A0

If your score was well below the funding line (or above, since the lower the score, the better at the NIH) and/or if your proposal was triaged and did not get discussed at study section, it may be that the changes needed to bolster your proposal towards funding are so significant that you might want to completely rewrite the proposal and submit it as if it were brand new. Although the reviewers will likely recognize your proposal from reviewing it before, it may be better to start with a cleaner slate than to try to respond to the major and many criticisms they had.

Submit to a different study section, Institute, or agency

If upon seeing your reviews, it looks like you and your work are not a good fit for the study section to which you applied, you should consider going elsewhere. A conversation with a Program Officer can help you make this decision. One of our participants in the e-Seminar mentioned that he had asked his PO about submitting elsewhere, but the PO had argued that he should stay and even connected him with other funded PIs to help him build his competitiveness. But, if the PO agrees that you belong somewhere else, be sure to heed that advice.

You'll notice that not re-submitting is not listed among possible options here. :) This is because, although getting a rejection is brutal, you must remember that the most funded researchers have also suffered the most rejections, but they kept at it until they were funded and kept going. So go for it!!!

Resources:

Revising & Resubmitting Your Grant Proposal (ORDE video)

How are you doing?

This morning I met with a student who was having a difficult time staying on top of assignments in our class. And, as I got on the line with the student prepared to launch into creating a plan for how to have them catch up, I stopped myself to first say, "How are you doing?" And, taking that pause made me realize how important that discussion was for not only my student but me too. 

As my children's school district has begun the announcements that they have moved their school online for longer and longer to what feels like will inevitably be till at least the end of the year, I've avoided planning for what will be a chaotic and frustrating fall. It will continue to be stressful to manage kids that miss friends and have little interest in completing schoolwork online along with the daily negotiation with my partner as to when who has what meeting that can't be disturbed by the afternoon tantrums and butt-wiping requests (yes, it is time for the five-year-old to handle that himself).

All this to say, I know that many faculty researchers are experiencing something similar. And for many, particularly faculty of color, the killing of Black people and the related unrest adds to this trauma. So, how are you doing? Are you taking time for yourself and your family? Are you being honest with yourself, your colleagues, and your Department Chair about what's on your plate and what support you need? As you look to fall, particularly with furloughs and strained resources, do you have what you need to successfully teach your classes?

In terms of research, be fair with yourself and clear with others about what you can do and can't. Maybe there is an article close to being submitted that you could find the time to get in. Or, maybe now is the time to reach out to colleagues who can help co-author or even partner on a project with you to share the load and keep things moving even if they slow down.

It's okay and good to ask for help. It's okay and good to seek counseling, whether it's with a trusted friend or a professional. As we look toward fall, don't forget to ask your students and colleagues how they're doing and don't forget to ask yourself how you're doing too!

Resources

How to be a trauma-informed department chair during COVID - The Chronicle of Higher Education

No motivation? Look to your needs to find it - The Professor Is In

The Difference Between Academic and Grant Writing

Research faculty have generally done plenty of academic writing in their training and careers, but oftentimes they have done less grant writing by the time they're ready to apply for grant proposals. This shift in writing genre can feel like a rude awakening, quite simply because the rules and acceptable styles are different in a grant proposal versus a scholarly publication. Below are some of the ways they are different.

Difference in Purpose
One of the biggest differences between a proposal and a publication is that a publication is usually sharing research that you've already completed. Proposals on the other hand are focused on making a case for the research you want to do. However, proposals do require a discussion of the cutting edge research and gaps in that research similar to what you see in a literature review in a publication. Also, many granting agencies expect PIs to have preliminary data to be competitive for a grant, so PIs must describe work they've already done in making a case for the work they want to do.

Audience
One of the similarities between publications and proposals is that they are generally peer-reviewed. That means, someone like you (a researcher in your field) is asked to weigh in on whether your work should be published or funded. The key difference is that usually your publication is sent to a few reviewers who individually review your publication and send feedback and a recommendation through the journal editor. For a proposal, usually a larger group of peers review your grant proposal and weigh in after discussing it as a group. These larger groups tend to include peers who are further away from your area of expertise. Some agencies even include non-experts on review panels in which case your proposal must be accessible to the layperson

Citations
In publications, oftentimes scholars use citations to justify their inclusion or use a particular theory or framework without a full explanation of that theory/framework, since they assume that the readers will know it or can go research it through the articles they've cited. In a proposal, you cannot rely on citations in the same way. You must instead clearly outline the theory, methods, or framework you are engaging in addition to citing it. Certainly, you cannot expect a grant reviewer to go and do additional research to understand your grant; they've usually been given a whole stack of proposals to review at a time. This is another difference between grant reviewers and journal reviewers. Anytime I've been asked to review a journal article, I am only asked to review one at a time.

Format
Certainly, publications expect you to follow some guidelines and style requirements for your submission for publication, but these guidelines and requirements are usually much larger and more stringent for a grant proposal. The majority of grant proposals submitted are not even reviewed because they did not follow the format rules or the project was not in line with the mission of the agency. So, it's best to read and re-read the grant proposal guidelines and to follow them closely.

In closing, it's true that good writing is good writing, but what makes writing good in most cases is that it is written with the audience in mind.

References:
Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals - Robert Porter
Academic vs. Grant Writing - ORDE

Contacting Program Officers

Working with Program Officers (POs) is an important element of the grant development process. POs are able to offer insight into the grant-making agency's priorities as well as offer information that may not be as clear in the program announcement. Also, if and when you are not funded, a conversation with the PO can provide you additional context on the reviewers' feedback and advise you on where to revise and bolster your proposal for your submission.

Even though POs are a fantastic resource, many early career investigators are nervous and choose not to reach out to a PO when developing their first proposals. So, below I offer some specific advice on initially reaching out to POs.

First, it's a good idea to meet a PO early on. Many POs you might work with attend national conferences and meetings (back in pre-pandemic times when we physically attended such conferences). When such physical meetings start again, you can track POs down in presentations they give or sometimes find them in the exhibit hall at the agency's booth. POs will often have slots of time set up to meet with interested investigators and be happy to slot you in, but they may also be scheduling such meetings virtually, so reach out via email before the conference to see if you can secure 15-20 minutes with them. Use the time to tell them about your research agenda and get their insight into agency priorities and where your best entry point into funding might be.

When it comes time to develop a proposal, and you want to reach out to a PO to see if your project is a good fit, below I've outlined some basic steps for contacting your PO:

Write up a project description:
Before you email a PO, make sure you have a one-two page project description ready to go. The reason you should do this before reaching out is that likely once you've emailed a PO, the first thing they'll ask for is your project description. So, be ready for that. Otherwise, you'll be scrambling to get it together so you don't leave your PO hanging once you've reached out. Also, make sure your write up is in the format that the agency expects in your ultimate proposal, e.g., writing a draft Specific Aims for the NIH or a draft of the Project Overview for the NSF.

2. email the PO
With one-pager in hand, send a brief email to your PO asking to schedule a phone call to discuss the fit of your project. Introduce yourself and include a 3-5 sentence description of your project. End with a request for a phone call. Below, is a mock email:

If you don't hear back right away, give the PO a week to respond and then email them again (including your last email) checking in. After nudging the PO a few times with no response, try finding a colleague who has been funded by the same program to see if they can make an introduction.

It can be frustrating when POs are unresponsive but be persistent because they do hold the keys to the kingdom in many ways.

Resources:
Can We Talk? Contacting Program Officers - Robert Porter
What to say and not say to Program Officers - Michael Spires

Showing Background Research in Your Proposal

One thing I tend to notice when reviewing grant proposals for faculty internally is that they are often lacking in describing the cutting edge research. In fact, it's not uncommon for a PI to not really talk about their project in the context of past research at all. This is a big oversight. If you haven't couched your project in what has been done already, you set up your reviewers to wonder 1. Do you understand the research landscape in this area? and 2. Has this project already been done? or 3. Is this the best project to do in this area right now?

Now, I can certainly understand how this gets left out. You are space limited in most grant proposals, so it's certainly enticing to just jump right into what you want to do and why it's important. But, remember, to show the importance of your study, you need to offer contextual research. More than that, you must show you're the right person for the job by showing the contributions you've made to research in this area in the past.

To do this, I give you a formula for describing and contextualizing your project in the research...

Describe the cutting edge of current research:
You don't want to give reviewers a full literature review in your grant proposal; most likely that's not an option with page constraints anyway. But you do want to give them an overview of the most cutting-edge research in the field. Remember, some reviewers may not be in your exact field, so they aren't up-to-date on the latest and greatest, so let them know. Use this description of the cutting edge to generate some excitement about the field and your work.

Show your contributions:
One thing PIs sometimes forget is that they not only have to make a case for their amazing research, but they also need to show that they are the best person to do this research. So, when you're describing the cutting edge research, be sure to position yourself in it as a thought leader and cutting-edge researcher yourself.

Identify the gaps:
Once you've clued your reviewers into what's happening that's so exciting in your field and what you've done thus far, segue into what is the next thing that needs to be done. Outline the gaps in the cutting-edge research and what needs to happen to keep the field moving forward.

Show why your gap should be filled:
Sometimes PIs outline the gaps in their grant proposal but don't take the extra step to explain why it's so important to fill these gaps. This can be a fatal flaw in a proposal. Don't assume that your reviewers will inherently understand why your project is important. Close the loop and explain the whole thing, even if you think it's unnecessary. Your reviewers will be thankful for the clarity.

Show how you will fill it and offer the ongoing vision
Once you've made the case for your project, show how your project will accomplish all the needs that you described in your case. And as the icing on the cake, bring them back to the vision of your research and what will be possible in the future as you progress.

If you use these items as a checklist, you'll be sure to incorporate all the items you need in your proposal to make a clear and compelling case for your project.

Resources:
The Heilmeier Catechism
Heilmeier Catechism: Nine Questions You Must Answer to Develop a Meaningful Data Science Project - Data Scientist Insights

Collaboration in Pandemic Times

Some of the work we do in ORDE includes working with researchers to build bridges and spur collaboration. Although given the COVID pandemic, researchers are not able to meet in person to work together, there are other ways to collaborate virtually. And in some ways, our new normal can make it simpler to work together. There are no commutes, booking conference rooms, etc. to worry about anymore.

Also, the urgency in finding a COVID vaccine has inspired global research collaboration like we've never seen before as detailed in a recent NY Times article.

Whether collaborating face to face or online, there are some important tips to keep in mind to ensure a successful collaboration as you get started!

Know your strengths and weaknesses
Before you reach out to collaborators, be clear on where your expertise lies and where it is limited. This will help you to pitch yourself and your project to potential partners and help you to identify the right partner(s).

Identify potential team members' strengths and weaknesses
Once you're clear what your role should be in a project and what roles and needs you must fill to make it come to fruition, you're ready to look for collaborators. Talk to your colleagues and make connections in the areas you have needs. When you identify a potential collaborator, set up an initial conversation to vet them.

Be ready to share
If you want a collaboration to be successful, you shouldn't go into conversations assuming that you're the boss and your collaborator will just provide what's needed. If that's how you want to run things, then you're really looking for a consultant on your project, not a collaborator. Most researchers will not be willing to invest themselves in a project that does not feel like it is theirs. So, be prepared to not only share your idea, but adapt the idea with your new partner(s).

Be ready to assert yourself
On the flip side, a collaboration shouldn't feel like a handoff of your idea to another. Some researchers feel their project is co-opted especially when they seek collaboration with a more seasoned PI. To combat this, be ready to assert yourself and demand a true partnership in the project.

Know what's in it for each researcher
An essential piece to a good collaboration is setting each collaborator up for success. When beginning a collaborative project, it's important to get all motivations out on the table to make sure they're complementary. Also, this is the time to discuss order of authorship of subsequent publications, and who will provide what resources and time to which parts of the project. This can help you avoid confusion or conflict later on.

But is collaboration worth it?
Collaboration is a lot of work, but it also bolsters the research products by incorporating a variety of perspectives and expertise. In addition, according to Adams (2012), co-authored pubs tend to get cited more.

Resources:
The Rise of Research Networks - Adams (2012)
The Science of Team Science Website
Team Science Toolkit - NCI
Difference in collaboration patterns across discipline, career, and stages - PLOS Biology Journal

Writing Your Specific Aims

When it comes to applying for an NIH grant, your Specific Aims page is the most important and where you should spend the most time. Here's why: Although only a few reviewers are assigned your proposal to review, all of the reviewers in the study section will score your proposal. The reviewers not assigned your proposal will only have a chance to look at your Specific Aims page when your proposal is up for review. This means that although they will have the input of those reviewers who read your whole grant, they will be scoring your proposal based on the Specific Aims, which they'll be reading quickly as they try to listen to the primary and secondary reviewers' case.

So, it is of utmost importance that your Specific Aims be clear and compelling! Below, I offer some tips for the different sections of your Specific Aims page:

Intro:
In your opening paragraph, you want to hook your reviewers. Show them how big the problem is you're trying to solve. Use statistics to show how many people are affected by the problem and in what way. You want to evoke a feeling of urgency amongst your reviewers. But, don't leave it at that. You want to also make sure that you offer your project goal in the first couple of sentences; don't make your reviewers dig for what this proposal is all about.

Background:
After you've introduced your problem and your solution, you want to back it up. You need to describe the cutting edge research in your area (and highlight where you have already contributed to this research). After you've shown what's been happening, identify the gap that still remains and explain why that gap needs to be filled now, by you/your team.

Hypothesis:
Once you've shown the gap where you're focused, articulate your hypothesis. Your hypothesis should be testable and not descriptive.

Specific Aims:
Following your hypothesis, you outline your specific aims. Usually, you have 2-3 specific aims. These aims should be interrelated but not co-dependent. This can be a tricky balance, but it is essential. It's also important that your aims be very clear.  State each aim succinctly and follow it with a short sentence or two explaining it.

Vision:
To close your Specific Aims, be sure to bring it back to the vision of your research. Remember, people tend to remember what they read first and last the best, so make sure you leave reviewers with the punchline. Express the impact and what's possible down the road with this work!

Structuring your Specific Aims in this way, as well as hitting these points will allow this one page to flow, as well as be clear and compelling. Additionally, consider including a conceptual diagram of your aims in the page to more easily show how they fit together. Also, even though you'll be tight on space, make sure to keep space between your paragraphs to give your reviewer visual breaks. In everything you do, make sure you are making your Specific Aims page easy on your reviewer.

Resources:
The anatomy of the Specific Aims Page - Bioscience Writers
Writing Your Specific Aims Seminar - ORDE

ORDE Summer eSeminar Series

In case you're feeling in a rut this summer, ORDE is happy to share our summer eSeminar series on a series of grant development topics. CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campus faculty are welcome to register here. And for other folks, we will post the recordings on our Vimeo site shortly after.

Writing Specific Aims and Project Overviews

June 24, 2020

12:00 – 1:00 pm

Presenter: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director for Educational Outreach, ORDE

When it comes to grant proposals, your project overview or specific aims has been likened to the front door of your proposal. Even though reviewers may skip around your proposal, most start with the Project Overview/Specific Aims and have a pretty good idea of whether they like your proposal or not based on that one page. This makes your specific aims/project overview crucial to your competitiveness. Join us for this e-seminar where you’ll learn strategies for constructing your specific aims/project overview to make it as clear and compelling as possible.

Working with Program Officers

July 14, 2020

12:00 – 1:00 pm

Presenter: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director for Educational Outreach, ORDE

Program Officers are key when it comes to grant funding. They orchestrate an agency’s review process as well as reviewer selection, they help set the direction and priorities for an agency’s research agenda, and they have insight into what it takes to develop a competitive proposal for their agency. Thus, it is important to work with Program Officers as you develop your proposal. Join us for this e-seminar where you’ll learn step-by-step approaches to contacting and continuing to work with Program Officers.

Revising and Resubmitting your Grant Proposal

August 6, 2020

12:00 – 1:30 pm

Presenter: Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine

Few things are as disappointing as not getting your grant proposal funded, but it’s important to remember that all of the most funded researchers have had many proposals declined. What makes them successful, though, is that they didn’t let those rejections stop them. They listened to their reviewers, worked with their Program Officer, went back to the drawing board, and resubmitted a better proposal. Join us for this seminar where a faculty expert will discuss the resubmission process and how to be successful through it.

Resources

ORDE Summer eSeminar Series

ORDE Vimeo Site

ORDE 2019-2020 Seminar Videos

A couple of weeks ago, we had our last e-seminar of the spring semester. But, in case you missed it or any of our other seminars this year, you can now find recordings for most on our Vimeo page. We've had some good ones this year, so I wanted to highlight my favorites and encourage you to check them out!

Grant-Writing for the Layperson (Non-expert)
In this seminar, Rachel Sturtz, our resident Research Communications Specialist and Journalist, and I offer strategies for making your grant writing more accessible and easier to read. We offer examples from NIH and NSF proposals and workshop these examples to demonstrate how they could be written more clearly. We offer little tips for implementing these best practices into your own grant writing.

Grant Writing Symposium
Our Fall 2019 Grant Writing Symposium on the Anschutz Medical Campus was like three seminars in one - and so is the video. It begins with me giving an overview of the grant development cycle. Then, Adit Ginde, Professor in the School of Medicine, offers points on how to engage and work with Program Officers to hone your proposal. Jennifer Kemp, Director of Research in the Department of Medicine, offers strategies for crafting a competitive Specific Aims page. Andrew Thorburn, Professor in the School of Medicine closes with a presentation on 'What Reviewers Really Want."

These seasoned faculty members offer clear strategies in these key aspects of grant development, as well as their own personal experiences and insights to help you build your grants game!

Revising and Resubmitting Your Grant Proposal
In this seminar, Jean Scandlyn, Associate Professor in Health and Behavioral Sciences and I discuss how to accept feedback from reviewers (even when it comes with rejection) and use it, along with your Program Officer's advice to revise and resubmit a more robust and competitive proposal.

Stay tuned for our upcoming e-seminars, but in the meantime, catch up on some oldies but goodies!

Resources:
ORDE highlighted seminar recordings
ORDE Vimeo page