Department of Physiology and Biophysics
University of Miami School of Medicine
October, 1995
Write your entire application, then put it aside for a few days. After that, re-read it in its entirety; you'll be surprised how many errors of repetition/poor logic/inconsistency you will find in the early drafts. Then give your revised draft to outside readers, allowing 2 weeks for their reading and critique, and then an additional two weeks to incorporate their suggestions. Give these outside readers your best draft, not your first draft. Don't waste their time, patience and expertise by giving them a draft that is incomplete or full of mistakes you could have fixed yourself.
Who should read your application?
These sections should introduce the reader to:
Make certain that your background discussion remains focussed on the issues your experiments will address. Identify relevant published papers to which you/your laboratory contributed. Cite the work of as many different laboratories/points of view as possible, consistent with clarity and space limitations. At the end of each topic, point out to the reader how your proposed experiments will help resolve important issues in the field.
Your Significance section should be thoughtful, but brief. If your project concerns basic research, don't overstate its clinical significance.
Show data demonstrating your ability to conduct the most difficult of the proposed experiments. Present your results (even if they are preliminary) in as professional a manner as possible, with clear and complete figure/table legends, calibrations, statistical analysis, etc. A great picture/graph is worth a thousand words. Don't just show raw data. Show only results that are relevant to the proposed experiments, and explicitly point out their relevance.
Present your preliminary data as objectively as possible. Don't overstate your claims or ignore different possible interpretations.
Publish as much of your work as possible in the most rigorous journals in your field. Their reviewers will provide expert commentary on your work, and the study section reviewers pay attention to what journals you publish in. It gives them an additional clue concerning the standards you set for your work.
It often helps to divide this section into Detailed Methods (where you give all the important specifics) and Experimental Strategy, where a clear narrative indicates the rationale and design of each experiment, and the interpretation you would give to each possible experimental outcome. Address the most basic issues first. For specific representative experiments, indicate not only how you will execute the experiments, but also how you will analyze the data, interpret various possible results, and revise your experimental plan as results unfold. Indicate important specifics: which exposure times, what concentrations of reagents, which statistical tests, etc., citing appropriate literature. Indicate why you are using each proposed reagent, and be up-to-date on that reagent's specificity. Minimize your use of abbreviations, and always explain the abbreviations you do use. Indicate your source for reagents that are not commercially available.
Address detailed attention to the techniques with which you have the least published experience, checking with experts to make certain your plans are realistic, state-of-the-art, and rigorous. It is helpful to state that you will consult with an expert concerning techniques in which you have less demonstrated expertise, but remember that all relevant techniques must be explained in your application. Remember that you are trying to sell yourself as a person qualified to oversee the entire project. If you do mention using expert consultants and collaborators, make certain that their Biographical Sketches and Support pages are included, as well as letters signed by them that specifically agree to do the things indicated your proposal. It is a good idea to send these experts a sample letter indicating the specific statements you would like them to include.
Try to incorporate your timetable within the body of experimental methods rather than in a specific section at the end. In my experience reviewers often tend to disagree with timetables and you can diffuse some of their objections by spreading out your timetable information, instead of putting it in a separate section at the end.
Avoid repeating yourself - it can make a tired reviewer angry. In other words, if you want to move a section of text, use the "Cut and paste" rather than the "Copy" routine of your word processor!
Try to close Methods with some overall enthusiastic statement about the importance of your experiments, rather than just petering out leaving the reader exhausted by details.
USE THE TIME BETWEEN SUBMISSION OF YOUR APPLICATION AND THE STUDY SECTION MEETING TO GATHER ADDITIONAL DATA TO BOLSTER ANY WEAK POINTS IN YOUR APPLICATION, AND TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL MANUSCRIPTS FOR PUBLICATION. MAKE CERTAIN YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (SUMMARIZED IN JUST A FEW PAGES) REACHES THE STUDY SECTION SECRETARY IN TIME TO HAVE IT SENT TO REVIEWERS BEFORE THE STUDY SECTION MEETS.
If you are just beginning as an independent investigator, don't ask for megabucks. Show the agency that you can complete a good small project for relatively few dollars, and they will be more willing to entrust you with more dollars to do bigger projects in the future.
Make certain your application is internally consistent. Your budget must agree with the experiments you propose.
JUSTIFY EVERYTHING. DON'T ASSUME THAT ANYTHING WILL BE OBVIOUS TO THE REVIEWER.
Personnel: Justify the amount of effort you propose to spend on the project; less than 20% raises concerns about your commitment to the study. Don't ask for more than 50% if you are on tenure-track. Indicate in detail how each salaried person (including yourself) will contribute to the project, including their experience and established expertise.
Consultant expenses: These are very hard to get. The request should be minimal and very well justified.
Equipment: Justify why you need each requested piece of equipment. If you are requesting a specialized item of equipment that costs more than standard, then you must specify in a convincing way which features of the deluxe model are vital for your project (i.e. why the standard, less expensive model isn't suitable for your project). Indicate in both the justification and in your experimental methods the specific experiments that need the requested pieces of equipment.
Study sections award equipment to beginning investigators just setting up their own laboratory, and to experienced investigators who need to replace equipment that has worn out or become obsolete. They will not give you an expensive item of equipment in an area in which you have no demonstrated expertise, so acquire the expertise on borrowed equipment before you apply.
Supplies: Design your experimental plan to make efficient use of supplies and labor. Think carefully about all the experiments you will need to do to accomplish your objectives, and plan your supply budget accordingly. For example, if you propose to do immunohistochemistry using rats, but have not included a request for antibodies, rat purchase and rat maintenance, the reviewers will question your competence to conduct these experiments. Each year's requested budget must agree with the number and type of experiments you propose to do in that year. For example, don't ask for funds in years 1 and 2 for supplies for experiments that will not be performed until the third year. A carefully detailed supply budget helps convince reviewers that you are capable of directing the project.
Travel: Ask for only one person to go to one meeting each year (current NIH standard is $1200).
Renovation expenses: I have never seen these awarded - forget it!
Other: Allowable expenses include: network, FAX, long distance, Xerox expenses needed to conduct the project; costs associated with publishing your results (make certain these are realistic in light of your publication record); charges for use of shared equipment/facilities needed by the project; costs of maintaining and repairing equipment (specify the equipment items; if the equipment is shared, ask for only the percentage of the maintenance contract justified by your project's proposed use of the equipment).
If the UM has made or will make a financial contribution to your project, e.g., funding a graduate student or helping you buy a piece of equipment, make certain that is noted. Study sections like to see a University commitment to the success of your research project.
If you decide to fix the application and re-apply, respond explicitly to each criticism and suggestion, indicating how and where you have revised your application. If you disagree with the reviewer on certain points, state your arguments in a logical manner. NEVER impugn the intelligence or motives of the reviewer. Add any additional improvements that you have thought of yourself, and point these out as well. Reviewers may have found 20 problems in your first application, but only commented on the 10 that they considered most important. They will be impressed if you find and fix the other 10 on your own.
Work hard, and good luck!