This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Do not take this grant for granted
Soon after I chose an academic career path, I started learning how faculty members need to obtain revenue for their chosen institution through grant money, and how that helps their rise up the ladder of success. So, I thought, if writing a grant is so important, why not try it right now rather than after the fellowship is finished? I may not always have so many people to turn to for help and questions. Hence I began research into the sources of grants for fellows, what are their requirements and how to fulfill them. In the process of looking for the right answers, I learned quite a few details that I think will be worthwhile to share. Most of these guidelines are from my mentors and some resources I discovered on the internet.
|
|
Where to look
There are several institutions and resources that fund innovative research projects for young investigators: ASCO, American Society of Hematology, European Haematology Association, American Association of Cancer Research, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Gateway for Cancer Research (formerly CTRF) and the ACS, to name a few. These and many other non-government and government organizations are willing to support research initiatives by fellows, and being a young investigator may actually be looked at favorably due to the fresh perspective fellows may offer. The thought process must be initiated in the first year and applications should be planned for the fall of the second or third year of fellowship. It is important to identify the target agency and follow their timelines closely. Decide which resource(s) to target and identify the disciplines that a particular agency likes to fund. They are more likely to stick to their preferred fields and disciplines.
How to start
It all begins with an idea; a hypothesis. If your own thoughts seem too extravagant or radical, it is helpful to ask your mentor to help with a more feasible project that is likely to be funded. The hypothesis should be based on preliminary data that you have already obtained through existing data review and experimental design. Again, understand and stick to the particular grant guidelines and solicitation.
I turned to my mentor; after discussing the hypothesis, he asked me to start by writing ‘parts A, B, C and D’ of the grant application. Initially I did not understand this terminology, but then I looked up the NIH website and understood what I was missing! These parts stand for specific aims, background and significance, preliminary results, and research design and methods. I realized that besides using the grant agency’s guidelines, it is good to use this basic NIH style as it conveys that the application is not necessarily completed by a novice and that someone “did their homework.”
The write up
Plan to write the above mentioned parts A, B, C and D; be explicit and clear about the specific aims. Apart from being exciting, these need to be feasible — and that is where the help of a mentor can be invaluable. An introductory paragraph may be required and is often helpful, as this essentially sets the stage for things to follow. Grant reviewers may not be from the same field of interest and so the introduction should convey your point of view to them and hold their attention in a simple, easily understandable manner, rather than unnecessary jargon.
The background should be brief, but thorough. We really need to sell our stories here. Reference the write up adequately to convey your background spadework. Acknowledge that there may be other points of view, but justify why your point of view is better and more achievable. If your excitement can be observed by the reviewers, it is a perfect beginning.
Preliminary data are important for the reviewer to estimate the strength of the hypothesis, feasibility of the project and logical thinking behind the idea. For a young investigator there may not be a lot of preliminary data to start with, but whatever it is surely has to be believable and of projected clinical significance. Scientific methods used to obtain the preliminary data should be sound. Be honest about the limitations of the preliminary data and acknowledge the need to study it further in the context of specific aims of the current grant proposal.
Design and methods probably need to be the largest section of the research plan. This is where the justification of the aims, availability and use of resources and linking the preliminary data to the specific aims needs to be laid out. Most young investigator grant resources do not ask to provide detailed methodology, but a nicely described research plan is a good defense against possible critique and assures the agency that their money can be put to good use. Why was this particular study design, this patient population and this intervention chosen? What is the justification of chosen end points? What is the statistical plan and how does that justify the methodology or number of participants and experiments?
There are some other elements of the write up that may not be required universally, but I am told, are considered insightful and intelligent on part of the investigator. These include expected results, potential pitfalls, alternatives in the event of those pitfalls, timelines for the various aims and future directions. These can be mentioned with the research plan.
The budget
Budget is an essential part of the application that has to be addressed carefully, and that is what the grants budget officer helps with. Again, there is a basic NIH budget format that is helpful for starters. Components include personnel (which collaborators; what will they do; how much effort, salary and time; inflation adjustments), supplies (consumables in the research), equipment, charges for using core facilities (break up of what needs to be done, eg, flow cytometry for antibodies, cost of each antibody, number of samples and total), travel costs (who will travel, where, why), institutional overhead costs and miscellaneous charges. Justification for all of these may not be required for a young investigator grant (usually lesser amount), but it is a good habit to think the whole budget through. Grant applications may have some specific requirements, refer to them.
Some extras are required for all grants that may not be a part of the main narrative, eg, letters of support and commitment from the mentor and the institution (important for young investigators). These convey to the agency that the applicant is worthy and has the support and confidence of his/her institution, its core facilities and his/her mentor. Letters from collaborators are also helpful; they show that the collaborators and consultants have indeed agreed to and endorse the research plan. Certain things can be attached as appendices to save important space within the project narrative: institutional review board status of the proposed research protocol (the agency needs to know that you are planning to truly go through with the project, not just get the money and then decide); documents supporting human and animal research, eg, source of biospecimens and human participants, consents, enrollment feasibility, data safety monitoring plans, quality assurance checks inbuilt within the project, literature references, and extra figures and tables. All of these may not be required for smaller grant amounts and young investigators.
Some fine points
Now a summary of what I learned absolutely not to do or things I was told not to miss out on. Do not cut and paste from the research study protocol to the narrative. The font should not be less than 11 points. Margins of the document should be justified. Not too many complex figures and tables. Spend enough time to refine the figures and embed them into the text. Be explicit about the aims and research plans. Arrange for the supporting letters well in advance. Grants need to be “routed” through the institution prior to submitting; familiarize with this process early. Write and re-write the narrative. Remind yourself that preliminary results and design/methods are the most important sections — not the background; that is other’s work. Chose your team early — research staff, core facilities, biostatistics and of course a mentor who believes in you.
Although you have all the time to think about my experiences from writing the first grant, I just want to summarize that the process should be begun with a well-conceived idea and followed through with a carefully laid out plan. Know the market, your buyer and your competition. Find a good home for your grant and sell it well!
Sikander Ailawadhi, MD is a second-year medical oncology fellow at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. and is a member of the HemOnc Today Editorial Board. Dr. Ailawadhi would like to acknowledge his mentor, Dr. Asher Chanan-Khan at Roswell Park Cancer Institute.