Category: Grant Writing

When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?

When choosing the primary sources for a research proposal, most of us experienced types dutifully instruct new researchers and proposal writers that sources older than five years are too old, unless you’re citing a seminal work. And there it usually ends–if primary research is less than five years old at the time of review, have at it. But recently a researcher pointed out the new reality of technology, the down side of our real-time existence–research that is too new. That’s right, research on which the digital ink has yet to dry can be too bleeding edge to reliably support your hypothesis in the eyes of reviewers. There are two primary reasons this is a new, but important, reality in the world of research proposals. Continue reading “When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?”

Plagiarism Is Theft of IP, and It Is Unethical in All Forms Period

I typically dislike getting into a fray, but a tweet this morning struck a nerve. I write the following entry not to start a throw down, but to defend intellectual property rights.

I was disheartened to read my Twitter feed this morning, in which @NatureNews (yes, Nature!) promoted one of its columns in which the author applies ethical relativism to plagiarism. He claims “not all plagiarism requires a retraction.” I respectfully disagree. The author divides plagiarism into three types of theft: ideas, results, and words. He argues vociferously against the theft of those areas in his wheelhouse, ideas and results, and thinks those thefts of intellectual property should be prosecuted to the fullest. He discounts the theft of writing, since apparently it is not something he “values”:

“Such plagiarism is unethical and it is a form of misconduct, but scientists are not writers. We value the originality of ideas more than of language. There are worse offences than text plagiarism — such as taking credit for someone else’s research ideas and lifting their results. These are harder to detect than copy-and-pasted text, so receive less attention. This should change. To help, academic journals could, for instance, change the ways in which they police and deal with such cases.”

Writing is a skill that enables the clear communication of ideas and results and facilitates the dissemination of knowledge and the development of science, among other things. It is essential, and it is valuable, and there are plenty of top scientists who are also superb writers. E. O. Wilson’s Diversity of Life was a major inspiration for me to become a wildlife biologist. Without his writing skill, I may never have become aware of his amazing, paradigm-shifting work in the field of biology, his science. To say that writing is not intellectual property to be valued in the same way “ideas” and “results” is to undermine the very way in which “ideas” and “results” live and perpetuate science, and it discounts the work of some of the best scientists in history who were also gifted writers.

Further, science is about the ability to synthesize information to create new ideas. Simple regurgitation and narration of past findings holds no value in the movement of science forward. Plagiarism of language is regurgitation used in narration, a mark of the lack of synthesis and original thought. Detection of plagiarism in documents such as research reports and grant proposals are clear indications that the writer is regurgitating, not synthesizing. What is the value of the research being reported or proposed in this case? Likely very little.

There are countless reasons why the theft of any intellectual property is wrong without caveat. It is theft, after all. Distinguishing between types of theft serves little purpose. And might I point out that people rarely steal that which they do not, in some way, value. To argue that language is of lesser value, and therefore its theft should be punished less than that of ideas and results is fallacious. If it is of little or no value to you, then don’t steal it.

Boom.

 

Grants Are Business


Those of you who follow my blog have probably noticed a lack of blogging of late–I am finishing my MBA, and there is quite a bit to do in these last weeks of the program. My first graduate degree was in biology, and the final weeks were actually much more relaxing than the months of research and writing that had preceded them. I am currently in a scramble to get things done, and to get done. So I will be brief.

In the MBA theme, I will share the key thesis of my grantsmanship strategy: A grant proposal is a business proposal. Boom. Pretty simple. But I am always amazed by how academicians want to resist the concept that they are, fundamentally, selling an idea and their team’s labor. There is some feeling among academics that the grant proposal is somehow more intellectual, more precious, than a business proposal. I’m here to tell you it is not. Rant, yell, cry, go through the five stages of grief, but at some point arrive to the realization that you are asking for money for your idea and a plan to create the end product . . . which is a business proposal.

Once you come to grips with the realization that a grant proposal is nothing more than a business proposal, you will be liberated and more efficient. At the highest level, if you are a strategic, efficient person, you will research the needs and perspective of the funder and have a much better understanding of the direction your proposal should take. That is, if you are strategic, you will do your research into what the funder is looking for and give it to them. This effect will ripple through all aspects of the development of your project and proposal, and you will produce a more competitive, fundable proposal. Boom.

How to Develop a Logic Model

In academic medicine, many programs are supported through extramural funding. Applications for this funding often require a logic model, the development of which is usually learned by new grant writing team members on-the-fly. Building a logic model is not hard, and it is an iterative process. The logic model provides a dynamic framework during the planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs. This makes it sound like one of those things people give the label “no right or wrong way of doing it.” On the contrary, while there are different ways of building a model, a “right” and good logic model is part of a competitive, strategic proposal. Continue reading “How to Develop a Logic Model”

Changes to Biographical Sketches for All Federal Agencies’ Funding Applications

While a full roll-out isn’t expected until 2016, the NIH and other federal funding agencies will be changing their bibliographical sketch format. Continue reading “Changes to Biographical Sketches for All Federal Agencies’ Funding Applications”

In Case You Missed It: NIH Amends Resubmission Policy

In 2009, the NIH restricted the number of resubmissions of applications for funding to one (A1), requiring any subsequent new research funding applications (A0) to be substantially different from the unfunded application. Shrinking research budgets and the impacts of this restriction–it requires researchers to substantially re-direct their work, which may mean reorienting the efforts of a whole lab–were taking an obvious toll on research, with many meritorious ideas being abandoned as a result of this restriction. Continue reading “In Case You Missed It: NIH Amends Resubmission Policy”

Plagiarism in Grant Proposals

Last year, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article titled “Plagiarism in Grant Proposals” by Karen M. Markin. The topic of plagiarism in grant proposals is something I discuss in my grant development seminars and workshops, and this article made the topic more tangible for many of the participants (although there is still always a lot of discussion and disbelief around the concept of self-plagiarism).  If you haven’t read this article, and you are involved in grant development, I would highly recommend that you take some time to review the article and share it with your team. One very salient point made is that the PI will always be held responsible for content, and the line “my graduate student did it” is not a defense.

Often, however, seminar and workshop participants ask for an example, and recently a case of plagiarism in a grant proposal was addressed by the Office of Research Integrity. Continue reading “Plagiarism in Grant Proposals”