The first rule of writing? “Write to your audience!” For scientific and medical grant proposals, that audience comprises our human scientist and stakeholder peers. Or does it?
Continue reading “Has AI Changed Your Proposal’s Audience?”Tag: NIH
How to Use Emphasis in a Grant Abstract…and Beyond
Recently, the question arose as to whether it is appropriate to use emphasis (bold, italic, underline) in an NIH grant abstract. Here is my advice!
Recently, the question arose as to whether it is appropriate to use emphasis (bold, italic, underline) in an NIH grant project summary/abstract. After all, the person pointed out, this section is posted in NIH RePORTER in plain text, without any emphasis. Here is my reply to that query:
Emphasis is a strategy targeting the reviewer audience. More specifically, it assists the reviewers who were not assigned the proposal for primary or secondary review and may be looking at the package for the first time in real time in the review session.
With that audience in mind, my strategy is to emphasize key terms to visually ‘index’ the paragraph to provide multiple easy access points to the material, since usually it’s solid text. You can emphasize the key structural elements of the proposal, like ‘long-term goal,’ ‘rationale,’ ‘specific aims,’ etc. But you can also sparingly emphasize other key words, ‘innovative’ or ‘novel,’ for example, to draw the reader’s eye to that key information.
Just like elsewhere in the application, emphasis should be used sparingly in this section. If everything’s important, nothing’s important. In such a constricted space, restricting emphasis to the key words or phrases creates that ‘indexing’—emphasizing whole sentences as one might in a longer section muddies the waters and undermines the value of the emphasis. (Also, I am more familiar with using underlined italics [rather than, say bold], for this purpose. I tend to reserve bold for section headings and the specific aims.)
So yes, when writing or editing the project summary/abstract section (hereafter let’s use simply “abstract” to keep things succinct) of an NIH grant, it is not only appropriate but strategic to use emphasis to assist reviewers in understanding your proposed project. A fellow editor who agreed with this approach also suggested that sometimes you can take strategic use of emphasis to focus a reader’s attention a step further. If your project is wildly transformative and the other elements of your proposal are not unusual, she advocates limiting the application of emphasis to only the description of the transformative element(s) of the proposal.
Emphasis plays an important role in strategic grantsmanship, not only in the abstract but throughout the proposal. When used consistently and conservatively, emphasis helps the reader distinguish the main points of the proposal. As I alluded to in my initial response, there is an expectation that certain elements of proposals will be emphasized. To elaborate, not meeting those formatting expectations can distract experienced reviewers. Why make it hard for people to give you funding? Meet expectations and let your innovative ideas be what captures their attention.
While most grant writers would prefer to think readers and reviewers are soaking up every word of their proposal, it is important to acknowledge that each proposal has multiple audiences to which the writer must appeal. Strategic use of emphasis provides one of the most useful tools for mastering that complicated task.
Should I Resubmit?
Seasoned PIs know that resubmissions generally have a much higher success rate than new submissions.
Seasoned grant seekers know that thick skin and abundant tenacity often separate the funded from the unfunded, and resubmission is just part of the process. Of course, getting comfortable with the concept of the sunk cost fallacy and being willing to walk away from untenable (read: unfundable) proposals is also a skill that will optimize your return on your valuable time.
Continue reading “Should I Resubmit?”
4 Quick Ways to Catch up on Critical Changes to Federal Grant Applications and Processes
The new year is a great time to recommit to your funding pursuit and do some deep work on crafting a funding strategy and drafting some proposals, but that energy will be misspent if you haven’t spent some time catching up with NIH policies effective in the new year. So here are 4 great sources for news everyone applying for funding should know.
Updated 12 December 2017.
Just a quick reminder to everyone to set some time aside over the holidays to review changes to NIH policy (e.g., clinical trials) before drafting a funding strategy for 2018. The new year is a great time to recommit to your funding pursuit and do some deep work on crafting a funding strategy and drafting some proposals, but that energy will be misspent if you haven’t spent some time catching up with NIH policies effective in the new year. So here are 4 great sources for news everyone applying for funding should know. Continue reading “4 Quick Ways to Catch up on Critical Changes to Federal Grant Applications and Processes”
Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 4)
This is the last part in the series of posts explaining the new NIH biosketch format and elucidating some strategies writers may want to consider when developing this part of the application.
I think this will be my last post about the NIH biosketch form for a while. It’s dry stuff, even for the topic of grants. It’s hard to blog about grants, mostly because there is so much understandable anxiety out there around the topic of grants and research funding. In my in-person training sessions and consulting, I lighten the mood with a little dry humor, and usually all of the interaction in the sessions keeps the mood lighter, too. In my blog, however, I do keep the tone more serious overall, mostly because people can be really stressed about funding, and I want this space to be a resource they feel they can trust. That squeezes humor out the door a bit. Even so, dealing with the trauma investigators feel as a result of the new biosketch form has really bummed me out, so I really just need to finish up this series and move on. As usual, though, I welcome any questions folks may have! I don’t have all the answers, but I do have some strategies and some good questions to think about. Usually that’s what people need more than a stock answer, anyway. Continue reading “Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 4)”
How to Explain Gaps in Your NIH Biosketch
You have the opportunity in the NIH biosketch to explain any gaps in your research productivity. Usually the question is, will saying I took time off for family obligations affect the perception of me? The answer is it shouldn’t, but it might. Here’s how you handle it.
You have the opportunity in the NIH biosketch to explain any gaps in your research productivity. Military service, family obligations, illness, and disability are the main reasons for gaps that quickly come to mind, but those are not the only reasons one may have for a gap. Explanation of any gap is not required, and many female researchers with whom I have discussed this topic have viscerally negative reactions to this part of the Personal Statement (PS) section of the biosketch. Usually the question is, will saying I took time off for family obligations affect the perception of me? The answer is it shouldn’t, but it might. Here’s how you handle it. Continue reading “How to Explain Gaps in Your NIH Biosketch”
Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 3)
With the advent of the Contribution to Science (C2S) section as the major part of the new NIH biosketch format, the strategy for writing the (PS) has become a bit more complicated.
Today I offer a review of the NIH biosketch Personal Statement (PS) and pertinent strategies for this section in the new format that goes into effect on 25 May 2015. The function of the PS in the new format is the same as before, to “briefly describe why you are well-suited [sic] for your role in the project described in this application,” but with the advent of the Contribution to Science (C2S) section as the major part of the new biosketch, the strategy for writing the PS has become a bit more complicated.
Continue reading “Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 3)”
Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 2)
The new Contribution to Science section of the new NIH biosketch format is what seems to be exercising researchers the most. While comments in response to the initial announcement about these changes on Dr. Sally Rockey’s blog cover a wide range of anxieties pertaining to this change, the angst seems to boil down in many (but not all) cases to questions about length and motivation. Length is what it is, but regarding motivation: How do position yourself and phrase your descriptions if you don’t understand the motivation of the audience to which you are writing? In this post, I discuss the likely motivation behind this change and strategies for writing an effective, competitive Contribution to Science section.
Yesterday’s post discussed how the new NIH biosketch format is raising the anxiety levels of many researchers. I stick with my assertion that the change is likely inevitable, so the strategic researcher will channel that energy currently fueling the anxiety into developing a new, strategic, biosketch in the new format. Yesterday I reviewed some basic strategic concepts behind the biosketch in general, and today I will discuss some strategies specific to the new format of the NIH biosketch.
Continue reading “Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 2)”
Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part I)
I understand the anxiety researchers are feeling about the change to the NIH biosketch format. However, I would suggest it is wise to accept the inevitability of the change and put that energy into focusing on some strategies for making yourself and your team shine in your new biosketches.
I led a seminar on the new NIH biosketch format earlier this week, and it was rough going. People don’t like change, and, as a result, almost every change will meet a certain amount of pushback. Those of us on the front lines are used to hearing the static from those affected by changes, but this was exceptional (although not unexpected). The online feedback regarding NIH’s initial post in May about the new format was mostly negative and sometimes fairly hostile, and some in the room this week voiced many of the same complaints about the format. I understand the anxiety researchers are feeling with this change; however, rather than go into any detail about the complaints about the new format (you can read them online at the link above and in response to NIH’s post on the subject this week), I would suggest it is wise to accept the inevitability of the change to the NIH biosketch format and put that energy into focusing on some strategies for making yourself and your team shine in your new biosketches.
For my part, for the next few days I will share some strategies for writing a competitive NIH biosketch using the new format.
Continue reading “Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part I)”
NIH Announces Genomic Data Sharing Policy
Today, Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the NIH, announced in her blog that the NIH has published the final NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy. This policy requires that researchers proposing research that will result in “large-scale human or non-human genomic data” provide a genomic data sharing plan in their application for NIH funding (unless otherwise explicitly stated in the funding announcement). Continue reading “NIH Announces Genomic Data Sharing Policy”