banner
You are not using a standards compliant browser. Because of this you may notice minor glitches in the rendering of this page. Please upgrade to a compliant browser for optimal viewing:
Firefox
Internet Explorer 7
Safari (Mac and PC)
Post Archive
2017 (0)2011 (2)
January (2)

*sigh*
Friday, January 7, 2011

Update on crazy
Monday, January 3, 2011
2010 (45)
December (9)

In need of a break...
Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Finding the "Merry" in Christmas
Thursday, December 23, 2010

Down time
Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The pump and science juggling act
Monday, December 20, 2010

But I don't wanna go to work
Saturday, December 18, 2010

Rejections
Thursday, December 16, 2010

In reverse
Monday, December 13, 2010

Back in the lab, sort of...
Wednesday, December 8, 2010

12 months of blogging...easy enough
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
November (7)

Open letter to committee head
Tuesday, November 30, 2010

By popular demand - The Arrival
Wednesday, November 24, 2010

How to do it all
Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Cabin Fever
Friday, November 19, 2010

Donation reward - new pics!
Friday, November 12, 2010

Totally non-science news
Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Why am I doing this?
Saturday, November 6, 2010
October (12)

Bribe time
Thursday, October 28, 2010

On the market - what to do with a priority score
Wednesday, October 27, 2010

DonorsChoose - more projects to support
Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Oh, the guilt...
Monday, October 25, 2010

Priority Score Confusion
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Working from home sucks; aka "Preeclampsia for Dummies"
Monday, October 18, 2010

Editor's choice
Thursday, October 14, 2010

Let the obsessing begin
Tuesday, October 12, 2010

DonorChoose - start giving!
Monday, October 11, 2010

Careful what I say...
Friday, October 8, 2010

To dance or teach...
Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Tailspin
Sunday, October 3, 2010
September (6)

Challenges at the bench
Monday, September 27, 2010

What am I really?
Monday, September 20, 2010

A double standard
Friday, September 17, 2010

The Little Lab Bench That Could
Saturday, September 11, 2010

What I'm glad I didn't know before...
Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Round Up: 8/29 - 9/4
Sunday, September 5, 2010
August (11)

Procrastinators beware...
Friday, August 27, 2010

You don't need no stinkin' permission
Monday, August 23, 2010

I'm still alive, just buried
Saturday, August 21, 2010

NanoKids!
Thursday, August 12, 2010

Dr. O's advice to new grad students
Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Open Letter
Monday, August 9, 2010

What you should know as a new TT faculty
Saturday, August 7, 2010

Tagged?!?
Friday, August 6, 2010

A little professionalism, please
Thursday, August 5, 2010

How picky is too picky?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Hello LabSpaces!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Rate This Post
Total votes: 3
Blogger Profile

Dr. O

After a frustrating year on the tenure-track job hunt, my eyes are still on the prize, and I've learned that sheer will might be the most important quality required for this career track.

My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.

Blog RSS Feed
RSS Add to My Yahoo Add to Google
Recent Comments
Comment by Lab Mom in *sigh*

I'll miss you!  But I will definitely catch your other blog! . . .Read More
Jan 09, 2011, 1:53am
Comment by Dr Becca, Ph.D. in *sigh*

Updating my blogroll! See you (and Monkey!) back at blogspot! . . .Read More
Jan 07, 2011, 10:42pm
Comment by Suzy in *sigh*

I am looking forward to reading more about Monkey too. Take care! . . .Read More
Jan 07, 2011, 7:44pm
Awesome Stuff


Friday, August 27, 2010

A third-year grad student in our lab recently submitted her first grant proposal. Watching her struggle through this process in an impossibly short amount of time (one month) has got me thinking about how little students are taught about grant-writing, especially with regards to how long writing a good grant actually takes. So for any of you [soon-to-be] first-time grant-writers out there, let me fill you in: writing a grant is hard work, and it takes a lot of time. Just ask any of the profs in your department, or the tenured and TT writers out here in the blogosphere. I know of no senior professor that writes a big* grant in less than a month, and junior profs, postdocs, graduate students, and undergraduates need increasingly more time and help to construct a fund-able proposal. My latest K grant re-submission was actually begun almost three months prior to the due date, and I needed almost every minute of it. But why does it take so much time when you (supposedly) know your science so well? Here are just a few reasons:

1. Grant-writing is a process. I'm a fairly good writer; not as good as some (my mentor is amazing), but I've read enough blogs/grants/papers to know I'm pretty good. There's a difference, though, between being a good writer and a good grant writer. Grant-writing requires that you know your science better than you ever thought possible. You have to know how much to include, be specific yet concise, and sell your data without over-hyping your hypothesis. I mentioned above that I started writing my last resubission three months ahead of the due date - that's kind of a lie. In truth, I started writing the grant last summer, when I began putting together the first draft of specific aims for my first submission. The metamorphosis of that first set of aims was tremendous between July and October, when the "final" grant was submitted. And the transformation from the time I got my summary statement in March until the resubmission deadline in July was equally impressive. Plus, not all scientists are good writers. This is not a tragic flaw, but it does mean that more time will be required to work through the proposal. And not only your time, but that of others, which leads me to...

2. It takes a village. The chair of our department is a phenomenal grant-writer. No, seriously, I mean phenomenal... we're talking all "1"s on his last competitive renewal. He's been writing grants for 40 years now, and I value his opinion above most others when it comes to NIH proposal preparation. He knows the system, and his science, very well. With all of this knowledge and experience, you think he trusted himself to prepare an iron-clad proposal with no help? Hell no! He had no fewer than 10 people read through his grant. All of his lab members (mostly postdocs and senior research associates) and several of his colleagues had a chance to tear it apart, and he was receptive to the battering. This also might be the most time-consuming part of grant-writing, however, because it requires giving potential readers ample time to critically read the proposal in the midst of their own hectic schedules. You absolutely CANNOT expect people to drop what they're doing to read your grant. For my latest submission, I found it most strategic to send my first draft (already edited by one of my labmates) to only a few individuals, wait for their edits (about 2 weeks), then send out the updated proposal to a new set of readers. This process alone took almost an entire month. While waiting for edits, I squeezed in a few more preliminary experiments at the bench, so I wasn't working on the grant for three months straight. But I needed almost the entire time to get the feedback my grant needed. The waiting also gave me time to work on the most "fun" part of grant writing...

3. Paperwork, your new best friend. Anybody who pays taxes understands how much of a bear the federal government can be. Multiply your IRS forms by about 100, and that's an NIH grant. Somewhere in the instructions for an NIH grant is a statement that it takes 40 hours to prepare a grant - that, folks, is the time it takes for the paperwork, not including your science. I have no experience with NSF funding, but I doubt it's much simpler. Even private foundations require quite the bit of hoop-jumping (American Heart Association is rumored to be just as cumbersome as NIH). Add on the time to contact people for rec letters, deal with your grants and contracts office, reign in collaborators, and get together biosafety, IACUC, and any other paperwork your proposal requires, and you've got a bureaucratic nightmare to contend with. This aspect of grant preparation cannot be ignored, pushed to the side, or left to the last minute, and you need a good deal of your proposal written to even begin dealing with many of these issues. Getting on it early is the best way to keep your administrative people happy and helpful. A last-minute application puts those guys in a mood, causes the applicant undue stress, and - in some cases - prevents a grant from ever making it out the door.

Bottom line - start early if you want to get funded, and ward off those gray hairs before the age of 30.

I'm sure there are others I left out; please feel free to add on below.

*Big is a relative term here - what's considered a "big" grant for an undergrad would likely be child's play for a tenured prof.

This post has been viewed: 405 time(s)

Blog Comments

Genomic Repairman
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike
Great post, I began writing for fellowships at the end of my first year and keep continuing to. Grant writing is a beast and my hat goes off to those that do it well.

Brian Krueger, PhD
Columbia University Medical Center
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike
There are some good tips in there. My PhD mentor was the same way though. Great grant writer and had a million people read his grant before he shipped it out. One nice thing at Iowa was that the senior faculty would hold workshops for the junior faculty when grant submission time came around. They'd ask the junior faculty for the grants and then they'd all have a big meeting where they tore the grants apart and offered suggestions. That sounded like a great system to me!

Dr. O
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike
@Brain - I love the mock grant review idea!! I've heard of several groups doing this, and it seems like such a great tool, especially for newbies. I'm trying to get something similar to this set up for postdocs at my MRU.

Dr Becca, Ph.D.
Rate Post:

Like 1 Dislike
Awesome post, and I totally concur with everything. I'd advise anyone who plans on applying for a grant to contact their institutional grants & contracts office first thing. They often have internal deadlines that are much earlier than the actual grant deadline, something that bit me in the ass HARD when I applied for my K99.

Jason Goldman
Rate Post:

Like 2 Dislike
I *wish* they offered grantsmanship courses, or workshops or SOMETHING at my institution. If they do, they're not well advertised.

Dr. O
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike
Great advice, too, Dr. Becca - checking with G&C ahead of time to set your schedule is crucial!!

@Jason - They likely have quite a bit for faculty, and it may be open to postdocs and/or grad students (or you might be able to talk them into opening them up ;). I'd check with the office for faculty development on your campus; they should be able to point you in the right direction.

Prabodh Kandala
Texas Tech University Health Science Center
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike
Dr. O, Thanks for sharing this. Definitely very valuable suggestion to some like me who is considering Academia.

biochem belle
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike
Great post, Dr.O! I would also add, make sure you carefully read the RFA-which can be fun, since NIH posts an original and then 20 updates to it-and the application instructions. I know one person who got all the necessary reference letters but didn't realize until after submission that references also had to submit a unique form, scoring the applicant in various areas. I have also known students who spent a great deal of time working on fellowship proposals to have them rejected without review because the institutional center at NIH that was the best fit did not support the F31 funding mechanism; I suspect there are other grant mechansisms as you move up the ladder that have similar restrictions. It's another good reason to contact your institutional grants office well in advance. And as Dr. Becca pointed out, you often have to have your grant completed before the deadline-typically around 5 days, I think-for the grants office to review.

Dr. O
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike
Thanks BB! A related point I forgot about (and you reminded me of) is to contact the program officer for your funding institution early with any questions you have about the RFA. The one I was working from for my K22 had a couple of inconsistencies that I never would have figured out on my own. Your PO is your best friend when working through a grant, especially one for NIH.
Add Comment?
Comments are closed 2 weeks after initial post.
Friends