The art of grant writing

How many scientists, while writing a grant proposal, realize that they are producing a marketing document? The answer is, not enough, but the ones who do understand that they are selling their ideas and skills to the grant reviewers are the well-funded ones. The ability to market your ideas is the most critical feature of the art of grant writing. Marketing your research plan of course requires that you have a good idea, one that is creative, innovative, exciting and do-able. In clinical medicine or engineering, ideas might also be judged on their potential to lead to a pragmatic application. And, from the grant giver’s standpoint, a good idea has another important attribute. The grant giver’s goal is to fund work that furthers their mission. A good idea is one that’s in line with that mission. It came as a surprise to me several years ago when I realized that the main aim of the National Institutes of Health or the Medical Research Council is to not fund my research. Thus, the most important homework you can do, before writing the first word of a grant application, is to match your priorities with those of one or more grant givers. In grant writing, a good idea is necessary but not sufficient. Well crafted words cannot disguise a weak idea but poor writing can obscure even the best idea. Serving two four-year terms as a grant reviewer on an NIH Study Section, and doing a nationwide survey of my fellow reviewers, convinced me that unfocused writing is the single most common correctable fault of grant proposals that fail to get funded. A reviewer delivers the kiss of death if he or she says, “This grant is a fishing expedition.” It’s most often junior investigators who struggle to focus their writing but even experienced scientists can face this problem. After 20 years of grant writing, I can still produce wordy, unfocused first drafts and fail to recognize it. One of the most important things you can do to ensure that your writing is clear and focused is to get experienced grant writers to review drafts of your proposal. These should include an expert in your field, a good scientific editor (especially important if you’re writing in a language other than your mother tongue) and an intelligent non-specialist. A grantsavvy scientist in another discipline is best qualified to catch fuzzy writing and jargon. Finally, choose reviewers who have the time and who care enough about you and your career to do a careful review. Your department chairman might have the inclination but does he or she have the time?