Faculty Development and Diversity

After I finish reviewing a stack of grant proposals, I'm reminded of how few applicants take their audience into account. Many proposals include obscure acronyms, few paragraph breaks, and no succinct summary of the research question.

A grant reviewer in the sciences has released a similar list of suggestions for grant writers. Not coincidentally, the reviewer advises applicants to show empathy for the overworked reader. Some of the tips:

• Use headers. Bold them and use them to show the flow of your argument.
• Include figures and visual aids to illustrate key data or methods.
• Give as much attention to the broader impact and diversity statements as you do to the project.

For BU faculty, we have additional resources available to help conform your grant to the new NIH format. Of course, reading too much advice can sometimes serve as a distraction from the actual writing of the grant.

The overriding message to keep in mind is to think like a reviewer. What are the criteria that reviewers are looking for? What formatting, figures, and language can you use that enhance clarity? In most cases, a reviewer comes to a conclusion by the first page and then looks for confirming evidence. Make that first page shine.

The latest issue of Academic Medicine features a commentary by Leslie Costello called "Is NIH Funding the 'Best Science by the Best Scientists?'" In it, she contends that changes to the NIH review process of R01 grants have introduced elements that undermine the central mission to reward the most worthy proposals.

Deciding what constitutes the "best science" will always require subjective judgment. On a recent round of grants that I reviewed, I was curious to see the comments of my fellow peer reviewers. Applications that I had graded with the lowest score others had given the highest score. It was rare to find the grant that all three reviewers marked with the same score.

Subjective though it may be, grant reviewing does tend to identify the applicants who have thought most carefully about their proposed projects. Those scientists will be the most effective stewards of the money the committee awards.

The media reported yesterday that the National Football League has donated $1 million to BU School of Medicine's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy.

The grant supports their research into the long-term effects of concussions on professional football players. Best of all, it comes with no strings attached.

With federal funding increasingly difficult to obtain, the example of our colleagues shows the importance of seeking creative sources for research support.

As I hear about other unusual granting agencies, I'll post them on the Faculty Development and Diversity website.

Tomorrow is the deadline for Faculty Development grants in the Department of Medicine. Although each discipline has its own conventions for grant writing, I still go back to a slender pamphlet I first encountered as a graduate student.

The Art of Writing Grant Proposals reveals the unspoken rules that funding committees follow. As they read, they always have three questions in mind:

• What does the applicant propose to do/learn?
• Why is it worth doing/learning?
• How do we know the applicant is qualified?

Keeping these questions in mind will help your application stand out in the pile.