The "Well Defended"
Proposal
"What
succeeds in science is not the best idea, but the best defended idea."
Imagine a proposal that is due on June 15. A great deal must occur before the application deadline (which may be unknown until an outline has been developed and a funding source identified). The hypothetical schedule below (for the typical single laboratory grant proposal) assumes a concentration of effort in the final month. While realistic, it is always better to finish sooner.
| Be Prepared to: | During/By: |
| Think | September-December |
| Outline | January |
| Seek Advice/ Identify Funding Sources | Early February |
| Rethink | Mid-February |
| Prepare a Draft Budget | Late February |
| Discuss plans with a funding agency | Late February |
| Write | March |
| Revise | April 1-15 |
| Notify department administrator | April 15 |
| Ask colleagues to review draft | April 15-30 |
| Begin internal paperwork | May 1 |
| Revise | May 5-10 |
| Finalize budget (with administrator) | May 12-14 |
| Solicit final review by colleagues | May 15-22 |
| Revise | May 23-30 |
| Submit for internal sign-off | June 1 |
| Proofread | June 1-7 |
| Submit electronically | June 10 (be prepared to submit
at least 5 days before grant "due date."
This leeway is needed to accommodate possible corrections of errors, electronic delays, or unforeseen circumstances--all of which may result in the need to submit a corrected application. This application must be submitted--successfully--by 5 PM on the deadline date to be considered "on time." |
Read and understand funding opportunity announcements/instructions
Consider departmental and institutional regulations
Know the specific aims, approximate costs, and necessary preliminary data for the proposal
Talk with a program person at the funding agency
Your proposal should:
Be informative, succinct, and logical
Emphasize and re-emphasize the important points in your argument
Use fonts, headings, and spacing that improve readability
Not hide important information in the Appendix
Contain the kinds of buzzwords, phrases and arguments that the reviewer will want to see
Remember:
SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD
is not boring.
BORING is boring!
Did you . . . .
Receive (and read) comments from colleagues?
Adhere like epoxy to all of the funder's guidelines?
Proofread for errors in both narrative and budget?
Have someone with a fresh eye also proofread?
Write an abstract that agrees with the rest of the proposal?
Obtain all the necessary AECOM approvals?
Why Proposals Don't Get Funded
Guidelines are ignored
Importance of the project is unclear
Hypotheses are not supported by literature and/or preliminary data
Project is technology-driven rather than hypothesis-driven
Required personnel and expertise not assembled
Experimental plan is unfocused and hard to understand
Experiments do not include all relevant controls
Potential obstacles and alternate approaches are not discussed
Problems with methods and data analysis
Work load, budget and/or time-frame unrealistic
Weak conceptual framework
Inappropriate acknowledgement of previously published research
Investigators and/or consultants named in research narrative but not listed on budget or "Key Personnel" page
Institutional resources are insufficient
Letters of support were weak or unrelated to the proposal
