Writing successful grant applications for preclinical studies.

The most common source of funding for grant proposals in the field of biology in the United States is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, and many local agencies are utilized by many investigators. An insight into the NIH guidelines and procedures is provided by an NIH Web site: http:// grants.nih.gov/grants/grant tips.htm. Based on my many years of preparing and evaluating proposals for the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and Veterans’ Administration, I can offer a few suggestions that may make the process more approachable. The NIH is a relatively transparent system. Proposals go to the Center for Scientific Review, and the names of the various study sections and their membership are available at: http:// www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp. The prospective grant writer can see where a proposal is likely to go and who will be reviewing it. It is certainly legal to write a covering letter suggesting a study section, but this will not necessarily be followed. Membership of other review groups is not necessarily made public, but some perseverance may yield results. The major goal here is to have the option of tailoring the proposal to the (likely) reviewers. Do not forget to refer to work done by members of the target study section in the proposal. It is also very helpful to get a few critics to look over a proposal before it is submitted. Often, a new set of eyes will pick up mistakes and assist in clarification of issues. It has been said, with some justification, that the grants review process is an adversarial process. The reviewers will initially be looking for justification to criticize a proposal. Only if nothing obvious is found will the review turn out to be favorable. At the present time, the pay line for the NIH is in the vicinity of 11%. The procedure is for the bottom 50% to be identified, and not actually discussed at study section meetings. This saves time for the proposals in the top 50% that stand some chance of being awarded. This decision is made by the two or three reviewers to whom each grant is initially assigned. It takes a unanimous vote of the study section to “triage” a proposal. Otherwise, the proposals are presented by the assigned reviewers and discussed by the entire panel. This process is also generally followed by other review groups. In order to get a proposal favorably considered, it needs to have a rationale, enough preliminary data to convince reviewers that the work can be accomplished, and evidence that the techniques to be used are feasible and can readily be carried out. It is not a good idea to propose that some expensive piece of equipment is needed and that the operator will read the instruction manual to learn how to use it. The reviewers will be looking at the expertise and publications record of the applicant, along with those *From the Departments of Pharmacology and Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, PA. Dr. Kessel has been a Council member and Secretary/Treasurer of the American Society for Photobiology and is one of the Directors of the International Photodynamic Association. He is now President-Elect of that Association. Manuscript received April 9, 2006; revision accepted April 11, 2006. The author has no conflicts of interest with any of the organizations cited in the study. Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians (www.chestjournal. org/misc/reprints.shtml). Correspondence to: David Kessel, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 540 E Canfield St, Detroit, MI 48201; e-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1378/chest.130.1.296 CHEST Postgraduate Education Corner