Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
funded, pending the investigators ability to answer questions and make arrange-
ments for funding. Proposals below the line could become eligible for funding if
investigators of funded projects were unable to meet the requirements of the fund-
ing agency. No funding was provided for the lower-rated projects. Typical reasons
given for lack of funding were that they
•
Were not innovative
•
Lacked an adequate knowledge of the relevant literature
•
Lacked a clear research focus
•
Improperly cited critical references
•
Stated objectives that were not readily achievable
•
Lacked a practical bene fi t
•
Had investigators not qualified to do the proposed work
•
Had inadequate facilities or equipment
•
Presented a budget inadequate to achieve objectives
•
Were too ambitious
The Way Things Are
Grant writers soon find out that funding is not an ideal world. Like everything else,
the awarding of grants has its own little world and rarely lives up to our idealized
concepts. Here are a few things to think about:
•
A good idea is not sufficient in itself to receive funding. It must be presented in
its best light and in a way to give confidence that it will be executed properly.
It is not even always the best written proposal that gets funded if it misses a key
•
point or is promoting a poor idea.
There tends to be a bias toward experienced investigators who have a strong
•
reputation. This bias may be that they are expected to produce meaningful results,
that they have mastered the tricks of proposal writing, use the most up-to-date
buzzwords, or that they are just admired.
There also tends to be bias against small errors. A good idea paired with a good
•
plan may be killed by spelling or grammatical errors.
Terminology is a key to see who is keeping up with the literature and who is not.
•
Obsolete terms suggest obsolete ideas.
Reviewers are people too and can be appealed to by hopes, fears, and biases. The
•
investigator who condemns current thought in the field is probably condemning
several of the proposal's reviewers.
The proposal's customers are the reviewers. Positioning the proposal in the con-
•
text of the current literature offers the greatest chance of success (Ries and Trout,
2000
) .
Proposals too far ahead of their time are likely to be rejected for a low probability
•
of success. Reviewers generally reward someone who keeps up and can take it to
the next logical step.
