Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 16.1
Success rates for various grant-funding agency programs
(parentheses represent letters of intent)
NSF FY 2008
25%
NSF FY 2009
32%
USDA NRI FY 2006
22%
USDA NRI FY 2007
16%
USDA NRI FY 2008
22% (11%)
USDA AFRI FY 2009
18% (9%)
USDA SBIR Phase I
11%
USDA SCRI FY 2008
31% (9%)
USDA SCRI FY 2009
40% (13%)
Sources for information:
Sheely et al.,
2010
•
Divergers are the investigators most likely to be rewarded because reviewers and
agencies tend to favor problem solvers.
In viewing the résumés, reviewers tend to be more impressed with research publi-
•
cations than review articles and topic chapters. Participation in other grants is also
viewed favorably as long as they are followed up by timely publication of results.
Breaking into the class of funded scientists is a very difficult assignment with
rather low success rates (Table
16.1
). For every funded proposal, there are at least
two and maybe as many as six proposals that are not funded. That amount can go up
to nine or ten letters of intent that are not funded for every one that is funded. In
addition, experienced grant writers are likely to have a higher rate of success
than those who have never been funded. Despite the odds, every successful grant
writer broke through for the first time once. There are topics that will provide some
insight into the grant writing process (Blackburn,
2003
; Chapin,
2004
) and websites
about.html
)
, but grant programs vary so much from program to program that it is
difficult to provide recommendations that apply to specific programs. Many pro-
grams provide webinars on grant opportunities and national meetings may offer
insights into funding decisions.
Two ways to learn how to write effective grants are to find a mentor or write as
many proposals as it takes to be successful. Possible mentors are our major profes-
sor while still in school or a colleague when we start seeking our own grants. Our
major professor may be more than happy to help us learn the craft but may also view
us as competitors, if not now then in the future. Likewise, a colleague might view us
as competitors. Volunteering to be a lead investigator with a colleague for programs
they do not usually apply for might be a way to get a good start. When our grant
application is rejected we should not be satisfied with just the written comments.
Communication with the panel director will help us gauge whether it is worthwhile
