"The Grant Application Writer's Workbook"
|
|
EDITIONS NOW AVAILABLE
| NIH SF 424 |
| Current 2009 format |
| Shortened 2010 format |
| NSF FastLane |
| USDA |
| Successful Proposals to Any Agency |
| Click Here |
|
This site best viewed at
1024 x 768 |
|
|
We
Make The Difference in Your Ability to Acquire Research Funding |
 |
|
|
It
is paradoxical that, while academicians are trained in depth to do research, they usually receive little or no formal training on how to support it with extramural grants.
Grant Writers' Seminars and Workshops, LLC was founded
by academicians, for academicians, to help overcome
that problem.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
The importance of the changes that NIH is implementing in the preparation and review of grant applications cannot be exaggerated. They collectively represent a true paradigm shift and include: |
Switch to a 9-point evaluation scale.
Greater emphasis on quality of content and less on detailed description of what will be done.
Greater emphasis on funding the applications of New/Early Stage Investigators.
Standardization and shortening of reviews.
Greater emphasis on the fastest path to funding: decision to reapply or switch to a new idea.
Shortening of the length of the Research Plan, with elimination of sections for review of literature and presentation of preliminary data.
Linkage of sections of the application to each of the five core review criteria.
|
These innovations will completely change the formatting and review of NIH research-grant proposals, not only technically, but philosophically. We are not usually given to hyperbole, but in this case it is warranted: In our opinion, these are – without question – the most important and positive changes in the writing and review of grant applications since we first began submitting proposals to NIH in 1972. Let us be your guide in turning these changes to your advantage. |
|
|
|
|
Grant-writing trainer with proven record returns to help faculty
BY CYNTHIA KING
WSU TODAY
|
Faculty Clifford Berkman and Jeffrey
Ullman have received multiple
research grants this year — success
they can directly attribute to skills
acquired in proposal-writing training
from Stephen Russell. Russell will return
to WSU for a third year to coach
faculty in creating successful proposals
during an upcoming seminar and
workshop.
While faculty members know their
disciplines, they don’t always receive
training in writing competitive proposals
with the reviewer in mind, said
chemistry professor Berkman. But this
is a key element of Russell’s approach.
"It’s a full mental workout," he said,
"and my proposals are stronger for it."
In addition to his own success, Ullman
recalls evaluating proposals while
sitting on a federal Environmental
Protection Agency review panel where
one proposal bore the hallmarks of the
"Russell method." "It was obvious
that person had taken his seminar,"
said the assistant professor/scientist
in biological systems engineering. "The
whole panel agreed it was one of the best
proposals."
Russell is a winemaker and academician
whose successful proposals continuously
funded his cancer research for more than 25 years.
As university department heads, he and his partner
in Grant Writers’ Seminars and Workshops
LLC began tutoring their faculty
in grant writing; their success spawned
their full-time business.
Berkman has been awarded three
grants this year for work on detection
of prostate cancer cells, including
$357,679 from the National Institutes
of Health and $679,964 from the
Washington State Life Science Discovery
Fund.
Ullman just received $350,000 from
the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust to
research contaminated river and lake
sediments. He earlier was funded by
the federal Department of Energy for
$185,112.
"That proposal was not only funded,"
he said, "but publicly released
results revealed our proposal was
ranked first out of 59 competing submissions."
Article Courtesy of WSU Today, the faculty/staff/graduate student newspaper of Washington State University
|
|