GrantsmanshipA Personal View

Professor Mark Pallen

About me Total currently active

funding as PI: >£2 million

Eight BBSRC grants in last ten years as PI Co-I on five more At least five failed

proposals, including two Lolas

http://pathogenomics.bham.ac.uk/staff/mpallen.htmlhttp://twitter.com/#!/mjpallen

About me MRC grant £681,842 Sept 2010‐Aug 2013 (PI with Chrystala Constantinidou as co‐

investigator) Acinetobacter baumannii: genomic profiling of an emerging hospital pathogen

BBSRC grant £499,131 Sept 2010‐Aug 2013 (PI with Charles Penn and Chrystala

Constantinidou as co‐ investigators). The chicken caecal microbiome: from baselines to biological impact

BBSRC grant £909,978 Apr 2007-2012 (employs Nick Loman and Mihail Halachev) xBASE: a bioinformatics resource for the AgriFood Bacteriology

Community, BBSRC

http://pathogenomics.bham.ac.uk/staff/mpallen.htmlhttp://twitter.com/#!/mjpallen

Why apply for grants? Allows you to employ experienced staff Allows continuity in your research (3-5 years) More likely to produce REFable papers To pay for reagents

Which can be used to prime other projects To pay for equipment

Which can be kept after grant expires Which can be used for other purposes

To pay for travel

Loadsamoney in the lab! Because you have

persuaded referees and a panel of experts of your merit

Win-Win situation for you and the school or college Under RAE/REF money

earns money Overheads trickle down

through institution Leverage

You can (threaten to) take the money elsewhere

Keeps the powers that be responsive to your needs

Stops them dumping teaching and admin tasks on you

Dosh=Respect

Laying the groundwork Choosing the funding body and scheme

Check the web sites regularly and Research News Find the scheme/panel you want from the website Find out who is on panel and likely to introduce

your proposal Better chance if you are responding to a call

for proposals rather than just another responsive mode application to the panel

Laying the groundwork Recruit appropriate collaborators and co-

applicants Bring in skills, understanding and resources that

you lack Can shore up weaknesses in your own track record

and underwrite the feasibility of proposal The best collaborators will get the grant

waved through with minimal fuss, e.g. if FRS or Nobel laureate

Laying the groundwork Finding collaborators

Build and retain trust of peers Get out and mix a bit Go to conferences, and then to the bar Go off on sabbatical, research leave fellowship Twitter and blogging

Working with a foreign collaborator Can use each other’s pilot work Both can apply for funding for overlapping work in

each country

Grant-getting strategy: mouse or elephant?

When grants fail through bad luck Cf switch to r reproductive

strategy in unstable environment

Multiple applications The more tickets you buy, the

more chance you have of winning the lottery

Clone grants by Cut and Paste E.g. write identical grants on

gene regulation in E. coli and Salmonella

Grant-getting strategy: mouse or elephant? When grants fail through

poor quality Switch to K strategy adopted

in stable environment Concentrate on infrequent

high-quality applications Current Biosciences

approach Choice of strategy

depends on how good you are at writing grants there is a quality threshold

even for r strategy

Getting started Look over the online forms Read the instructions

Page allowance, font size, allowable expenses etc. BUT sometimes some wiggle room on document

layout, e.g. on character spacing, line spacing Liaise with the grants officers

Discuss any points of confusion Check whether your proposal covered by this

scheme/panel Remember they are human too: they could make

life difficult if they wanted to!

Writing the proposal Concentrate!

Bunk off all meetings Don’t open the post Pull the phone out of the wall Turn off email and Twitter [Pretend to] be a grumpy old git

Work at home? Unless you have pre-school kids

Force yourself to keep writing till it’s done!

Writing the proposal: Case for Support 1 People

Your track record and reputation (should be evidence-based)

Aim for “brand name recognition” Cultivate visibility in your discipline

Place Feasibility in your environment Mention lab refurbishment Mention new equipment Mention existing skills and achievements

Data release State that you will make reagents and info public Borrow text from previous grants

Writing the proposal: Case for Support 2 Make sure you address criteria used by referees

& panel Originality: keep up with the literature

If someone has done what you propose, you are sunk Expect reviewers to do their own PubMed searches!

Timeliness and promise Strategic relevance

What does the funding body say about its priority areas?

Impact on Health & Wealth Disease X kills Y million people and costs Z million

pounds per year in the UK

Background to the work Tightly argued case

not a general review! you need not have encyclopaedic knowledge to

make an original contribution Cite work of likely referees and panel members Stress your achievements and those of

collaborators “Professor X, a named collaborator on this grant,

has just won the Nobel prize for his work on Y” Pilot work/proof of principle experiments

Useful to establish feasibility But can be contrived or borrowed or even absent

Background to the work Get clear the aims and objectives of the proposed

work Get clear the questions that you intend to address Reviewers like Popperian hypothesis testing >

Baconian fishing exercises Exceptions: big biology, genomics, resource provision etc.

“If one is going to fish, it is best to do so in teeming waters with the finest equipment and flawless technique” John Weinstein

But data collection projects can be less risky You know that there is a genome sequence for organism

X! You may or may not be able to prove/disprove

hypothesis Y!

Presentation matters! The panel will have ~60

proposals to wade through Pay forensic attention to

typography, spelling, grammar, style If sloppy in this, they will assume

you are sloppy in your science Your PC or Mac is not a

typewriter Don’t ever, ever use underline Look at any professionally

typeset material and you will not see it!

Presentation matters! Use plenty of white space

Avoid “wall of words” Break up text with headings, figures, bulleted lists,

lines Give full references with titles if possible

Highlight the things that matter Create your own PDF rather let website do it

avoids awkward page breaks and other snafus

Less is More! Do NOT blind reader with technical detail

“TLDR” response will kill your proposal! You must retain the interest of the introducing

member You can fill in the gaps in technical detail in your

response to referees’ comments If pushed for space, decant material into

summaries, impact statements, justification etc

Sales Pitch Introducing member and most referees will not

be experts in your field Sell the proposal by:

Rehearsing your elevator pitch on a colleague Plain English (think New Scientist or Scientific

American) Clear Objectives and Tasks: what you aim to achieve

and what you aim to achieve Nicely laid out lines of argument

Stand out from the crowd Say, by using a colourful turn of phrase e.g. “the

scatterlings of virulence” while avoiding gimmickry!

The Power of Positive Language ability, achieve, amply, attractive, bold, broad,

capability, complete, comprehensive, crucial, cutting-edge, easily, efficient, emerging, empower, enabling, enhance, enthusiastic, entire, establish, excellent, exciting, experienced, explore, exponential, extensive, facilitate, far-reaching, fascinating, fortunate, focussed, highlight, high-throughput, ideal, impact, important, in-depth, insight, integrate, interesting, key, new, novel, numerous, opportune, opportunity, pioneering, powerful, pressing, privileged, prime, progress, promising, rapid, relevant, remarkable, rich, scalable, skilful, sophisticated, special, spectacular, successful, superlative, superb, synergy, tailored, timely, ultimate, underpin, unified, unique, unparalleled, urgent, well-grounded, well-equipped, well-placed, well-supported, well-qualified, worthwhile

Programme of Proposed work Describe tasks and sub-tasks

Task 1 Task 2

Task 2.1

Provide just enough technical detail Cite existing methods, particularly in your own

publications Provide proof that they work in your lab Describe novel methods in more detail

Programme of Proposed work The standard response of the disgruntled

reviewer “This proposal is over-ambitious and unfocused”

How to avoid this Don’t try to be all things to all people, leaving no

stone unturned Point out what you will not be doing, the limits of

the work, what will be left for subsequent proposals

Point out that, even if you achieve only a part of what you propose, this will still be worthwhile

Programme of Proposed work Don’t rely on a linear

progression of tasks Success in Task A required for

Task B Success in Task B required for

Task C Reviewer will recognise that

whole programme of work will fail if Task A unsuccessful and say “This proposal is just too risky”

Provide parallel strands Provide mitigating strategies

e.g. if approach A doesn’t work we will use approach B

But don’t overdo the caveats, keep a nice linear narrative

Don’t risk falling at the first hurdle

Programme of Proposed work Use language that projects confidence that

you can and will do the work Don’t say: “if successful, we propose to clone

gene X in year 1” Do say: “We will clone gene X in year 1”

Make a clear distinction between “given” and “new” Don’t say “we will use Fred Blogg’s method”

without clarifying who Fred Bloggs is and what his method is

Programme of Proposed work Describe a timetable, with

goals to be achieved by set dates, project milestones design a snazzy Gantt chart?

Describe arrangements for project management Weekly meetings with staff Research in progress

meetings Meetings with

collaborators/stakeholders Consider having a steering

group

Costings ~£15-17K per year for lab consumables Unnamed PDRA will be allocated spinal point Consider adding technician and/or co-

investigator But don’t get too greedy

Ask for Computers Lab equipment Publication charges Travel expenses

Use named researchers Many research projects compromised by inability to

recruit suitable research staff therefore best to mitigate this risk by naming researchers

on the proposal will also allow you to ask for a higher salary allocation

What if you have no obvious candidates already in your research group? ask around to find anyone on payroll who might be

suitable Walking the ethical shadow line

Naming someone who is probably not going to take the job, but might just do so if all other options fail, versus naming someone who will definitely not take the job

Justification Justify equipment, staff Use stock phrases

“Although such equipment is currently available, this project will make such excessive use as to justify new equipment

“consumables costs are based on previous experience in our lab and take into account bulk purchasing arrangements.”

“this project requires a rare blend of spoon-bending and yodelling skills. We are fortunate in recruiting Dr X who has just these skills. Given her experience and unique skills mix we feel justified in asking for an inflated salary…”

Getting your first draft reviewed Try and identify and address potential

concerns of referees and panel Get a colleague not involved in the work to

read it The best internal peer-reviewer is someone

from your institution or a collaborator who sits on the panel They will have to go out of the room when

proposal discussed SO, you must nag them into reading your proposal

and giving you insight into work and personalities of the panel

Submitting a proposal Arrange in advance to get the approvals Parallelise the work:

Completing internal paperwork Getting costings calculated and approved by

Finance Fine-tuning scientific case

Remember: J-eS knows when you are in a hurry! Give yourself 24-48 hours to spare

Getting the best out of peer review Choose peer-reviewers that you know and

trust Best reviewers are people

who know you well from previous collaborations and from the conference bar

BUT who are not currently (or at least obviously) working with you on the kind of work you propose

In a narrow discipline difficult to find people with whom you have no dealings whatsoever Reviewers can declare “irrelevant” or dormant

collaborations if necessary and panels will still accept a review from them

Getting the best out of peer review You have enemies or competitors?

Compromise their ability to peer-review your proposal by Asking them to collaborate Asking them to sit on a steering group If necessary, state that there is a conflict when

submitting

Getting the best out of peer review Use you right to reply to reviewers’ comments

Do NOT ignore this opportunity! Take every opportunity to accentuate the

positive “We are pleased that reviewers 1 and 3 agree that

the work is timely and feasible” Fill in gaps and correct misconceptions

Tip in new pilot data

The verdict? Panel reviews and makes recommendations

Some proposals definitely funded/not funded Others await approval

Spies on committee can let you know how it has gone BUT councils now keen to control leaks so don’t

compromise your mates The decision is non-negotiable!

If you are successful... Remember time limit on starting

Grants start when salary costs accrued Make sure you got all you asked for Getting the money is just the start…

Now you have to deliver! Ask HR to do whatever is necessary to recruit best

person for the job End of grant report Audits

If at first you don’t succeed… Find out why

Just bad luck: it was a competitive round Lack of pilot data Badly written proposal

(usually means badly thought out) Fundamental flaws?

Rectify faults and re-apply

Apply elsewhere! First Law of Grant thermodynamics

No grant proposal is ever created or destroyed, merely re-cycled to a different funding agency or purpose

Aim for self-sustaining criticality Always have more than one proposal on the go, so

that you can quickly come to terms with the loss of an application by looking forward to the next one.

Conclusion No more excuses! No more philosophising! No more navel-gazing! Find out the deadline! Scrutinise the form! Write the grant! Seize the day!