Grant Writing

Remember the forest for the trees...

In other words, this is just the standard stuff that people need to be reminded about. The dealing with administrators section is below.

Different types of grants will have different audiences and require different write ups. However, there are some basic principles--and it still is the basic "tell them what you're going to say, say it, then tell them what you said". Frame your work within the "big picture", but then quickly lead people down the garden path to your actual proposal. You can't do everything at once, and not everything will work as planned--so leave yourself some wiggle room. And when you wrap it up and show how your proposal fits back in to the big picture and highlight where you can go from there.

You should have colleagues review it, but not just people in your speciality--reviewers will have a varied background. The medical school has an in house review process open to faculty members. You don't and shouldn't take everyone's advice, but it's better to get torn up in house before sending a grant out. Brevity and clarity are key (don't use this write up as an example). Pretend you are the reviewer--do you want to wade through all those pages?

In the details, you'll have to show that you have access to the knowledge and resources to complete the work. You are the expert in your area, but you are not the expert in everything--that's ok. Nor could you have every piece of equipment possible in your lab, you'll just need access to it. You may end up with formal collaborations and Co-PI's, or maybe just a letter of support (if that). Don't forget the "hands in the lab"--experiments don't run themselves.

If you're going for major pieces of equipment, you'll need to show that your work requires the precision/capabilities that the toys will provide. Also show you'll need to use it routinely. You do have to address the question of "why don't you just collaborate with someone who has what you need?"

If you are working with multiple PI's, tie all your research interests together--even if it's just to show you are coming from different backgrounds and are bringing different perspectives to the project.

Use your contacts, both in and out of your department and in and out of Yale. Both for in house reviewers, collaborators, and just bantering about ideas for grant proposals. At Yale, faculty are affiliated with colleges--go to the college functions to meet faculty from other departments. Sit at the "big table" for lunch. Yes, everyone has a lunch function, be it a lecture, meeting, conference, etc.--but get away from that at least a couple times a month and eat with members of other departments informally. That used to be done up in KBT--bring your own lunch if you don't like that food. Keep up with and in touch with your old labs and peers (ok, maybe not ALL of them). Set up your own "reviewing circle(s)" for grants and papers.

Long term aspects, prepare the ground first. You probably won't get funded first time out (or second or ...), but it's better to start from a "very good" than a "fair". In the mean time, write that review paper--draw the big picture yourself. Break down your research projects into near and longer term goals so you can get some good work out while the grants are being submitted. Hit the conference circuit--within limits. And vary the talk--there really should be something new/different in it each time you give it.

Get your grant in early. You may not always be able to do this, but if you have a history of getting things done early people will be more likely to help you out if you are running late one year.

You'll also need to get lists together:

1. List of grants that the new grant will help support, with a breakout of those that supply overhead money to Yale for discussions with Provost (exclude equipment, MRI, etc). Especially important for equipment/facility/major research initiative type grants, but always check with the P.I. first before using their grant to sell yours.
a. grants that make use of the lab/facility
b. grants that will make use of the new toys in the grant--get letters of support from the those P.I.'s.
c. You can look up grants awarded and amounts on the NSF website, but other granting agencies are less forthcoming. It it better to discuss this directly with the individual P.I.'s who will also benefit from the grant.
d. Always thank people who help out, even if they don't end up participating in the final version of the grant.

2. List of class use and student projects, especially undergrad use and independent study.
a. Yale classes and students for the Provost and the funding agency.
b. Outside Yale use--especially for the funding agency.
c. High school students and outreach programs that will have students who may participate in the grant's project(s).
d. Future class and outreach uses, e.g. an interdepartmental analytical course if your setting up/expanding an instrumentation center.

3. List of visiting students and scholars and inside and outside collaborations. Not all of these will be directly participating in the new grant, but this shows a history of making of working with outside users. You should be establishing yourself as "the place to go" for certain studies--which funding agencies and the Provost might like.
a. Inside Yale uses, especially interdepartmental ones are usually a plus for the Provost.
b. Outside Yale uses, shows your sharing the wealth and that the funding agencies can be getting more bang for their buck.

4. Never EVER oversell it and under support it. Good reviewers will kill grants in those cases--or worse, give the grant. And always be up front and honest with all involved.