Points to bear in mind when preparing a grant application
1. General advice
Timing
Remember to allow yourself plenty of time before the application closing date
Take into account any institutional deadlines that could delay your application, as well as any personal deadlines where collaborating investigators are involved.
Guidance relating to the form
It is important to read all the relevant application form guidance notes carefully and answer all of the questions
If you have any queries when applying to the Wellcome Trust, please contact the Grants Service Desk for advice (tel. +44 (0)20 7611 2020; grantenquiries@wellcome.ac.uk) or your direct contact, if you have one.
Formatting the document
- You should use the requested type size, font, spacing and margin specification. Check for any typos or spelling errors etc. that may distract the reader and check your grammar is correct. Re-read your application and have someone else proofread it for you.
- Make sure that any tracked changes have been accepted
- It is advisable to list all references consistently, using the format requested.
Mentoring and input from colleagues
- Discuss your proposal with your sponsor, mentor or a senior colleague
- Ask a clinician to review a basic biomedical proposal, or a basic scientist to comment on a clinical research proposal
- Seek input from as many willing individuals as you can enlist.
External peer review of the grant proposal
The Wellcome Trust is happy for applicants to suggest external peer reviewers, but these should not be collaborators or researchers with whom you have published in the last five years.
You may also provide the names of researchers who you would prefer did not see the proposal. This should not be all the researchers in your field, and you will need to provide a reason why any particular individual should not be consulted.
2. Presentation of content
Structure of the grant proposal
- The proposal should be clearly planned and well-ordered, with sequentially presented background information and experimental design, adhering to the guidelines provided
- The aims of the proposal should be clearly defined at the start
- Try to provide a balanced overview of the background, rationale and supporting evidence – don’t quote only your own papers
- Make sure that sufficient space is allocated in the experimental plan for you to explain how you intend to achieve your aims
- Where appropriate, use flow diagrams and well-planned figures to lead reviewers through the arguments and plans.
Ease of reading
- The grant proposal should be clear, concise and readily understood by scientists outside your immediate field
- Try to minimise the use of abbreviations and acronyms to avoid any confusion for the reader; define them when they are first used
- Keep technical jargon to a minimum
- Use clear headings and subheadings where appropriate.
3. Completing the research proposal
Research question
- Make a compelling case for your proposed research – is this a good research idea? You will need to demonstrate that the work is important and cutting-edge, either as fundamental hypothesis-driven science or by addressing a significant clinical problem
- A research proposal that would result in incremental progress or low-impact findings, or that is poorly cited, not thought-through and does not have a contingency plan, will not be competitive
- For a project that is ‘high-risk’, you will need to demonstrate that although the topic being studied is intellectually and conceptually challenging, you have the capability to make it successful
- Interdisciplinary work is encouraged, but the overall strategy needs to be coherent and the complementary skills of any necessary research partners or collaborators emphasised
- If the application is linked to other projects, you will need to provide detail of what work is already funded and be clear about what exactly you are seeking funding for.
Technical approach
- Your technical approach should be feasible (provide pilot data in your application, if appropriate, or be prepared to defend your decisions during interview) and use the best contemporary method to achieve the answer
- You should consider any potential difficulties and limitations and how these will be overcome or minimised. Explain why a particular approach is necessary and why others are not to be pursued. If the proposal is ‘high-risk’, what is your fall-back plan?
- Describe how data will be obtained and how they will be used in any statistical analyses and, if relevant, how they would be combined with data or observations from other studies.
Experimental plan
- You should demonstrate that your objectives are attainable within the stated timeframe. Be realistic – overly ambitious proposals may not give the committee confidence that the objectives will be achieved
- Clearly describe how the research will be carried out. If space permits, it may be helpful to show a timeline and experimental milestones
- In a population- or patient-based study you will need to make sure that the cohort is large enough to achieve the aim. Consider the size of any association or difference that you might be seeking – will your sample size be large enough to detect it? Seek advice from a statistician, if appropriate, and show power calculations where this may be of particular importance
- You will need to demonstrate an awareness of the underlying principles and the associated complexities of the area under study, to show that you can interpret the anticipated results
- You should include pilot/feasibility data as appropriate to the scheme you are applying to (note: for many schemes, you can submit additional pages of unpublished data as an appendix, and include ‘in press’ manuscripts with your application)
- If new discoveries or significant data that would support your application emerge while the proposal is under consideration, contact the Wellcome Trust to see if these can be included in the papers to be sent to the committee
- Check that you have the correct expertise for all aspects of the proposal. If not, you will need to show evidence of achievability and/or involve researchers with the appropriate expertise as formal co-applicants or signed collaborators
- Try to identify any pitfalls before the referees do.
Research outcome
This should not rest on early development of a key method or reagent. However, if it does, you will need to convince the committee in your application that this has a high likelihood of success
Any preclinical development of reagents and strategies must be related to potentially realistic clinical therapeutic choices. This needs to be well-argued – show that it is not a randomly selected choice/direction.
Financial support requested – resources
All equipment, materials and consumables, etc. should be clearly and carefully justified where requested in the form. This is an important part of the application and items and resources that have not been fully justified may not be approved
The outlined costs should offer the very best value for money.
Financial support requested – personnel
You should justify the need for research or technical personnel in terms of qualifications and expertise required. If necessary, you may wish to explain why a postdoctoral researcher rather than a research assistant is needed for a particular post. Where appropriate, provide information on the research training these staff will obtain
It is not essential to justify a post in terms of a specific named researcher, but identifying a qualified individual may be helpful if specific technical expertise is required to complete the project.
4. Useful links
Below are links to further guidance on preparing a grant application:
How not to kill a grant application
How to get a grant funded - by David Goldblatt (BMJ)
Art of Grantsmanship - by Jacob Kraicer
Proposal Writer’s Guide by Don Thackrey