By J. Larry Durstine, Ph.D., FACSM

(Excerpt from ACSM Fellows Offer Advice to Students available online at www.acsm.org)

Grant writing is a complex process, and I encourage you to learn as much as you can about it. Read several books, talk to funded researchers, and comb the websites of funding agencies. In this brief space I will simply highlight three important points that you should keep in mind while developing a grant application.

In the scientific disciplines that contribute to the study of human health and disease, the scientist who works, publishes, and seeks funding in isolation from other scientists is a disappearing breed. As an exercise scientist or research clinician of the 21st century, you will collaborate frequently with other scientists and clinicians. You will often work as a member of a team, joined not just by others in your lab but by scientists from other disciplines, hospital-based clinicians, and community-based care providers. The primary reason for the shift to a team approach is that the diseases and health problems of the 21st century are complex, and the contributions of a wide range of professionals are required to address them. Consider just one of these problems—obesity. It is a serious and complicated problem, with genetic, behavioral, and environmental components. Both physical activity and nutrition play critical roles in its development and in prevention and treatment. Because it is so complex, the contributions of a wide range of professionals—basic scientists, exercise scientists, nutritionists, clinicians, and many others—will be needed to develop effective methods of preventing and treating obesity.

NIH is now emphasizing interdisciplinary research in its long-range plan and funding considerations. The NIH Roadmap, which NIH defines as “an integrated vision to deepen our understanding of biology, stimulate interdisciplinary research teams, and reshape clinical research to accelerate medical discovery and improve people’s health,” currently focuses on three key themes. One of these, Research Teams of the Future, encourages scientists to broaden their vision and work across disciplines in ways that have not been attempted previously.

So what does this mean for you, the exercise scientist or clinician of the 21st century? It means that you must be able to work with others, both in and outside of your field. It means that you just read widely and consider frequently the contributions that other types of professionals could bring to the problems you are studying. And it means that you must be open to new ideas and new ways of approaching problems in exercise science and sports medicine.

As a member of a research team, you will often work on grant applications. As you progress in your career, you will take on more and more responsibility for those applications. Whatever your level of responsibility, you will need to be a “storyteller.”

A successful (i.e., funded!) grant application tells the story of important, innovative research that is central to the goals of the funding agency. It is not a detailed treatise on a series of experiments you plan to do, with a literature review and some information on your expertise thrown in for good measure. A successful application weaves together a set of hypotheses and aims, a summary of previous relevant work in the field (including identification of gaps in knowledge and steps that need to be taken), an overview of the experiences and expertise that qualify you to take the next steps, and a clear explanation of the experiments you plan to undertake and why they are important. It answers the question that reviewers invariably will ask—“so what?”

Each section of the application plays a role in telling the “story.” The Specific Aims are the objectives of your research. Begin this section with an overview of the work, the long-term goals, and the hypotheses driving the proposal. Then state each aim succinctly, generally in one sentence. If you are testing more than one hypothesis, include at least one aim for each hypothesis. Do not overreach, however; most NIH grants include two to four Specific Aims. You don’t want reviewers to think that you are biting off more than you can chew.

The Background and Significance section demonstrates that you know the literature, but it is not a literature review. Novice grant seekers often make the mistake of providing an exhaustive literature review that offers no focus or context to reviewers. Use the Background and Significance to build the case for the work you are proposing. If you propose to test a physical activity intervention in a specific population or setting, for example, do not provide a comprehensive overview of the physical activity intervention literature. Briefly show that you know that literature, then focus on the specific literature that builds the case for additional intervention research in the population or setting you propose to study. Also discuss literature that demonstrates the need for the research (the “so what?” factor). Research can be innovative without being important. Your job is to convince reviewers that your research is both innovative and important.

Once you have established that the work you are proposing is important and needs to be done, convince the reviewers that you and your colleagues are the ones to do it. Use the Preliminary Studies section to show your experience and expertise in the methods and technology you will be using. Highlight the experience of and cite relevant work for all key members of the team. Whenever possible, show that team members have worked and published together in closely related areas. Finally, present preliminary data which show that the team can do the things it is proposing to do.

And finally, last but certainly not least, use the Research Design and Methods section to tell reviewers exactly what you plan to do. This section requires a careful balancing act. You must provide detail about your experiments while keeping the “big picture” front and center in reviewers’ minds. Describe your overall design, explain the rationale for your experiments, and describe the experiments. A tall order, but one that can be achieved with hard work, input from colleagues, and many revisions!

Many grant applications are difficult, even painful, to review. If reviewers have to plod through your application, struggling to understand what you are trying to say, your chances for funding will decrease. To ensure that your application is a pleasure, not a struggle, to review, be sure that it is well written, visually appealing, and in line with the rules set by the funding agency.

Good writing is essential to effective storytelling. You may have heard that “good writing cannot overcome bad science, but bad writing can easily overcome good science.” Nowhere is this more true than in grant writing. Many scientists underestimate the power of clear and concise language, good grammar, correct spelling, and proper punctuation. They write informally, as if they are talking to colleagues. Or they employ a stilted, overly formal style that is painful to read. They may use bad grammar, poor sentence construction, or run-on sentences (or, even worse, all three!). Whether you are a good writer or a poor writer, it is essential that you ask several people to read and critique your proposal for writing style, grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and punctuation. Some of these reviewers should be people who are not familiar with your work; if they have absolutely no idea what your proposal says, you need to rewrite it. If you are a poor writer, ask someone who is a good writer to help you write the proposal. Find out what resources are available at your school’s writing center. And, consider hiring a writer or editor to polish your proposal.

In addition to being well written, your proposal should be visually appealing. Keep the reviewers in mind when you look at your proposal. Reviewers receive a large box of proposals that they must find time to read. If they pick up one that is crammed with text, with no white space or visuals to break it up, they will suddenly feel very weary and start digging through the box for a proposal that looks easier to read! Make sure yours is that one! Use white space throughout your application. One of the most well-funded researchers I know puts a space between every paragraph in all of his grant applications. This technique creates user-friendly pages that look like they will be easy to read. Also, use bolded headings and subheadings to guide the reviewers through your research plan. Do not make them work hard for anything!

And last, but certainly not least, “follow the rules!” Some grant seekers seem incapable of “following the rules” set by funding agencies. Do not be one of them. Read the guidelines several times and do what they say! Researchers have a tendency to rationalize, especially when they are under the pressure of a grant deadline. You really must follow all of the rules, from required forms, to font size, to page limits, to budget requirements. If you do not, your application may be returned to you. And if it is not returned it may irritate the reviewers, who expect to see applications that comply with the guidelines.

Copyright © 2005 by American College of Sports Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana