From mmreturn@magnetdev.com Fri Mar 12 07:26:49 2010 Return-Path: Received: from mail35.magnet101.com (mail35.magnet101.com [209.18.93.35]) by smtp.XXXXXXX.XXX (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2CFQk4O030047 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:26:48 -0800 Message-Id: <201003121526.o2CFQk4O030047@smtp.XXXXXXX.XXX> Received: from MAGNETMAIL4 (172.17.35.4) by mail35.magnet101.com id hj9ejg0ir9ca for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:26:46 -0500 (envelope-from ) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:26:44 -0500 From: Director@principalinvestigators.org To: Subject: 5 Mistakes That Will Sink Your Grant X-TokenInfo-NoToken: X-Bps1: 5107386767 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_NextPart_000_952962_2010312_102644847" X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2010-03-12_08:2010-02-06,2010-03-12,2010-03-12 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=100 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-1003120096 Status: O --_NextPart_000_952962_2010312_102644847 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Because funding is of vital interest to you, we thought you might like to h= ave your own reprint of this extremely popular article, written by a "grant= guru", from the March issue of Principal Investigator Advisor monthly news= letter. 5 Common Mistakes That Will Sink Your Grant The challenge that all reviewers face as they try to separate the outstandi= ng from the merely good is to convert their intuitive, emotional response t= o a grant into a series of bullet points that encapsulate the proposal's st= rengths and weaknesses. Avoiding these pitfalls, and appreciating the issue= s that frequently diminish reviewer enthusiasm, will help you to write a be= tter grant. Here are 5 common mistakes that recur among the grants of both = first time and experienced PI's.=20 1. The reviewers did not find your central scientific question interesting.=20 2. The preliminary data are weak, and call into question the feasibility of= the proposal and the validity of your central hypothesis. 3. The proverbial house of cards: the overall success of the grant is depen= dent on the outcome of a key experiment, which has yet to be performed. 4. The scope of the project is too ambitious, with multiple hypotheses or r= ationales that full the grant in disparate directions. 5. The PI and or research team lacks the experience to carry out the propos= ed work.=20 1. The reviewers did not find your central scientific question interesting.=20 Arguably the single most common reason for a grant receiving a low score is= the perception by reviewers that your central scientific question lacks si= gnificance. Grants that address significant questions provide reviewers wit= h confidence that the results will have commensurately high impact. Reviewe= r disinterest in your question could stem from a failure to communicate its= significance clearly, an overly narrow focus, or a lack of novelty and ori= ginality that suggests you are addressing a problem already solved. A commo= n pitfall is that the applicant is so enamored of a particular technology o= r set of new observations that he or she fails to explain how the work will= transform a field, or fails to highlight important links between the work = in question and other fields. In today's "Omics"-driven scientific world, o= ne may no longer be chained to the single over-arching hypothesis, but it i= s =0Astill necessary to provide your readers with a clearly understandable = strategy for organizing and interpreting that mass of high-throughput data.= One way to test the significance of your proposal is to provide a non-expe= rt colleague with a three-sentence description; if he or she can appreciate= why you are doing the work, then you are on the right track. 2. The preliminary data are weak, and call into question the feasibility of= the proposal and the validity of your central hypothesis.=20 A second flaw that can doom your proposal is an overly large gap between yo= ur hypothesis and the actual data available to be cited or displayed (as pr= eliminary data). A highly provocative hypothesis might be just the thing yo= ur field needs but, like a good murder mystery, your jury won't be convince= d without... View the rest of the article at XXXXXXXwww.principalinvestigators.org/artic= le.php To get more of helpful articles like this, subscribe to Principal Investiga= tor Advisor monthly newsletter. It presents practical, useful solutions to = the challenges of the many non-science responsibilities of a principal inv= estigator in all fields of research.=20 Here is the kind of help you will get month after month with PI Advisor: Write better applications for the upcoming grants Avoid effort reporting pitfalls Mentor your grad students wisely Preparation techniques for the next budget Tips for supervising techs efficiently Guarantee research integrity Committee meetings made more effective And much more! BONUS: Subscribe today and receive a PDF copy of the national teleconferen= ce "Writing Successful Grants: What's working lately and what isn't" transc= ript ($197 value). Enter PROPOSAL in the coupon code. Join the hundreds of others who already subscribe. Enter your own subscript= ion at XXXXXXXwww.principalinvestigators.org/article.php and receive the fu= ll and complete March issue plus 11 more monthly PDF issues. A total of 12 = issues (one year) in all at the Special Discount Price of $199 (this saves = you $168 off the regular price of $367).=20 This message was brought to you as a service by Principal Investigators Ass= ociation. If you have general questions or comments contact us at Director@= principalinvestigators.org. * Please note that in some cases the unsubscribe links in these messages ca= n become broken the way that an email program displays the message. If you = are having trouble unsubscribing you may also forward this message to Direc= tor@principalinvestigators.org with the word 'remove' in the email message = subject line. Principal Investigators Association=20 3565 10th St N, Suite B Naples, FL 34103 USA (800) 303-0129 =20 =20 Click here (XXXXXXXwww.magnetmail.net/actions/subscription_manage_PRININV= EST.cfm?subId=3D809&email=3DXXX@XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXX.XXX&message_id=3D952962) to unsubscribe= =0A=0D************************************************************** =0A35= 65 10th Street N, Naples, FL 34103 =0A************************************= **************************=0AUse this link to unsubscribe: XXXXXXXwww.magnetmail.net/Actions/unsubscribe.cfm?message_id=3D952962&user_= id=3DPRININVEST&recipient_id=3DXXXXXXXXX&email=3DXXX@XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXX.XXX&gro= up_id=3D447392 --_NextPart_000_952962_2010312_102644847 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A =0A
=0A

Because funding is of vital interest to you, we thought you might like to= have your own reprint of this extremely popular article, written by a &quo= t;grant guru", from the March issue of Principal Investigator Advisor monthly newsletter.
 

=0A5 Common Mistakes = That Will Sink Your Grant

=0A

The challenge that all reviewers face as they try to separate the out= standing from the merely good is to convert their intuitive, emotional resp= onse to a grant into a series of bullet points that encapsulate the proposa= l’s strengths and weaknesses. Avoiding these pitfalls, and appreciati= ng the issues that frequently diminish reviewer enthusiasm, will help you t= o write a better grant. Here are 5 common mistakes that recur among the gra= nts of both first time and experienced PI’s. 

=0A

1. The reviewers did not find your= central scientific question interesting.
2. The preliminary data are weak, and c= all into question the feasibility of the proposal and the validity of your = central hypothesis.
3. The proverbial house of cards: the o= verall success of the grant is dependent on the outcome of a key experiment= , which has yet to be performed.
4. The scope of the project is too ambi= tious, with multiple hypotheses or rationales that full the grant in dispar= ate directions.
5. The PI and or research team lacks th= e experience to carry out the proposed work.

1. The reviewers did not find your central scienti= fic question interesting. =0A
Arguably the single most common reason for a grant receiving a low score is= the perception by reviewers that your central scientific question lacks si= gnificance. Grants that address significant questions provide reviewers wit= h confidence that the results will have commensurately high impact. Reviewe= r disinterest in your question could stem from a failure to communicate its= significance clearly, an overly narrow focus, or a lack of novelty and ori= ginality that suggests you are addressing a problem =0Aalready solved. A co= mmon pitfall is that the applicant is so enamored of a particular technolog= y or set of new observations that he or she fails to explain how the work w= ill transform a field, or fails to highlight important links between the wo= rk in question and other fields. In today’s “Omics”-drive= n scientific world, one may no longer be chained to the single over-arching= hypothesis, but it is still necessary to provide your readers with a clear= ly understandable strategy for =0Aorganizing and interpreting that mass of = high-throughput data. One way to test the significance of your proposal is = to provide a non-expert colleague with a three-sentence description; if he = or she can appreciate why you are doing the work, then you are on the right= track.

=0A

2. The preliminary data are weak, and call i= nto question the feasibility of the proposal and the validity of your centr= al hypothesis.
A second flaw that can doom your proposal is an overly large gap between yo= ur hypothesis and the actual data available to be cited or displayed (as pr= eliminary data). A highly provocative hypothesis might be just the thing yo= ur field needs but, like a good murder mystery, your jury won’t be co= nvinced without (more)

=0A

View the rest of the article


=0A =0A =0A =0A
3D"" =0A =0A

 

=0A =0A

To get more of helpful articles like this, subscribe to Principal Investigator Advisor =0Amonthly newsletter.= It presents practical, useful solutions to the challenges of the many &nbs= p;non-science =0Aresponsibilities of a principal investiga= tor in all fields of research.

=0A =0A

Here is the kind of help you will get month after = month with PI Advisor:

    =0A
  • Write better applications for the upcoming grants
  • =0A
  • Avoid effort reporting pitfalls
  • =0A
  • Mentor your grad students wisely
  • =0A
  • Preparation techniques for the next budget
  • =0A
  • Tips for supervising techs efficiently
  • =0A
  • Guarantee research integrity
  • =0A
  • Committee meetings made more effective
  • =0A
  • And much more!
=0A

BONUS: Subscribe today and receive a PDF copy of the national tel= econference “Writing Successful Grants: What’s working lately a= nd what isn’t” transcript ($197 value). Enter PROPOSAL in the coupon co= de.

Join the hundreds of others who already subscribe. Enter your own subscription and receive the full and co= mplete March issue plus 11 more monthly PDF issues. A total of 12 issues (o= ne year) in all at the Special Discount Price of $199 (this saves you $168 = off the regular price of $367). 


=0A

This message was brought to you as a service by Principa= l Investigators Association. If you have general questions or comments cont= act us at Director@principalinvestigators.org.

=0A

* Please note that in some cases the unsubscribe links i= n these messages can become broken the way that an email program displays t= he message. If you are having trouble unsubscribing you may also forward th= is message to Director@principalinvestigators.org with the word 'remove' in= the email message subject line.

=0A

Principal Investigators Association
3565 10th St N, Suite B
Naples, FL 34103 USA
(800) 303-0129

=0A

 

=0A

Click here to unsubscribe

=0A
=0A

3565 10th Street N,= Naples, FL 34103

=0A
=0A --_NextPart_000_952962_2010312_102644847--