Getting your first research grant

Project grants and fellowships are what scientists live for, yet research grant applications can seem daunting, especially for students and early post-docs when the process might be completely new. Professor Alan Silman, Professor of Muscoskeletal Health at NDORMS, came to speak to the Early Careers Research Network on the topic of “getting your first research grant” – a summary of which can be found below.

What are the main types of research grant?

Grants can either be awarded as fellowships, which support specific individuals, or project grants, which award a chunk of money to an institution. Grant-giving bodies, whether they be research councils like the MRC or charitable organisations like Cancer Research UK, will all have their own research strategies. Calls for funding generally come in two ways: a generic call, or, less commonly, a direct call for research in a specified field.

The application process for both fellowships and project grants is similar, but for fellowships the candidate’s CV and supervisors are equally as important as the project proposal itself, whereas for projects, it’s all about the proposal.

The specific application criteria are set out by each grant-giving institution. Generally, grant applications are one or two stages. The one stage process involves submitting one full proposal, whereas the two-stage process will normally start with a call for proposal outlines, then ask successful candidates to submit a full proposal.

Who reviews a grant application?

Each grant-giving body will have a panel of reviewers. These can either be national or international – it’s hard to say which is better. National reviewers might better understand the importance of the proposed work, but equally, might be prejudice because it’s the same field of work as themselves. International reviewers are more objective when it comes to judging the individual, but might not have such a good understanding of the country-specific context of the proposal.

Applicants are sometimes asked to suggest names of potential reviewers. When doing this, it’s important to consider conflicts of interest or “known enemies” – while the majority of reviewers are genuine, academic rivalry can interfere with the objectivity of the grant-giving process.

Proposals are normally sent to two or three reviewers in similar fields of research. Reviewers send feedback in the form of comments and further questions to the grant-giving panel, which applicants don’t see, and back to the applicant directly. Just because you have received what seems to be positive feedback, it does not mean that you can assume your application will be accepted.

You can then go over and respond to the reviewers’ feedback. Sometimes comments from different reviewers can be conflicting and refuting comments is perfectly acceptable. It’s important to identify what the key comments are and then give a response – it’s best to present one clear, coherent answer to multiple comments.

How is funding awarded?

Each member of the grant panel will be allocated a number of applications – proposals, CVs, supervisor details, reviewer comments and their responses. Each member of the panel will be asked to give a short presentation on the applicant, the background, research questions, proposed methods, give a statement of reviewers’ comments and then, on balance, make an opinion on whether the application should be successful. The panel vote on each application and while sometimes there may be discussion and contradiction, generally the rest of the panel will vote the same way as the main panel member who’s been through the application (not every panel member will read every single application).

How do you get through the first stage of applications if there’s a two-stage process?

The most important part of an outline grant application is the research question. The first stage is not to persuade the reviewer of the detail of the study, but to convince them of the importance and richness of the question and research area, especially as first-round reviewers might not work in the same area as you. The background should be framed like an inverse pyramid – it should start out broad and then narrow down to specific research questions.

What makes a successful grant application?

Most grants fail because of one of three things:

• They are unrealistic and too ambitious, both in terms of time it will take to complete and the proposed budget
• They are not novel – the reviewers have not been persuaded that the proposed study will contribute to or further the field of work
• The proposal is unclear and not well explained

There is no such thing as the perfect study, and a successful applicant is often one who recognises the pitfalls and presents a well-thought out plan for if things don’t go as expected.

The Early Careers Research Network would like to thank Professor Silman for taking the time to talk to us. Professor Silman is Professor of Muscoskeletal Health at NDORMS. His current research interests are mainly in the field of comorbidities, their relation to health care outcomes and the use of big data to address these issues. Previously, he was Medical Director of Arthritis UK, where he was responsible for their strategic direction and grant-giving process. He has a particular commitment to supporting younger investigators in developing their scientific writing skills and learning how to succeed in achieving research grant awards.