Proposal writing is a craft, and like any other craft, it can be mastered with time, knowledge, and practice. The purpose of this workbook is to serve as a guide to best practices for each step of the project planning and proposal development process. The workbook can be read in its entirety, or specific chapters can be consulted on an as-needed basis. In addition, toolkit sections following the chapters provide topical and agency-specific information and web links.

Understand the Importance of Good Grantsmanship

At the core of any competitive grant application – no matter what the field of endeavor – is a great idea, one based on strong scholarship and/or excellent science, and one that is fresh, innovative, and significant. Such ideas may fill gaps in the existing knowledge base, thereby advancing scholarship in the field, or may address important needs or lead to the development of useful applications. In a highly competitive grant environment, however, it takes more than a good idea to be successful in obtaining a grant award. After all, the majority of grant competitors also have good ideas. To make a grant application as compelling and competitive as possible, a good idea plus good grantsmanship are essential. 

A successful proposal represents the accumulation of marginal advantage gained from a series of decisions made during each step of the project planning and proposal development process. Each of these steps will be discussed in depth in subsequent chapters of this workbook:

• Assessing readiness. Before preparing a grant application, the investigator should determine – as objectively as possible – not only that a compelling idea is being developed, but that the qualifications, resources, and preliminary data required to be competitive are also in place. Competitive applications exhibit strength in all of these areas. 

• Identifying funding opportunities. Before preparing a grant application, the investigator should identify the kind of funding mechanism required (i.e., to conduct a full-scale research project, to gather preliminary data, to purchase equipment, to obtain a fellowship, etc.). Competitive applications include requests only for allowable funds.

• Analyzing the funding agency. Before preparing a grant application, the investigator should research the target funding agency to gather information on its mission, strategic plan, and investment priorities. Competitive applications closely align with and support the agency’s goals and objectives.

• Reading the proposal solicitation.  The investigator should read the proposal solicitation carefully and in its entirety to garner as much information as possible about the kind and scope of research the program will support and to identify specific proposal requirements. Competitive applications fully address all of the solicitation’s requirements, and do so in the order and manner requested.

• Understanding the review process.  The investigator should learn as much as possible about the reviewers, the review process, and the review criteria being used to evaluate an application. Competitive applications fully address all review criteria.

• Drafting the application. The pages of a grant application are the only means of communicating a proposed idea to reviewers. Therefore, it is critical that the investigator communicate his or her idea in the most organized, logical, and understandable manner possible.  After all, if reviewers have difficulty understanding the proposed idea, they will be unlikely – and perhaps even unable – to advocate on the investigator’s behalf during the review.  Competitive applications communicate ideas clearly and convey passion, excitement, and commitment to the proposed project.
  

Set Aside Ample Time to Prepare a Grant Application

Crafting a competitive application – one that presents a great idea and supports the presentation of that idea with good grantsmanship – can require a significant investment of time. At the outset, lead time is needed to identify, refine, and assess the proposed idea. In short, the investigator needs time to think – to reflect on the idea, consider it from every angle, allow related ideas to surface, synthesize these ideas, and, finally, bring everything into sharp focus. This is a highly iterative process, and one that should not be rushed. Attempting to do so by playing the role of the “midnight warrior” and feverishly cranking out a proposal the week before it is due rarely results in success. Lead time is also needed to identify appropriate funding opportunities, obtain and analyze background information on the target agency, download application forms, become familiar with the application instructions, and identify potential collaborators. A significant amount of work time is needed to draft the application, have the application vetted by colleagues, revise and edit the text, and request and obtain supplementary materials such as letters of support. And, finally, wrap-up time is needed to route the application and budget and to upload the proposal (if submitting electronically) or photocopy and mail it (if submitting a hard copy). Setting aside ample time for all of these activities greatly enhances an investigator’s ability to prepare a robust and mature proposal and increases the likelihood of funding.

Create a Proposal Production Schedule

During project planning and proposal development, investigators quickly discover that preparing a proposal is a fairly complex undertaking, often requiring that they juggle a number of tasks at any given time. Therefore, investigators often find it beneficial to prepare a proposal production schedule that lists all proposal tasks and assigns firm due dates for each of those tasks. When completing this schedule, investigators should strive to anticipate potential glitches (e.g., computer crashes, etc.) and build at least a bit of leeway into the schedule so that, should such a glitch occur, they will still have time to complete and submit the application.

Travel Award Program

Program to Enhance Scholarly and Creative Activities

Proposal Planning Grant:  Preliminary Studies Program

This grant supports the collection and/or analysis of preliminary data needed to develop research proposals in the social and behavioral sciences, education, and the humanities that will be submitted to external funding agencies.

Eligibility............................ Tenured and tenure-track faculty

Maximum Award................. $15,000 (exclusive of required college/departmental match)

Deadline............................. Yearly; submission deadlines are posted on the website

Learn More......................... http://vpr.tamu.edu/osp/prelimstudies.html

Proposal Planning Grant:  Interdisciplinary Program

This grant supports activities leading to the submission of innovative, interdisciplinary research proposals – including program and center proposals – in the social and behavioral sciences, education, and the humanities that will be submitted to external funding agencies. Research areas that are already strong on campus and that are composed of several investigators working on a common theme, but not necessarily overlapping projects, are targeted.

Eligibility............................ Tenured and tenure-track faculty

Maximum Award................. $15,000 (exclusive of required college/departmental match)

Deadline............................. Yearly; submission deadlines are posted on the website

Learn More......................... http://vpr.tamu.edu/osp/interdiscstudies.html 

Proposal Consultation Award

This award pays for consultation on drafts of research proposals prior to their submission to external funding agencies. It is designed to increase the funding success of proposals for research in the disciplines of social and behavioral sciences, education, and the humanities.

The maximum award amount is $1,500.  The award amount will vary based on the anticipated dollar amount of the external proposal. The award will pay one or more stipends not to exceed $1,000 per consultant to scholars who are highly qualified to provide substantive feedback, including concrete suggestions for proposal improvement, on drafts of proposals. The consultation is expected to occur during the final phases of proposal preparation so that consultants will have adequate time to react to one or more drafts of the proposal. Thus, the proposal submission date should be no less than 30 days or more than 120 days from the date of submission of this request for funding.
 
Eligibility............................ Tenured and tenure-track faculty

Maximum Award................. $1,500 (exclusive of required college/departmental match)

Deadline............................. Any time

Learn More......................... http://vpr.tamu.edu/osp/consultationawardprogram.html 

The goal of this section is to help the individual researcher become self-directed and self-sufficient in the use of a range of internet tools and search protocols for the identification of funding opportunities on the Internet. Self-directed searches of funding agency web sites, combined with the complementary use of Google, Yahoo, or other search tools, are highly effective and efficient ways of identifying research and educational funding opportunities.  Individual researchers have the most substantive and nuanced understanding of their research interests, directions, and capacities, and therefore it is most productive if the searches for research opportunities are primarily filtered through their own perspectives.

Federal agencies funding basic, applied, and applications-based research, education, and other university-centered initiatives have developed very robust and well-organized web sites to facilitate the search for funding opportunities.  These are often complemented by subscription-based electronically distributed funding alerts, newsletters, and research reports from the agency targeting new funding opportunities, upcoming funding opportunities, and other information related to the research funding and the long-term investment priorities of a particular agency. 

Defining the Funding Search Process

Prior to the funding opportunities search process, it is helpful to:

• Define a general disciplinary domain of interest (e.g., science, social sciences, humanities, education, health and biomedical sciences, engineering);
• Characterize the nature of the research interests (basic, applied, applications); and
• Identify a subset of federal funding agencies (or foundations) whose mission, strategic plan, and investment priorities are aligned with these specific research interests. 

This subset of funding agencies then becomes the focus of the preliminary search for funding opportunities, a process that may go through several search iterations until the researcher converges on a reasonable alignment of research interests with possible funding sources.

This search for funding opportunities can be further refined by developing funding search skills that allow the researcher to:

• Identify research opportunities that have regular grant cycles within a particularly agency (e.g., NIH and NSF have regular grant cycles of specific research programs that remain open for many years);
• Identify new research opportunities and investment directions at funding agencies; and
• Expand the base of potential research funding sources.

Major Funding Agencies for Texas A&M University

Major federal agency sponsors of research across at Texas A&M University include Health and Human Services (includes National Institutes of Health), Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, and the Department of Energy, among others listed below.

National Science Foundation

Health & Human Services (HHS)

NIH Grants & Funding

HHS GrantsNet

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

U. S. Department of Defense:

DARPA

Army Research Office

Naval Research Office

Air Force Research Office

U.S. Department of Agriculture/CSREES

U.S. Department of Education

Compilations and Directories of Funding Agencies

Many sites nationally maintain exhaustive directories of funding agency and foundation web sites searchable for funding opportunities.  A few are listed in the table below:

Listings of Federal and Foundation Funding

UC-Berkeley

Duke University

Johns Hopkins University

LSU Libraries Federal Agencies Directory

Stanford School of Medicine

Daily Grant Opportunities

On a daily basis, federal research agencies post new grant opportunities on the Grants.gov web site, described below, which also provides information about signing up for daily e-mail funding alerts.  Grants.gov is one of the best single portals to finding funding opportunities at federal agencies by allowing access to more than 900 grant programs offered by the 26 Federal grant-making agencies.

Grants.gov

Home page

To receive automated funding alerts tailored to your research interests, visit http://www.grants.gov/Find#receive. 

Select one of four automated funding alert options: “Selected Notices Based on Funding Opportunity Number,” “Selected Agencies and Categories of Funding Activities,” “Selected Interest and Eligibility Groups,” or “All Grants Notices.”

Federal Program Funding Information

FedBizOpps.gov is the single government point-of-entry (GPE) for Federal government procurement opportunities over $25,000.                                                                 

Federal Register is the daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.                                                                 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance gives access to a database of all Federal programs.       

Federal Acquisition Jumpstation

Foundation and Corporate Funding

The Foundation Center provides information on identify funding from national and regional foundations. The list provided at the following URL includes links to the 100 largest U.S. grantmaking foundations ranked by the market value of their assets, based on the most current audited financial data in the Foundation Center’s database as of October 1, 2005:

• http://fdncenter.org/research/trends_analysis/top100assets.html 

Links to corporate foundations are available at:

• http://fdncenter.org/funders/grantmaker/gws_corp/corp.html 

Electronic Funding Alert Services/ E-mail Alerts

E-mail alert services allow the researcher to subscribe to daily and weekly automated listings of current funding opportunities by funding agencies.  Funding alerts often allow the researcher to limit the search to selected criteria related to research areas and programs. Examples are provided below:

MyNSF, National Science Foundation

• http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/
• MyNSF, formerly the Custom News Service, allows you to receive notifications about new content posted on the NSF website. Notification can be received via email or RSS.

NIH National Institutes of Health Listserv

• http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/listserv.htm
• Each week (usually on Friday afternoon), the NIH transmits an e-mail with table of contents information for that week’s issue of the NIH Guide, via the NIH LISTSERV. The table of contents includes a link to the Current NIH Guide Weekly Publication as well as links to each NIH Guide RFA, PA, and Notice published for that week.

NIH National Human Genome Research Institute

• http://list.nih.gov/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=nhgribulletin-l&A=1
• This screen allows you to join or leave the NHGRIBULLETIN-L list. To confirm your identity and prevent third parties from subscribing you to the list against your will, an e-mail message with a confirmation code will be sent to the address you specify in the form. Simply wait for this message to arrive, then follow the instructions to confirm the operation.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) allows users to subscribe to several mailing lists via the CDC World Wide Web site.
• To subscribe, go to http://www.cdc.gov/subscribe.html  and fill out the on-line form.

GrantsNet

• http://www.grantsnet.org/funding_news_alert.cfm
• GrantsNet is a one-stop resource to find funds for training in the sciences and undergraduate science education. Through the support of HHMI and AAAS, this service is completely free.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• http://research.hq.nasa.gov/subs.cfm
• Once you are registered for this service you can receive email notification of the release of research announcements pertaining to any or all of NASA offices.
  

National Center for Environmental Research, Environmental Protection Agency

• http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/
• Use this page to subscribe or unsubscribe to the NCER e-mail mailing list. NCER periodically sends out emails to subscribers announcing new grant and/or funding opportunities or highlight new documents in specific subject areas.

U.S. Dept. of Education, EDINFO

• http://listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind05&L=edinfo
• Information from and about the U.S. Department of Education publications, funding opportunities and more.

NEH Connect, National Endowment for the Humanities

• http://www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.html
• Stay connected to the humanities with NEH Connect!  Each month NEH Connect! delivers the latest news, projects, upcoming events, and grant deadlines from NEH.

RFP Bulletin, Foundation Center

• http://fdncenter.org/pnd/rfp/index.jhtml
• http://fdncenter.org/

Department of Energy 

• DOE Pulse, a bimonthy newsletter, highlights work being done at the Department of Energy’s national laboratories. Each issue includes research highlights, updates on collaborations among laboratories, and profiles of individual researchers.
• To subscribe, go to http://www.ornl.gov/news/pulse/pulse_home.htm.

Department of Justice

• JUST INFO, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is a biweekly e-mail newsletter that reports on a wide variety of criminal justice topics.
• To subscribe, send a message to listproc@aspensys.com. In the body of the message, type: subscribe JUSTINFO <your full name>.

National Institute for Standards and Technology

• NIST Update is a bimonthly report that highlights research, activities and services at National Institute for Standards and Technology.
• To begin receiving e-mail copies, sign up at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/mailform.htm

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

• Transit Cooperative Research Program and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
• To register to receive e-mail notification that Requests for Proposals have been published on the NCHRP and TCRP Homepage, complete the form on web at http://www4.nas.edu/trb/crpmail.nsf/registration.

Leveraging the Internet in the Search for Funding

Leveraging the internet in the search for funding opportunities is an effective and efficient way to ensure exhaustive funding searches across all disciplinary domains of interest.  In addition to the funding information available directly from federal agency and foundation web sites, universities nationally have created some excellent and very comprehensive public domain web sites focused on identifying research funding opportunities by discipline, due dates, URL links to program guidelines, and related information.  The following are examples of many excellent sites in the public domain that continuously track, update and compile lists of funding opportunities across all academic disciplines.

Duke University Funding Alert Newsletter

• http://www.ors.duke.edu/find/index.html
• http://www.ors.duke.edu/find/announce/alert/current/index.html

• Arts and humanities; community development;  curriculum development; environmental and life sciences; funding news; graduate funding; health sciences;   international opportunities;  multidisciplinary; physical sciences and engineering;  postdoctoral funding;  social sciences.

The University of Iowa, Funding Opportunities Bulletin

• http://research.uiowa.edu/grantTrack/grantbulletin.php
• Arts and humanities; biological sciences; international; multidisciplinary; physical and mathematical sciences; social sciences.

Iowa State University Funding Opportunities by Due Date

• http://www.vpresearch.iastate.edu/OSP/FundingOpportunities.html
• http://www.vpresearch.iastate.edu/OSP/Maillogs.html

 
Other university sites offer excellent compilations of funding resources targeted to a specific interest area;  for example, the below sites at Cornell University, Michigan State University, and Duke University are excellent sources of national (not institution-specific) funding information for graduate fellowship support.

The Cornell University Graduate School Fellowship Database

• http://cuinfo.cornell.edu/Student/GRFN/
• The Cornell University Graduate School Fellowship Database primarily lists fellowships from non-Cornell sources. Anyone interested in consulting the database is welcome to do so.

Michigan State University Graduate Fellowship Listings

• http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/grants/3gradinf.htm
• Michigan State University provides links to fellowship funding lists in more than 40 different academic disciplines.

Duke University Fellowships and Grants for Graduate Students

• http://www.ors.duke.edu/find/student/grad/index.html
• The Duke site is organized around fellowship funding in five board academic areas, including multidisciplinary, humanities and social sciences, sciences, and international opportunities.

Other university sites offer excellent links to categories of funding opportunities especially of interest to university researchers, as at the Berkeley and University of Massachusetts sites. 

The University of California at Berkeley

• http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/funding.html
• Links to table of programs, profiles, and URLs for researchers seeking funding in the following areas: Faculty individual prizes and awards, equipment grants, new and young faculty grants, travel grants, women and minorities grants, and postdoctoral funding in the biosciences.

University of Massachusetts New Faculty Research Funding

• http://www.umass.edu/research/ogca/funding/newfacultydisc.html
• This site offers an excellent, comprehensive compilation of federal agency and foundation research awards targeting tenure track faculty in the following areas:  Agriculture and food science, arts and humanities, cancer, chemical sciences, computer and information science, education, engineering, environmental science, health and medical, history, mathematics, neuroscience, nursing, physical and life sciences, religion, social and behavioral sciences, and science education.

The Doreen B. Townsend Center for the Humanities, UC Berkeley

• http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/postdocs.shtml
• This is excellent listing of national Postdoctoral fellowships in the humanities organized in a table of URLs.

 
Sites for Targeted Funding Opportunities

Environmental Emphasis                               http://www.environment.psu.edu/faculty/fundinglist.asp

 
Equipment Grants                                         http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Fund/equipment.html

                                                                     http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opg/fund/fedequip.pdf

                                                                     http://www.research.buffalo.edu/spa/instrumentation.htm

Faculty Prizes & Awards                               http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Links/Fed.html

                                                                     http://research.uth.tmc.edu/awards.htm

                                                                     http://www.msu.edu/~biomed/awards/

New & Junior Faculty Grants                         http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Fund/newfaculty.html

                                                                     http://www.umass.edu/research/ogca/funding/newfacultydisc.html

                                                                     http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opg/fund/newinvest-1105.pdf

                                                                     http://www.physics.harvard.edu/grants.htm

                                                                     http://www.unh.edu/osr/funding/support/young_pi.pdf

                                                                     http://www.sfsu.edu/~ptf/docs/NewInvestigatorAwards.pdf

                                                                     http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/index.htm

                                                                     http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opg/fund/newinvest-1102.pdf

Post doc Funding, Biological Sciences          http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Fund/biopostdoc.html

Post doc Funding, Humanities                     http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Fund/hpostdoc.html

Post doc Funding, Social Sciences               http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Fund/socpostdoc.html

Travel Grants                                               http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Fund/newfaculty.html

Women & Minority Grants                            http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Fund/womenminority.html

Google Is Your Best Friend!

Google and Yahoo searches, particularly done in tandem to take advantage of the two different search algorithms, offer a very robust complement to known web sites containing funding opportunities information.  In many cases, a modified question used as the search text string will identify sites helpful in the search for funding opportunities, help narrow the focus of the search, and in many cases identify funding sources unknown to the researcher.  The search text may be as simple as “funding undergraduate research,” “funding graduate fellowships,” “research funding alerts.”

Funding Opportunities and Information Management

Over time, the researcher may become awash in information related to funding opportunities, funding alert subscription services, program information, and the like. Developing an organizational structure to manage all this information becomes important.  For example, identification of research funding opportunities for various programs within very large agencies is expedited considerable by compiling a range of very targeted URLs within a particular agency, something especially helpful at an agency such as NIH with a $28 billion research budget.  Moreover, a researcher may be conducting research in areas funded by several federal agencies, as well as foundations; this information needs to be easily accessible on a continuous basis without difficulty.

Early in this process it might be helpful to set up email folders for daily and weekly email alert notifications from various agencies, something that over time becomes an important funding opportunities resource file for the researcher since the alerts typically contain information by program name, synopsis, and URL, and most often represent programs with due dates that recur annually or semi-annually, or on some other reasonable predictive schedule.  Another useful organizational tool is to create a “Hotlink Table of URLs” to serve as a single document visible on the “desktop” containing funding agency URLs, multiple URLs within the agency, and other web sources that can be leveraged in developing a very comprehensive funding opportunities listing very nicely tailored to the individual researcher.

Community of Science (COS)

The paid subscription access only Community of Science lists funding opportunities across all academic disciplines, including those for national and international programs and for some private funding sources.  To receive COS automated funding alerts tailored to specific research interests, investigators must be registered with the Community of Science. 

To register, visit the COS home page , click on the “Join” button, and enter the requested information to create a profile. After creating a profile, there is an option to sign up for automated funding alerts. To do this, log on to the “COS Workbench” page, then go to the “View Your Funding Alerts” section of the page and click on the “Add an Alert” link. This is a link to the search interface, where searches can be created using the funding alert fields.  All information from the subscription-only COS is readily and easily available from the public domain sites detailed in this section.

It is important for the applicant to differentiate between basic research agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH) and mission-focused agencies (e.g. DOD, NASA, USDA), as well as to differentiate between hypothesis-driven research and need- or applications driven research at the agencies.  For example, agencies funding basic research would likely share the following characteristics:

• Independent agency and management
• Independent research vision, mission, and objectives
• Award criteria based on intellectual and scientific excellence
• Peer panel reviewed, ranked, and awarded by merit
• Focus on fundamental or basic research at the “frontiers of science,” innovation, and creation of new knowledge
• Open ended, exploratory, long investment horizon
• Non-classified, non-proprietary

Alternatively, an analysis of mission-oriented agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, ED, USDA) would show characteristics related to research and development that will serve the agency’s immediate goals and objectives:

• Scope of work tightly defines research tasks/deliverables
• Predominately applied research for meeting near-term objectives, technology development and transfer, policy goals
• Predominately internal review by program officers
• Awards based on merit, but also on geographic distribution, political distribution, long term relationship with agency, Legislative, and Executive branch policies
• Classified and non-classified research

Analyze the Agency Mission

It is important that the applicant become knowledgeable about the mission and strategic research plan of the funding agency in order to more knowledgably embed the proposed research plan within the context of the funding agency.  For example, while NSF and NIH both fund research in the biological sciences, they most often represent very different areas and topics. Sometimes the differences are clear, and in other cases more nuanced, but the distinctions are there, and the researcher needs to be aware of them.

In most cases, this information can be obtained on the internet by visiting the agency web site. Perusing the web site gives the applicant a sense of how the funding agency views itself and the role it sees itself playing in the national research enterprise. This information can be found in the agency mission statement or strategic plan, for example.  In other cases, particularly with regard to private foundations, the applicant will find the annual report a source of useful information on mission and agenda. An annual report gives the applicant a profile of funded projects, award amounts, and results.

The proposal writer needs this information for several reasons, but principally because it will allow the writer to shape the proposal from its inception to conform to the agency’s mission. It helps the grant writer keep the proposal process on track by reminding participants that the grant ultimately must reflect the funding agency’s mission.

Analyze Agency Language and Usage

Learning to echo the language and usage of the funding agency is another factor that may enhance the overall competitiveness of a proposal. Funding agencies, like most institutions, often develop a unique phraseology to define and describe common, recurrent components of their mission and research agenda, e.g., “broader impacts” or “research and education integration” at NSF. Learning the language of the funding agency is important for writing the narrative section of a proposal, and helps in framing arguments more clearly and in better communicating them to program managers and reviewers. 

Once the funding agency’s language is learned, it allows the appropriate translation to occur between the language of the funding agency and that of the applicant. It often helps the clarity of the narrative text to translate the applicant’s institutional language into that used by the agency program officers and reviewers. This is not an onerous or difficult task, but involves being alert to any preferred or repeated terms, usages, and meanings favored by the funding agency.  Learned fluency in the use of funding agency language and usage is yet another factor that can enhance competitiveness.

The Request for Proposals (RFP) – also called the Program Announcement (PA), Request for Applications (RFA), or Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) – is one common starting point of the proposal writing process. Other starting points to the proposal process include investigator-initiated (unsolicited) proposals, or white papers and quad charts common to the defense agencies.

The generic program solicitation or RFP represents an invitation by a funding agency for applicants to submit requests for funding in research areas of interest to the agency. It is used continuously throughout proposal development and writing as a reference point to ensure that an evolving proposal narrative fully addresses and accurately reflects the goals and objectives of the funding agency, including the review criteria listed in the document.

The RFP contains most of the essential information the researcher needs in order to develop and write a competitive proposal that is fully responsive to the agency’s funding objectives and review criteria. It is important to note that the RFP is not a menu or smorgasbord offering the applicant a choice of addressing some research topics but not others, depending on interest, or some review criteria but not others;  rather, and in almost all cases, the RFP is a non-negotiable listing of performance expectations reflecting the stated goals, objectives, and desired outcomes of the agency.

Identify the Contents of the RFP

The RFP typically includes, or references in other documents, the requirements for proposal submission, likely including many of the examples below:

• Agency research goals, objectives, and performance expectations
• Statement and scope of work
• Proposal topics to be addressed by the applicant
• Deliverables or other outcomes
• Review criteria and process
• Research plan
• Information on project key personnel, evaluation, and management
• Information on eligibility, due dates, available funding, funding limits, anticipated number of awards, performance period, proposal formatting requirements, and budget and other process requirements

Review the RFP

The RFP is not a document to skim quickly, read lightly, or read only once. The RFP defines a very detailed set of research expectations that the applicant must meet in order to be competitive for funding. It needs to be read and re-read and understood fully, both in very discrete detail and as an integrated whole. The RFP sets the direction and defines the performance parameters of every aspect of proposal development and writing. It should be read word by word; sentence by sentence; paragraph by paragraph; and page by page. Any ambiguity should be clarified by repeated readings of the RFP. If these ambiguities cannot be resolved, the applicant should call the funding agency and ask for clarification from a program officer. As much as possible, the applicant should resolve all ambiguity prior to the proposal writing process so that ideas and arguments are clearly and tightly aligned with the scope and intent of the funding agency.

A well-written RFP clearly states the funding agency’s research objectives in a concise and comprehensive fashion, devoid of wordiness, repetition, and vaguely contradictory re-phasing of program requirements. However, not all RFPs are clearly written. In some cases, the funding agency itself is unclear about specific research objectives, particularly in more cutting-edge or exploratory research areas. Therefore, one should never be timid about calling a program officer for clarification. Timidity is never rewarded in the competitive grant process. Where there is ambiguity, one should keep asking questions in order to converge on clarity. Clarity about funding agency requirements as detailed in an RFP is critical to writing a successful proposal.

Understand the Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization

In addition to presenting information about an agency’s research agenda and culture, the RFP provides important instructions regarding the presentation and organizational structure of a proposal. The RFP can be used to develop the structure of the proposal narrative and as a template for developing the sequence and required detail of each proposal section. Using the RFP as a proposal template during initial proposal outlining helps ensure that every RFP item is fully addressed. For example, major section headings within an RFP often have very detailed descriptive text defining the objectives of the program (e.g., goals, objectives, performance timeline, outcomes, research management, evaluation, etc.) that must be addressed in the proposal narrative. In this case, the detail in each section of the RFP, including the review criteria, can be selectively copied and pasted into the first draft of the proposal itself. This process provides initial section and subsection headings under which the applicant can draft out preliminary written responses to every requested item in the guidelines, thereby ensuring that the first draft of the proposal fully mirrors the program solicitation requirements in every way. Also, although there is a considerable variance among funding agencies on the required detail and organization of the narrative text, in many cases reviewers will expect to see the text in the same general order as the RFP and the review criteria since, for many agencies, that ordering conforms to instructions given to reviewers by the program officers overseeing the review process. Using the RFP as a guide to create a proposal outline also has the advantage of making it easier for reviewers to compare the proposal to the program guidelines and review criteria, without having to search around in a long narrative to find out if each required topic has been addressed.

As the proposal undergoes a continuous process of draft iterations, whereby ideas and arguments are more clearly defined and the details of the research plan better explicated, it may be possible to eliminate an overabundance of section headings or to meld sections. Objectives may be better integrated and refined, details synthesized, or changes made to the relational order of the text within or among sections, all in an effort to improve the overall clarity of the narrative. This process of refinement can be done with the certainty that if the text undergoes any organizational permutations in subsequent drafts, it will still remain fully responsive to the solicitation. Required topics will be fully preserved, if not the original linearity.

Address the Review Criteria in the RFP

The description of review criteria is an especially important part of the RFP. A competitive proposal must clearly address each review criterion, and the proposal should be structured so that these discussions are easy for reviewers to find. Subject headings, graphics, bullets, and bolded statements using language similar to that used in the RFP can all be used to make the reviewers’ jobs easier as they assess how well the proposal meets review criteria.

Read Material Referenced in the RFP

If the RFP refers to any publications, reports, or workshops, it is important to read those materials, analyze how that work has influenced the agency’s vision of the program, and cite those publications in the proposal in a way that illustrates that the applicant has read and absorbed the ideas behind those publications. For example, RFAs issued by the Department of Education often refer to online resources available from the National Center for Education Statistics as a means of communicating a particular program’s strategy and/or objectives. Similarly, the National Academies’ report on the status of undergraduate education in the biological sciences, BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (2003), has been referred to in both NSF and NIH program solicitations.

When evaluating a grant application, reviewers will not only consider the quality of the ideas, but also the extent to which the application addresses the funding agency’s review criteria. Therefore, it is important to identify these review criteria, understand exactly how the agency defines them, and determine the relative weight (if any) that the agency assigns to each of them. This information can then be used to develop an application that clearly addresses these criteria and that is much more competitive. 

The table below provides links to the descriptions of the specific review criteria and basic review processes for each of the top seven sponsors of research at Texas A&M University.

Description of Review Criteria and Review Process                       Relevant Section

DHHS (NIH)

Center for Scientific Review

NIH review criteria

NIH peer review process

NIH review groups

NIH study section rosters

NSF

NSF review process, criteria                                                            Sec. 3

DOD

AFOSR review process, criteria                                                        Sec. 2.14

ARO review process, criteria                                                            Sec. 3      

DARPA review process, criteria

ONR review process, criteria                                                            Sec. 5          

USDA

NRI review process, criteria

NASA

NASA review process, criteria                                                            App. C            

                                                                           
DOE

DOE review process, criteria

ED

ED review process, criteria                                                                Sec. 5         

Identify the Review Criteria

Most agencies publish their standard review criteria on their web pages and/or in their proposal preparation guides. However, it is important to note that some agencies assign additional review criteria to some of their special programs;  these criteria will be delineated in the proposal solicitation, so it is also important to read this document. 

Understand the Review Process

The review process varies – sometimes significantly – from one agency to the next. The review process may include a peer review, where outside experts from related fields are invited to review the proposal; an internal review, where agency personnel evaluate the proposal; or a combination of both. However, most agency review processes share some common features.  At most agencies, for instance, an application will first undergo a merit review and, depending upon the results, an administrative review. 

The review process begins when the application is received.  The application will be logged into a tracking system, checked for completeness, routed to the appropriate division, and then to the appropriate program, where it will subsequently be forwarded to independent reviewers and/or to a review panel. Review panels vary in size, but will include experts from the various disciplines represented in the program. The independent reviewers and/or review panel will conduct a merit review of the application to evaluate the quality of the proposed research project and the degree to which it addresses the agency’s mission and meets the agency’s review criteria. 

While the chair of the review panel will give all members of the panel access to all of the applications earmarked for that panel’s review, he or she will seldom ask all panel members to review every proposal in detail. More typically, the chair will assign a primary and sometimes a secondary and/or tertiary reviewer to each application. The primary reviewer is typically the individual whose field of research is most closely related to the applicant’s own. The reviewers will be asked to provide written reviews within a specified length of time. At NSF, for example, most program managers request a complete review within 90 days of when they send the application out to reviewers. In the case of a review panel, reviewers will evaluate the applications assigned to them, and then mail or e-mail their reviews to the chair of the review panel and/or travel to the agency’s headquarters to meet as a panel. During the panel meeting, the chair of the review panel will typically ask the primary reviewer to present his or her review to the rest of the panel, and will then give other members of the panel a chance to provide additional comments. When all members of the review panel who want to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, the chair of the panel will typically ask the members of the panel to rank the applications and/or identify which ones are meritorious, i.e., worthy of funding.

After the review panel adjourns, some agencies mail or e-mail the individual review comments – and sometimes a summary of the comments and a rank or priority score – to the applicant.  This information can oftentimes provide a very good sense of whether or not the application is likely to be funded.

Applications recommended for funding then typically undergo an administrative review to ensure that all agency requirements have been met and to allocate funds to the project. After this process is finalized, the award notification is sent, the contract is negotiated, and, finally, the contract is signed by all official agency and university representatives. Campus grant and contract administrators will lead the principal investigator through these negotiations.

Know the Reviewers

While it is important to identify the review criteria and to understand the review process, it is equally important to identify – as much as possible –  who the reviewers will be. Knowing the reviewers’ scientific and/or scholarly background enables the applicant to ensure that the proposal is written at the appropriate level, provides the appropriate background information, and addresses the reviewers’ priorities and concerns. Some agencies set up standing review panels that include reviewers from a mix of disciplines, with some reviewers (especially at the mission agencies) being researchers who are full-time employees of the agency, others being researchers who have agreed to serve on a review panel for a designated period of time, and still others being researchers who have agreed to serve on a review panel on an ad hoc basis when a program manager determines that the regular review panel lacks the particular expertise required to properly evaluate an application. Agencies may also set up review panels to evaluate proposals to a specific program, or they may depend on mail reviews from ad hoc reviewers.

For the most part, those applying to larger agencies can count on independent reviewers having backgrounds related to the applicant’s research focus.  In this case, the reviewers are the applicant’s peers, i.e., people who review their journal article submissions and attend the same scientific and scholarly meetings. However, while the reviewers will have expertise in the applicant’s field, it is quite probable that only one or two of these reviewers will possess expertise in the applicant’s sub-discipline. This is especially true on panels charged with reviewing multidisciplinary and cross-cutting proposals, such as those prepared to establish centers or programs;  indeed, these panels will likely include at least some reviewers who are from completely different disciplines. Therefore, it is extremely important that the applicant write the proposal at a level that enables all reviewers to understand the important points, even though they may not understand all the discipline-specific details. 

Some agencies post rosters of review panels on their web pages. These rosters not only list the names of the reviewers, as would be expected, but also designate the period of time that each reviewer will serve on a panel.  This information can be used to gain a competitive advantage. With the names of the reviewers in hand, the applicant can look up and read reviewers’ recent publications and thereby identify their field of expertise, gain insight into their research interests, and determine the extent to which their interests align with the applicant’s own. This knowledge can help the applicant assess the likelihood that the proposed research project will be well received. If it is determined that the majority of reviewers will be likely to view the project favorably, the applicant can proceed with confidence. However, if that is not the case, the applicant can consider either submitting the application to another program or agency or submitting it at a later time.

Write for the Reviewers

When preparing a grant application, it sometimes easy to forget that the application will be reviewed not by a monolithic agency, but by real people. Like the applicants themselves, reviewers are smart, accomplished, and dedicated, and may be struggling to balance the time they spend on their research, teaching, service obligations with the time they spend with family, friends, and community.  In short, they are extraordinarily busy people. 

Because reviewers are typically given multiple proposals to review at a time while still performing their “real” jobs, it is important that the proposal include absolutely everything the reviewers will need to read, understand, and evaluate the proposed research project with ease and efficiency.  To this end, it is important to synthesize key concepts and to articulate the links between the overarching goal and the specific objectives, between the specific objectives and the hypotheses, between the hypotheses and the approach, between the approach and the expected outcomes, and, finally, between the expected outcomes and the significance and broader impacts of the project. In short, it is important to present the proposed research project with absolute clarity so that all reviewers will not only be able to understand the ideas presented therein, but also will be persuaded to advocate on behalf of that particular research project.  Incorporating reviewer-friendly text, formatting, and graphics greatly enhances the competitiveness of a proposal.

Create Reviewer-Friendly Text

Techniques for developing reviewer-friendly text include the following:

• Divide the proposal into the required sections.
• Place the sections in the required order.
• Use parallel structure at both the sentence and section levels.
• Incorporate logical paragraph breaks.
• Open paragraphs with clear topic sentences.
• Discuss important items first.
• Avoid the use of inflated language.
• Use declarative sentences.
• Define potentially unfamiliar terms.
• Spell out acronyms and abbreviations.
• Employ appropriate style and usage.
• Use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
• Run a spell-check and proofread the application.

Create Reviewer-Friendly Formatting

Techniques for developing reviewer-friendly text include the following:

• Follow page limitations for both the whole proposal and for individual sections.
• Conform to margin requirements.
• Conform to font and point size requirements.
• Incorporate headings and subheadings to provide a “roadmap” for reviewers.
• Incorporate ample white space.

Create Reviewer-Friendly Graphics

Techniques for developing reviewer-friendly text include the following:

• Make graphics large enough to be useful.
• Place graphics as close to the text they are meant to illustrate as possible.
• Refer to graphics in the text.
• Number and title all graphics.
• Prepare a caption for all graphics.
• Label axes and data points, as needed.
• Provide a legend, as needed.
• Provide color copies if color and/or color gradient are important.

After identifying an appropriate funding opportunity and making the decision to prepare a proposal – and well before the proposal deadline –  the investigator must log in the proposal with one of the approved campus agencies to start the application process:

• Texas A&M Research Foundation (TAMRF)

Investigators should log in with TAMRF if affiliated with Texas A&M University but not affiliated with the the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the College of Engineering, or the Texas Transportation Institute.

• Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES)

Investigators should log in with TAES if affiliated with the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

• Texas Engineering Experiement Station (TEES)

Investigators should log in with TEES if affiliated with the College of Engineering.

• Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)

Investigators should log in with TTI if affiliated with the Texas Transportation Institute.

If a proposal involves multiple investigators, it should be logged in with the principal investigator’s campus agency. If there are questions about which campus agency to log in and submit a proposal through, investigators should contact their department head or college research dean for guidance.

After the proposal is logged in, the proposal administrator will enter it into a tracking system, and then download and review a copy of the proposal solicitation. Obtaining this information up front enables the proposal administrator to become familiar with the program’s project and budget requirements and, in turn, to be better prepared to answer any questions the investigator may have as the proposal is being drafted. Later, when the grant application has been completed, the proposal administrator will refer to the information provided on the log-in sheet to determine which investigators and institutional officials will need to review the proposal during the routing process.

Log In with the Texas A&M Research Foundation

As soon as an investigator decides to submit a proposal to a sponsor – and at least 10 days before the proposal is due –  he or she must log in the proposal. The log-in process is quite easy and may be completed by phone or e-mail.

Log In by Phone

1.   Go to http://rf-web.tamu.edu/preaward/proposaladm.html. This web page provides a list of proposal administrators, as well as a list of the colleges/departments that each proposal administrator serves.

Note:  If there are questions about which proposal administrator to contact, call the Proposal Hotline at 979-571-9489.

2.   Identify the appropriate proposal administrator.

3.   Call the proposal administrator and provide the following information:

• Sponsor name
• Program name
• Proposal title
• Proposal due date
• Name of principal investigator
• Names of co-investigators
• Involvement of collaborators or subawards

Log In by E-mail

1.   Go to http://rf-web.tamu.edu/forms/files/Preaward/Log-insheet.pdf. This web page provides a pdf fillable file of the Texas A&M Research Foundation proposal log-in sheet.

2.   Save the log-in sheet to a computer file.

3.   Complete the log-in sheet.

4.   E-mail the log-in sheet to Log-in@rf-mail.tamu.edu.

5.   An e-mail confirmation will be sent confirming that the log-in sheet was received and assigned to a proposal administrator.

Introduction to the Drafting Process

All federal funding agencies and most private foundations provide a detailed list and description – in their proposal preparation guide and/or in their various proposal solicitations – of the information they require applicants to include in proposals. This information varies from one agency to the next, and sometimes even from one program to the next within the same agency. However, some of the most frequently requested information is listed below:     

• Cover sheet
• Abstract and/or summary
• Introduction and/or specific aims and/or objectives
• Background and significance
• Literature review
• Preliminary studies
• Research and program design
• Project schedule
• References
• Biographical sketch
• Resources
• Completed, ongoing, and/or pending support
• Budget
• Budget justification
• Supplementary materials

It is important to note that not all agencies will require applicants to include all of this information in their proposals, nor will they necessarily require them to present it in this particular order or under these specific headings. For instance, some agencies might require that the background information, literature review, and preliminary studies be presented in a single section, rather than divided into three discrete sections, as has been indicated above.

Therefore, the guidance presented in this section is not meant to be prescriptive;  rather, it is intended to provide researchers with an overview of some of the most common proposal elements and to offer them a distilled set of best practices that have proven useful for many applicants. In all cases, the target agency’s requirements should take precedence over the guidance presented in this chapter.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The links to the subsections of this chapter are saved in a separate portion of this website. To return to this page from each subsection, press the 'Back' button on your browser.

When preparing a grant application for a research project that involves the use of any of the following, the applicant will need to address compliance issues on at least some level in the application:

• Human subjects
• Animals
• Hazardous materials, select agents, or recombinant DNA

At a minimum, the applicant will need to justify the use of human subjects, animals, and/or hazardous materials, select agents, or recombinant DNA;  describe the experimental design; and explain laboratory and safety procedures.  After all, if a reviewer has a concern about how an applicant has addressed a compliance issue, that compliance issue then becomes a science issue, calling into question a critical component of the project’s approach.

Describe the Use of Human Subjects

When research involves the use of human subjects, the applicant should include information to justify use of those subjects, to demonstrate that the potential benefits of the proposed research outweigh the potential risks to the human subjects, and to explain exactly how the human subjects will be safeguarded from any potential risks. The applicant should also demonstrate appropriate inclusion of women, minorities, and children in the proposed research project.

Describe the Use of Animal Subjects

Similarly, when research involves the use of animals, the applicant should include information to justify use of those animals;  to delineate the species, strains, ages, sex, and number of animals to be used;  and to describe the veterinary care that will be provided to the animals. The applicant should also describe the procedures that will be used to ensure that discomfort, distress, pain, and injury will be limited to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research.  To this end, the applicant should describe the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices, where appropriate, to minimize discomfort, distress, pain, and injury.  If the research results in more than momentary pain or distress to animals, the applicant should conduct a search for alternatives to replace the use of live animals, to reduce the number of animals required, and to refine techniques to decrease pain and distress. The applicant should also describe his or her search for alternatives and summarize the results. If the research requires that any animals be euthanized, the applicant should describe which method of euthanasia will be used and justify the reasons for its selection.

Describe the Use of Hazardous Materials, Select Agents, or Recombinant DNA

If a project involves the use of hazardous materials or select agents, the applicant should justify the use of those materials;  describe the appropriate training for all personnel who will work with the materials or agents;  and explain laboratory safety, security, and biological containment requirements and practices.  The applicant should also delineate emergency contingency plans, including those for containment and cleanup of spills.  If the project involves the use of recombinant DNA, the applicant should demonstrate that he or she will adhere to NIH requirements for recombinant DNA research.

Prepare Research Protocols

Some sponsors require that applicants submit and obtain approvals of any required human subjects, animal subjects, and/or biosafety protocols before the grant application is submitted to the sponsor;  others, such as NIH, allow “just-in-time” approvals.  If the targeted funding agency allows “just-in-time” approvals, the investigator may submit the application to the sponsor before obtaining institutional approvals.  Then, when the applicant is notified that an award is likely, he or she must submit and obtain institutional approvals of the approproiate protocol(s) before the research project can proceed.  The sponsor’s solicitation should indicate when institutional approvals for compliance issues should be submitted. Applicants are encouraged to contact the Office of Research Compliance with questions or for assistance.

Institutional Review Board

Home page:                               http://researchcompliance.tamu.edu/irb/

E-mail:                                      irb@tamu.edu

Phone:                                      979-458-4067

Assurance number (TAMU):        FWA00000092

Assurance number (BCD):          M-1453

The primary purpose of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) is to safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects at risk in any research activity, whether that activity is financially supported or not.  To this end, the IRB requires that any investigator conducting research involving the use of human subjects submit a human subject protocol for review.

A human subject protocol is a document that delineates the formal design for research involving human subjects;  it includes a statement on the purpose of the research, the selection of subjects, research procedures, and data analysis methods, as well as a description of the risks and benefits of the proposed research to the subjects.

The IRB reviews human subject protocols to determine whether the risks of the proposed research outweigh the benefits of that research for the subjects involved in the study. If the IRB determines that risks will be involved, they will verify that those risks will be minimized, and that participants will be made fully aware of the risks and of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any form of penalty.

When the proposed research carries no or only very minimal risk to the subjects, the IRB may elect to conduct an administrative review of the protocol. However, if the proposed research is not exempt or appropriate for an expedited review – for instance, if it involves a sensitive topic and/or involves the use of children, pregnant women, or prisoners – the IRB will conduct a full review of the protocol during one of its monthly meetings.   

Submit a Protocol to the IRB

1.   Go to http://researchcompliance.tamu.edu/irb/irbrevapp, then click on the link to the “IRB Protocol Checklist and Application” to obtain a pdf fillable human subjects protocol form.

2.   Save the form to a computer file.

3.   Complete the form.

4.   Schedule a pre-submission review of the protocol.

      Note:  To schedule the review, call 979-458-4067 or e-mail irb@tamu.edu.

5.   Attend the pre-submission review and make careful note of any items that may need to be revised.

6.   Incorporate suggested revisions.

7.   Submit one original and one photocopy of the completed human subjects protocol and all required attachments to Sharon Alderete, IRB, Office of Research Compliance, Texas A&M University, Centeq Building, 1500 Research Parkway, Suite B150, College Station, TX  77843-1186.

8.   Attend the IRB meeting to answer any questions that the IRB members may have.

      Note: Call 979-458-4067 oe e-mail irb@tamu.edu to learn the date, time, and location of the IRB meeting.

9.      After all items have been satisfactorily addressed, the IRB will issue an approval notice.

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

Home page:                               http://researchcompliance.tamu.edu/iacuc/ 

E-mail:                                       ulacc@vprmail.tamu.edu

Phone:                                      979-845-1828

Assurance number (TAMU):        A-3893-01

Assurance number (BCD):          A-3027-01

Assurance number (HSC):          A-3895-01 (Scott & White only)

Assurance number (IBT):            A-4012-01

The primary purpose of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is to ensure the humane use and care of animals used in any research activity, whether that activity is financially supported or not.  To this end, IACUC requires that any investigator conducing research involving the use of animals submit an animal use protocol for review. An animal use protocol is a document that delineates the formal design for research involving the use of animals;  it includes a justification for the use of animals, as well as for the species and number of animals to be used. It also includes a statement describing how the animals will be obtained, housed, cared for, and, if necessary, euthanized.

IACUC reviews animal use protocols to ensure that animals will be used and cared for in a humane way.  They also review protocols to ensure that the investigator will avoid or minimize discomfort, pain, or injury to the animals;  use no more animals than are necessary to reach sound scientific conclusions or to teach the class;  and, when appropriate, painlessly sacrifice animals.

Submit a Protocol to IACUC

1.   Go to http://researchcompliance.tamu.edu/iacuc/forms, then click on the link to the “Animal Use Protocol” to obtain a pdf fillable animal use protocol form.

2.   Save the form to a computer file. 

3.   Complete the form.

4.   Schedule a pre-submission review of the protocol.

      Note: To schedule the review, call 979-845-1828 or e-mail ulacc@vprmail.tamu.edu.

5.   Attend the pre-submission review and make careful note of any items that may need to be revised.

6.   Incorporate suggested revisions.

7.   Submit one original and one photocopy of the completed animal use protocol – along with a copy of the research proposal – to Olivia Ash, IACUC, Office of Research Compliance, Texas A&M University, Centeq Building, 1500 Research Parkway, Suite B150, College Station, TX  77843-1186.

8.   Attend the IACUC protocol review meeting to answer any questions that the ULACC members may have.

      Note: Call 979-845-1828 or e-mail ulacc@vprmail.tamu.edu to learn the date, time, and location of the ULACC meeting.

9.   After all items have been satisfactorily addressed, IACUC will issue an approval notice.

Institutional Biosafety Committee

Home page:                               http://researchcompliance.tamu.edu/ibc/

E-mail:                                       ibc@tamu.edu 

Phone:                                      979-458-1467

The primary purpose of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) is to review and oversee the use of hazardous materials (e.g., toxins and pathogens), select agents, or recombinant DNA used in any research activity, whether that activity is financially supported or not.  To this end, the IBC requires that any investigator conducing research involving the use of hazardous materials, select agents, or recombinant DNA submit a registration document.

The registration document requires that the applicant justify the use of hazardous materials, select agents, or recombinant DNA. It also requires that the applicant state the purpose of the research; identify which toxins, pathogens, or recombinant DNA will be used;  describe laboratory procedures; describe potential medical risks; explain how exposure will be controlled;  identify any hazardous materials that will be transported into or out of the laboratory; and explain procedures for disposing of hazardous materials.

The IBC reviews registration documents to ensure that appropriate laboratory practices, biological containment procedures, and emergency plans are in place before research begins.

Submit a Registration Document to the IBC

1.   Go to http://researchcompliance.tamu.edu/ibc/ibcrevapp, then click on the link to the “IBC Application” to obtain a pdf fillable registration form.

2.   Save the registration form to a computer file.

3.   Complete the registration form.

      Note: Only those portions of the registration form that are applicable to the research project need  to be completed.

4.   Forward the completed registration form to the IBC, Office of Research Compliance, Texas A&M University, Centeq Building, 1500 Research Parkway, Suite B150, College Station, TX  77843-1186.

      Note: Original signatures are required. All protocols require a 10-day review process. After the review process is completed, the applicant will be notified if there are any items requiring revision or clarification.

5.   Incorporate suggested revisions and/or clarifications and resubmit the protocol to the IBC for further review.

6.   After all items have been satisfactorily addressed, the IBC will issue an approval notice.

Learn More

Technology Commercialization Center

Texas A&M University System

1700 Research Parkway, Suite 250              

College Station, TX  77845-3369

Phone:  979-847-8682

E-mail:  Visit http://tlo.tamu.edu/tlo/email.shtml to submit a question.

The process of vetting the grant application is much different than the process of editing and proofreading it. Indeed, vetting the grant application involves asking colleagues to read through the entire grant application to provide substantive feedback on how well key concepts and ideas, scientific and technical details, and enthusiasm and excitement for the project have been expressed. This process offers applicants the opportunity to obtain constructive criticism on the application well before it must be submitted to the funding agency, thereby giving them time to identify and address any issues that might potentially cause program managers and reviewers concern. In particular, it enables applicants to confirm that they have included all required material, located that material where reviewers can easily find it, and presented it in a way that reviewers can easily understand. This is quite important; many program managers and reviewers will have only a limited amount of time to review each application and subsequently make preliminary recommendations, and will have less enthusiasm for an application if they must search for critical aspects of it.

Identify Colleagues Who Can Vet the Proposal

When identifying colleagues to vet an application, it is important to make sure that the colleagues selected have expertise in the general area of research being proposed, though it is not necessary for them to have specialized expertise in the specific topic being proposed. Indeed, a well written application enables even people working outside the field to understand the logic and rationale for the proposed project and to understand how the project was designed.

When colleagues vet an application, they will likely raise questions that may help the applicant refine ideas or simply help the applicant restate these ideas in a manner that is consistent with a general, rather than a specific, audience. Because the people who review applications for scientific merit are not necessarily experts in the specific field of research being proposed, they need sufficient information to help them fill in the intellectual gaps between what they know and what is being proposed. A well written application will not leave the reader with any significant questions. The idea is to address all of the potential questions within the application without letting that detract from the flow of reading. This can be accomplished by having other investigators within and outside the field read the application and provide feedback. It is a good idea to ask people from various areas of research to vet the application because they will have different perspectives on how to request research money. In addition, it is advisable to have successful investigators vet the  proposal. Notwithstanding differences in writing style and technical content, people who have been successful in obtaining multiple grants obviously recognize the common elements of good proposals. Here are some common questions one might ask when vetting an  application, regardless of proposal topic:

• What is the application trying to achieve, and is that purpose addressed early in the text?
• Is the application written for a broad audience?
• Is the application written in an enthusiastic voice?
• Is the terminology clear and persuasive, and does the application have credibility?

Departmental Colleagues – Faculty may want to ask departmental research colleagues to vet the application, while graduate students may want to ask their advisor to do so. The key is to identify those colleagues who are doing the same general kind of research (e.g.,
experimental or clinical) and who have competed successfully for extramural funding in the past. These people will have the most valuable input based upon their many perspectives.

Faculty may also want to ask their department head to vet the application, since the department head has a vested interest in his or her faculty members’ career development and wants to see them succeed in obtaining funding. Faculty may also want to seek feedback from members of faculty interest groups of which they are, or want to become, a member (e.g., Faculty of Nutrition, Faculty of Toxicology), since members of these groups will likely share a common interest in the research being proposed and can offer good advice.

Program Staff at the Funding Agency – Depending upon their time constraints, program staff will likely not be able to review the entire draft of the application; however, they may be willing to look at the executive summary or abstract. Through this document, they can assess how well key concepts and ideas, scientific and technical details, and enthusiasm and excitement for the project have been expressed. If they have trouble understanding how the proposal fits together based on this document, then at the very least, perhaps they can provide guidance on how the executive summary or abstract can be re-written.

Understand the Vetting Process

The vetting process can confer numerous benefits; however, to reap these benefits applicants must understand the requirements and potential outcomes of the process.

Time – It is important that applicants give people time to read the application thoroughly in order to obtain substantive feedback on the content, rather than mere proofreading.

Ideas – It is important that applicants ask only trusted colleagues to vet the application. In some instances, some colleagues may take an applicant’s idea and use it in his or own research. This is more likely to occur in the more competitive research fields, where money is tight and competition for extramural funding is particularly fierce. By interacting with colleagues at national meetings and listening to them give talks, applicants can develop an idea of which colleagues are trustworthy and which are not. On a more positive note, applicants may discover a potential collaborator in someone they ask to vet their application simply because these colleagues derive a better understanding of what the applicant does (and wants to do), and they may be able to offer intellectual input or scientific and/or
technical services on future applications.

Criticism – After vetting an application, colleagues may tell an applicant that the proposal is simply not yet ready for prime time and that they think it needs much more work before it should be submitted. If such information is coming from a colleague that is an established
investigator in the field, it may be wise to heed such warnings, while that same advice from someone not aware of the research field may not carry much weight in the decision about whether or not to submit. Again, this is related to choosing the appropriate people to vet the completed application.

Once the application has been vetted, the sometimes arduous task of assimilating feedback and answering colleagues’ questions or comments begins, often entailing substantive editing and rewriting of text. As with many aspects of proposal development and writing, this task can take longer than anticipated. However, the importance of careful editing and proofreading prior to submitting a final application cannot be overstated.

Incorporate Comments and Feedback

If a colleague has questions about an objective or some aspect of the project’s methodology, it is quite likely that reviewers will have similar questions. After rewriting a section or even just a sentence or two, it is useful to check with the original person who provided comments and ask if the revisions are appropriate and if their questions have been answered.  Alternatively, it is helpful to ask someone who has not seen the application before to review it to see if they have questions about the same (or other) section(s).

Review for Organization and Content

Before submitting the application, it is important to review the proposal solicitation once more to make certain all agency requirements have been addressed. During this process, the applicant should compare section headings and ordering of the proposal narrative with the solicitation, being sure to echo the agency’s sequencing of sections and language. Similarly, the applicant should take time to double-check solicitation guidelines against the final proposal narrative, verifying that page limits, font requirements, etc., are consistent with the agency’s instructions.

All sections of the proposal should be re-evaluated for content, clarity, flow, and relevance. Each of these elements will be enhanced by a well-crafted narrative that is divided into easily distinguishable, logically ordered sections and subsections.  If, for example, the solicitation calls for an evaluation plan, all aspects of the plan should be contained within that section;  the reviewer should not have to look elsewhere for details about the project’s evaluation plan.

A well-designed layout will improve the readability of complex proposal narratives. Use of subheadings can draw the reviewers’ attention to a special topic or idea that may need to be emphasized, giving the overall application more clarity and readability. Subheadings also assist reviewers as they look for or refer back to a particular topic or section.  The principal investigator should be responsible for ensuring that consistent heading and subheading formatting is used throughout the proposal, especially when several collaborators may be contributing authors.

The overall flow of any narrative, and especially detail-rich, technique-heavy research proposals, is hindered by long sentences that are crowded with several important concepts or points.  If one sentence takes up three or more lines of text, one should consider breaking that sentence into two separate sentences.  Overuse of qualifying statements or redundant phraseology can camouflage the most important point being expressed within a sentence and detract from the strength and clarity of the text.

Proofread Carefully

An objective reader can usually spot mistakes that the original writer has missed.  Below are several tips that can be used when proofreading a proposal narrative:

• Note that while spell check is a wonderful tool, exclusive reliance upon it is no substitute for a careful and thorough re-reading of the proposal.
• Beware of overusing acronyms; if an acronym is used less than three times throughout the narrative, drop the abbreviation and spell out the complete name/title.
• Make certain that acronyms, other abbreviations, and symbols are used consistently throughout the text (e.g., percent or %; Texas A&M or TAMU; U.S. or US).
• Stick to the topic within sections and paragraphs, and keep related ideas and information together.
• Use bulleted or numbered lists to draw visual attention to and emphasize key facts.
• Ensure that tables and figures are self-contained and relevant to the overall proposal.
• Verify references to figure or table designations, and double-check consistency between information presented in the table/figure and the text.
• Make a list of references and verify that all citations are included in the bibliography and are accurately cited.

Submission of grant applications must be made through an approved campus grants and contracts agency.  The proposal text and the final proposal budget are reviewed and routed through one of these agencies:

• Texas A&M Research Foundation (TAMRF)
• Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES)
• Texas Engineering Experiement Station (TEES)
• Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)
• Health Science Center (HSC)

Each of these agencies has its own set of guidelines for reviewing, processing, and submitting grant applications. At a minimum, however, each will route the application to each principal investigator, as well as to each investigator’s department head, college dean, and vice president for research and/or provost. These institutional officials will review the proposal text and budget to ensure that they are in compliance with both the sponsor’s and the campus agency’s rules and regulations;  if they are, the institutional officials will sign the routing sheet, thereby clearing the application for submission to the sponsor.

How to Route an Application Through the Texas A&M Research Foundation

1.   Call or e-mail the proposal administrator and notify him or her that the application is ready to route.

Note: For a list of proposal administrators, visit http://rf-web.tamu.edu/preaward/proposaladm.html.  

2.   E-mail the draft proposal text and the final proposal budget to the proposal administrator
at least  6 working days before the proposal due date.  Allow additional time if the proposal involves multiple investigators, since such a proposal will likely require additional signatures.

      Note: An investigator may continue to revise the proposal text (but not the budget) while the proposal is being routed.

3.   The proposal administrator will prepare a routing packet, give it to a Texas A&M Research Foundation courier, who then takes the packet to the principal investigator, any co-investigators, the department head(s), college dean(s), and the vice president for research and/or provost for signatures.

Texas A&M University Routing Sheet (link to MS Word document)

How to Submit an Application Through the Texas A&M Research Foundation

1.   Notify the proposal administrator that the final version of the application is ready for submission.

2.   E-mail the final proposal text to the proposal administrator or upload the final proposal text at least 2 full working days before the proposal due date.

3.   The proposal administrator will complete the following activities to finalize the application and prepare it for submission to the sponsor:

• Review the final text for compliance with the sponsor’s guidelines, as well as for compliance with the campus agency’s guidelines.
• Assemble the grant application in the specified format.
• Perform a quality control check.
• Photocopy the grant application.
• Check the quality of the photocopy.

4.   The proposal administrator will submit the grant application via the appropriate carrier and/or will e-mail/upload the application electronically.

5.   The proposal administrator will e-mail the principal investigator an electronic copy of the final proposal subsequent to submission.

Important Note Regarding Electronic Proposal Submission Procedures

New and developing electronic proposal initiatives for private and particularly for federal proposals have added significant preparation time to the proposal process. As these new systems come online, there will likely be an initial period marked by glitches; therefore, extra time will be required to submit grant applications via these systems. Indeed, federal grant applications flow through at least two electronic systems during submission (the Grants.gov system as well as the sponsor’s system). The additional edit checks required by these systems are adding substantial time to the proposal submission process, causing federal agencies to request that proposals be submitted the day before the actual deadline. Campus proposal offices will need additional time to meet these requirements.

In today’s highly competitive funding environment, many excellent applications do not get funded. It is not uncommon for the applicant to have to consider revising a rejected proposal based on reviewers’ comments, and resubmitting the application to the same funding program or a different one. Because nearly all researchers, sooner or later, have an application rejected and have to go through the revision and resubmission process, it is worthwhile to consider strategies to make that process a successful one that leads to a funded project.

Post-Review Process

Respect the Views of Peers

Most reviews will have been written by an applicant’s peers and are meant to be helpful. They are intended to point out weaknesses in any aspect of the application, including such things as the scholarly and scientific ideas presented, the research methods and plans, and the clarity with which the applicant has presented his or her ideas. As the applicant considers the negative comments of reviewers, it is helpful to keep in mind that even the most excellent proposal can be improved by carefully weighing input from peers. In fact, the foundation of a good (but not necessarily positive) review can become a roadmap for the applicant to improve the proposal and ultimately to get it funded.

Review the Reviews: Discuss Reviews with Senior Faculty

Sometimes, with a negative review, it is hard to tell whether a reviewer has identified a genuine problem with the proposed research, or whether he or she simply disagrees with the applicant’s ideas.  In the first case, the applicant would have to re-think the scholarly or scientific approach, whereas in the second case, the applicant would have to more carefully justify the idea and approach.  To help sort this out, applicants can consider discussing their reviews with senior faculty members in their department.  Most senior faculty will have had experience with both applying for their own research funding and reviewing other people’s applications for research funding.  They may be able to offer insights on the interpretation of reviewers’ comments and to help applicants decide how best to respond to the comments.

Review the Reviews: Discuss Reviews with Program Managers 

It is possible to receive reviews that are not so much negative as they are off base;  these can be unconstructive. For example, applicants may receive two reviews rated “Very Good” and one rated “Poor.”  The applicant will have to decide whether the “Poor” review is legitimate or an outlier. Outlier reviews can come about in a number of ways.  Perhaps the reviewer did not take the time necessary to thoroughly understand the application. Perhaps the reviewer has a personal or scientific axe to grind. Perhaps the reviewer was annoyed by the proposal, thinking it was poorly written, poorly organized, or just plain too hard to read. On the other hand, perhaps the reviewer saw a problem in the application that the other two reviewers missed.  In any event, discussing reviews with the program manager can help the applicant decide how to respond to seemingly unconstructive reviews.

Respond to Reviewer Comments

When a proposal is rejected, the applicant must decide how and to what degree he or she will respond to reviewers’ comments when preparing to resubmit the application. Carefully assessing the reviews, as discussed above, is really the only way to evaluate and respond to reviewers’ comments.  The applicant has to decide whether addressing reviewers’ comments will strengthen the proposal.  It is possible to respond in a general way to the reviewers’ conceptual comments, and in a very specific way to reviewers’ specific comments.  It is also possible to respond in greater detail to some of the reviewers’ comments than to others. Reviewers’ comments that focus heavily on the style and organization of the proposal may be relatively easy to address. Comments that call for a basic scholarly or scientific revision, however, are likely to be more difficult to attend to. Ultimately, of course, it is left to the judgment and discretion of the applicant to address or not address reviewers’ comments.

Determine Whether Reviews Are Reliable Guides to Program Objectives for the Next Funding Cycle

The crux of evaluating reviewers’ comments is determining whether they have identified substantive faults with the proposal that can and should be fixed, or whether they have focused more on the extent to which the applicant addressed specific funding program objectives. When it is the latter, it is very important that the applicant discuss the nature of the reviews with the program manager.  Some funding programs may have very consistent objectives from one funding cycle to the next, but many do not. It obviously would not be in the applicant’s best interest to address an individual reviewer’s comments if those comments would not be relevant to the next funding cycle anyway.  Program managers will be the best source of information about this question.

Answer the Question: “Do I have a Viable Research Idea?”

Reviews may generate a fundamental reassessment by the applicant of the intellectual merit of the research idea, methods, and work plan. When reviews come back that uniformly identify intrinsic flaws with the applicant’s basic concept, idea, or methods, the applicant needs to determine whether he or she has a viable research idea, or whether the fundamental research approach needs to be altered or even abandoned.  It is possible that reviewers’ comments will spark an applicant’s insight and lead to a revised direction (“I should have thought of doing my study that way…”).  On the other hand, unanimously negative reviews may lead the applicant to conclude that he or she would be better served putting energy into developing an entirely new research topic than into revising the old one.  It may even take the applicant more than one round of rejected proposals to make the difficult decision to either fundamentally change the idea or come up with a new one.

Competitive Resubmissions

Once an applicant has decided that the basic research idea and proposal can be revised and improved, and that he or she intends to resubmit the proposal, there are some strategies that may help make the resubmission as competitive as possible:

• Be certain the targeted funding program is the correct one for the proposal.
• Be certain revisions that have been made based on reviewers’ comments are clearly identified in the proposal.
• Focus on submitting a great proposal.

When considering a resubmission, it may be wise for the applicant to search alternative funding agencies for funding programs that may be applicable to the proposed work.  There is some overlap among funding programs, and applicants may find that the proposal could fare as well as or even better at an entirely different funding program or agency.  Applicants may wish to revisit the evaluation of funding agencies and their research priorities;  it may be possible to find a funding program that would have been a better “fit” in the first place.  Care should be taken, however, that proposal revisions not be made based on reviewers’ comments for one funding agency if those comments run contrary to the priorities of the new agency or program. In other words, don’t fix what’s not broken according to the mission and priorities of the resubmission agency.

On the other hand, when revisions are being made – especially with the intent to resubmit to the same funding program – applicants should make sure those revisions are clearly identified. Many funding agencies ask applicants to clearly state when a proposal is a resubmission. It will be much easier for the program manager and reviewers to assess the revised proposal if the problems with the initial proposal are identified early on in the revised proposal, along with a discussion of how the problems were addressed. An exception to that, clearly, would be when the reviewers’ comments dealt primarily with the proposal’s organization and style.

Finally, the applicant can enhance the competitiveness of a resubmission by preparing a superb proposal. The applicant should present the idea with clarity so that reviewers are left with no doubts about the scholarly and scientific objectives and methods, or about the significance of the study’s outcome for the funding agency and society at large.

Numerous books, journal articles, and web resources provide guidance on all aspects of the project planning and proposal development process.  The bibliography below highlights some of the most useful of these.

Books

Federal Grant Making

Bauer, David G. How to Evaluate and Improve Your Grants Effort. Westport, CT: Oyrx, 2001.

Blackburn, Thomas R.  Getting Science Grants:  Effective Strategies for Funding Success.  San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass-Wiley, 2003.

Chapin, Paul G.  Research Projects and Research Proposals:  A Guide for Scientists Seeking Funding.  Cambridge, England:  Cambridge UP, 2004.

Friedland, Andrew, and Carol Folt.  Writing Successful Science Proposals.  New Haven, CT:  Yale UP, 2000.

Hall, Mary, and Susan Howlett.  Getting Funded:  The Complete Guide to Writing Grant Proposals.  4^th ed.  Portland, OR:  Portland State U, 2003.

Halpern, A. R. The Rhetoric of the Grant Proposal. Council on Undergraduate Research Proposal Writing Institute, Juniata College, Huntingdon, PA, July 2001.

Hensen, Kenneth T.  Grant Writing in Higher Education:  A Step-by-Step Guide.  Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon, 2003.

Karsh, Ellen, and Arlen Sue Fox.  The Only Grant Writing Book You’ll Ever Need:  Top Grant Writers and Grant Givers Share Their Secrets.  New York, NY:  Carroll and Graf-Avalon, 2003.

Locke, L., W. Spirduso, and S. Silverman. Grants That Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertation and Grant Proposals.  4^th ed.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.

Miller, Patrick W.  Grant Writing:  Strategies for Developing Winning Proposals.  2^nd ed.  Patrick Miller, 2002.

Miner, Lynn E., Jeremy T. Miner.  Models of Proposal Planning and Writing.  Westport, CT:  Praeger-Greenwood, 2005.

Miner, Lynn E., and Jeremy T. Miner, and Jerry Griffith.  Proposal Planning and Writing.  3^rd ed.  Westport, CT:  Oryx-Greenwood, 2003.

Ogden, Thomas E., and Israel A. Goldberg.  Research Proposals:  A Guide to Success.  3^rd ed.  San Diego, CA:  Academic, 2002.

Orlich, Donald C., Designing Successful Grant Proposals. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996.

Pequegnat, Willo, and Ellen Stover, eds.  How to Write a Successful Research Grant Application:
A Guide for Social and Behavioral Scientists. New York, NY: Plenum, 1995.

Peters, Abby Day. Winning Research Funding. Burlington, Vermont: Gower, 2003.

Reif-Lehrer, Liane.  Grant Application Writer’s Handbook.  Boston, MA:  Jones and Bartlett, 1995.

Ries, Joanne B., and Carl G. Leukefeld. Applying for Research Funding: Getting Started and Getting Funded. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.

--- Research Funding Guidebook: Getting It, Managing It & Renewing It. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1998.

Nonprofit Grant Making

Barbato, Joseph, and Danielle Furlich.  Writing for a Good Cause:  The Complete Guide to Crafting Proposals and Other Persuasive Pieces for Nonprofits.  New York, NY:  Fireside-Simon and Schuster, 2000.

Brown, Larissa Golden, and Martin John Brown.  Demystifying Grant Seeking:  What You Really Need to Do to Get Grants.  Jossey-Bass Nonprofit and Public Management Series.  San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass-Wiley, 2001.

Burke, Jim, and Carol Ann Prater. I’ll Grant You That: A Step by Step Guide to Finding Funds, Designing Winning Projects, and Writing Powerful Grant Proposals. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2000.

Carlson, Mim.  Winning Grants:  Step by Step.  Jossey-Bass Nonprofit and Public Management Series.  San Francisco, CA:  Wiley-Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Collins, Sarah.  The Foundation Center’s Guide to Winning Proposals.  New York, NY:  Foundation Center, 2003.

Edelson, Phyllis.  Foundation Grants to Individuals.  14^th ed.  New York, NY:  Foundation Center.  2005.

Geever, Jane C., and Patricia McNeil.  The Foundation Center’s Guide to Proposal Writing.  New York, NY:  Foundation Center, 1997.

Goldberg, Israel A., and Thomas E. Ogden.  Research Proposals:  A Guide to Success.  2^nd ed.  New York, NY:  Raven.  1995.

Golden, Susan L.  Secrets of Successful Grantsmanship:  A Guerilla Guide to Raising Money.  Jossey-Bass Nonprofit and Public Management Series.  San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass-Wiley, 1997.

Knowles, Cynthia.  The First-Time Grant Writer’s Guide to Success.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin, 2002.

Moore, Pam.  Grantseeker’s Guidebook:  Tips, Trends, and Resources for Winning and Managing Federal Funds.  Alexandria, VA:  Capitol:  1994.

National Institutes of Health:  Division of Research Grant.  Preparing a Research Grant Application to the National Institutes of Health.  Bethesda, MD:  Grants Information Office, 1993. 

New, Cheryl Carter, and James Aaron Quick.  Grantseeker’s Toolkit:  A Comprehensive Guide to Finding Funding.  Hoboken, NJ:  Wiley, 1998.

Wason, Sara D.  Webster’s New World Grant Writing Handbook.  Hoboken, NJ:  Wiley, 2004.

Book Chapters and Journal Articles

Federal Grant Making

Argon, Judith K.  “Securing Funding from Federal Sources.”  In The Academic’s Handbook.  2^nd ed.  Eds.  Leigh Deneef and Craufurd D. Goodwin.  Durham, NC:  Duke UP, 1995.  219-35.

Boss, Jeremy M., and Susan H. Eckert.  “Gettin’ Money.”  In Academic Scientists at Work:  Navigating the Biomedical Research Career.  New York, NY:  Kluwer Academic-Plenum, 2003.  39-55.

Lucas, Christopher J., and John W. Murry, Jr.  “The Art of Grantsmanship.”  In New Faculty:  A Practical Guide for Academic Beginners.  New York:  NY:  Palgrave-St. Martin’s, 2002.  163-180. 

Steinberg, Jane.  “Obtaining a Research Grant:  The Granting Agency’s View.”  In The Compleat Academic:  A Career Guide.  2^nd ed.  Eds. John M. Darley, Mark P. Zanna, and Henry L. Roediger.  American Psychological Association, 2003.  153-68.

Steinberg, Robert.  “Obtaining a Research Grant:  The Applicant’s View.”  In The Compleat Academic:  A Career Guide.  2^nd ed.  Eds. John M. Darley, Mark P. Zanna, and Henry L. Roediger.  American Psychological Association, 2003.  169-84.

Nonprofit Grant Making

Crossland, Fred E.  “New Academics and the Quest for Private Funds.”  In The Academic’s Handbook.  2^nd ed.  Ed.  Leigh Deneef and Craufurd D. Goodwin.  Durham, NC:  Duke UP, 1995.  236-45.

Web Resources

Federal Agency Proposal Writing Guides

CFDA:  Developing and Writing Grant Proposals. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 24 May 2005.  http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/CATALOG.GRANT_PROPOSAL_DYN.show.

EPA:  Tips on Writing a Grant Proposal. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 13 May 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/recipient/tips.htm.

Foundation Center.  Proposal Writing Short Course.  Foundation Center.  2005. 
http://www.fdncenter.org/learn/shortcourse/prop1.html.

Foundation Center:  Virtual Classroom.  Foundation Center.  2005. 
http://www.fdncenter.org/learn/classroom/.

NIH:  Advice on Research Training and Career Awards Tutorial. 
National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  24 February 2005.  http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/training/advice/index.htm.

NIH:  Advice on Small Business Applications Tutorial. 
National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  10 May 2005.  http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/sbir/advice/start.htm.

NIH:  Annotated R01Application and Summary Statement. 
National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  11 January 2005.  
 http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/app/default.htm.

NIH:  Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about NIH Grants.  Office of Extramural Research.  19 January 2005.  http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/giofaq.htm.

NIH:  Checklists for Applicants and Grantees. 
National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  14 February 2005. 
 http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/charts/checklists.htm.

NIH:  Common Mistakes in NIH Applications.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes.  9 February 2005. 
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/grantwriting_mistakes.htm.

NIH:  Grant Application Basics Tutorial.  National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases. 
14 April 2005.  http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/basics/index.htm.

NIH:  How to Manage Your Grant Award Tutorial. 
National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  10 December 2004.  http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/manage/index.htm.

NIH:  How to Plan a Grant Application Tutorial. 
National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  28 March 2005. 
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/plan/index.htm.

NIH:  How to Prepare a Multi-Project Grant Application Tutorial.
National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  18 November 2004. 
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/multi/index.htm.

NIH:  How to Write an Application Involving Research Animals Tutorial. 
National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  2 May 2005. 
 http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/clinical/researchanimals/tutorial/index.htm.

NIH:  How to Write a Grant Application Tutorial. 
National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  9 February 2005.  http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/write/index.htm.

NIH:  How to Write a Human Subjects Application Tutorial. 
National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  18 November 2004. 
 http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/clinical/humansubjects/default.htm.

NIH:  Inside the NIH Grant Review Process. 
National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  8 November 2004.  http://www.csr.nih.gov/Video/Video.asp.

NIH:  Questions and Answers:  Quick Facts on Research Grant Applications. 
National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  16 March 2005. 
 http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/qa/quickgrants.htm.

NIH:  Suggestions for Revising Applications. 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.  8 February 2005. 
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/cpr/dbs/tips_revise.htm.

NIH:  Supplemental Materials to the Tutorials. 
National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases.  17 February 2005. 
 http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/charts/default.htm.

NIH:  Tips for New Applicants. 
National Institute for General Medical Sciences.  18 March 2004. 
 http://www.nigms.nih.gov/funding/tips.html.

NSF:  Grant Proposal Guide.  National Science Foundation. 1 September 2004.  http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.

The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Advice for Grant Seekers.”  Science.  12 November 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Advice for a Ugandan Epidemiologist.”  Science.  9 November 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

 “The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Betting on the Future.”  Science.  25 July 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Biological Archaeology and Research in Germany.”  Science.  14 April 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Can I Get Funds to Support a Second Degree in Veterinary Science? How Can I Get Postdoctoral Fellowships to Work in France?”  Science.  8 October 1999.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Can I Receive an R01 Grant without a Green Card? ... Scientific Butter or Guns?”  Science.  28 February 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Career Development Awards and Grants for River Blindness.”  Science.  23 June 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Catch-22.”  Science.  8 February 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Crashing and Burning.”  Science.  12 December 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Does My Proposal Fit?  How Do I Resubmit?”  Science.  27 August 1999.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Equipment Grants ... Small-College Chemistry.”  Science.  14 June 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Financing Medical School; Grants for Foreign Nationals.”  Science.  24 August 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

 “The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Flying Blind.”  Science.  10 June 2005.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  From M.D. to Ph.D., and Vice Versa.”  Science.  9 July 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  From Oxford to Cambridge (Massachusetts).”  Science.  12 April 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  From Physics to Biology.”  Science.  10 December 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Additional Training and Summer Research.”  Science.  9 March 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Astronomy Education and Diabetes Research.”  Science.  23 February 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Doctoral Work and Engineering Research.”  Science.  27 April 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Doctoral Work and Study Abroad.”  Science.  13 April 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Doctoral Work in Nutrition and Working Abroad.”  Science.  25 May 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Emergency Response and Using GrantsNet.”  Science.  23 March 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding for Fledglings.”  Science.  23 November 2001. http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding for Hearing Research and Chemical Oceanography.”  Science.  14 September 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Forestry Research and Going to Graduate School.”  Science.  10 June 2005.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding International Research Collaborations.”  Science.  22 October 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Mitochondrial Research and Can NIH Grants Be Used to Pay Off Dues?.”  Science.  10 March 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funding Ophthalmology and Plant Biology Research.”  Science.  13 July 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funds for Basic and Orthopedic Research.”  Science.  22 June 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Funds for Canadian Postdocs in the U.S. and Finding a Grant Editor.”  Science.  26 October 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

 “The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Gene Therapy Grants for Non-U.S. Scientists, and Help the Grant Doctor Select Grant Resource Topics.”  Science.  25 August 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Getting A Fresh Start.”  Science.  9 April 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Getting Independent.”  Science.  10 October 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Grad School Support for Foreign Students ... Grants for Switching Institutions.”  Science.  10 June 2005.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Graduate Grants for Environmental Ecology and Funding for Epidemiology Studies.”  Science.  22 September 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  The Grant Doctor Eats Crow.”  Science.  8 March 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  The Grant Doctor Gets Small.”  Science.  26 April 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  The Grant Doctor’s Guide to Searching for Funds.”  Science.  28 April 2000. 

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  The Grant Doctor Needs a Life.”  Science.  9 May 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Grant Doctor Renders Herself Irrelevant.”  Science.  13 June 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Grants for Staffers ... A “K” Klinic, Part II.”  Science.  25 October 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Grants Without Citizenship Requirements and Studying in Rural America.”  Science.  12 May 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Hey Dude, Where’s My Grant?.”  Science.  14 January 2005.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  HHMI Professors Meet.”  Science.  14 November 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  How Can I Get Bioengineering Grants and Where Can I Find Funding for Women's Health Research?”  Science.  11 February 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers: How Can I Win Federal Grants without a Track Record?”  Science.  8 September 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  How Do I Appeal A Grant Review? What Are Sources of Alternative Medicine Funding?”  Science.  10 September 1999.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  How Do I Deal with Second Reviews.”  Science.  22 October 1999.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  How Do I Find Out How to Do a Postdoc in the States?”  Science.  14 July 2000. 

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  How to Write an R03 Application ... Do Foreigners Really Qualify for NIH Grants?”  Science.  13 September 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Immunology Grants and Agricultural Research in Developing Countries.”  Science.  26 January 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Internet Collaborations.”  Science.  11 February 2005.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  A “K” Klinic.”  Science.  11 October 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Le Pont Neuf and NIH Stinkers.”  Science.  27 July 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Loan-Repayment for Biomedical Researchers.”  Science.  14 December 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Looking for Funds for My Backpack Research!”  Science.  26 November 1999.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Losing Out without Losing It.”  Science.  23 August 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers: Medicinal Herbs…Foreign Collaboration.”  Science.  9 August 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Meeting Travel Grants and Setting Up a Rural Health Clinic.”  Science.  9 February 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Men in Nursing.”  Science.  25 January 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Mentored Research Awards and Multiple Sources of Funding.”  Science.  13 October 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Mentorship and Collaboration.”  Science.  8 October 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Minority Fellowships ... Time Off For Good Science.”  Science.  13 December 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Minority Grants and E-mail Etiquette.”  Science.  26 May 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Mobility, Coming and Going.”  Science.  9 January 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Navigating the Transition Award Maze.”  Science.  13 August 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  NIH and New Investigators ... Small College R01s.”  Science.  10 May 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  NIH Program Codes ... Research Funding for Minority Undergraduates.”  Science.  14 February 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  NIH’s Training Guru Writes About Training Awards, and To Tell Us What a Great Job We’re Doing.”  Science.  22 November 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  No Feedback ... Grants for Girl Bands.”  Science.  28 March 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  NRSA Changes ... Graduate Fellowships For Neuropsychology.”  Science.  28 June 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  NRSA Leave Policies ... Grants and Cooperative Agreements.”  Science.  12 July 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  PA’s, RFA’s, and All That ... Cord Blood for Minorities.”  Science.  26 July 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  PAs, RFAs, and Other Letter Combinations.”  Science.  13 February 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Ph.D.s, M.D.s, and Clinical Research ... Pissed, or Pithed?”  Science.  27 September 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  P.O.s Behaving Badly.”  Science.  13 May 2005.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Preventive Health; A New Foundation for Neurodegenerative Disease Research.”  Science.  11 January 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Short Psychology Grants for Single Parents, and...The Grant Doctor’s Birthday!.”  Science.  11 August 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Research Grants From the Department of Defense.”  Science.  8 November 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Research Resources ... Time, Not Money.”  Science.  24 May 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Rosters, Redux ... Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.”  Science.  13 April 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  A Roundup of the Best Grant and Funding Sites Online in ’99.”  Science.  24 December 1999.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Rutgers University: Graduate Grants and Grant-Writing Workshops.”  Science.  28 July 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Sabbatical Support.”  Science.  25 April 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Scholarships for Medical School and Searching for Non-U.S. Citizen Fellowships.”  Science.  27 October 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Scientific Recycling.”  Science.  27 June 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Short-Term Start-Up.”  Science.  10 June 2005.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Small-College Shenanigans.”  Science.  11 March 2005.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Small Educational Instrument Grants.”  Science.  12 October 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Soft Research on Malaria.”  Science.  10 August 2001.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Special Neapolitan Edition.”  Science.  12 March 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Summer Courses and Hot Research Topics in Dentistry.”  Science.  25 February 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Taxonomy of a Training Program.”  Science.  10 September 2004.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  The Postpostdoc: Present at the Birth.”  Science.  22 March 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  The Solid State of Microelectronics Research.”  Science.  23 May 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Training and Retraining.”  Science.  11 July 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Undergraduate Research, or Undergraduate Research?”  Science.  8 August 2003.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Vibrant Visitors.”  Science.  22 February 2002.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  When Do I See the (Grant) Money? And Grants for Sleep Research.”  Science.  9 June 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Where Can I Find Money for Elementary School Science? How Do I Get Instructions and Deadlines for R03 Grants?”  Science.  24 September 1999.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

“The Grant Doctor:  Advice for Grant Seekers:  Where Can I Get Basic Information on Funding in the U.S.? What’s with NIH’s Budget and Funding Opportunities This Year?”  Science.  28 January 2000.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/08/27/1.

Additional Proposal Writing Advice

Effective Communication Skills for Writing Grant Proposals. 23 January 2002.
Indiana University Office of the Vice President for Research.
http://www.indiana.edu/~gradgrnt/pubs/effective_comm.html.

Hemenway, David.  How to Improve Your Score When Submitting a Grant Proposal. 
University of Vermont Office of Sponsored Programs.  13 February 1997. 
http://www.uvm.edu/%7Eospuvm/?Page=Proposal_Submission/DHememway
ImproveScore.htm.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  “Getting Funded.”  In Making the Right Moves:  A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty.  Chevy Chase, MD: 
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2005.  131-150.
http://www.hhmi.org/grants/office/graduate/labmanagement.html

Kraicer, Jacob.  The Art of Grantsmanship.  University of Toronto.  5 May 1997.
 http://www.hfsp.org/how/ArtOfGrants.htm.

Levine, Joseph. 26 March 2005.  Guide for Writing a Funding Proposal.  Michigan State University.  http://www.learnerassociates.net/proposal/.

Some Reasons Proposals Fail.  Indiana University.  2005. 
 http://www.montana.edu/wwwvr/reasons.html.

Thackrey, Don. Proposal Writer’s Guide. University of Michigan. 26 May 2005
 http://www.research.umich.edu/proposals/PWG/pwgcontents.html.

Texas A&M University System Grant Administration Offices

Office                                                     Contact                              Phone                E-mail

Texas A&M Research Foundation
(TAMRF)                                                    Jane Zuber                          979-845-8615     jane-zuber@tamu.edu

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station     Diane Gilliland                      979-845-4761      d-gilliland@tamu.edu

Texas Engineering Experiment Station    David Hollingsworth             979-845-1264     dhollingworth@tamu.edu

Texas Transportation Institute
(TTI)                                                         Toni Monroe                         979-862-3942     t-monroe@ttimail.tamu.edu

Texas A&M University System Research (R) and Graduate (G) Deans

Office                                                     Contact                  R/G      Phone                E-mail

Health Science Center                            David Carlson          R/G      979-458-7217     dcarlson@tambcd.tamu.edu

Prairie View A&M University                    William Parker          G         936-857-2312     william_parker@pvamu.edu

Prairie View A&M University                    Willie Trotty              R         936-857-4494     Willie_trotty@pvamu.edu

Tarleton State University                        Linda Jones             G          254-968-9104     ljones@tarleton.edu

Tarleton State University                        Bert Little                 R          254-968-9463     little@tarleton.edu

Texas A&M International University        Jeffrey Brown           G         956-326-2596     jbrown@tamiu.edu

Texas A&M International University        Dan Jones               R           956-326-2241     djones@tamui.edu

Texas A&M University                              Rick Giardino           G          979-845-3631     rickg@tamu.edu

Texas A&M University at Galveston         Dave Wentling        R/G       409-740-4937     wentlind@tamug.edu

Texas A&M University – Commerce         Allan Headley          R/G       903-886-5159     allan_headley@tamu-Commerce.edu

Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi   Harvey Knull            R/G       361-825-2177     Harvey.Knull@mail.tamucc.edu

Texas A&M University – Kingsville           Dalton Bigbee           R         361-593-3098     dbigbee@tamuk.edu

Texas A&M University – Kingsville           Alberto Olivares        G         361-593-2808     a-olivares@tamuk.edu

Texas A&M University – Texarkana         David Allard             R/G       903-223-3131     David.Allard@tamut.edu

West Texas A&M University                    James Hallmark       R/G        806-651-2730    jhallmark@mail.wtamu.edu

Texas A&M University Office of Proposal Development

Office                                                     Contact                  R/G       Phone                  E-mail

Office of Proposal Development             Mike Cronan                          979-845-1811     mikecronan@tamu.edu

Texas A&M University Office of Research Compliance

Office                                                     Contact                  R/G      Phone                E-mail

Office of Research Compliance              Angelia Raines                     979-847-9362       a.raines@tamu.edu

Texas A&M University Office of Sponsored Projects

Office                                                     Contact                  R/G      Phone                E-mail