12. Vetting the Proposal

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.

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.