- Email: [email protected]
WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Writing a Research Grant – 1, Applying for Funding
Early Human Development xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Early Human Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earlhumdev
Best practice guidelines
WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Writing a research grant – 1, applying for funding A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Grants Research Research methodology Research techniques
The academic world revolves around research which is both a requisite to achieve a degree, as well as part of the job description of academics. Obtaining a research grant is often essential in order to cover the running costs of a research project. Once a research proposal has been formulated, with the help of supervisors/collaborators, both tangible costs and non-tangible costs can be calculated. These predicted values are essential when applying for a research grant. Different funding opportunities are available from different sources, often both local and international. The latter funding bodies are usually either dedicated to a specific disease or process. It is essential to identify the appropriate funding opportunity according to the funding body's priorities and guidelines so that the grant can then be accordingly formulated. The great majority of funding sources issue competitive calls, so the aim of your application is not to show that the researcher deserves funds, but why the study in question is the one most deserving of the limited funds available. In any funding application, the strengths of the individual researcher/research group and the relevance of the project itself are the main two selling points. However, without a well prepared management plan, applications flounder. This paper will outline how best to target and formulate this approach.
1. Introduction Research is a requisite for almost all post-graduate academic degrees (and is also well regarded in undergraduate portfolios), as well as part of the academic job description. Many research projects, particularly those involving wet laboratory science or large scale epidemiological studies, require substantial funding to cover tangible and intangible costs. Clinical trials require even larger resources, most of which can only be footed by large Pharma industry, especially in Phase 2 or Phase 3. This review covers the smaller scientific grant applications (up to a few million Euros), and not the later clinical trial phases for new medications. Applying for grant funding is no easy task and is considerably daunting and time consuming. Despite the large effort expended, the chances of winning grant funding vary considerably. EU research (such as Horizon 2020) application success rates are around 15%. Thus one has to understand the competitive nature of funds and that a number of trials may in fact be required before achieving success. Various matters need to be considered before applying for a research grant, foremost amongst them, the objectives of the funding body or call, and the competitiveness of the funding. Of note, there are different types of grants available. There are funding bodies/instruments such as Horizon 2020 [1] that generally cover the costs of a research proposal while others fund travel and training like MCSA (Marie Curie Sklodowska Actions [2]) along with networking of experts in a particular field of interest (e.g. – COST. Cooperation in science and technology [3]). 2. Identifying funding sources This section focuses on grant opportunities for academic research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.07.013
0378-3782/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
but the EU horizon 2020 also provides funding to industry, especially for small enterprises, as well as for local business/commercial organisations. It is essential to identify funding opportunities that may be used to support the research one is interested in. Once the researcher has an idea of the research to be performed, it is important to identify the funding priorities established by the funding body as well as the eligibility for the funding. This is crucial before commencing on the task of constructing a grant proposal. Most funding sources work in a top-down manner, with the funding body issuing calls or providing specific targets that scientists can then apply for. A smaller number of sources, such as the COST actions funded by the EU, are grass roots or bottom-up driven. This means that scientists can come together and suggest areas where research is important, and if enough of these scientists can put together an argument (and a proposal) for funding of a specific topic, this may actually happen. COST actions, despite allowing such bottomup approach, only fund collaboration and training rather than research grants per se. One should write a proposal specifically tailored for these requirements, thus including any specific interests within this general aim. Local funding opportunities may be easier to access compared to international sources. Local sources will also usually target local issues, making them more relevant in some cases. In all cases, any potentially interesting source should be confirmed by carefully reading the submission requirements and checking any proposal deadlines. Some funding bodies may have two-stage proposals where a very brief initial application is used to short-list those of interest, following a more detailed competitive application to award funding. More specific funding, such as funded PhDs or post-doctoral positions in an established research team may avoid the searching required, but obviously limit the research to an already specifically chosen aim.
Early Human Development xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Best practice guidelines
Fig 1. Horizon 2020 participant portal.
have rather specific requirements for award. Many EU Horizon 2020 grants for example are provided to a consortium after they apply for a particular call. For this reason, it is no longer the excellence of an individual lab, but the excellence of the entire consortium, and to some extent the co-ordinating partner, which will ensure success. In this case, it is joining up with the right partners that is essential. Geo-political elements, as well as purely scientific ones, may also combine to create a successful application in these cases, including the presence of partners from across all parts of Europe, as well as gender balance in the scientific consortium. Other elements of what is often called the European dimension, also need to be satisfied to allow success in such calls. Making sure the project fits in with European Political Agenda as well as the specific research requirements of the Horizon call helps. In order to prove this point, quoting European Laws, European Parliament position papers and any official documents showing that the issue one is of relevance to much/most of the EU and is a recognised problem, will help greatly. Including ones' lab/self on potential partner databases like CORDIS [12] or other research maps will allow coordinators for collaborative projects to find and contact potential researchers. However, contacts are more often made by networking through attending conferences and symposia (as well as using social media like Twitter or Linkedin) to contact collaborators. In this case, it is often very worthwhile to have contacts with the biggest research labs in a particular field so that one can attempt to join such a consortium. Scientists from smaller labs and especially first time applicants for such consortium grants, are often better off being a contributing partner rather than a coordinator, at least initially.
In some cases, parts of the research funds for these positions may also be obtained from larger international bodies such as the Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions (MSCA) which can often fund training for a period between 3 to 12 months in a different lab, for example when skills or equipment required for the project are not available in the home lab.
3. Different methods/types of funding Funding can come from a number of sources. These include local/ national agencies such as the Medical Research council [4] (MRC) in the UK and the National Institutes of Health [5] (NIH) in the US, charities like Fundacion ARC [6] in France and Cancer Research UK [7]. Charities and governmental sources may have different aims and it is important to consider this when applying for funds. Industries (including pharmaceutical and biotech industry) may be able to support certain research, although in that case, publication may be limited by intellectual property considerations. Some Governmental sources and even charities (such as the NIH and the Leukaemia Research Foundation [8]) allow international groups to apply for their funds, while other sources limit their funding to national/local applicants. Some University sites (such as Duke University [9] in the US) and databases (such as InfoEd SPIN [10]) provide access to multiple funding sources and are frequently updated. Not all funding bodies support the same kind of grants. While many can support individual scientists (like some MSCA grants for early stage or even late stage researchers), or European Research Council [11] (ERC) grants, other funding bodies or specific calls for applications may 2
Early Human Development xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Best practice guidelines
3. Contribute to innovative, efficient and sustainable health systems. 4. Facilitate access to high quality, safe healthcare for EU citizens.
Other types of grants are only available for collaborative actions, for example between academia and industry [13], with different intellectual property (IP) relationships. Some may share IP from the funded project whilst others may afford funding for SMEs to pay a research service provider to advance their idea, with the IP being retained by the enterprise.
These kinds of funds may be more important in infectious disease, public health and for more cross continent epidemiological studies. Conflict of interest statement
4. Matching a project to the most appropriate funding source There are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
Specifically within the EU framework, different sources are available and must all be considered. It is worth checking out with national contact point agencies about success rates and requirements. It is unlikely that one will get very substantial ERC funding if one is considerably past their doctorate and has not achieved substantial, very highly indexed/cited publications. On the other hand, MSCA actions may have a much better success rate and this may also vary from country to country depending on how many people from that particular country tend to apply. For bottom up funding, where the researcher comes up with an idea and asks for it to be funded, the ERC (European Research Council) funds are a major source. They are allocated across all areas of research (not only biomedical) and can amount to substantial amounts such as 5 million Euro over a 5 year period. However, such funds are then usually only allocated to the scientific elite - researchers with high risk yet highly interesting proposed projects, and with a high quality scientific track record. This funding also allows for Blue Skies (or basic - not necessarily applied) research. The call, however, is relatively simple as it is single researcher driven. Almost all other research funds, with the exception of some of the types of MSCA funds, are targeted towards consortia. However in MSCA and COST (for collaborations and meetings), the ideas are still researcher or teaching consortium driven. Most other calls for funding are for research which the EU deems useful. The Horizon 2020 website (Fig 1) permits the choice of a number of filters like the area of interest (shown as societal challenge here seen as health and well being), together with indicators of presently open or upcoming calls, as well as a filter word box to search by keyword (here shown as diabetes). Funds for Projects need not be necessarily targeted towards pure research. Many funds from different European Union Directorates will support different EU aims. For example, once again, using the Health Directorate [14], funds may be found to support these particular aims:
Acknowledgments The inspiration for this series of papers arises from the international Write a Scientific Paper course [15,16]. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/what-horizon-2020. https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/msca-actions_en. http://www.cost.eu. https://mrc.ukri.org. https://www.nih.gov. https://www.fondation-arc.org. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org. https://www.allbloodcancers.org. https://researchfunding.duke.edu. http://infoedglobal.com/solutions/grants-contracts/spin-funding-opportunities. https://erc.europa.eu. http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/smeinstrument. [14] https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme_en. [15] V. Grech, WASP - Write a Scientific Paper course: why and how, J. Vis. Commun. Med. 40 (3) (2017 Jul) 130–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2017. 1366825 Epub 2017 Sep 19. [16] V. Grech, S. Cuschieri, (WASP) - a career-critical skill, Early Hum. Dev. (2018 Jan 17), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.01.001 (pii: S0378-3782(18) 30005-7). ⁎
Schembri-Wismayer Pierrea, , Cuschieri Sarahb, Grech Victorc, a Anatomy Department, University of Malta, Malta b Anatomy Department, University of Malta, Msida, Malta c University of Malta and Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist, Mater Dei Hospital, Malta E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Schembri-Wismayer), [email protected] (S. Cuschieri), [email protected] (V. Grech)
1. Promote health, prevent disease and foster healthy lifestyles through 'health in all policies'. 2. Protect EU citizens from serious cross-border health threats.
⁎
Corresponding author. 3
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Early Human Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earlhumdev
Best practice guidelines
WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Writing a research grant – 1, applying for funding A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Grants Research Research methodology Research techniques
The academic world revolves around research which is both a requisite to achieve a degree, as well as part of the job description of academics. Obtaining a research grant is often essential in order to cover the running costs of a research project. Once a research proposal has been formulated, with the help of supervisors/collaborators, both tangible costs and non-tangible costs can be calculated. These predicted values are essential when applying for a research grant. Different funding opportunities are available from different sources, often both local and international. The latter funding bodies are usually either dedicated to a specific disease or process. It is essential to identify the appropriate funding opportunity according to the funding body's priorities and guidelines so that the grant can then be accordingly formulated. The great majority of funding sources issue competitive calls, so the aim of your application is not to show that the researcher deserves funds, but why the study in question is the one most deserving of the limited funds available. In any funding application, the strengths of the individual researcher/research group and the relevance of the project itself are the main two selling points. However, without a well prepared management plan, applications flounder. This paper will outline how best to target and formulate this approach.
1. Introduction Research is a requisite for almost all post-graduate academic degrees (and is also well regarded in undergraduate portfolios), as well as part of the academic job description. Many research projects, particularly those involving wet laboratory science or large scale epidemiological studies, require substantial funding to cover tangible and intangible costs. Clinical trials require even larger resources, most of which can only be footed by large Pharma industry, especially in Phase 2 or Phase 3. This review covers the smaller scientific grant applications (up to a few million Euros), and not the later clinical trial phases for new medications. Applying for grant funding is no easy task and is considerably daunting and time consuming. Despite the large effort expended, the chances of winning grant funding vary considerably. EU research (such as Horizon 2020) application success rates are around 15%. Thus one has to understand the competitive nature of funds and that a number of trials may in fact be required before achieving success. Various matters need to be considered before applying for a research grant, foremost amongst them, the objectives of the funding body or call, and the competitiveness of the funding. Of note, there are different types of grants available. There are funding bodies/instruments such as Horizon 2020 [1] that generally cover the costs of a research proposal while others fund travel and training like MCSA (Marie Curie Sklodowska Actions [2]) along with networking of experts in a particular field of interest (e.g. – COST. Cooperation in science and technology [3]). 2. Identifying funding sources This section focuses on grant opportunities for academic research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.07.013
0378-3782/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
but the EU horizon 2020 also provides funding to industry, especially for small enterprises, as well as for local business/commercial organisations. It is essential to identify funding opportunities that may be used to support the research one is interested in. Once the researcher has an idea of the research to be performed, it is important to identify the funding priorities established by the funding body as well as the eligibility for the funding. This is crucial before commencing on the task of constructing a grant proposal. Most funding sources work in a top-down manner, with the funding body issuing calls or providing specific targets that scientists can then apply for. A smaller number of sources, such as the COST actions funded by the EU, are grass roots or bottom-up driven. This means that scientists can come together and suggest areas where research is important, and if enough of these scientists can put together an argument (and a proposal) for funding of a specific topic, this may actually happen. COST actions, despite allowing such bottomup approach, only fund collaboration and training rather than research grants per se. One should write a proposal specifically tailored for these requirements, thus including any specific interests within this general aim. Local funding opportunities may be easier to access compared to international sources. Local sources will also usually target local issues, making them more relevant in some cases. In all cases, any potentially interesting source should be confirmed by carefully reading the submission requirements and checking any proposal deadlines. Some funding bodies may have two-stage proposals where a very brief initial application is used to short-list those of interest, following a more detailed competitive application to award funding. More specific funding, such as funded PhDs or post-doctoral positions in an established research team may avoid the searching required, but obviously limit the research to an already specifically chosen aim.
Early Human Development xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Best practice guidelines
Fig 1. Horizon 2020 participant portal.
have rather specific requirements for award. Many EU Horizon 2020 grants for example are provided to a consortium after they apply for a particular call. For this reason, it is no longer the excellence of an individual lab, but the excellence of the entire consortium, and to some extent the co-ordinating partner, which will ensure success. In this case, it is joining up with the right partners that is essential. Geo-political elements, as well as purely scientific ones, may also combine to create a successful application in these cases, including the presence of partners from across all parts of Europe, as well as gender balance in the scientific consortium. Other elements of what is often called the European dimension, also need to be satisfied to allow success in such calls. Making sure the project fits in with European Political Agenda as well as the specific research requirements of the Horizon call helps. In order to prove this point, quoting European Laws, European Parliament position papers and any official documents showing that the issue one is of relevance to much/most of the EU and is a recognised problem, will help greatly. Including ones' lab/self on potential partner databases like CORDIS [12] or other research maps will allow coordinators for collaborative projects to find and contact potential researchers. However, contacts are more often made by networking through attending conferences and symposia (as well as using social media like Twitter or Linkedin) to contact collaborators. In this case, it is often very worthwhile to have contacts with the biggest research labs in a particular field so that one can attempt to join such a consortium. Scientists from smaller labs and especially first time applicants for such consortium grants, are often better off being a contributing partner rather than a coordinator, at least initially.
In some cases, parts of the research funds for these positions may also be obtained from larger international bodies such as the Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions (MSCA) which can often fund training for a period between 3 to 12 months in a different lab, for example when skills or equipment required for the project are not available in the home lab.
3. Different methods/types of funding Funding can come from a number of sources. These include local/ national agencies such as the Medical Research council [4] (MRC) in the UK and the National Institutes of Health [5] (NIH) in the US, charities like Fundacion ARC [6] in France and Cancer Research UK [7]. Charities and governmental sources may have different aims and it is important to consider this when applying for funds. Industries (including pharmaceutical and biotech industry) may be able to support certain research, although in that case, publication may be limited by intellectual property considerations. Some Governmental sources and even charities (such as the NIH and the Leukaemia Research Foundation [8]) allow international groups to apply for their funds, while other sources limit their funding to national/local applicants. Some University sites (such as Duke University [9] in the US) and databases (such as InfoEd SPIN [10]) provide access to multiple funding sources and are frequently updated. Not all funding bodies support the same kind of grants. While many can support individual scientists (like some MSCA grants for early stage or even late stage researchers), or European Research Council [11] (ERC) grants, other funding bodies or specific calls for applications may 2
Early Human Development xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Best practice guidelines
3. Contribute to innovative, efficient and sustainable health systems. 4. Facilitate access to high quality, safe healthcare for EU citizens.
Other types of grants are only available for collaborative actions, for example between academia and industry [13], with different intellectual property (IP) relationships. Some may share IP from the funded project whilst others may afford funding for SMEs to pay a research service provider to advance their idea, with the IP being retained by the enterprise.
These kinds of funds may be more important in infectious disease, public health and for more cross continent epidemiological studies. Conflict of interest statement
4. Matching a project to the most appropriate funding source There are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
Specifically within the EU framework, different sources are available and must all be considered. It is worth checking out with national contact point agencies about success rates and requirements. It is unlikely that one will get very substantial ERC funding if one is considerably past their doctorate and has not achieved substantial, very highly indexed/cited publications. On the other hand, MSCA actions may have a much better success rate and this may also vary from country to country depending on how many people from that particular country tend to apply. For bottom up funding, where the researcher comes up with an idea and asks for it to be funded, the ERC (European Research Council) funds are a major source. They are allocated across all areas of research (not only biomedical) and can amount to substantial amounts such as 5 million Euro over a 5 year period. However, such funds are then usually only allocated to the scientific elite - researchers with high risk yet highly interesting proposed projects, and with a high quality scientific track record. This funding also allows for Blue Skies (or basic - not necessarily applied) research. The call, however, is relatively simple as it is single researcher driven. Almost all other research funds, with the exception of some of the types of MSCA funds, are targeted towards consortia. However in MSCA and COST (for collaborations and meetings), the ideas are still researcher or teaching consortium driven. Most other calls for funding are for research which the EU deems useful. The Horizon 2020 website (Fig 1) permits the choice of a number of filters like the area of interest (shown as societal challenge here seen as health and well being), together with indicators of presently open or upcoming calls, as well as a filter word box to search by keyword (here shown as diabetes). Funds for Projects need not be necessarily targeted towards pure research. Many funds from different European Union Directorates will support different EU aims. For example, once again, using the Health Directorate [14], funds may be found to support these particular aims:
Acknowledgments The inspiration for this series of papers arises from the international Write a Scientific Paper course [15,16]. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/what-horizon-2020. https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/msca-actions_en. http://www.cost.eu. https://mrc.ukri.org. https://www.nih.gov. https://www.fondation-arc.org. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org. https://www.allbloodcancers.org. https://researchfunding.duke.edu. http://infoedglobal.com/solutions/grants-contracts/spin-funding-opportunities. https://erc.europa.eu. http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/smeinstrument. [14] https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme_en. [15] V. Grech, WASP - Write a Scientific Paper course: why and how, J. Vis. Commun. Med. 40 (3) (2017 Jul) 130–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2017. 1366825 Epub 2017 Sep 19. [16] V. Grech, S. Cuschieri, (WASP) - a career-critical skill, Early Hum. Dev. (2018 Jan 17), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.01.001 (pii: S0378-3782(18) 30005-7). ⁎
Schembri-Wismayer Pierrea, , Cuschieri Sarahb, Grech Victorc, a Anatomy Department, University of Malta, Malta b Anatomy Department, University of Malta, Msida, Malta c University of Malta and Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist, Mater Dei Hospital, Malta E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Schembri-Wismayer), [email protected] (S. Cuschieri), [email protected] (V. Grech)
1. Promote health, prevent disease and foster healthy lifestyles through 'health in all policies'. 2. Protect EU citizens from serious cross-border health threats.
⁎
Corresponding author. 3