Sign Up to receive free weekly articles like these

Grant Clinic:

Was "too ambitious" to blame for non-funding?

Reader Question: I recently received the reviewers' summary sheets for my first R01 research grant submission. The score was encouraging, but not fundable. The reviewers’ criticisms, however, were all mild and addressable, and did not represent specific flaws in the work itself. Two reviewers commented that the program is an ambitious one, and that perhaps I need to cut back on at least two of the proposed studies. I could easily do that, so why didn’t I get the funding? What am I missing?

Expert Comments: Interpreting the thoughts of the reviewers is a road to madness, but I might be able to read between the lines here. First, you got hit with the dreaded “A” word – ambitious. This is code for “your inexperience is showing.” Reviewers want to see originality and novel ideas or methods to some extent, but they do not want to see a proposal for a project that is so unusual or aggressive that it may not be doable. You are sure you can do it and maybe you can. But, um, “stuff happens”, and all of a sudden recruitment becomes sparse, a reagent was contaminated, something else goes wrong, and you’re behind. The reviewers want to be reassured that whatever you do promise, you will be able to carry out.

Perhaps your submission emphasized the wrong thing. I have observed many less senior investigators trying to show that their proposal is a bargain for the sum requested – lots of studies, lots of subjects, lots of outcome measures. But the reviewers don’t want or respect a bargain. They want to know that the work you propose absolutely will be done on the agreed schedule.

You may think that your project has none of these problems, but with an R01 submission, the issue is always the perception of the reviewer. With some grant applications, the problem is not any one major element but the accumulation of small issues. As the reviewers begin to read, a couple of details emerge that make them feel a bit uneasy, causing them to develop a negative feeling about the manuscript. In your case, perhaps it was the unrealistic schedule of the work to be accomplished that colored those perceptions.

Once reviewers are unfavorably disposed, it may be difficult to reverse the feeling. Many of them are unwilling to simply say “I didn’t like the proposal, no particular reason.”So, you get general statements or criticism of small points that don’t seem significant enough to prevent funding.

Comments by William Gerin, Ph.D., P.I. e-Alert’s Chief Grants Consultant, Professor of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, and Author, Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide, SAGE Books (2006)

Enjoy this article? Sign Up to receive these free every week

This eAlert is brought to you as an informational training tool by the Principal Investigators Association, which is an independent organization. Neither the eAlert nor its contents have any connection with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), nor are they endorsed by this agency. All views expressed are those personally held by the author and are not official government policies or opinions.