Ok, let's talk about the Specific Aims page. As anyone with any experience with NIH grants will tell you, this is THE most important document in your package.
There are many ways to approach the SA page and I am going to tell you here how I do it. It may or may not work for you but hopefully it gives you an alternative in case you are struggling.
First part: you need to write down your question. This is non negotiable for me. In my view, if you don't have a clear question, you don't have a grant. This is where I start.
What's a different between a question and a hypothesis? Same question can have many possible answers - those answers are the hypotheses. So one question can be the start to many grants. What distinguishes them are the postulated answers to those question.
(This is why you sometimes see multiple NIH funded grants from the same lab that sound so very similar but are just asking the same question and testing different possible answers.)
When I worked as a Sci Writer, I would print out the question to the grant I was working on and tape it to my monitor to make sure I always stayed on point and didn't venture too far off.
If you struggle with writing hypotheses, it's ok to just stick with a question. Some science simply doesn't lend itself to hypothesis testing - but all science should start with a question.
Can you tell that I think the question is the most important part of the SA page? If you are struggling, talk it over with a colleague or two. Let them help you brainstorm. Use a whiteboard.
So, write down your question on the page. Before you write anything, write down the question. This is the end of my first SA paragraph.
I then write down the hypothesis. This will be the end (or near the end) of my second paragraph. I now have 2 lines on my page.
Lost the second half of this thread. 😡
Ok, I'll rewrite it. So use your question to put together the intro paragraph. The point of the intro paragraph should be to lead the reader to your question.
So let's say my question is "what is the mechanism of repair of X-Z adducts?" I know that my paragraph should be state what are X-Z adducts, when/how they occur, and why they are important.
Use the question to transition to the second paragraph. So the first ends with the question, the second should start with what we currently know about the possible answers to this question. Two sentences.
Then add one or two sentences explaining what are the remaining gaps in our knowledge or why the previous work has been insufficient. Then allude to your preliminary data to lead to your hypothesis.
"Our preliminary work with endogenously deficient mutant cell lines suggests that ABC-repair is essential for efficient repair for X-Z adducts." Now you have 2 paragraphs that introduced your question and stated your hypothesis.
Here is the controversial part of how I write SA pages: I put in a graphical abstract on my SA page. A visual representation of my hypothesis.
There is no rule against putting figures on the SA page and people are visual creatures. This allows someone to simply glance at the page and without reading a single word of the text, know what the grant is about.
On to the aims. Use words like determine, identify, define. Don't use words like explore, describe, observe.
I like 2 aims for small grants, 3 for standard grants. It's a personal preference but I have seen too many "this should be submitted as an R21" comments on 2-aim R01s to deviate from it. Experience can be a cruel teacher.
When stating the aim, tell the reader HOW you will do what you say you will do. So I will say "We will determine the mechanism by which A senses X-Z adducts via cell growth assays using CRISPR to create isogenic mutants."
I never did get the point of stating the Aim title followed by the Aim hypothesis. They are the same thing! Just get rid of the title, make the hypothesis the title, then tell them what you will do in each aim.
Finally, I end with an impact paragraph. Tell them why what you are doing is important. This is the part where you make a pitch for your primary institute too - if you are trying to end up in NIGMS as opposed to NCI, talking about cancer in the last paragraph is not a good idea.
I should also mention, going back to my love of questions, you can (and I have) state your aims in form of questions too! The rest - making sure how is included in the aim - stays the same.
My anatomy of the SA page:
That should be three different aims, obvs. I got interrupted multiple times during this thread and it shows!
I've got to mute this thread for my sanity but feel free to @ me with questions and I'll do my best to help you out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's pretend that there is no pandemic and we can all focus on our work. Let's do a thread on writing NSF grants.
I learned to write NIH grants first, so I came to NSF writing from an entirely NIH perspective. In some ways, that was helpful but I also had to unlearn some bad habits. I'll share my experience - but please feel free to chime in.
There are 2 required sections of an NSF grant: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. Intellectual merit is where you put all the science-y stuff: background, prelim data, research approach.
I'm 40 and female - I would have happily taken JNJ and AZ vaccines if offered. The math on this is not hard.
1 in a million chance of a clotting disorder post-vax for JNJ. 4 in a million chance for AZ.
225 in a million chance of death from covid for my age group.
The issue here is how serious do we think covid actually is. Is it serious enough to close down the world, destroy entire economic sectors, induce increase in mental health disorders, addiction, violence, and social unrest?
Is it serious enough to stop cancer screenings, preventative healthcare, schooling, and physical activity?
What is a graphical abstract? I call it a visual hypothesis or in essence, the model that will be tested in a grant. It can also represent the workflow or how smaller components fit into the big picture.
Elsevier defines it as: "a single, concise, pictorial and visual summary of the main findings of the article. ...captures the content of the article for readers at a single glance."
Now for grants, turn the finding to what it would look like if your hypothesis was correct.
Slide 1: Who is the audience for this workshop? Those pitiful peons from non-ivy schools. For the purposes of this presentation, Stanford and UCSF are considered Ivy League.
Slide 2: Read the funding opportunity announcement. 75% of your problems will be gone if you read the funding opportunity announcement. 90% of you still won’t do it.
These morning email shenanigans reminded me to talk about writing big grants. So I have some unpopular opinions about big grants:
1) It's still a one-person led grant. The main PI has to be on board and fully behind whatever is being done. The rest of the team is replaceable. If you are not a PI on the big grant, it's best to remember that.
2) A big grant is the proof that too many chefs in the kitchen is bad. Know your place. If you don't agree with the direction or what will be done, take yourself out of the project.
The world is on fire and the R01 deadline just passed so it's the perfect time to talk research strategy for an R01 application...
First, a disclaimer: this is how I do it. I have a PhD, I worked as a scientific writer for a while, and have been drafting grants for a decade. This is what works for me (most of the time). It's not an iron-clad rule of how it should be done. Feel free to ignore. Now...
First I pull up my Specific Aims page. Likely, it has been chewed over, torn apart, and stitched together. I am happy with it. Most importantly, the PI is happy with it. It's ready.