Increased competition, lower success rates

Across major federal agencies, proposal success rates are tightening. In the U.S., agencies such as the NIH and NSF are receiving record numbers of submissions. In Canada, the Tri-Council agencies (CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC) face similar pressures. Even technically strong proposals are being declined more frequently. Reviewers are placing greater weight on clarity, alignment, and feasibility, not just on the novelty of an idea.

The shift toward impact and implementation

Funders are prioritizing projects that demonstrate real-world results. It is no longer sufficient to present a compelling idea for now applicants must show how outcomes will be implemented, measured, and sustained over time. In both countries, proposals that clearly connect research or programs to community benefit, policy relevance, or scalable outcomes are gaining a distinct competitive advantage.

Growth of non-federal funding sources

As federal funding grows more competitive, foundations, corporate giving programs, and regional funders are playing a larger role. In Canada, provincial funding and foundation support are becoming increasingly important complements to federal grants. In the U.S., private foundations are expanding initiatives across education, health, and community development. Organizations that diversify their funding portfolios, rather than relying on a single source, are better positioned to weather tightening cycles.

Responsible use of AI in proposal development

Artificial intelligence is rapidly entering the grant development process, but funders are watching carefully. Many agencies now explicitly discourage or outright reject proposals that appear AI-generated. The expectation is that applicants use AI responsibly: for research, planning, and refinement, while preserving authentic, human-driven narratives. This approach is consistent across both U.S. and Canadian funders.

Looking ahead

Success in grant seeking will depend less on volume and more on strategy. Organizations that strengthen proposal clarity, diversify their funding sources, and align closely with funder priorities will be best positioned to compete and win in this evolving environment.

The post How Funding Is Changing & What Grant Seekers in the U.S. & Canada Need to Know appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

What does that mean in practical terms?

It turns out that professional writers—novelists, essayists, and journalists—have a lot to say about that. If you google “writers on writing” you’ll find hundreds of quotes. Here are five of my favorites and how they apply to proposal writing:

Elmore Leonard: “Leave out the parts the readers tend to skip.”

Simply put, most proposals have too much information. A Pew study showed TV weather reporters actually became more skeptical of climate change as they accumulated knowledge. Articles, book chapters, and books aim to inform; proposals are meant to persuade. To do so, give an expert audience only as much background as it needs to see that you’re grounded in best practice; focus on what you’re doing that’s new. Conversely, give lay readers only what they need to understand the elegance of what you’re proposing and what they’ll get from it.

Practically, this also alleviates the ubiquitous and crippling struggle against page limits.

Steven King: “Kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart”

This can apply in several ways. You might have a profound insight that puts a whole new wrinkle on the field but doesn’t change your work plan in any meaningful way. Discussing it here distracts the reader from other concepts. Save it for a book or article. Or, you want to do something that is really cool and are burning to share it… but there isn’t enough time or treasure in the budget to actually do it right. Leave it out of the proposal and talk about it with friends over a distilled beverage. The most common way this comes up is when you share your document with colleagues and there’s something that no one understands. Maybe that idea isn’t ready for prime time.

Joan Didion: “All I know about grammar is its infinite power. To shift the structure of a sentence alters the meaning as definitely and inflexibly as the position of a camera alters the meaning of the object photographed.”

Gopen and Swan’s seminal article “The Science of Scientific Writing” cites research showing that readers interpret your writing based on six expectations.² Among these: they expect to find any new or important information at the end of a discursive unit (i.e., a clause, sentence, paragraph, or section). If it’s elsewhere, they are likely to miss it and interpret what is there as your main point. Conversely, they expect to find context and perspective at the start of the unit. Violating these expectations increases the likelihood that your writing will be misinterpreted.

Kurt Vonnegut: “Give the reader at least one character he can root for.”

The most persuasive arguments use three rhetorical devices: logos (logic), ethos (authority), and pathos (emotion)—but the academic argument shuns pathos. Granted, it isn’t relevant for most single investigator research projects—but it is somewhat relevant for center grant proposals, more so for projects that include trainees, and highly relevant for fellowship applications. Even on single investigator research proposals, you can make an emotional connection with the reader using metaphors to bring your vision into their world. Effective use of pathos to augment strong arguments from logic and authority can provide a competitive edge.

George R.R. Martin: “There are two types of writers: architects and gardeners.”

Architects plan in advance – where will everything go, what each paragraph will say. Gardeners plant a seed but don’t know how the plant will develop. Martin is a proud gardener, but he doesn’t have to address formal review criteria. You, on the other hand, need architectural drawings—storyboards—that lay out the structure and content of each section (and even each paragraph). That’s how to ensure your proposal addresses all the review criteria, mirrors the language in the program announcement, and gives proportional attention to the factors that go into the evaluation.

The post How to Write Persuasive Proposals appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Once, when I worked for a small, under-resourced organization, we created a project that perfectly fit a community need, was structured for efficiency, and had a large return on investment from donors. I approached an eager donor who was familiar with our efforts, our successes, and our available resources. I asked him for $1.3M. He told me he loved the project, was thrilled with our design, and really wanted to give us the gift. Then, he said, “unfortunately, your organization doesn’t have the ability to receive a gift as large as $1.3M.” I was dumbfounded. We had done everything right in evaluating, justifying, and planning a strategy to meet an essential need in our community. Yet, as an organization, we didn’t have the operational structure to receive a large donation. In that instant of excitement and disappointment, I realized that all fundraising efforts should only start after a close examination of an organization’s situation, their board, their staff, their infrastructure and their standing in the community. Each of these will influence an organization’s potential for raising funds.

The key steps in the process of assessing your fundraising capacity are: understanding how your organization is perceived internally and externally, knowing your strengths and weaknesses, and prioritizing your efforts and resources. Likewise, a solid market analysis is essential in developing a diversified and successful fundraising strategy.

After these initial strategic considerations, the next level of capacity building is to determine the size of your potential donor database. Once you identify these donors, begin making the match between you and them and solicit funds to develop projects of mutual interest.

Specifically, the steps to build your organization into a financial success are:

1. Know your organization by creating:
   1. Strategic plan
   2. Market analysis
   3. Needs assessment
   4. Current assessment of potential donors
2. Build a successful board consisting of:
   1. Community leaders
   2. Business leaders
   3. Political leaders
   4. Philanthropic leaders
3. First level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Classic and contemporary media presence, from local news to social media
   2. Regularly scheduled newsletters and updates
   3. Direct solicitations to the donors you already know
   4. Building member databases
      1. Collect emails at public events
      2. Provide free membership while sharing emails
      3. Use current members to introduce new members
   5. Annual appeal letters to donors
      1. Tell a story
      2. Explain how the potential donor can help
      3. Ask for the money
   6. Exploring area philanthropies & corporate donors from
      1. Community foundations
      2. Local businesses
4. Second level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Grants
   2. Small to medium-sized special events
   3. Planned giving programs
5. Top level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Capital campaigns
   2. Large scale events

Fundraising strategies vary from one type of organization to another. If the organization is small, it is best to employ a strategy that builds your supporter database and directly solicits them for cash donations. In contrast, a large, established organization may be in the perfect position to host a sizable gala.

When your organization has a track record of successes, strategic efforts should be made to attract the most powerful and influential board members. These board members will bring credibility to your organization as you begin to seek larger donations. As your board stature grows, so will your options in fundraising.

An honest assessment of your organization and your place in the community will help you understand the best approach to take to effectively secure funds. Thus, with broad community recognition, a strong track record of success, financial efficiency, and influential board members, you’ll be able to employ a large diversity of effective fundraising strategies.

The post How to Build a Successful Nonprofit appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Planning Ahead: “What are the steps I need to take before I write?”

Grant writing takes time. This includes excellent research, exceptional writing, understanding the donor’s mission, making the match, collaborating with colleagues, planning strategically, and developing an outstanding business plan. If your proposal is prepared correctly, it will have higher chances of rising to the top of the competition and receiving the funds. In the planning process, laying out proposal steps clearly and realistically can be achieved by organizing the activities in terms of the time it will take to effectively accomplish them.

2. Matching the Idea With the Donor: “How can you assure that you found the right donor?”

 One of the most fatal mistakes any grant writer can make is to ignore the interests of the donor. “Making the match” means aligning your mission and your funding request with the donor’s mission. The closer both of you are in what you wish to accomplish, the more likely you will be funded. Also, looking at funded projects will give you a very good idea of the donor’s interests and focus. Ultimately, donors do not care what you need or want funded; they care about what they wish to fund.

3.  Being Concise and to the Point: “What steps will narrow the scope of my proposal?”     

 One of the major reasons for proposal rejection is that the request is overly ambitious and tries to tackle far more than can be accomplished within the timeline of the grant. Rather than trying to solve every problem related to your request, focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within budget and time constraints of the proposal. Also, many grants require the consideration of various potential factors before concluding that the idea is doable, focused, and promising. You need to envision as many of these elements as possible to be certain that you are on the right path. Narrowing the scope of your idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

4. Knowing the Review Process: “How do I understand the proposal review process?”

To successfully survive the review process, you must know the review criteria by which you will be judged and who is reviewing your proposal. In some cases this is easy, but in others, where the process is blind, it is extremely difficult. In the latter case, you can ask the administrator in charge of the process what the experience and expertise of the reviewers will be. Your reviewers have a very short window to review your proposal and worse yet, an even shorter window for the panel discussion. The easier you make it for the reviewers to understand your idea, the greater your chances of being funded.

5. Networking and Collaboration: “How do I identify collaborators to strengthen my proposal?”

Creating effective partnerships requires collective vision, purpose, buy-in, and mutual respect. Without these elements, it is difficult to maintain the momentum of true collaboration. Each partner must be able to contribute knowledge and expertise that would be missing without their involvement. The complexity of many projects requires interdisciplinary efforts and networking. Understanding this, funding agencies now believe in the power of partnerships; and so should you.

At the end of the day, there are many components to a grant proposal. The first and most important is spending the time to understand the donor, then positioning all the pieces of the puzzle effectively together, and finally writing a stellar request. The pieces must include careful planning, focus, and collaboration.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers – Part II appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Timelines: “We can never find the time to dedicate to writing grant proposals.”

The most important solution is to work proactively rather than reactively. One participant said that her not-for-profit developed a yearly timeline of the grants they wished to submit, rather than waiting for the announcements, which can come late as 10 days prior to the submission deadline. This may sound like a difficult undertaking, but once done, it will be easy to match the amount of labor to available personnel and understand the capacity of the organization.

2. Rejections: “We fear rejections and when we get them, we often feel angry and frustrated, almost to the point of not wanting to rewrite the proposal.”

The answer is to understand that a grant should be viewed as an opportunity, and not taken personally. If the team has a strategic and broad picture of the funding landscape for which they apply throughout the year, it will be understood that some grants will fail. Ultimately, when it comes to requests for funding, one has to place their ego in their pocket.

3. Telling a good story: “The reviewers said that we need to tell an enthusiastic story, but it was difficult for us to understand what they meant.”

The universal answer is to engage the donor. Thus, as a proposal writer, one must know how grants will be evaluated and, if possible, who the evaluators will be. Connecting with donors and reviewers is vital to successfully getting funded. The more one knows about them, the more effectively one can spark their interest with the story.

4. Innovation: “We had a difficult time understanding what the donor meant by innovation.”

The answer here is that innovative concepts emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research. In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field.

5. Overambitious idea: “Our grant was rejected because the idea was overambitious. How do we narrow the focus?”

Rather than trying to solve every problem related to the project at hand, it is best to focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within the budgetary and time constraints of the proposal. Narrowing the scope of the idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

The participants chose these key obstacles, for it takes time to narrow ideas, assure innovation and write a good story. In the following blog, I will discuss other obstacles that my audience brought to the table.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Rigor

Rigor encompasses a whole host of practices. In research, it’s the belief that your field demands constant improvement by closing existing gaps in knowledge, which may exist because of inaccurate methods and measurements, or completely non-existing ones. In order to fill these voids, a commitment to addressing all aspects of the research and careful attention to detail will be required. Rigor also implies that your methodology is conducted systematically, and that your research design addresses your questions, hypotheses, variables, and data collection methods.

Focus

One of the most common mistakes is an overly ambitious proposal. For example, a proposal to research the general effects of obesity in the entire population would be unrealistic and, needless to say, impossible. In contrast, a proposal to examine health related improvements of severely obese men and women between the ages of 45 – 55, who begin a three times per week exercise regiment, would be a much more focused study. You should assure that your hypothesis is precise and that your specific aims can be accomplished in the amount of time allotted for the grant.

Preliminary Data

One of the surest ways to kill a promising proposal is with a lack of preliminary data. Once you have identified the problem you wish to address, you will need to have preliminary data to support your hypothesis and aims. The more preliminary data you have, the more you will be considered a serious investigator, who has taken the time to develop a hypothesis that is well rooted. Research grants of course vary, and some are geared for new investigators and therefore may not require extensive preliminary studies and data. Nevertheless, for any investigator, the more preliminary data you have to support your research, the better.

Communication

As a proposal writer, your audience (reviewers) will want to find candidates who are the most likely to succeed. Walk them through your plan and how it will be implemented (activities/methodology) and demonstrate that your outcomes will match their measures for success (evaluation criteria). Your goal should always be to write about the importance of your intervention in a way that moves the readers and makes them want to fund your project. The difference between a good story and a superficial one is that the latter provides too easy a solution. To avoid this, your interventions should be innovative, and should make a real and tangible difference in your field. Your story should convey the overall impact of resolving difficult problems.

Persistence

It is important to remember that the success rate for many research grants can be in the teens. Thus, some lucky people will get funded the first time, but chances are that it will not happen so easily. If your proposal is rejected the first time, you should take the comments from the reviewers seriously and address them appropriately and politely in your next submission. If the reviewers thought that your idea was strong, but that there were flaws in other areas, your chances for success in the second submission are excellent. At the end of the day, your persistence will pay off.

Believing in your idea, a specific hypothesis constructed via your preliminary data, and outlining an innovative and transformative approach will get you eighty percent of the way to being funded. You will also need to tell the story in a persuasive way that highlights the need for and importance of your idea in the field and for the people who will be served.

The post Five Crucial Facets of Successful Research Funding appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

• Proactive Thinkers are those who have the ability to develop clear and focused ideas that advance the mission of the institution. They will need to anticipate the future rather than be overwhelmed and react only to the present. They will clearly define the grant objectives and action plans that will then be broken down into activities that parallel the resources and specific timelines of a proposal. They will create benchmarks to guide them throughout the various phases of the process. In other words, they are proactive planners.
• Realistic Innovators are those who know what works, but also perceive what could work better with an approach that may not have been used before. They understand that paradigm shifts and innovative approaches may give them an edge when it comes to the competition. They are also realistic about what can be achieved within a given amount of time and with the personnel they have available.
• Problem Solvers will seek to understand first and ask to be understood secondly. They anticipate what some of the stumbling blocks may be and how to avoid them or find the appropriate solutions to address them. They know how to establish teams and build bridges among departments, disciplines, and external partners. Additionally, they know how best to form relationships with their partners and donors.
• Clear Thinkers are those who can evaluate and analyze the evidence, consider alternative approaches, make judgments based on what is doable, and ask questions at every stage. Their purpose is to get as close as possible to what can be accomplished in the best and most efficient way. Clear thinkers recognize that their own background, education, and prejudices can lead to blind spots, as can relying on conventional wisdom. They strive to overcome these barriers by remaining alert to self-delusion and groupthink.
• Excellent Writers are also excellent communicators who utilize a voice that is appropriate for the level of the reader.They understand that the heart of the writing should be the idea, which should be logical and effectively lead the reader from the broad concept to the specifics. They should be excellent storytellers who successfully carry the reader from one idea to the next. Good writers use just the right words to say just the right things in ways that are easy to understand and enjoyable to read. Although they may not be editors, it would be an added advantage if they are also excellent grammarians who value consistency and effective transitions.

A winning team is one that brings the talents of many into one final and engaging document. The cumulative strengths of each of the above persons can guarantee success. This can happen if all the members of the team have mutually-agreed aims and objectives, and everyone has a clear understanding of how to achieve them. They will all need to understand that first-rate grant writers utilize a proactive approach, looking to the future in order not to be overwhelmed by last minute submissions.

The post Five People You Need on Your Proposal Writing Team appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Not allowing sufficient time to write: Allowing enough time to do the research, effectively writing the proposal, and ensuring that all the letters of recommendation and forms requested are appropriately completed are key components to success. It has been demonstrated that those who submit their proposals three or more days prior to the deadline have a 37% greater chance of getting funded than those who submit at the last minute.
2. Not paying attention to instructions: It is extremely frustrating to be rejected for something as simple as margin width or font size, yet this is a common occurrence. 50% of the proposals that are submitted to various federal agencies are immediately eliminated because directions were not followed.
3. Poor writing: Grammatical errors are not the only sign of poor writing. There are many more, such as the use of acronyms and jargon, wordy sentences, long paragraphs, and making readers fish for the main reason the request is being made.
4. Failure to edit the application: This problem can easily be remedied if a prospective grantee gives his/her proposal to a qualified editor to proofread before submission. Although reviewers are not charged to score an application for grammar, poor writing reflects sloppy work and lack of attention to detail.
5. Failure to convey to the reviewers that your research is interesting: The Principal Investigator (PI) should be enthusiastic about the project. Lack of enthusiasm is contagious; reviewers will feel it and will lose interest in your project.
6. Lack of preliminary data or research: If you are writing a research grant, preliminary data is essential in proving that your hunch or hypothesis is plausible. If you are writing a project grant, thorough research of your subject matter is what makes your proposal credible.
7. Project that is too ambitious: Lack of focus is clearly reflected both in the scope, as well as the writing. Your preliminary data and research will be a good guide for how to narrow the focus of your proposal and do what is possible within the allotted time. Another good restrictive measurement is the budget.
8. Lack of experience in the field: The credibility of your proposal depends on those who will implement it. Thus, you must include the most qualified personnel. Reviewers are looking for project directors or principal investigators who are trained in their field, have succeeded with similar projects in the past, are recognized for their contributions, and have a proven record of efficiently working in a team.
9. Selecting a project that will have limited impact: A project that will have broad impact demonstrates that the money awarded will serve a large population that needs the intervention. Limited impact on the other hand, can be costly, not sustainable, and restricted to a small population.
10. Limited support from your institution: Institutional support demonstrates that your project is part of the institutional mission, and that it will be sustained in the future. Furthermore, projects that your institution financially and philosophically supports have a much greater chance of success.

Many of the aforementioned mistakes can easily be committed if you are in a rush. Knowing who you are, what you wish to accomplish, and delineating how you will accomplish your tasks is extremely important. Ultimately, professionalism, attention to detail, and enthusiasm will be the characteristics that will advance your proposal to the top of the competition.

The post 10 Errors That Will Disqualify Your Grant appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

• An idea that is clearly defined and focused, is well researched, is needed, has a broad impact, and can be accomplished within the lifetime of the grant should be the main focus of your proposal.

• A Statement of Need/Significance that makes a strong argument for funding is an integral component proposal component. You will need to specify how this need for was identified. If you are writing a research grant, your preliminary data should justify your argument for further research. If you are writing a project grant, utilize your literature review and experience to make the case for why you should be funded.

• Examples of how your project will unfold and how your team will work together are of critical importance for the donor to understand the specific implications of your project. Also, describing real-life scenarios is an approach that gives emphasis and meaning to the project you are undertaking.

• A Plan of Operation that presents the specifics of your proposal in a logical manner is your business plan. The donor must understand what you intend to do throughout the lifetime of the proposal. You should include a clear goal, measurable objectives, activities that can easily be budgeted, and outcomes that clearly parallel and are related to the objectives.

• A narrative that is written in positive terms should be utilized throughout the proposal. Some writers believe that if they describe how bleak a situation is, someone will give them money to solve the problem. This is not true. Funders prefer backing proposals that describe worthwhile programs that will meet identified needs and match the criteria set forth by the granting agency.

• Clearly written prose that does not overuse jargon or acronyms is a key ingredient for success. The use of language that is unknown to the reader is a distraction that could easily work against you. After all, you may use terminology that is specific to you on a daily basis, but that may not be the case for the reviewer.

• A budget that matches each activity of the proposal will demonstrate that you paid close attention to detail. All bases must be covered. If you are going to purchase hardware, have you purchased software? If you plan to offer training, how long will it be, who will conduct it, how much will it cost?

• Strong dissemination components signal that you will give back to your community what you learned throughout the lifespan your grant. This section is often extensive in some proposals that require broader impacts to address education, while in others it might be a presentation at a conference or a publication.

• Directions that are followed precisely will ensure your stewardship. If a scoring rubric or evaluation checklist is given to you, read it and follow those directions. Also, ensure that the margins, font size, and formatting are exactly as requested in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

• Professional presentation requires excellent grammar, concise sentences, a mixture of graphics and narrative and well constructed arguments for funding. It will translate into the impression you make on the reviewers.

Extensive preparation should take place before you begin writing a proposal. You need to determine exactly what you want to do, describe why your project is important, make the match with the donor’s interests, and then decide what should be included in your grant. This will be the conceptualization of your grant, and will initially involve the design of your project, not the writing. By carefully designing your project first and writing second, you will set in place the key elements that will make for a winning proposal.

The post 10 Key Ingredients of Winning Proposals appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. What is the goal of your project?

This will be stated in your introductory paragraph. The goal will address the gap that your research will undertake to fill. You will also address the importance of your research via the “so what question”.

Example:

The development of the mammalian immune system is typically thought to occur in a linear fashion, from immaturity to maturity as a function of antigen exposure. Previous findings in birds and in mice, however, indicate that this view is oversimplified. Thus, in these species, the developing immune system appears to be “layered” in a manner that is independent of antigen exposure, beginning as a multilineage fetal system that is replaced by an anatomically and biologically distinct multilineage system after birth. If so, then developmentally ordered and unique hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC) could give rise to distinct lymphocyte lineages at different stages of development.

2. What data or advances are you bringing to the table?

Your preliminary data will set the stage for your credibility, which helps convince reviewers that you are able to undertake this proposal. The more preliminary results of previous findings you have, the more convincing your case will be.

Example:

In ongoing experiments, we have found that such immune system “layering” occurs in humans. Our preliminary data show that: (1) the human fetus can mount a vigorous immune response to exogenous antigens;⁴ (2) the human fetal immune response to exogenous antigens can be actively suppressed by antigen-specific Tregs;^4,5 (3) fetal Tregs are derived from a fetal-specific lineage of T cells; (4) fetal and adult HSPCs give rise to distinct populations of T cells; and (5) fetal HSPC-derived T cells show an enhanced ability to generate

Tregs during thymic maturation and upon exposure to foreign antigens in vitro.⁶ These data suggest that the human immune system is comprised of two distinct waves: one generated from a “fetal” HSPC that exists in utero in the fetal liver and bone marrow, and another generated from a superseding “adult” HSPC that resides in the bone marrow at later time points. The former gives rise to an immune system that is prone to deliver a tolerogenic response to foregin antigens. The latter gives rise to an immune system that is more likely to generate an immunoreactive responses (e.g., one including cytotoxic T cells and neutralizing antibodies).

3. What is your central hypothesis?

Your hypothesis embodies the critical need for your research and is the central part of your proposal. It is the solution that solves the problem. Your hypothesis is the reason for your project and must be specific.

Example:

Given these findings, we hypothesize that physiologic layering of immune system ontogeny leads to a normal range in the ratio of fetal- to adult-type T cells at birth, with some neonates exhibiting a higher fraction of fetal T cells than others; and that those with a high ratio of fetal/adult T cells will generate predominant Th2 responses to routine childhood immunizations.

4. What are your specific aims?

Your aims will test the hypothesis and need to be detailed. They should result in something that you can measure. In other words, they are exactly what its name implies – specific. They should also be independent of each other, and should not be overly ambitious. The above hypothesis will be tested via the following specific aims, which are specific and independent of one another:

Example:

Specific Aim 1. To determine the normal range of fetal to adult T cells in the umbilical cord blood of the full term neonate.

Specific Aim 2. To determine whether those full-term neonates with a high ratio of fetal/adult T cells are more likely to generate a Th2-polarized immune response to routine childhood immunizations.

5. What will be the ultimate results of your study?

The Specific Aims page will end with the benefits that are expected from your study. It is the outcome section of your proposal and the major reason you received the funding to undertake your study.

Example:

We anticipate that this study will reveal normal variation in the ratio of fetal to adult T cells at birth and that such variability in this ratio will be directly related to – and possibly causal of – a Th2 skew that results in a poor response to childhood vaccines and a heightened predisposition to childhood infections and to atopic disorders. If so, these modalities aimed at changing this ratio more towards the adult lineage at birth may provide benefit to a substantial number of newborns.

Your goal, data, hypothesis and specific aims will be the central focal points for your entire proposal. These are the most difficult to write, and you will probably revise them many times before you settle on the final submission. Ultimately, this is the page that will determine the fate of your proposal because it demonstrates how all the pieces will fit together to develop a paradigm shift in the field.

Examples excerpted from:

McCune, Joseph. “Human immune system layering and the neonatal response to vaccines.” National Institute of Allergies and Diseases Sample Grant Application. 14 Jun 2010. Web. 2 Jul 2015.

Full text of the sample proposal by Joseph McCune of The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, posted online by the National Institute of Allergies and Diseases is available at: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/Documents/McCunefull.pdf

The post The Most Important Part of Your Application: The Specific Aims Page appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.