So your grant proposal came back with an unenthusiastic response from reviewers. Was it because they found your science lackluster? Maybe. But there’s a good chance the problem was important, nontechnical questions that you left unanswered in the proposal itself. Questions like: So what? Who cares? Is this project trying to do too much? Or too little? And why is this researcher going it alone? In our hyper-competitive funding climate, it’s critical for investigators to write clear, cohesive, compelling proposals that foreground the science and its potential significance.
Come join the EpiCH faculty, students and staff to learn and discuss with Dr. Jude Mikal.
Dr. Mikel is a research scientist and research-development consultant at the University of Minnesota’s Population Center. He will share with you the 10 most-common, non-scientific errors we see in grant writing and offer a list of potential solutions to help investigators write clearer proposals for increasingly busy review panelists.