Jude Mikal, PhD
Minnesota Population Center
University of Minnesota
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. With so much at stake, it’s a shame to watch a proposal rejected for something that could have been avoided with a little work upfront. Capitalizing on 15 years of experience working to sharpen grant proposals, I identify 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.
All are invited to attend.
HPM Seminars are sponsored by the Division of Health Policy & Management.