One of the most difficult jobs I have in teaching people how to write better grants boils down to convincing them of one simple thing:…
This stressed out dude will not bring clarity or focus to writing his grant. Don’t be like him, it does not lead to success….
When we get our grant rejected, it is easy to point the blame at the reviewers. “Those
stupid reviewers, they didn’t get it.” While that approach may be emotionally satisfying and ego-stroking, it doesn’t
solve the problem. Your reviewer didn’t understand your proposal, and there is only one person to blame for that.
There are two distinct mindsets among many scientists about grant writing. One approach is to write many grants, to “play the odds”. Necessarily, when quantity goes up, quality goes down. Another approach is to write less grants but of higher quality. These take more time, but may have better odds of getting funded. Which way do you think Morgan advocates for? Find out in today’s episode of The Not So Boring Scientist. Leave a note in the comments if you disagree!
Morgan recently heard from someone that a good grant proposal must start with “In this proposal we ” and it must be followed by a hypothesis that will be tested. Morgan delves into this issue, and mentions an upcoming series on grant writing that you won’t want to miss.