An excellent article. I like the idea of a system where a researcher's future funding is based on a periodic review of what they have done, as opposed to how glamorous they can make their plans for future work sound. As an aside, as someone who has just finished their PhD and is starting to think about writing grant proposals, does anyone on HN have any tips for a first-timer?
Good grant applications (especially large ones) take a considerable amount of time to put together. In general, you can't bang one out in a couple of days or even a week. Some large ones I've worked on have taken months to pull together. A few quick tips:
- Start as early as possible so that you can write, develop ideas, rewrite and rework.
- Find a mentor, preferably one in the same or related area who has a good record of success.
- Ask colleagues for copies of successful grant applications to the same programs.
- Have your mentor and other colleagues review your grant and provide feedback.
- Listen to advice from others, but ultimately trust your own judgement.
- Apply to as many programs as possible--you can't get funded if you don't apply.
- Don't get discouraged if you are not successful, as many programs have small (and ever dwindling) success rates.
- Reapply if turned down, being sure to address the concerns of the reviewers.
Very good, concise advice. I was lucky enough to get a good mentor and collaborator on my first grant application and got many of those tips from him as well.
All of naish's points are excellent. I would emphasize that you need to prepare for rejection. Start on secondary proposals and thinking about other lines of funding before you even submit your first.
