Volume 13, number 5: November 1, 2006
FUNDING TIPS
Understanding the Review Process
Federal and private funding agencies use a variety of processes to review grant applications and make their funding decisions. Understanding this process is essential to maximizing your chances for a successful application. Proposals may be reviewed by program staff, or sent to relevant external experts for their evaluation. If the review panel will be composed of experts in the field, you can use more technical terminology than you would if the panel includes laypeople. If you have received funding from the agency in the past, the evaluation of that earlier project may also be considered.
Many agencies describe their review process in their guidelines or on their website. If not, the program officer is your best source for information about the process for their competition.
Examples of the review processes at some agencies include:- US Institute of Peace
- Leakey Foundation
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- National Institutes of Health
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- National Science Foundation
Tips for Preparing Successful SBIR/STTR Proposals
The UNC Small Business and Technology Development Center’s (SBTDC) October 2006 SBIR/STTR News provides the following helpful tips for increasing the success rates of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) proposals:
- Communicate directly with the agency contact person overseeing the solicitation. Use this opportunity to help you understand exactly what the agency is looking for.
- Meet with an SBTDC Technology counselor prior to writing the first draft of the proposal.
- Attend a proposal writing seminar. Click here for a schedule of NC training events.
- Get feedback on your draft proposal from your colleagues and others, including the SBTDC Technology Counselors.
- Define your expected end product and establish possible customers.
- Include a visual timeline at the end of your work plan.
For a list of current solicitations from various federal agencies, click here.
Proposal Writing Assistance
Once you have identified a potential source of funding, your next step is to develop and submit your proposal. The GrantSource Library website gathers a wealth of information about resources available at Carolina to assist you in planning and developing your proposal. These include:
- Carolina offices that provide proposal development assistance;
- reference and proposal writing guides in the library;
- online proposal writing guides and tutorials; and
- tips and resources specific to the National Institutes of Health.
For more information, click here.
COS, Your Workhorse Workbench
Your COS Workbench is where you can track records of individual funding opportunities and manage your saved searches in the COS Funding Opportunities database, as well as set your COS Funding Alert preferences. Your COS Workbench is also where you can update your COS Expertise Profile, which serves as your online CV in this primary database of Carolina faculty expertise. A bonus feature is that by logging into the COS Workbench you can use the COS services from anywhere, not just on campus.
If you have forgotten your COS login information, or to learn more about harnessing your workhorse COS Workbench, contact the GrantSource Library at 962-3463 or click here.
New AHA Peer Review Criteria
The American Heart Association (AHA) has approved new peer review criteria that are structured similar to the revised peer review criteria of the National Institutes of Health.
New deadlines and program descriptions are also available for AHA’s 2007 competitions, including:
The GrantDoctor Asks NSF...“No more Boring Science”?
From the ScienceCareers.org website of Science magazine comes this:
“Typically, the GrantDoctor depends on rumor, innuendo, low-level staffers muttering in smoky back rooms, and widely available public documents in writing this column. But every once in a while, he hits on a topic important enough that he ends up talking to someone important. This week, an e-mail to the National Science Foundation's public information office resulted, unexpectedly, in a conversation with Arden Bement, NSF's director.
“What topic provoked NSF to deploy its Top Gun to talk to the lowly GrantDoctor? In recent weeks, I've started to suspect that NSF is getting serious about funding frontier science--the kind of work being referred to these days (especially at NSF) as ‘transformative’ or ‘transformational.’ Admittedly, the evidence that this is happening is patchy and anecdotal. Over the last year or so, several established scientists I know have had renewal proposals rejected after years or even decades of NSF funding, despite very good reviews and continued productivity. For some senior scientists, the loss of NSF funding is a serious crisis; in at least one case I know about, it led to the early retirement of a very competent scientist. But that's okay--there isn't enough money for everyone, so some win and some lose. If NSF manages to fund more risky science, that's great news for young scientists, who seem, constitutionally, more inclined to take risks than do their grayer, more established colleagues--and whose shorter track records make it harder to convince reviewers that they can get the work done.”
COS Wants to Hear from You
COS has implemented a Suggestion Box feature that enables users to provide feedback about all COS services, including the Funding Opportunities and Expertise databases and the funding alert. We encourage you to use the Suggestion Box if you have an idea or comment that could help improve COS for all users.
Links to the Suggestion Box are on the main search pages for COS Expertise and COS Funding Opportunities, and on the Help section of your COS Workbench.
To make a suggestion, click here.