Elements of successful NIH grant applications

Scientists spend years in training—barely any of it devoted to the science (art?) of grant writing. Funding is fundamental to conducting scientific research but applying for funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is unchartered territory for most early investigators. “Elements of successful NIH grant applications,” a recent perspective article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), aims to help beginning scientists develop thoughtful, articulate, compelling, and competitive research proposals.

“Collectively, we have over 30 years of peer review experience as NIH scientific review officers in addition to over 30 years of program experience as NIH program officers. This article distills our NIH experience,” write authors Houmam Araj, Ph.D., National Eye Institute; Leroy Worth Jr., Ph.D., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and David T. Yeung, Ph.D., National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

NIH is the nation’s premier funding agency for biomedical research, sponsoring projects at universities and other centers and institutions across the country. Additionally, it conducts research on its campuses in Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, and elsewhere. With an annual budget of about $45 billion, NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. Those unfamiliar with NIH’s funding process can learn about it at https://grants.nih.gov/.

Of the 52,000 applications submitted to NIH each year, only about 20 percent get funded. Scientists who find themselves among the 80 percent of submissions that don't get funded will find the wit and wisdom of “Elements” particularly salient. Inspired by the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid of Alexandria, “Elements” expands upon five postulates:

1. The application is for the reviewer, not you, the applicant—remember that!
2. Learn from the Greek—communicate in stories.
3. Your Specific Aims story needs to be cohesive—leave no puzzling gaps.
4. Motivate the reviewer to keep reading—make your story resonate.
5. There is serendipity and noise in the peer-review system—accept that.

Drawing on parables and notable quotes, “Elements” counsels, enlightens, and challenges scientists to reach for the stars while encouraging them to stay tethered, following some important advice:

So, you’ve decided to apply. You’ve recognized the need to detach your opinions from your identity. You’re ready to tell your story in the form of a grant application. Stories are so ingrained in us that we are conditioned to stick with them, even when presented with contrary facts. That is the power of stories. Therefore, present your research project and ideas as a story to which one can relate. But keep in mind [Nobel laureate] Günter Blobel’s grandmother test, “There is no concept that you can’t make understandable to the educated public. I always tell my students and postdocs if you can’t explain to your grandmother what you are doing, probably you don’t understand it properly yourself.”

"Elements” also dispenses practical advice on how to frame ideas and where to get help:

1. Subscribe to the NIH Guide to keep track of the latest notices of funding opportunities, https://bit.ly/3GYpgCc.
2. Serve on study sections to get hands-on experience with the peer review process.
3. Bookmark the NIH Grants Policy Statement as it has the answers to most of your NIH policy questions, https://bit.ly/3AfKQy6.
4. An invaluable tool to identify contacts and potential collaborators is the NIH RePORTER database, especially its Match Maker page, https://bit.ly/41B8AIZ.

The article is open access and free for download: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11009615/

Reference:
Araj H, Worth L, Yeung DT. Elements of successful NIH grant applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2024;121(15):e2315735121. doi:10.1073/pnas.2315735121.