Writing successful grant applications

1. Learn about us. We have a list of key priorities and comprehensive basic and clinical research strategies. Read them and tell us how your work fits with our strategic aims, or how your research will help us achieve  our vision of ‘control over asthma today, freedom from asthma tomorrow’.
2. Read the guidance notes thoroughly to avoid pitfalls, and make sure you have access to all the information and support you need to fill in the application form.
3. Make sure your methodology is robust and will give you the answers you’re looking for. For example, for a clinical study, ask for statistical advice to calculate the number of patients you need. For a basic science study, talk to a clinician to secure a supply of patient samples, or research the most appropriate cell line or animal model. Be sure to give the reviewers enough detail, and justify your choice of research methods.
4. Ask for lay involvement. This is a priority for Asthma UK, and you need to include the opinions and input of people with asthma when designing your project and writing your lay abstract. Research & Policy Volunteers would be happy to comment on your application, or even take part in your project; let us know if you’d like us to
   contact them.
5. Be realistic when designing your study – don’t be over-ambitious in terms of the scope of your project or the time that you need to get a result. Remember that the grant is for one year only, and make sure that your objectives are achievable.
6. Only ask for money for the things that are allowed. For example, we don’t provide conference expenses with our Foundation grants and, as per AMRC guidance, we’ll only pay direct research costs (further details can be found in the guidance notes). Ask your organisation to help you put together a detailed budget.

1. Provide evidence that you are collaborating with people who can provide you with any necessary support and expertise, and prove that you have access to the materials, patients, samples and information that your project needs in order to succeed.
2. Explain clearly how your work will directly help people with asthma, this is critical even if this is many years away (eg for basic research). Remember that lay people will be reviewing your application, and they’ll want to see that your ultimate aim is to benefit people with asthma.
3. Tell us how your work will make an impact, eg generating intellectual property or commercial applications, influencing clinical policy, creating new treatments. Think about how you will disseminate your results and present to us a plan of action. As with other research funders, we are under huge pressure to measure and report the outcomes and impact of our work, so we’ll be looking for evidence that your work will make a difference.
4. Why are you the best person, in the best place, for the job? What is your experience and expertise, and that of your team, which puts you in the ideal position to deliver the project you propose. Tell us how you’re capitalising on the results of past funding or existing networks, tissue collections, databases and facilities.
5. Don’t make typos, and get the layout right. Silly mistakes and a badly presented application will detract hugely from the impact of your application, and make us question how much this funding means to you. It would be sad to see your application rejected merely because you went over the specified word limits or failed to follow the instructions in the guidance notes.
6. Maximise your chance of success. We often receive multiple applications from a single research team. Although this is allowed, it often detracts attention from the individual applications rather than increasing your chance of success.

1. Not enough information from the applicants about how they expect to meet their project's objectives.

Examples of reviewers' comments:

• There is scant information as to how objective 3 will be achieved.
• The idea of linking genetics and function is highly attractive.  However, the proposal does not test the stated hypotheses.
• I cannot identify how this study would specifically address their primary objective.
• The authors state that this work will assist in drafting new guidelines for the implementation of this therapeutic intervention, however this study is inadequate for this purpose.

2. Over-promising what can be achieved.

Examples of reviewers' comments:

• The major limitation of the application is its ambition.  Each of the three hypotheses are challenging and to adequately address each within 12 months is ambitious and probably beyond the scope of this pilot study.
• Six months is a very short time to carry out such complex experiments, and does not allow for the usual difficulties encountered with this technically demanding type of research.
• I am concerned that the proposal addresses too many issues.
• I do not think it would be possible for them to set up such a model in the short space of time given.
  

3. Not enough preliminary data or other evidence to suggest that the project will be successful.

Examples of reviewers' comments:

• The reference to a personal communication is not helpful. These data are important for supporting a project that otherwise hinges on significant amounts of circumstantial and correlative information.
• The group has no obvious expertise in the area and there were no pilot data to support the proposal.
• Overall the project feels speculative as there is little hard evidence for their hypothesis, whilst this is not unreasonable for a small grant, it is simply hard to be very enthusiastic about the project.
• No preliminary data of the potential success of this project are provided.
• The applicants make reference to collaboration with statisticians...but no detail of the analysis has been presented, nor is it clear who these statisticians are, or what is their expertise.
• This application would have been greatly enhanced if it included some of the data from the group’s work which is currently under review in journals as described.
• The use of siRNA is proposed without preliminary data suggesting that the investigators can effectively transfect the specified cells.
  

4. Unclear or inappropriate methodology

• This does not seem likely to be the physiologically relevant cell type.
• The methodology is not clear.
• The way to address Hypothesis 2 is with a randomised controlled trial, but there is no element of randomisation, blinding or control in this study.  Defending this by saying it is a ‘pilot study’ is not adequate.
• It is not clear...how the numbers of people with asthma and controls have been reached.
• It is unclear how ‘response to inhaled corticosteroids’ will be measured.
• The experimental approaches lack detail and may not address the objectives directly.
• It is not clear what additional information will be obtained from the experiments in objective three.
• Twelve subjects may not produce a large enough data set with enough statistical power to obtain meaningful answers.
• My two main concerns are whether sufficient high quality RNA can be obtained from the samples and whether the study is adequately powered.
• It is unclear what will be the primary and secondary end points from the multitude of tests measured.
• There is no control group included in the proposed study.

5. It’s not clear why Asthma UK is the most appropriate funder

• Whilst [the project] would undoubtedly be of value...I am not convinced this would be best done using Asthma UK support.
• The applicants already have plans to develop a service with a commercial partner and the relationship between this partner and the group are unclear from the application.
• It is not clear why Asthma UK should support a salary of a research fellow, when this well funded laboratory could raise these funds from commercial backgrounds.
• Although this is a well-designed study it is has moved away from asthma...can the applicants present data supporting a primary role for this molecule in asthma to support their study?

6. Poor attention to detail or not providing sufficient financial justification

• A second weakness is hypothesis 1 which I have read and re-read but still struggle to understand.
• Some aspects of the budget are not clear. In particular, the authors indicated they need funding for 80 methacholine challenge tests and yet the use of methacholine challenge is not mentioned in the study design.
• There is no mention in the proposal of what the induced sputum data will be used for.
• The request for £2,000 for conference travel as part of a one-year grant is unwarranted.
• This is not a well written application (my version still has tracked changes in it).
• In their costings they have not considered any tissue culture costs, flow cytometry costs, costs of allergens, costs for carrying out bronchoscopies and there is no allowance for compensating volunteers.
• The lay summary is poorly written, with numerous spelling mistakes and typos.