Grant Writing Tips
The Shared Instrumentation Grant (S10) provided by the NIH is a common funding mechanism for instrumentation costing between $100,000 and $600,000. The grant must be shared by at least three NIH-supported scientists who are Principal Investigators (PI) on NIH peer-reviewed research grants at the time of the application and award. Below are some general tips organized by the five main sections rated by NIH-reviewers on how to be successful when applying for the S10 grant.
Justification of Need
The goal of the NIH’s S10 Grant is to provide infrastructure support for a community based on strong science. Therefore, to be successful, the application must:
- Demonstrate that each of the PIs on the application will greatly benefit from use of the instrument.
- What significant findings would be made as a result of the instrument grant being awarded?
- How specifically will the scientific community in the region benefit if the instrument grant is awarded?
- What would be the negative effects on the community if the instrument grant is not awarded?
A successful application will either demonstrate that technical expertise on the instrument already exists in-house or that the users have done their homework on where and how to receive training if technical problems arise.
- Be very specific on the setup and oversight of the instrument
- Who will be setting up and overseeing the instrument?
- List names even if it is the manufacturer - Be thorough when researching and planning training
- Organize an on-site training by the manufacturer
- Train several potential users if possible
- Look into options for advanced training if needed
- The application must convey how the instrument will specifically enhance each investigator’s NIH-funded research projects. For each project:
- How specifically will the instrument be used?
- How will the instrument improve the productivity or quality of data?
- Will the instrument provide new ways of looking at, collecting, or analyzing data - Ideally, the major users of the instrument should have equivalent NIH funding and the proposed instrument usage should be evenly split amongst these users
- Descriptions on how the instrument will be used to benefit each user’s project should be specific, clear, concise, and kept to one-half to three-quarters of a page
This section is probably the most overlooked because it is the least scientific. However, from an NIH reviewer’s perspective, it is very important because this is where he/she will determine whether or not the instrument will be well-utilized and is worth the money the NIH will be investing.
- State who will be on the advisory committee and how the committee will prioritize and schedule access to the instrument
- Outline how availability of the instrument will be advertised to attract new users
- Assess the costs required to maintain the system and outline a plan to recover those costs
The NIH wants to see institutional support for the instrument in the form of maintenance costs and salary support for the technician (if one is required).
- Support letters can come from numerous sources (directly from the Dean, departments, etc.) and be financial commitments for various amounts
Additional resources for writing general research grants:
NIH - http://grants.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm
NSF - http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04016/nsf04016_5.htm
