RDFunding

Seeking funding

Seeking funding for a study or trial can be a disheartening experience. The restrictions on funding for research coupled with the ever increasing demand makes this an extremely competitive process. The average success rate for applications lies between 1 in 5 and 1 in 10 so be prepared to submit a lot of proposals and to receive a lot of rejections! It is worth considering that as much work goes into a small application as a large one and it may be better to submit a few high quality large grants than a small number of lower value proposals.

The following paragraphs (taken from - Jones RG, Payne RB. Clinical Investigation and Statistics in Laboratory Medicine. London: ACB Venture Publications, 1997) indicate some of the work which is worth undertaking.

Funding Sources
First Round Applications
Second Round Applications
Identifying Collaborators
Example MRC Form
Example NHS Form
Grant Evaluation Procedures
Check List of Grant Evaluation Criteria
Home Page for Some Useful Aids to Obtaining Funding

Funding Sources

There are many sources of funding some general, such as the MRC, and some highly specific where the funds are earmarked for a particular purpose, e.g. the BMA awards which are often supported by legacies left for particular purposes. Increasingly, even general funds are being targeted towards particular objectives and calls for proposals in specific areas are sought on a regular basis.

The first task is to find an appropriate body to which to apply for funds. Major grant opportunities are advertised in the main scientific press and on sites such as RDFunding. Funding bodies include:

There are several guides to charitable funding bodies which should be found in the local medical library. Major academic institutions provide information from central research support units which publish listings of available grants. Most major hospitals and universities have similar units which publish internal listings of available grants with deadlines and can also give help in completing the application forms.

Sets of forms and guidelines on the grant application process are obtainable from the funding bodies such as the MRC. Research support units may hold these on file which can save a great deal of individual effort.

Top

First Round Applications

Major bodies tend to use a two stage commissioning process. A short initial application is requested which goes through a first round selection procedure. These applications generally cover 2 - 4 sides of A4 paper and include outline details of the research proposed and the support required. A good example is the Short Application form. At this stage the results of the selection process will either be acceptance, a suggestion of referral elsewhere, perhaps to a more suitable programme, or rejection. If rejected, a resumé of the reasons for rejection is usually given and one may be able to challenge the decision if it is felt to be unjust. However, it is more likely that the reasons will be valid and applicants are well advised to accept the criticisms and to modify the application accordingly before re-submission or submission elsewhere. Indeed, it may be very constructive in these circumstances to seek the advice of the grant giving body as to how to modify the proposal; it is sometimes surprising how helpful they can be. This would be particularly true for research commissioned at a local level and one role of the recently appointed regional and trust level research directors is to provide such advice.

Top

Second Round Applications

If selected to enter the second round, a fuller application will be requested and it is now necessary to provide exact details of the research proposed and the resources required. Though the odds of success shorten at this stage, the degree of scrutiny increases so the production of this second stage proposal can be much more difficult than the first. A typical full application form and a brief CV form can be downloaded and the major headings of the MRC and NHS application forms are shown below. This indicates the level of detail typically required at this stage and for the newcomer it is recommended that advice is sought on this process from an experienced senior colleague. It is imperative that the form is completed to the letter as any anomalies, however small, will detract from the chances of success.

If coherent planning has been undertaken, most of the information required will be at hand and will be well constructed. The details which present problems at this stage are generally to do with financial details. Overheads are a particular bug-bear and relate to a levy applied to grants to cover the infrastructure costs of the institution in which work is carried out. The size and scope of overheads varies from place to place and from grant-giving body to grant-giving body. Essentially, it is usual to add a fixed percentage (up to 40 - 50% in some cases) to the total salary bill of the grant concerned. This can be a sizeable amount of money which can give the cost-benefit equation a new perspective! Check carefully about overheads, however, as grant-giving bodies are moving increasingly towards full cost grants which normally include the overhead costs, post, photocopying, office expenses and secretarial help, each of which have to be itemised. European grants pose special problems as regards overheads and expenses as EC contractual arrangements can be extremely complex and it is recommended that experienced help is sought before embarking on such projects.

Top

Identifying collaborators

Collaborators will generally be drawn from within a circle of colleagues, often based in the same institution. With the complexity of medical problems research teams are often formed from multidisciplinary groupings. When putting together a project it is worth considering whether additional specialist input would be helpful and seeking it out if necessary. Health economics is becoming an essential component of much NHS research and if a project lacks the relevant expertise in this area a grant submission is more likely to fail. Similarly, many Research Council initiatives and the European Union programmes demand partnerships with industrial organisations and across national boundaries. Working with such groups can be invigorating. Sometimes, however, the extra management burden and the conflict of academic and commercial interests can create unexpected frustrations.

A current issue which is worth considering at this stage is the likely involvement in co-authorship of any publications produced by the project. Early agreement on this can avoid problems of grant holders expecting automatic right of inclusion on papers when there actual scientific involvement has been minimal, for example in cases where they have merely enabled access to a particular patient group. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the Vancouver group) has published guidelines for inclusion as authors which could be useful in setting a yardstick for discussions with potential collaborators.

In short, working in the right team with clearly defined individual responsibilities is essential. Collaborators should be chosen with care!

Top

Headings of a current MRC Grant application form

Details of applicants
Institution administering grant
Title of investigation (116 characters maximum)
Type of grant sought
Abstract of research (250 words)
Start date and duration
Summary of support requested
broken down by year and category (staff, consumable, equipment etc.)
Statement of ethical approval
Declaration by applicants of acceptance of MRC standard conditions
Signatures by Head of Department and Administering Authority
Address
History of proposed research
Title
Questions concerning previous / concurrent applications
Addresses of applicants
Addresses of collaborators

Top

Annex 1

Proposed investigation
Maximum of five A4 sides for Project Grants / Special Project Grants
Maximum of nine A4 sides for Programme Grants
Title
Purpose
Background
Plan of Investigation
Detailed justification for support required

Annex 2

Detailed breakdown of all costs

Annex 3

CV of Applicants
CV of proposed research staff / visiting senior scientist

Annex 4

Report on previous MRC Grant(s)
A one A4 page report grants held by applicants over the preceding 5 years

Top

Major headings of a current NHS Grant Form

1. Details of lead applicant

2. Project details

Area of R&D Need
Project title
Summary (200 words)
Duration
Start date
Overhead (% of costs)
Total cost

3. Details of joint applicants

4. Details of proposed investigation

Title
Background to the project
Plan of investigation including research methodology proposed
Benefits the proposed investigation will bring to the NHS
Justification of the support required
References

Top

How is a research proposal evaluated?

Though the emphasis in this section has been on how to run studies, in time one may be asked to evaluate studies for grant-giving bodies or ethics committees. It is worth considering the mechanism by which this is carried out at an early stage as by understanding the method of appraisal it is more likely that pitfalls in grant proposals can be avoided.

In most cases proposals submitted to grant-giving bodies are peer reviewed by a moderate sized panel of scrutineers. They will evaluate the proposal and usually score it against a relatively tight set of criteria. Once all the grants are scored they are ranked and the available money allocated. In all the cases it is important that the submissions are of high quality and follow the criteria set by the grant-awarding body as generally proposals will be eliminated on a sudden death basis.

The following is the kind of checklist that reviewers use when reading grants and gives an indication of how failings would lead to rejections. It is obvious that the scientific or clinical question being addressed should be of significance but this is not the only criterion which is used. The application itself must be of high scientific quality, stating the problems clearly and using published evidence intelligently to support its cause. The proposal must be realistic, especially in terms of being achievable with the resources requested. Where needed, appropriate collaboration must be identified as discussed above.

Top

Grant evaluation checklist

Item	Criteria	Comments
Title	Does the title make sense and adequately summarise the project?	Though failure is unlikely because of a poor title, a misleading or ambiguous title will not help the case.
Summary	Does the summary adequately encapsulate the research problem? Does it include all the significant information?	Again, though failure is unlikely on a poor summary alone, in the heat of the grant arbitration meeting a poor or confused summary will not help to support the case
Benefits of research	Is it clearly stated who will benefit from the research and in what way?	Much research and particularly NHS research is goal directed, failing to justify why the research will be of value will weaken the case.
Purpose of research	Is the problem clearly stated?	Ask an experienced colleague unfamiliar with the research topic to check this.
Background	Does the background material adequately summarise the current state of knowledge? Does it indicate where the current project fits into prior research programmes? Does it indicate a logical progression? Does it show a clear understanding of relevant literature in the field?	Ask an experienced colleague unfamiliar with the research topic to check this.
Hypothesis	Is/are there a clearly stated hypothesis / hypotheses? Does this follow logically from the research problem? If proven will they answer the research question?	Ask an experienced colleague unfamiliar with the research topic to check this.
Plan of investigation	Is there a steering group / management organisation to control the project? Is the plan clear and unambiguous? Is it feasible? Does it address the hypothesis /hypotheses? Is the experimental model sound? Are all relevant data items to be collected properly identified? Is the experiment ethical and if necessary has ethics approval been obtained? Are adequate methods for randomisation, double / single blinding etc. identified? Are the proposed control and study groups appropriate for the experiment? Have the correct methods been used to identify the sample sizes and power of the study? Are the sample sizes considered : too small? (fails on statistical grounds) or too big? (fails on ethical grounds because of unnecessary risks to subjects)?	Most of these are check list items but in some cases (ethical permission; statistical calculations) expert advice should be sought.
Justification of support requested	Are the resources identified in the proposal necessary to carry out the research? Do they fall within the remit of the grant? Does the Institution / Research Team have the resources and facilities to undertake the work proposed?	Note some grant bodies exclude certain items, e.g. PCs, capital items.
Miscellaneous	Is the research contingent on other factors? Is permission needed to use other facilities, access to patients / materials not under the direct control of the research team?	Any permissions needed should be clearly stated and documentary evidence may be required that they have been obtained.
Past record	Do the researchers have a good past record: papers published? projects completed?	A short CV is usually needed for most applications. In some cases this will be a personal CV for each member of the team. In other cases an Institutional CV may be needed.
Methods of dissemination	Are the methods of dissemination clearly identified? Are they feasible? Is there a mechanism for follow-up and review of the project?	Most grant giving bodies now ask for information as to how the research findings will be published, disseminated and exploited. They also now expect to receive regular progress reports and a final report on the outcome. In the review process 'products', especially peer-reviewed publications of findings, are rated highly and will be expected. Failure to produce these will reflect badly on researchers applying for follow-up grants or new proposals.

Top