Grant reports and proposals.

Research grants and other forms of project funding involve two different types of reports. Some grant documents relate to research already completed, while others describe activities that are planned. However, both types of grant documents must reflect the underlying concern for financial support of one's research. Reports and proposals related to funding play such a major role in scientific research that it is natural to expect that their quality is an important determinant of whether or not that work will continue as desired. As H.F. Ebel et al. point out in The Art of Scientific Writing (1990), given the intense competition for grant monies, and the fact that granting agencies receive many more proposals than they can possibly fund, applicants must build the strongest possible case for their proposed project. In this light, it is crucial that an initial proposal reflect what the reader seeks: a convincing impression that

* the proposed project is legitimate and worthwhile;

* the project's scope has been carefully considered and is realistic;

* the goal stands a reasonable chance of being met if the work is conducted in the manner described in the proposal;

* an adequate literature search has been performed;

* the applicant is reliable and has the background and facilities needed to tackle the problem;

* the requested funds are truly essential to the achievement of the desired ends.

As daunting as the extensive explanations and qualifications of many grant application guidelines are, the applicant must study and follow these with utmost care. Nothing should be inadvertently omitted, and every aspect should be given its proper weight in accordance with the recipient's expectations.

It is neither possible nor desirable here to offer a comprehensive set of rules or strategies for writing successful grant applications. The subject is complex and in some ways controversial, and entire books have been devoted to it--e.g., R. Stewart and A.L. Stewart's 1984 Proposal Preparation and R. Meador's 1985 Guidelines for Preparing Proposals. (For something out of the ordinary, see also G. Myer's enlightening rhetorical analysis of the "Social Construction of Two Biologists' Proposals" in his 1990 Writing Biology.) The following suggestions, however, should help one decide what to include and what points to emphasize in order to maximize the chances of a favorable response to an initial application. While the preliminary pieces of information like the applicant's identity and a descriptive title of the proposed project seem too simple to mention, in an initial grant proposal these elements assume particular importance. Unlike most other reports, the initial document is intended for someone who probably does not know its author. For this reason, the proposal should contain at least some information about the writer's background and qualifications, including a list of publications. The descriptive title, preferably kept to two typewritten lines, should be supplemented with a specification of the field and sub-discipline under which the project might best be categorized (e.g., inorganic chemistry: fluorine chemistry). This seemingly self-evident information may not be so obvious to a reviewer, but it could influence the proposal's outcome due to an agency's funding priorities. The beginning of the proposal should also make clear the planned duration of the overall project and the specific time period for which funding is requested.

The subsequent elaboration generally incorporates the following elements:

* A summary, consisting of a concise but intelligible overview of the intended work and its precise scientific objective.

* A literature outline, giving the reader a general picture of the current status of the problem. Rather than a comprehensive literature survey, what is required here is a brief, critical synopsis of those hypotheses and results which constitute the present state of knowledge in the area under consideration. One is expected to include a balanced treatment of the work of all major investigators, not just one's own views and results. Nevertheless, the reader should acquire an accurate knowledge of the applicant's previous contributions to the field.

* A discussion of the proposed investigation and the approach that is envisioned. This part of the proposal should function to establish the importance of the scientific questions the applicant wishes to address and the likelihood that they would be answered if the requested funding were approved. Other important elements of the discussion include: an outline of any relevant preliminary studies the applicant has already carried out, both published and unpublished; a projected timetable for the work, listing key experiments and their planned sequence; and explicit treatment of the long-range goal of the project. The later may well go beyond the scientific objective described at the outset. For instance, if appropriate, one should point to (realistic) potential applications of the work, including any likely benefits to society.

Of particular importance in first applications is paying due attention to any conditions affecting the project. Facilities, equipment, and materials should be described, as well as the terms under which these can be used. Any restrictions imposed on the project (e.g., by one's institution) should be explicitly noted. The applicant should include information regarding the current and proposed make-up of his or her research group, and any plans or opportunities for collaboration with others. All presently available (or highly probable) forms of support apart from that requested in the proposal should also be listed in detail.

With regard to the proposal's budget, all items should be justified: personnel, scientific apparatus, supplies, travel, publication costs, and overhead. Considerable detail may be required in some cases, such as for explaining why the more expensive equipment manufactured by one company has been specified over the less costly model available elsewhere. In addition, many granting agencies require that applicants or their institutions submit with their proposals signed affirmations attesting to the absence of alternative sources of funding for the proposed work.

In contrast to grant applications, interim and final grant reports are similar to research reports. Reports of this kind should begin with a brief restatement of the scientific problem as it stood when current funding commenced, followed by a discussion of knowledge subsequently acquired. The latter should acknowledge any progress reported by others active in the field. All relevant work carried out under the grant is then described, but briefly and without experimental details. While unsuccessful experiments are relevant here, the emphasis should be on important new results and their significance. Any exceptional experience gained during the work should also be noted, as well as unusual success attending the use of a particular method, or an important new application found for some piece of instrumentation. Above all, it is important to make clear the importance of the role played by the funding source to which the report is addressed. Final grant reports should conclude with a brief statement of future plans, especially since these are likely to constitute the starting point for the next round in the seemingly endless cycle of reports related to financial support.

Robert Goldbort, Ph.D., Asst. Professor, Indiana State University, Dept. of English, Terre Haute, IN 47809.