Most scientists work at the intersection of three processes (the hatched area in Figure 8.1): (1) specifying what question to ask of Nature; (2) expressing the question as a model (often mathematically even if vaguely as, for example, ‘Is there a relation between variables x and y?’); and (3) collecting and analysing data from a survey or experiment.

It is easy to ask the wrong question or to specify the wrong model. A plant physiologist observed that the kinetics of uptake of nitrate from solution by the roots of young barley plants resembled the kinetics of enzyme action and asked ‘What is the Michaelis constant of the enzyme?’ But this was a blind alley: the kinetics he observed were overwhelmingly the result of diffusion through the unstirred layer around the roots. Even when he had recognised this he specified an incorrect mathematical model, though he got close agreement to it with his data. Asking the right question and specifying it in the right form for testing are at the core of advance in understanding. They are specific to the particular problem though and are therefore outside the scope of this book. But the analysis of data (Figure 8.1), and the sorts of error we need to recognise, are within our scope.

As scientific meetings got bigger some attendees were not able to give a talk because there was not enough time. The scientific poster was invented to allow these disadvantaged persons to display their work.

Poster sessions have been common for only a few decades, so procedures and poster design techniques are still evolving. The poster is the least formal of the three main communication methods, and corralling viewers for it is competitive. It has the same relationship to the formal article as a painted miniature does to a Vermeer portrait. The advantage of presenting a poster (at anything other than a small meeting for specialists) is that you have an opportunity to interest people outside your special field. It will be clear then that visual presentation is the key to designing a poster that gets noticed. Of the three forms of presentation the poster, as the name implies, is the one that has the largest element of deliberate advertising in it. You need to attract attention. Of course the substance of what you present must be interesting too.

You will probably get an opportunity to talk about your work before you have to write about it. You use some of the same evidence in a talk as in an article, though prepared differently, mostly in visual form with tables and figures as ‘slides’. But speaking is a performance art in real time and needs different skills from writing. When writing you have time to reconsider and revise; when giving a talk you have only one chance to get it right. Detailed preparation and at least some practice are essential. Giving a successful talk that interests the audience can be a satisfying, if nerve jangling, experience. It is a rapid way to recognition amongst peers in your subject .

When writing or showing a poster you are competing for attention, but a talk is different. Your audience is captive. This advantage is also a responsibility: the members of your audience have come hoping to learn something and, perhaps, be entertained too. The stakes are high.

Introduction

Yes, your aim is to carry out your own research ideas and to win a career grant. But what is actually available to you in terms of funding opportunities? Which agencies are there to help you fund and develop your career? What are the terms and conditions of the funding agency you hope to apply to? How do these appeal to you?

You might ignore all these questions and simply start writing your research proposal immediately and just see where it ends up. And perhaps you will do well – who knows? But if you are really serious, then you will probably decide to continue reading this chapter to learn more about the funding agencies before you start with the actual writing. If you want to play the game and optimize your chance of winning a career grant, then you must know how to play the game and what the rules are. Here are the keys to getting a full picture of your destination before you depart:

• Target. Which types of people do funding agencies actually want to award career grants to, what do they expect from their laureates, and are you ready for this? What do they actually target? What is your own target?

• Brochure. Check websites and download brochures to explore the opportunities offered by various funding agencies. Which agencies provide career grant opportunities matching your scientific dreams?

• Procedure. The funding agency defines the procedure and processes for evaluating you and your competitors so that the best, in their eyes, may win. You need to learn more about these procedures and processes before you start. This is critical for your success in the career grant competition.

• Rules. The best way to kill your application is to submit it after the deadline. And there are many other silly or naive ways to reduce the value of your application in the eyes of the external reviewers and panel members. Learn how to avoid them.

Introduction

You’re rolling the dice, you’re going to apply for the career grant. You have analyzed the funding agency’s and your own situation and defined your strategy. Now you are ready for the exciting step of writing the proposal. The list below gives several keys to success:

• Plan. This is the detailed script for the scientific work to come: what, when, where, by whom, in what order, and with what risks. It will be evaluated by the panel members and reviewers, some of whom may be pretty experienced in your field, while others will be less knowledgeable of the specifics but will still have long experience of running scientific projects. How can you write a convincing script?

• Impact. Now predict the success your script will have. What types of success should you think of upon completion of the work plan? And how about successes in the mid- and long-term, perhaps long after the work plan has been finished? When would your prediction seem realistic in the eye of the evaluators?

• Abstract. Does your abstract outline your main problem, your reasons for tackling it, the predicted success, and the most convincing factors showing how you are going to achieve this success?

• Title. Does your title clearly reflect the intention of your scientific proposal? Which title formats work best?

• Budget. Have you asked the funding agency for enough money (but no more than strictly required) to finance all that you have promised to do in your work plan? And how can you actually know or reasonably estimate the costs?

• Résumé. Does your résumé demonstrate your leadership with a track record packed with convincing facts, exciting facts, astonishing facts? Do the most important ones really stand out well?

You may have looked through this book, studied some figures and tables, read the text in part, or even as a whole. I know many of you are now thinking:

You are absolutely right to ask yourself this question. Many candidate writers of career grant proposals have had serious doubts and concerns before they started writing. Here are three quotes collected from a questionnaire that applicants completed the day after submitting their proposals:

Introduction

Since you are reading this book, you are probably eager to “role the dice.” You want to play the game and optimize your chance of winning a career grant. Yes, “winning” is the appropriate term. It’s not like winning a lottery, where all the players have an equal chance of success. No, this is about a race between you and the other applicants, about winning a race in which preparation and devotion, training and support, and some “blood, sweat and tears” really matter. Either you “go for it” with all your energy, creativity, drive, and intellect, or you would be better off doing something else. This may sound rather harsh, but you should realize the competition for such funding is fierce.

You may have your end point of getting a career grant in mind, but where do you start from? You might simply start writing your research proposal straightaway and see where it ends up. And perhaps you will do well – who knows. But if you are serious then you will probably decide to continue reading this book and prepare well, before you start with the actual writing. The factors I see as most essential for your start are:

• Motivation. How much time and energy (if not blood, sweat, and tears) should you be willing to invest to move from start to finish? How serious is all of this? And how serious are you?

• Idea. You need a great idea to surprise, excite, and motivate the panel members and reviewers (and yourself, of course). But how do you get such great ideas?

• Strategy. What can you start doing now to be in the best possible shape and condition by the time the proposal writing ends in submitting an application? Make a strategic plan!

Introduction

Time to go for victory. Time to submit your proposal. No, wait a moment; you should first ask people with experience to criticize and professionalize all your application’s components: from language to utilization, from idea to work plan to budget. Listen carefully to their feedback and attend to all the potential weaknesses, if not flaws, in your proposal. You can be sure that the funding agency will send your proposal out for review to senior peers, collect their critiques, possibly confront you with their points, and then decide on your proposal: go or no-go. And the no-go will hurt, especially if you realize you could have prevented some of the criticism in advance, if only you’d known. So, take time to organize getting feedback before submission and take what is being said seriously, very seriously: use other people’s talents, benefit from whatever coaching, mentoring, and training is available as much as you can!

• Mentoring. Can help from experienced scientists (grant laureates) make the difference? The answer seems to be almost too obvious. Contact potential mentors, even if they appear highly intimidating to you!

• Coaching. Are you an expert on budgets, intellectual property protection, marketing, or other non-scientific tasks? Or do you want to become such an expert? Probably not. So seek some coaching to save time and equally advance the quality of your proposal! But where do you find these people?

• Training. How about training on the job? You simply write, submit, fail, learn, revise, resubmit, and so on. This is an extensive and painful training program! Taking tailored courses may help you speed up the process.

Who is this book for?

This book is for people dreaming of a successful future in science: undergraduate and graduate students, postdocs and young research group leaders. It is also for the people providing support to help make these dreams come true, for example the staff of funding agencies, scientists who review grant applications, or university funding officers, career advisors, counselors, trainers, and mentors.

There is one type of grant that is becoming increasingly important for building a future in science: the career grant. There is perhaps nothing more attractive than being able to carry out plans you have proposed yourself early on in your career. A career grant can provide the funding for starting or consolidating your own research line. It is a unique and favorable feature of career grant programs that you will be competing only with applicants who are at the same career stage as you and not with more experienced people. Once you have been awarded a career grant, you will be much better equipped to apply successfully for other grants, where you will indeed have to compete with scientists from all career stages. Ideas for new projects will spin off from your career grant project and put you in the ideal position to apply for other grants.

Introduction

The funding agency recruits panel members and external reviewers to help them rank the proposals and applicants. This chapter gives insight into the types of instruction that panel members and reviewers may be given by the funding agency. And it lifts the veil covering the evaluation procedure, with all its struggles, caveats, and sometimes difficult decisions. Use all this inside information to your advantage.

• Reviewers. Are the external reviewers given clear instructions by the funding agency? What are the reviewers actually looking for when reading and scoring your proposal? For example, missing or insufficient details would reduce your score and might even make them kill your proposal. Check the lists!

• Rebuttal. The external reviewers may have raised concerns about your leadership, your clever research idea, or the details in your work plan. How should you deal with these when you are asked to write a rebuttal?

• Panel. The panel chair and members are human beings who will, of course, influence each other at the panel meetings. It’s not a bad thing to realize that this human dimension might influence your score either way. How can you get the panel on your side and keep them there?

• Interview. The funding agency may ask you to give a presentation in person and hold a debate with the review panel, to obtain further information on your proposal and to check on your leadership skills. How should you prepare and act? What factors make for a successful presentation?