Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

To grant you an edge. Part 3. Considerations for writing competitive research career development proposals in the biomedical sciences

2022; American Physiological Society; Volume: 132; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1152/japplphysiol.00149.2022

8750-7587

Douglas R. Seals,

Academic Writing and Publishing

ViewpointTo grant you an edge: Part 3. Considerations for writing competitive research career development proposals in the biomedical sciencesDouglas R. SealsDouglas R. SealsDepartment of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, ColoradoPublished Online:13 Jun 2022https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00149.2022This is the final version - click for previous versionMoreSectionsPDF (809 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat In Part 1 of this Viewpoint (1), I discussed general strategies for writing competitive biomedical research proposals—strategies that would be applicable to most, if not all, types of grant applications. In Part 2 (2), I shared insider tips for addressing selective aspects of research proposals, primarily focusing on the effective construction of key sections of biomedical grant applications. In this Part 3 of the set (3), I will discuss several important considerations for writing competitive research career development proposals to support mentored scientific training and the transition to early independent investigator status in the field of biomedicine.As with the first two parts of the present Viewpoint (1, 2) and prior commentaries in this series (4–6), the opinions expressed are strictly my own. The latter point made, however, those opinions have been honed by over 35 years of serving both as a sponsor (primary mentor of record) and a peer reviewer of numerous predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowship applications, as well as proposals aimed at supporting the transition from postdoctoral fellow to independent faculty investigator.INTRODUCTIONAs described in Part 1 of this Viewpoint under "Focus on score-influencing review criteria" (1), the review criteria for research career development applications (i.e., predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowship awards and junior faculty research development awards) differ from those for laboratory research project proposals. Career development applications are evaluated on the strengths of the applicant (candidate); the sponsor and the overall mentoring team; the research training plan, including the research project; and the institutional support and research training environment. Much of the prior discussion in this Viewpoint is relevant for both categories of grant applications. However, because of the differences in review criteria and other nuances, in this commentary I share some additional insider thoughts for constructing competitive research career development applications based on serving as the primary sponsor on almost 50 such awards, as well as a frequent peer reviewer of these types of proposals.CANDIDATES MUST "PUT THEIR BEST FOOT FORWARD"In my experience, the potential (promise) of the applicant is the single most important review criterion for many reviewers. Indeed, it is not uncommon for some reviewers to place the great majority of their overall merit evaluation on this sole factor. I have served on numerous panels in which an application submitted by a strong candidate was given a high overall merit score by one or more of the assigned reviewers despite the proposal containing many, even serious, limitations and weaknesses in other review criteria. For many reviewers, if they like the candidate, they like the application. Because reviewers are given complete discretion to weigh the importance of the individual review criteria as they deem appropriate, this candidate-centric approach to scoring is rarely challenged. In any case, the message here is the critical importance of developing the most impressive candidate section possible. That information usually is presented early on in research career development applications where it can set the tone of reviewer enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for the subsequent sections of the proposal. As I always underscore to my own research trainees, if a reviewer does not judge the candidate as strong, it usually does not matter how compelling the remaining sections of the application are viewed. To a large extent, one "wins or loses" the merit scoring battle for the overall application in the candidate section. To put your best foot forward, consider the following strategies when developing this vital component of the proposal Fig. 1.Figure 1.Candidates must put their "best foot forward." Applicants for research career development awards must present themselves in the most favorable manner possible by (clockwise from lower left): 1) describing their interest and investment in research and scientific training; 2) demonstrating strong performance in research experiences to date; 3) properly stating their near-term training objectives and long-term career goals; and 4) obtaining uniformly positive comments from their sponsor and professional references. Illustration by Steve Graepel.Download figureDownload PowerPointDocument Your Ongoing Interest and "Investment" in Biomedical Research and Scientific TrainingReviewers are impressed by candidates who can present some history of voluntary interest in research and scientific training activities. Such a history might begin with an experience as an undergraduate research assistant or even volunteering to work in a laboratory as a high school student (far less common). In other cases, post-undergraduate-related employment in an industry related to biomedical research, a post-baccalaureate academic program with exposure to research, and/or a graduate student position in a research laboratory may represent one's initial experience. Whatever the circumstance, the applicant for a fellowship or other scientific development award must present the most persuasive evidence possible for showing a strong interest and involvement in research. These types of "investment profiles" also are attractive to reviewers because they represent objective evidence of a sustained, ongoing commitment to scientific research as a career aspiration versus a potential temporary phase or situational necessity (e.g., obtaining research experience for an upcoming application to medical school).Establish Your Productivity (Record of Performance) to DateThis goal is best achieved by presenting evidence of:impressing faculty with your questions and comments in the academic classroom and research settings, including laboratory meetings and journal club sessions; such comments are typically highlighted in the accompanying letters of recommendation or the sponsor section of the career development proposal;attending and presenting abstracts of your research at scientific conferences;academic (e.g., Dean's list) and research (e.g., conference abstract awards) honors;membership in professional societies;serving as a lead (best) or co-author on peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts; andboth your quantitative (i.e., degree of involvement in laboratory research projects) and qualitative performance during day-to-day experimental activities in the laboratory, the latter typically being described in comments by the sponsor.To bolster the presentation of this information, in both the candidate section of text and your biographical sketch ("biosketch" in the United States) form pages, provide the most updated and complete description of your research experience and performance possible, including authorship on all manuscripts submitted or in preparation.Properly State Both Your Near-Term Research Training Objectives and Long-Term Career GoalsThoughtfully articulating your immediate or near-future research training objectives, as well as your long-term career goals, is a key element of presenting yourself as a strong candidate for a research career development award. The near-term research training objectives should describe both new, specific laboratory techniques and more general career development skills (see CREATE A ROBUST RESEARCH TRAINING PLAN). The most common description of long-term career goals presented in career development grant proposals is to become an independent, extramurally funded investigator, directing your own laboratory at a research-intensive academic institution: a setting in which you plan to perform both high-quality original research and mentor early career stage scientists-in-training. This is a career objective that resonates with most, if not all, peer reviewers of research career development applications because many individuals serving on review committees themselves direct laboratories on academic research campuses. As a result, it is important to consider the possibility that some reviewers may tend to be more supportive of candidates who state career aspirations along these lines. Moreover, reviewers holding this perspective may even have a (conscious or subconscious) bias against applicants who they perceive are emphasizing career objectives focused more on other professional activities (e.g., classroom teaching or clinical work) and less on research per se. Although perhaps to a lesser extent today than in the past, some reviewers may even be less supportive of candidates with primary aspirations for a career in industry, even industry-based research, rather than academic research. Keeping these possible personal attitudes in mind, if a major component of your career goals is to teach, be heavily involved in clinical practice, or to work in industry, it is important to clearly describe how the research training support you are seeking will be vital for long-term career success. This is the key to convincing reviewers that the funding mechanism in question is essential for you to accomplish what you seek to achieve professionally.Strong, Uniformly Positive Sponsor Comments and Letters of Recommendation Are CriticalThe statements of the sponsor regarding the potential of the applicant to achieve their near- and long-term career goals and become a successful professional in the field are carefully noted by reviewers, as are the comments made in letters of recommendation by the applicant's references. This is important to appreciate because sponsor statements in career development proposals, understandably given the end goal of obtaining a fundable merit score, typically emphasize only the strengths of the candidate. Moreover, in contemporary biomedical research, most references are reluctant to make any statements in their letters that might be considered negative by reviewers, including any current weaknesses of the candidate. Because this approach has become standard and such uniformly positive commentary is now expected by peer reviewers, it is essential that sponsors consider their descriptions of scientific potential carefully and that the applicant and sponsor try to select letter writers that are most likely to provide highly enthusiastic (if possible, unqualified) positive evaluations of the applicant. Yes, it is important to select references with proper academic and research credentials, but a highly enthusiastic letter from, say, a mid-career reference usually will have a more positive impact on reviewers than a more conservative, understated (restrained) recommendation from a more senior investigator. Lack of attention to this issue can result in an applicant being viewed as subpar or having greater limitations compared with other candidates, resulting in less reviewer enthusiasm and a poorer merit score.SPONSOR SCRUTINYReviewers will evaluate both your sponsor and the other members of the mentoring team as one of the major score-influencing review criteria. Here are some considerations for developing this important section of a competitive research career development grant application (Fig. 2).Figure 2."Sponsor scrutiny." Sponsors (or co-sponsors) and technical mentors described in research career development applications will be evaluated by peer reviewers based largely on 1) the sponsor's professional status, history of scientific mentoring, and active grant funding during the proposed training period; and 2) the technical expertise of the co-mentors for providing effective research training in their proposed roles. Illustration by Steve Graepel.Download figureDownload PowerPointSponsor and/or Co-SponsorsThe sponsor or, in some cases, co-sponsors, will be judged mainly on their:overall status in their field of research;expertise in the broader scientific and/or career development training goals of the applicant, as determined largely by the sponsor's professional work history, academic appointments and titles, and publication record;history of mentoring (particularly former and current mentees at the research training stage of the applicant), as well as the current professional status of past trainees; the latter is usually assessed by whether former trainees of the applicant's present career stage have gone on to successful careers as independent PIs (principal investigators) in academic research settings, although success in industry-based research also may be considered, especially if that is the career goal of the applicant;record of performance in obtaining extramural grant funding and, in particular, funding that will be available to support the applicant's proposed research training during the requested funding period.In some instances, the process can be challenging because the sponsor is a relatively junior PI with a limited record of research training and possibly research funding. With junior sponsors, a common approach is to recruit a more senior PI as a co-sponsor to mitigate reviewer concerns regarding mentoring experience. In such situations, an effective option is to describe the junior sponsor as the primary day-to-day research mentor, with the senior co-sponsor assigned the main responsibilities for career development. In this scenario, the co-sponsor does not require specific expertise in the applicant's proposed area of research training. If presented properly, this model often proves successful in peer review.Another challenging situation is when a trainee has joined what is, at the time, a well-funded laboratory, only to encounter a setting of expiring sponsor grant awards by the time they are planning their research career development grant application. This is not uncommon and requires the current sponsor to either: 1) obtain written assurances from some independent source (e.g., from their department chair or institute director) that funding will be provided to support the applicant during the proposed training period if the sponsor's funding is not renewed; or 2) to recruit a co-sponsor who has grant support during the period in question and states that they will support the candidate's training activities as described in the application. The co-sponsor in this scenario might be an established PI who would otherwise be considered for a major technical role in the mentoring team but feels sufficiently invested in the candidate and research project to the point of accepting the responsibility for funding the applicant's research training if the primary sponsor's grant funding becomes inadequate to do so. Often such a co-sponsor is a current colleague of the primary sponsor, knows the applicant, and may already be collaborating on the research project being proposed for training.Other Members of the Mentoring TeamWhen assembling the other (nonsponsor) members of a mentoring team, the first step is to determine what, if any, key areas of the envisioned research training the sponsor might be considered to lack the necessary expertise; this is almost always the case in today's world of multidisciplinary biomedical research. If so, then the applicant must work collaboratively with the sponsor to define any potential deficiencies, identify possible consulting mentors with the proper expertise to address those shortcomings, and then successfully recruit suitable individuals who are willing and able to serve in the required capacities.Expertise clearly reflected in co-mentor's CV.An important early phase in the process is ensuring that the expertise of the putative technical mentor will be readily acknowledged and approved by peer reviewers. A useful tactic in vetting possible consulting mentors is to try to obtain a copy of their CV or biosketch to confirm that the information presented on such documents will support the description of the specific role the mentor will be assigned in the career development application. Indeed, a busy reviewer with 10 other applications to evaluate must be able to glance at the biosketch of a proposed consulting mentor and quickly confirm that the individual possesses the necessary skills and experience to serve effectively in the stated capacity. The sponsor and applicant must somehow assemble sufficient background information to make an informed decision as to whether an appropriate profile can be presented before seeking the involvement of a potential consulting mentor.Other characteristics of importance.In addition to knowledge and experience on the topic in question, the seniority, reputation, academic title(s), collaborative history with the sponsor, and physical location of the potential consulting mentor are other important considerations in the selection process.The addition of a senior leader in the field with a strong "brand" as a consulting mentor can favorably impact reviewer enthusiasm and scoring for this review criterion.If the putative mentor has a history of collaborating with the sponsor, whether in the setting of conducting original research projects, serving as a consulting mentor for previous or other current trainees, or both, that also is a positive factor and should be emphasized in the application.A "local" mentor, especially one at the applicant's home institution, usually is less subject to reviewer criticisms than out-of-state mentors, as the latter situation can raise concerns regarding logistical challenges related to general communication and acquiring proposed technical training. If you enlist an "outside" technical mentor, be sure that you describe how such potential obstacles will be overcome.Whether located locally or elsewhere, a detailed description of the mode and frequency of interactions with each of the proposed consulting mentors is essential.The exact roles, responsibilities, and contributions of each mentor in the applicant's research training and professional development must be clear and distinct, i.e., without any significant overlap with the other mentors.Overall, recruiting effective consulting mentors usually is not a major problem in constructing research career development applications, but understanding the important subtleties of the process should reduce the risk of reviewer criticism.Consistency when describing mentor roles.To maintain the "internal consistency" of information presented within the various sections of the grant application (1), make sure that any references to the roles and responsibilities of the mentors are in proper alignment when described throughout the main body of the application, the mentors' accompanying biosketches, and corresponding letters of support (confirming their agreement to serve in that capacity). Do not assume that the descriptions are consistent across those materials in the initial draft forms because often that will not be the case and editing will be required. To help the consulting mentors use the proper language regarding their role, responsibilities, frequency of communication, and other key information in their letters of support, the applicant should forward the exact wording they (the applicant) plan to use in the proposal to the letter writer. This effort will mitigate the natural inconsistency created by the process and will reduce the work burden placed on the consulting mentors."Personalized" descriptions of mentor support.Another important point is that the documents composed by the consulting mentor should be personalized for the candidate (rather than generic) and clearly establish the mentor's expertise for the proposed role, including appropriate examples of publications in the research training area in question. Such nuances indicate to reviewers that the consulting mentor was personally invested in the development of the proposal and therefore is more likely to be sincere about (and follow through on) their stated participation.Early planning and recruitment of co-mentors.The process of enlisting specific technical mentors should, along with contacting potential references for letters of recommendation, be prioritized as an "early" planning event (e.g., several months before the submission deadline, whenever possible). Such early action allows putative consulting mentors the necessary time to thoroughly consider the request and, if they agree to serve, have an ample period before the submission deadline to develop their supporting materials and consult on those aspects of proposal construction that would benefit from their expertise.CREATE A ROBUST RESEARCH TRAINING PLANThe research training plan, including the research project, is a major score-influencing review criterion for career development applications. The basic features of these sections are described in detail in the instructions provided by the grant agency and are well understood by sponsors. Instead, I offer the following two insider perspectives on this highly analyzed component of research career development proposals.Research Project versus Research PlanAlthough sometimes presented as separate sections of a career development application depending on the grant agency guidelines, the research project should be considered part of the overall research training plan as it is a, if not the, primary vehicle through which new research experiences, particularly experimental laboratory skills, will be acquired. Because of its major role in research training, the research project of career development proposals usually is intensely scrutinized by reviewers. This means that, on the one hand, the applicant for a career development award must maintain the necessary broader view of the research project as a key component of the research training plan. For example, when describing the goals of the application, the candidate should always describe the primary goal as obtaining the necessary scientific training to gain experience and advance their research skills. The stated goal of a career development grant proposal should never be based on the aims and hypotheses of the research project, as would be the case with a standard research project grant application. Rather, the spirit of a career development grant proposal is just that—research career development—with the research project simply serving as one of several mechanisms to achieve that objective. On the other hand, the fact that most reviewers evaluate the details of the research project so diligently requires the applicant to approach the development of that component of the proposal with the same rigor as would be the case for a research project grant proposal written by the sponsor as laboratory PI. Indeed, in my experience, along with the review of the candidate's potential, the research project is typically the most commented on (and criticized) component of research career development grant applications.Pointers for Developing a Competitive Research Training PlanAs a major review criterion, the training plan for a career development award receives careful examination by reviewers. In addition to the research project, a comprehensive individual development plan (IDP) should address the acquisition and refinement of not only new experimental laboratory skills, but also seek to gain an effective working knowledge of key (nonexperimental) "professional skills," such as making effective oral presentations, competitive grant and manuscript writing, peer review skills, mentoring experience, and a solid understanding of the foundational aspects of responsible conduct of research (research ethics) (Fig. 3). A common error in research training plans is to place too much weight on the research project per se while underemphasizing (or not emphasizing at all) professional development skills (2, 3). The strongest research training plans propose a proper balance of time and effort aimed at obtaining both new experimental skills and valuable experience in these other critical career development activities.Figure 3.Create a robust research training plan. A highly effective research training plan should be developed by the sponsor and candidate with the goals of 1) learning new experimental skills (lower left); and 2) obtaining experience in multiple areas of professional development, including grant and manuscript writing, making effective oral presentations, peer review, and responsible conduct of research (lower-middle to right). Illustration by Steve Graepel.Download figureDownload PowerPointNote that some reviewers also will expect to see formal (e.g., coursework-based) learning activities related to the career development goals of the applicant as part of the overall training plan. That is, formal instruction on selective topics worthy of emphasis beyond the routine proposed interactions with the sponsor and consulting mentors. Depending on the focus of the proposed research training, examples might include lecture- and/or laboratory-based classes on clinical research skills, high-throughput molecular analyses, biostatistics, and responsible conduct of research, the latter being required for the United States NIH-supported research training awards. When proposing formal coursework training, be sure to include the rationale (need) for those experiences. On the less formal end of the spectrum, participation and attendance in weekly laboratory journal clubs, department seminar series, and scientific conferences are other essential activities to include. Most importantly, a clear, easy-to-understand table or figure presenting a detailed, chronological "timeline" for acquiring new experimental and career development skills should be provided for reviewers so they can properly evaluate how the overall training experience will develop over time.THE INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND ENVIRONMENT REVIEW CRITERION IS IMPORTANTAlthough the review criterion related to institutional support and environment is easy to underestimate, doing so usually is a mistake. It may be true that reviewers tend to perceive this score-influencing review criterion to be of lesser importance than the candidate, sponsor, and research training plan. However, that does not mean reviewers "ignore" the institutional support/environment criterion or do not value this component. Inattention to this mandatory information can lead to harsh reviewer criticism, a significant reduction in enthusiasm, and a negative impact on your overall merit score. Accordingly, be mindful of the importance of presenting a strong letter of support for the candidate from the department or institute chair, a favorable overview of the campus research environment, a comprehensive description of the relevant facilities and major equipment available to support the proposed research training, and other information requested in the instructions (Fig. 4). The statements of the chair or other administrator of authority in their letter of institutional support should be enthusiastic, document the specific support to be provided, emphasize that the candidate will have access to all resources needed to successfully complete the proposed training experiences, and explain in clear language the candidate's present position in the department or institute, the pathway to promotion, and that advancement will not be dependent on the outcome of the present career development application. These are among the statements that reviewers will expect to see in this section.Figure 4.The institutional support and environment review criterion is important. An impressive section emphasizing the institutional support and research training environment should highlight (lower left to right): 1) the availability of all facilities and major equipment required by the research training plan; and 2) a strong letter of support from the department chair or research institute director describing the applicant's access to all necessary resources to perform research training, as well as the candidate's pathway for promotion within the institution. Illustration by Steve Graepel.Download figureDownload PowerPointIt is always challenging to escape serious (score-threatening) criticisms related to the other review criteria (candidate, sponsor, research training plan/project) because of uncontrollable factors such as the diversity of reviewer perspectives on applicant record of performance and research project experimental approaches. However, reviewer criticism on a criterion such as institutional support that is much clearer and more straightforward for the grant writer to address and for reviewers to interpret (and favorably score) should, in most cases, be avoidable with proper preparation and attentiveness.PROPERLY STRUCTURE THE OVERALL APPLICATION ABSTRACTMindful of the discussion of these prior points, the abstract or summary of the proposed career development application should be structured "in parallel" with the unique contents of these proposals, i.e., in subtitled sections emphasizing the candidate; sponsor/mentors; research training plan; and institutional support and research training environment (Fig. 5). The abstract/summary section is often the first information that reviewers read to obtain an overview of the entire breadth of the proposal and, as a result, creates a first and, perhaps, long-lasting impression of the candidate as the primary grant writer and sponsor/mentoring team as supervisors and advisors. Do not construct this section in the standard format of a research project grant application, i.e., by summarizing information on the background, aims/hypotheses, and experimental approach for the research project. Doing so is not only a missed opportunity to impress reviewers with an insightful preview of the broad, inclusive scope of the proposed research training experience, but also creates immediate concern (a "red flag") that the applicant is naive about what should be the true expansive spirit of the research training being sought, as well as raising questions concerning a lack of proper oversight of the proposal development process by the sponsor and other members of the mentoring team.Figure 5.Properly structure the overall application abstract. The abstract outlining the overall research career development application should be structured with subheadings (clockwise from top left) emphasizing the candidate; institutional research support and environment; sponsor and mentoring team; and research training plan, which includes the research project. Illustration by Steve Graepel.Download figureDownload PowerPointCONSTRUCTING A COMPETITIVE RESEARCH CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL WILL BE BOTH TIME-CONSUMING AND CHALLENGINGOn the surface, developing a competitive research career development grant application might be considered by inexperienced applicants and sponsors to be a far less arduous task than constructing a conventional laboratory research project proposal. As a result, there might be a tendency to assume that constructing a career development proposal will require less overall time and focused planning and effort, and thus the process can be started closer to the submission deadline compared with a research project application. There may be arguments to support such assumptions, including the fact that career development applications tend to be shorter in length than many standard research project applications and have higher funding lines (i.e., a greater percentage of applications are funded by grant agencies compared with research project proposals). However, I would submit that the opposite position also could be taken. The score-influencing review criteria for research project grant applications focus primarily on one entity: the research project. In the NIH system, the standard R01 research project grant mechanism requires reviewers to evaluate the significance, innovation, experimental approach, and infrastructure of the research project, as well as the qualifications of the investigators for conducting the proposed research; again, it is all about the research project. In contrast, a career development application requires reviewers to consider a much greater scope of components: the candidate, sponsor or co-sponsors and consulting mentors, research training plan (including the research project), and the department/institute and campus environments for providing research training support. Technical consulting mentors must be recruited, as well as references to provide multiple letters of support for the candidate. A comprehensive, innovative research training plan must be constructed. And in addition to all the career development proposal-specific aspects, one still needs to create a novel, biomedically impactful research project that will be rigorously evaluated by savvy grant reviewers. As such, the grant writer of a career development proposal—by definition, an early career stage trainee with limited experience—faces a much more extensive, diverse set of challenges than the setting of an established laboratory PI writing a research project application. This distinction is worth keeping in mind before an applicant and sponsor launch into the proposal development process. A highly competitive research career development application requires just as much, if not more, planning, organization, time, and effort than the standard laboratory research project grant proposal and should be approached accordingly (Fig. 6).Figure 6.Constructing a competitive research career development grant application will be both time-consuming and challenging. Research career development proposals may be shorter than some laboratory research project-type grant applications and have more favorable funding lines in many cases. However, the much broader scope of a career development proposal—with multiple major components beyond simply the research project—makes these applications remarkably time-consuming and challenging. Illustration by Steve Graepel.Download figureDownload PowerPointPART 3 AND OVERALL VIEWPOINT SYNOPSISIn Part 3 of this Viewpoint, I discussed several considerations for effectively addressing the unique review criteria associated with competitive biomedical research career development grant applications. The importance of several components of these proposals was emphasized, including 1) presenting the most impressive possible profiles of the candidate, sponsor, and consulting mentors; 2) creating a robust research training and career development plan; 3) establishing a strong institutional research training environment and support for the applicant; 4) the importance of properly structuring the application abstract; and 5) the time-consuming and challenging nature of constructing a compelling research career development proposal.In this (Part 3) discussion and that presented in Parts 1 and 2 of this Viewpoint (1, 2), I have tried to emphasize the simple, but crucial point that grant writing in the biomedical sciences should be viewed as a "process," not an event. Becoming as informed as possible about the key components of the process, thoughtful planning, earnest and timely execution of the plan, and careful editing and refinement of the end product are among the essential steps involved in success. I hope that the perspectives shared will "grant you an edge"—a competitive edge—when developing future research proposals.DISCLOSURESNo conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the author.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSD.R.S. drafted manuscript; edited and revised manuscript; and approved final version of manuscript. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author thanks the members of the laboratory at the University of Colorado Boulder who reviewed earlier versions of this Viewpoint and Dan Craighead for master editing efforts; illustrator Steve Graepel for the images; and the National Institutes of Health for their ongoing research support.REFERENCES1. Seals DR. To grant you an edge: Part 1. General strategies for writing competitive biomedical research proposals. J Appl Physiol (1985). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00077.2022.Link | Google Scholar2. Seals DR. To grant you an edge: Part 2. Tactical tips for addressing specific aspects of biomedical research proposals. J Appl Physiol (1985). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00078.2022.Link | Google Scholar3. Seals DR. To grant you an edge: Part 3. Considerations for writing competitive research career development proposals in the biomedical sciences. J Appl Physiol (1985). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00149.2022.Google Scholar4. Seals DR. Viewpoint: the academic biomedical research laboratory as a "small business. J Appl Physiol 131: 729–742, 2021. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00233.2021.Link | ISI | Google Scholar5. Seals DR. Viewpoint: a (baker's) dozen tips for enhancing early-stage career development in biomedical research. J Appl Physiol 131: 1505–1515, 2021. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00401.2021.Link | ISI | Google Scholar6. Seals DR. Viewpoint: musings on mentoring: teach your "children" well. J Appl Physiol 132: 294–310, 2022. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00627.2021.Link | ISI | Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESCorrespondence: D. R. Seals (douglas.[email protected]edu). Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Related ArticlesTo grant you an edge: Part 1. General strategies for writing competitive biomedical research proposals 13 Jun 2022Journal of Applied PhysiologyTo grant you an edge: Part 2. Tactical tips for addressing specific aspects of biomedical research proposals 13 Jun 2022Journal of Applied PhysiologyCited ByPublishing particulars: Part 1. The big pictureDouglas R. Seals24 February 2023 | American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 324, No. 3Publishing particulars: Part 2. Tips for effective manuscript developmentDouglas R. Seals24 February 2023 | American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 324, No. 3Publishing particulars: Part 3. General writing tips, editing, and responding to peer reviewDouglas R. Seals24 February 2023 | American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 324, No. 3Talking the talk: tips for effective oral presentations in biomedical researchDouglas R. Seals17 October 2022 | American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 323, No. 4Direct advice for directing an academic biomedical research laboratoryDouglas R. Seals15 July 2022 | American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 323, No. 2To grant you an edge: Part 1. General strategies for writing competitive biomedical research proposalsDouglas R. Seals13 June 2022 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 132, No. 6To grant you an edge: Part 2. Tactical tips for addressing specific aspects of biomedical research proposalsDouglas R. Seals13 June 2022 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 132, No. 6 More from this issue > Volume 132Issue 6June 2022Pages 1518-1524 Crossmark Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2022 the American Physiological Society.https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00149.2022PubMed35323058History Received 14 March 2022 Accepted 21 March 2022 Published online 13 June 2022 Published in print 1 June 2022 Keywordscareer developmentgrant writingprofessional skills Metrics