NIH Grant Writing Series: Insider Tips for Funding Success — Part 4

About This Series

This is the final post in the NIH Grant Writing Series, featuring guest contributor Dr. William Gerin, former Professor of Behavioral Medicine at Penn State University and author of Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide, Third Edition (Sage Publishing).

Building a Realistic Budget

Writing a grant is not just about the science. The practical details — budgets, policies, and clear writing — often determine whether your proposal succeeds or fails. A common mistake is underestimating costs to appear frugal, which can actually raise reviewer concerns about whether the project is feasible.

• Be realistic, not minimal: Reviewers appreciate proposals where the budget accurately reflects the work required
• Justify every line item: Each budget entry should be clearly tied to a specific aim or activity in your proposal
• Plan for salary and effort carefully: NIH scrutinizes personnel costs — ensure effort percentages are defensible
• Include indirect costs correctly: Understand your institution’s negotiated indirect cost rate and apply it correctly

Navigating New NIH Policies

NIH policies evolve regularly. Staying current with policy changes is essential for a compliant and competitive application:

• Review the latest NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts for updates relevant to your mechanism
• Pay attention to new requirements around data sharing, rigor and reproducibility, and inclusion of diverse populations
• Check program announcements carefully — special instructions in a FOA override standard guidelines

Writing Clearly and Engagingly

Even the best science can fail at the review stage if reviewers cannot follow your writing. Dr. Gerin’s top tips for clear grant writing:

• Write for a general scientific audience: Assume reviewers are intelligent but may not be specialists in your exact subfield
• Use active voice and short sentences: Makes the science easier to follow and more compelling
• Lead with significance: Tell reviewers early and often why this work matters
• Proofread ruthlessly: Typos and grammatical errors signal carelessness and can undermine reviewer confidence

The combination of scientific rigor, realistic planning, and clear communication is what separates funded proposals from unfunded ones.