Early Human Development 127 (2018) 106–108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Human Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earlhumdev

Best practice guidelines

WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Writing a Research Grant – 1, Applying for Funding T

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The academic world revolves around research which is both a requisite to achieve a degree, as well as part of the
Grants job description of academics. Obtaining a research grant is often essential in order to cover the running costs of a
Research research project. Once a research proposal has been formulated, with the help of supervisors/collaborators, both
Research methodology tangible costs and non-tangible costs can be calculated. These predicted values are essential when applying for a
Research techniques
research grant. Different funding opportunities are available from different sources, often both local and in-
ternational. The latter funding bodies are usually either dedicated to a specific disease or process. It is essential
to identify the appropriate funding opportunity according to the funding body's priorities and guidelines so that
the grant can then be accordingly formulated. The great majority of funding sources issue competitive calls, so
the aim of your application is not to show that the researcher deserves funds, but why the study in question is the
one most deserving of the limited funds available. In any funding application, the strengths of the individual
researcher/research group and the relevance of the project itself are the main two selling points. However,
without a well prepared management plan, applications flounder. This paper will outline how best to target and
formulate this approach.

1. Introduction
Research is a requisite for almost all post-graduate academic de-
grees (and is also well regarded in undergraduate portfolios), as well as
part of the academic job description. Many research projects, particu-
larly those involving wet laboratory science or large scale epidemio-
logical studies, require substantial funding to cover tangible and in-
tangible costs. Clinical trials require even larger resources, most of
which can only be footed by large Pharma industry, especially in Phase
2 or Phase 3. This review covers the smaller scientific grant applications
(up to a few million Euros), and not the later clinical trial phases for
new medications.
Applying for grant funding is no easy task and is considerably
daunting and time consuming. Despite the large effort expended, the
chances of winning grant funding vary considerably. EU research (such
as Horizon 2020) application success rates are around 15%. Thus one
has to understand the competitive nature of funds and that a number of
trials may in fact be required before achieving success. Various matters
need to be considered before applying for a research grant, foremost
amongst them, the objectives of the funding body or call, and the
competitiveness of the funding. Of note, there are different types of
grants available. There are funding bodies/instruments such as Horizon
2020 [1] that generally cover the costs of a research proposal while
others fund travel and training like MCSA (Marie Curie Sklodowska
Actions [2]) along with networking of experts in a particular field of
interest (e.g. – COST. Cooperation in science and technology [3]).
2. Identifying funding sources
This section focuses on grant opportunities for academic research,
but the EU horizon 2020 also provides funding to industry, especially
for small enterprises, as well as for local business/commercial organi-
sations. It is essential to identify funding opportunities that may be used
to support the research one is interested in. Once the researcher has an
idea of the research to be performed, it is important to identify the
funding priorities established by the funding body as well as the elig-
ibility for the funding. This is crucial before commencing on the task of
constructing a grant proposal. Most funding sources work in a top-down
manner, with the funding body issuing calls or providing specific tar-
gets that scientists can then apply for. A smaller number of sources,
such as the COST actions funded by the EU, are grass roots or bottom-up
driven. This means that scientists can come together and suggest areas
where research is important, and if enough of these scientists can put
together an argument (and a proposal) for funding of a specific topic,
this may actually happen. COST actions, despite allowing such bottom-
up approach, only fund collaboration and training rather than research
grants per se. One should write a proposal specifically tailored for these
requirements, thus including any specific interests within this general
aim.
Local funding opportunities may be easier to access compared to
international sources. Local sources will also usually target local issues,
making them more relevant in some cases. In all cases, any potentially
interesting source should be confirmed by carefully reading the sub-
mission requirements and checking any proposal deadlines. Some
funding bodies may have two-stage proposals where a very brief initial
application is used to short-list those of interest, following a more de-
tailed competitive application to award funding.
More specific funding, such as funded PhDs or post-doctoral posi-
tions in an established research team may avoid the searching required,
but obviously limit the research to an already specifically chosen aim.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.07.013

0378-3782/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Best practice guidelines
Fig 1. Horizon 2020 participant portal.
In some cases, parts of the research funds for these positions may also
be obtained from larger international bodies such as the Marie
Sklodowska Curie Actions (MSCA) which can often fund training for a
period between 3 to 12 months in a different lab, for example when
skills or equipment required for the project are not available in the
home lab.
3. Different methods/types of funding
Funding can come from a number of sources. These include local/
national agencies such as the Medical Research council [4] (MRC) in
the UK and the National Institutes of Health [5] (NIH) in the US, cha-
rities like Fundacion ARC [6] in France and Cancer Research UK [7].
Charities and governmental sources may have different aims and it is
important to consider this when applying for funds. Industries (in-
cluding pharmaceutical and biotech industry) may be able to support
certain research, although in that case, publication may be limited by
intellectual property considerations. Some Governmental sources and
even charities (such as the NIH and the Leukaemia Research Founda-
tion [8]) allow international groups to apply for their funds, while other
sources limit their funding to national/local applicants.
Some University sites (such as Duke University [9] in the US) and
databases (such as InfoEd SPIN [10]) provide access to multiple funding
sources and are frequently updated.
Not all funding bodies support the same kind of grants. While many
can support individual scientists (like some MSCA grants for early stage
or even late stage researchers), or European Research Council [11]
(ERC) grants, other funding bodies or specific calls for applications may
107
Early Human Development 127 (2018) 106–108
have rather specific requirements for award. Many EU Horizon 2020
grants for example are provided to a consortium after they apply for a
particular call. For this reason, it is no longer the excellence of an in-
dividual lab, but the excellence of the entire consortium, and to some
extent the co-ordinating partner, which will ensure success. In this case,
it is joining up with the right partners that is essential. Geo-political
elements, as well as purely scientific ones, may also combine to create a
successful application in these cases, including the presence of partners
from across all parts of Europe, as well as gender balance in the sci-
entific consortium. Other elements of what is often called the European
dimension, also need to be satisfied to allow success in such calls.
Making sure the project fits in with European Political Agenda as well
as the specific research requirements of the Horizon call helps. In order
to prove this point, quoting European Laws, European Parliament po-
sition papers and any official documents showing that the issue one is of
relevance to much/most of the EU and is a recognised problem, will
help greatly.
Including ones' lab/self on potential partner databases like CORDIS
[12] or other research maps will allow coordinators for collaborative
projects to find and contact potential researchers. However, contacts
are more often made by networking through attending conferences and
symposia (as well as using social media like Twitter or Linkedin) to
contact collaborators. In this case, it is often very worthwhile to have
contacts with the biggest research labs in a particular field so that one
can attempt to join such a consortium. Scientists from smaller labs and
especially first time applicants for such consortium grants, are often
better off being a contributing partner rather than a coordinator, at
least initially.
Best practice guidelines Early Human Development 127 (2018) 106–108

Other types of grants are only available for collaborative actions, for 3. Contribute to innovative, efficient and sustainable health systems.
example between academia and industry [13], with different in- 4. Facilitate access to high quality, safe healthcare for EU citizens.
tellectual property (IP) relationships. Some may share IP from the
funded project whilst others may afford funding for SMEs to pay a re- These kinds of funds may be more important in infectious disease,
search service provider to advance their idea, with the IP being retained public health and for more cross continent epidemiological studies.
by the enterprise.
Conflict of interest statement
4. Matching a project to the most appropriate funding source
There are no known conflicts of interest associated with this pub-
Specifically within the EU framework, different sources are avail- lication and there has been no significant financial support for this work
able and must all be considered. It is worth checking out with national that could have influenced its outcome.
contact point agencies about success rates and requirements. It is un-
likely that one will get very substantial ERC funding if one is con- Acknowledgments
siderably past their doctorate and has not achieved substantial, very
highly indexed/cited publications. On the other hand, MSCA actions The inspiration for this series of papers arises from the international
may have a much better success rate and this may also vary from Write a Scientific Paper course [15,16].
country to country depending on how many people from that particular
country tend to apply. References
For bottom up funding, where the researcher comes up with an idea
and asks for it to be funded, the ERC (European Research Council) funds [1] https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/what-horizon-2020.
are a major source. They are allocated across all areas of research (not [2] https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/msca-actions_en.
[3] http://www.cost.eu.
only biomedical) and can amount to substantial amounts such as 5 [4] https://mrc.ukri.org.
million Euro over a 5 year period. However, such funds are then usually [5] https://www.nih.gov.
only allocated to the scientific elite - researchers with high risk yet [6] https://www.fondation-arc.org.
[7] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org.
highly interesting proposed projects, and with a high quality scientific [8] https://www.allbloodcancers.org.
track record. This funding also allows for Blue Skies (or basic - not [9] https://researchfunding.duke.edu.
necessarily applied) research. The call, however, is relatively simple as [10] http://infoedglobal.com/solutions/grants-contracts/spin-funding-opportunities.
[11] https://erc.europa.eu.
it is single researcher driven.
[12] http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html.
Almost all other research funds, with the exception of some of the [13] https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/sme-
types of MSCA funds, are targeted towards consortia. However in MSCA instrument.
[14] https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme_en.
and COST (for collaborations and meetings), the ideas are still re-
[15] V. Grech, WASP - Write a Scientific Paper course: why and how, J. Vis. Commun.
searcher or teaching consortium driven. Med. 40 (3) (2017 Jul) 130–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2017.
Most other calls for funding are for research which the EU deems 1366825 Epub 2017 Sep 19.
useful. The Horizon 2020 website (Fig 1) permits the choice of a [16] V. Grech, S. Cuschieri, (WASP) - a career-critical skill, Early Hum. Dev. (2018 Jan
17), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.01.001 (pii: S0378-3782(18)
number of filters like the area of interest (shown as societal challenge - 30005-7).
here seen as health and well being), together with indicators of pre-
sently open or upcoming calls, as well as a filter word box to search by ⁎
Schembri-Wismayer Pierrea, , Cuschieri Sarahb, Grech Victorc,
keyword (here shown as diabetes). a
Anatomy Department, University of Malta, Malta
Funds for Projects need not be necessarily targeted towards pure b
Anatomy Department, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
research. Many funds from different European Union Directorates will c
University of Malta and Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist, Mater Dei
support different EU aims. For example, once again, using the Health Hospital, Malta
Directorate [14], funds may be found to support these particular aims: E-mail addresses:
pierre.schembri-wismayer@um.edu.mt (P. Schembri-Wismayer),
1. Promote health, prevent disease and foster healthy lifestyles through sarah.cuschieri@um.edu.mt (S. Cuschieri),
'health in all policies'. victor.e.grech@gov.mt (V. Grech)
2. Protect EU citizens from serious cross-border health threats.

⁎
Corresponding author.

108