Exercises — Chapter 17: Grant Proposals and Funding Applications
Writing is learned by writing. Most of these ask you to produce or revise real proposal prose. Where a task is open-ended, a self-assessment rubric follows instead of a single answer. Difficulty: ⭐ basic · ⭐⭐ intermediate · ⭐⭐⭐ advanced · ⭐⭐⭐⭐ extension.
Part A — Analyze This ⭐
For each item, identify what works or what's broken, and name the principle.
A1. A Specific Aims page opens: "The study of cellular metabolism has a long and distinguished history dating back to the early twentieth century, and remains a vibrant area of investigation today." The proposal is assigned to a panel of metabolism researchers. What's wrong, and what principle (Ch 17 + Ch 2) does it violate?
A2. An aim reads: "Aim 2: Determine whether inhibiting kinase K reduces tumor growth, using a xenograft model; we expect K-inhibited tumors to grow at ≤50% the rate of controls." Is this well-formed? Name three features that make it strong or weak.
A3. A significance section states: "This research is significant because cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide and new treatments are urgently needed." Why does this fail the "so what?" test even though every word is true?
A4. A budget justification reads: "We request $75,000 for supplies to support the proposed experiments." What's missing, and what would a reviewer suspect?
A5. A broader-impacts statement promises to "train students, disseminate findings, and promote diversity in STEM," with no further detail. Identify the failure and the principle behind it.
A6. An approach subsection ends each aim with a paragraph titled "Potential Pitfalls and Alternative Approaches." A co-author wants to delete these to save space, arguing they make the proposal "look uncertain." Whose instinct is correct, and why?
A7. The pivot sentence of an aims page reads: "Building on our extensive prior work in this area and the considerable interest the field has shown, we believe it may be possible to potentially explore whether the compound could perhaps have some effect." Diagnose it. How many hedges can you count, and what is the epistemic problem?
A8. Two proposals reach a panel. Proposal X has slightly stronger science but a generic, bolted-on broader-impacts paragraph; Proposal Y has marginally weaker science but a concrete, resourced broader-impacts plan, and is submitted to the NSF. Why might Y outscore X?
Part B — Revise This ⭐⭐
Rewrite each weak passage. Give yourself the scenario; supply plausible specifics where the original dodges them.
B1. Rewrite this weak Specific Aims opening. The proposal is about a new battery chemistry, assigned to a panel of energy-storage experts.
"Energy storage is one of the most important technological challenges of the twenty-first century. As the world transitions to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, the need for efficient, low-cost, and scalable energy storage solutions has never been greater. Many researchers have worked on batteries over the years, and significant progress has been made, but much work remains to be done."
Rewrite the opening as a hook (≤3 sentences) that names the specific problem, signals stakes an expert feels, and promises a specific result. Invent a plausible specific advance to anchor it.
B2. Rewrite these three aims as testable objectives. The project studies whether a mobile app improves medication adherence in older adults.
Aim 1: We will recruit 300 participants and randomize them to the app or usual care. Aim 2: We will measure adherence over six months. Aim 3: We will analyze the data and look at subgroups.
B3. Rewrite this significance passage to pass the "so what?" test. The project develops a faster algorithm for protein-structure prediction.
"This work is significant because protein structure prediction is an important problem in computational biology with many applications, and improving the speed and accuracy of prediction methods would benefit the research community."
B4. Rewrite this budget justification so every line is tied to work. The project has two aims (a field survey and a lab analysis).
"We request funds for a graduate student, field equipment, laboratory consumables, and travel. These are needed to complete the research successfully."
B5. Rewrite this broader-impacts paragraph into concrete, resourced commitments. Keep it honest — invent only mechanisms a real PI could plausibly have.
"This project will broadly impact society by educating the next generation of scientists, sharing our results with the public, and increasing participation of underrepresented groups in research."
B6. A proposer wrote the entire 12-page narrative, then drafted the Specific Aims page last, in an afternoon. Their mentor says, "Throw out the order you wrote it in and rebuild from the aims page." Write a 4–6 sentence explanation, in your own words, of why the aims page should have been written first — connect it explicitly to the Chapter 1 thesis that writing is thinking.
Part C — Write This ⭐⭐–⭐⭐⭐
Produce the document. Use realistic-but-illustrative specifics; never invent a real program's exact rates or deadlines.
C1. Write a complete one-page Specific Aims page (300–450 words) for a project of your choice — real or invented. Use all four moves (hook → pivot → 2–4 aims → payoff). Phrase aims objective-first with expected outcomes. Then annotate your own page in the margins: label where each move begins and circle your pivot sentence.
C2. Apply the so-what test, in writing. Take any 150–200-word "background" or "significance" paragraph — from your own draft, a paper you're reading, or one you write fresh — and run the so-what test on it sentence by sentence. For each sentence, write the reviewer's silent "so what?" and your honest answer. Then rewrite the paragraph, cutting or strengthening every sentence that failed. Submit the original, the annotation, and the rewrite.
C3. Write a one-paragraph email to a program officer (120–180 words) asking whether your idea fits their program before you write the full proposal. Include a one-sentence summary of your idea, a specific question about fit or current priorities, and a respectful, concise tone. Remember: this reader is busy too.
C4. Write the "Innovation" subsection (150–250 words) for a project of your choice. State plainly what is new (a concept, method, tool, or model system) and — the part people forget — what that newness lets you do that was impossible before. Avoid "no one has done exactly this" as your only claim.
C5. Write a single "Potential Pitfalls and Alternative Approaches" paragraph (100–150 words) for one aim of a project you know. Name a realistic way the experiment could fail or return an ambiguous result, then give a concrete plan B. Make it read as competence, not anxiety.
Part D — Synthesis & Critical Thinking ⭐⭐⭐
D1. Find the flaw. A proposal has a brilliant, genuinely novel central idea, strong preliminary data, and a clear hypothesis — but it proposes five major aims, each requiring a different technique, to be completed in a three-year grant. Predict how a reviewer scores it and why. What single revision would most improve its odds, and what does that tell you about the relationship between ambition and fundability?
D2. Translate for three readers. Take the one-sentence core of a research project ("We propose to test whether X causes Y") and write three openings: (a) the first sentence of a Specific Aims page for an expert study-section reviewer; (b) the first sentence of a lay-summary / public-abstract for a general audience; (c) the first sentence of an internal pitch email to a department chair who controls seed money. Then explain in 3–4 sentences how the K-R-A-C analysis (Ch 2) differs across the three.
D3. Cross-chapter integration. A colleague says, "Chapter 4 told me to lead with my conclusion, but my proposal's conclusion is 'we should be funded' — surely I don't open with that?" Resolve the apparent contradiction. What is the proposal's "bottom line up front," and where does it go?
D4. The dark side of the so-what test. The "so what?" test cuts sentences that don't serve the reader. But a manipulative writer could use the same persuasion techniques in this chapter to make a weak project sound fundable. Where is the line between (a) communicating a real project as clearly and compellingly as it deserves and (b) overselling? Write 4–6 sentences. (This previews Chapter 38's ethics of clarity.)
D5. Diagnose the rejection. A proposal comes back unfunded with a critique noting "vague aims, overambitious scope, and significance that did not rise above the general importance of the topic." The proposer is convinced the reviewers "just didn't get the science." Write the honest feedback you'd give them, and order the three fixes by leverage.
Part M — Mixed Practice (Interleaved) ⭐⭐–⭐⭐⭐
These mix this chapter with earlier ones, so you must choose the right tool.
M1. You're handed a paragraph that is (a) badly structured and (b) full of nominalizations and passive bloat. Which do you fix first — the structure or the sentences — and why? (Recall the editing hierarchy, Ch 12.) Then fix this one, in the right order: "The determination of the efficacy of the intervention was undertaken through the conduct of a randomized trial, the results of which are presented in the section that follows, and which suggest that there may be a benefit."
M2. A reviewer will read your aims page and also glance at your one preliminary-data figure before reading the approach. Drawing on Chapter 9, write an interpretive caption (not a descriptive one) for a figure showing "FX-11 restores ciprofloxacin sensitivity 32-fold in resistant E. coli." Contrast a weak caption ("Figure 1. Results of the sensitivity assay.") with your strong, interpretive one.
M3. You must compress your project into (a) a one-page Specific Aims page for a grant and (b) a 150-word lay summary for the same agency's public website. Same science, two readers. Write the first two sentences of each, and name which Chapter 2 audience dial (Knowledge, Role, Action, Context) differs most between them.
M4. Choose the right genre. For each situation, name whether you'd write a Specific Aims page, a progress report, a business case (Ch 20), or an email — and justify in one line: (a) convincing a federal agency to fund three years of research; (b) convincing your company's VP to fund an internal tool; (c) updating your funder on year-one results; (d) asking a program officer whether your idea fits.
M5. Tone calibration (ties Ch 7). For each claim, decide whether it should be stated flatly or hedged, and rewrite it accordingly: (a) a result you have data for — "FX-11 reduces bacterial growth"; (b) a prediction you'll test — "FX-11 will work in humans"; (c) a mechanism you infer but haven't proven — "FX-11 binds the distal pocket." Explain the rule that decides.
M6. A draft aims page leads with three sentences of field history (Ch 17 violation) and uses the passive voice throughout and has a budget paragraph with no tasks attached. Triage: which of the three problems do you fix first, given a reviewer reads the first page most carefully? Justify with the audience principle.
Part E — Extension ⭐⭐⭐⭐
E1. Reverse-engineer a funded aims page. Find a publicly posted Specific Aims page or NSF Project Summary (many funded PIs and institutional offices post examples; abstracts of funded grants are public on agency databases). Label its four moves. Find the pivot sentence. Identify whether the aims are independent. Then write a one-paragraph critique: what would you change, and what does it do better than you expected?
E2. Write the same proposal for two funders. Take one project and draft the opening half-page for (a) the NIH (Specific Aims format) and (b) the NSF (Project Summary with explicit Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts). Note in a short paragraph what you had to change in emphasis (not science) and what that reveals about reading the solicitation.
E3. The resubmission. Imagine the proposal from D5 was rejected with that critique. Write the opening paragraph of an "Introduction to Resubmission" that responds to the panel point-by-point — gracious, non-defensive, and concrete — in the spirit of responding to peer review (Ch 14). Show that you treated the critique as data, not insult.
Selected solutions and rubrics: see
appendices/answers-to-selected.md. For open-ended writing tasks (C1–C5, D1–D5, E1–E3), use this self-assessment rubric:
Dimension Weak (1) Strong (3) Hook/lead Opens with field history or generality Opens with the specific problem + stakes a reader feels Pivot/clarity Buried, hedged, multi-sentence One clean confident sentence; a reader can restate it Aims as objectives Activities ("we will measure") Objective-first + method + expected outcome; independent So-what Sentences that don't earn their place survive Every unit answers the reviewer's "so what?" Concreteness Platitudes, untethered numbers Specific, resourced, tied to tasks/aims Calibrated tone Hedges facts into mush or overclaims predictions Asserts what's shown, hedges what's tested Score each task /18. Below 12, revise before moving on. Above 15, try an Extension task.