With cancer research funding facing critical shortfalls, the competition for grants gets tougher every day. Don’t let these avoidable mistakes stand between your great idea and the funding you need to make it a reality.

Written by: Kavita Bhalla, PHD
Director, Scientific Review
Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation

Even before the recent changes to how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds research, the average grant application success rate was only about 20 percent.  

Now, amid so much uncertainty, the pool of funding available to cancer researchers could very well shrink. When that happens, history shows two things are almost inevitable. One: The competition for private research funding will increase. And two: Early-career investigators, in particular, will feel the sting. 

This is no time for typographical errors, shaky hypotheses, or incomplete data. Now, more than ever, your grant application needs to be impeccable. Unfortunately, that’s often easier said than done.  

Whether it's for federal or private funding, completing a grant application is an arduous process—one rife with the potential for mistakes. Even the most brilliant scientists aren’t immune to errors that can render a grant application unfundable. To help you avoid those missteps, here are some of the most common (and avoidable) mistakes that application review committees encounter, along with some insights on how to avoid them. 

One: Their science falls short.  

A good scientific proposal or research idea should be hypothesis-driven and based on preliminary findings from data with statistical rigor. It’s critical to avoid presenting a hypothesis that appears to be based on questionable data or jumps to an illogical conclusion. Grants are also more vulnerable to low scores if the scope is too large or fails to demonstrate the potential for direct and meaningful impact.   

Remember: Whatever hypothesis or solution you’re proposing, your grant will be reviewed by multiple people who are each highly skilled at identifying scientific holes. These grant reviewers will lose enthusiasm for your proposal if it contains flawed science and isn’t hypothesis driven.

Two: Their data doesn't cut it. 

Data might be measurable, but it can fall short in countless ways. For example, you might be drawing data from a sample pool that's too small to meaningfully support your hypothesis. In some cases, the data is too sparse to support your hypothesis. Conversely, it could be too descriptive, rendering the proposal—and the data within it—too complex or convoluted to resonate with your reviewer.  

Your grant application should clearly and specifically describe the rationale behind your proposed aims—including your supporting data. It’s critical that you carefully weigh what preliminary data to include, why it matters, and how to explain it.  

And remember: While the rationale or impact of a particular data set might seem obvious to someone who’s spent countless hours on the project, to a new set of eyes—like a reviewer—the intent and impact might be considerably less clear. As you’re incorporating data into your proposal, make sure you’re considering it through the eyes and minds of the people who will ultimately be reviewing it. 

Three: They lack contingency plans. 

Don’t confuse a viable hypothesis with a fishing expedition. With research dollars in short supply, no one can afford to squander resources on a study that implodes before producing actionable knowledge. To avoid this, the study goals and approach should be specific, clear and well-defined.  

Yes, your hypothesis—or at least the breakthrough it might yield—could hold the potential to save lives. But it could also fall flat. Are you prepared for that? What’s your alternative approach if your initial hypothesis unexpectedly collapses? Lacking a backup plan, even a good idea has a high risk of being declined.  

Four: They’re pursuing solutions to non-existent, unimportant, or irrelevant problems. 

Not every question is worth the time and resources needed to find an answer. Plus, the less funding there is available, the less likely a researcher is to win a grant focused on solving problems that aren't timely, critical, pressing, relevant or pragmatic.  

Writing a grant application takes far too much time—both for the investigator and the grant reviewer—to waste energy pitching research that lacks novel, discernible and meaningful impact on unmet needs. Ask yourself (and be brutally honest) whether the problem you’re trying to solve is genuinely as important as the dozens or hundreds of other applications submitted alongside your own. Convince the reviewers that the proposed research is important and clearly explain why you want to do it.  

Five: They’re overly ambitious. 

Medicine—especially oncology—is full of brilliant minds with big ideas. Conquering cancer is, in and of itself, a big idea. But it’s easy to conflate big ideas with unrealistic ones.  

No one goes into cancer research hoping that they might make a difference or planning to make the smallest impact possible. People go into medicine and oncology because they want to contribute to a better world. But making grandiose promises like, “We are going to eradicate cancer,” in a grant application can raise red flags for reviewers. After all, the loftier the promise, the further the fall—and the bigger the disappointment.  

The absence of clear, well-defined goals is a common shortcoming seen in unsuccessful grant applications.  It is crucial to set realistic goals and objectives to achieve measurable outcomes.  

Of course you should always have big goals in mind. But science is a marathon, not a sprint. There’s no jumping ahead to the finish line.  

Six: The writing is convoluted and hard to follow. 

Do your grant reviewers a favor: Don’t make them work harder than necessary to make sense of your writing or your ideas. 

Seemingly simple mistakes—like misused words or unrecognizable jargon—can render your application nonsensical to a busy, overwhelmed reviewer with hundreds of pages of science to digest. A good proposal gets the message across clearly and articulately without using 50 words where 10 might suffice.  

Write concisely, clearly, and carefully. Figures and graphics should be easy to understand and clearly demonstrate the goals and desired outcomes of your project. It’s also important to justify the budget and describe the need for funding support in detail so that the reviewer can understand what the project entails and why.  

Seven: They lack a solid mentoring plan with supporting documents.

Writing a good mentoring plan is particularly critical for early-career investigator grants as these are mentor grants. No matter how brilliant or promising your idea or how solid your hypothesis, there’s a learning curve that every scientist has to navigate. The best way to do so is with guidance from mentors who have been there and done that.  

A good idea may not be supported without sufficient documents and recommendation letters that demonstrate the application’s feasibility and the credibility of the person behind it. With that in mind, your career development path should be clearly indicated in your mentoring plan, along with an explanation of how the current study differs from your mentor’s research. Make sure your letters of support, bio sketch and personal statement are consistent and that they align with all guidelines and deadlines. 

If an organization is going to invest in you, it needs to know you have strong institutional support and a reliable safety net, one that’s woven from the knowledge, expertise, and experience of people who know how to navigate unexpected challenges.  

Now, you might be thinking, “OK, so those are the mistakes. What are the solutions?”  

While there are lots of tactics and strategies for avoiding any of the problems above, the solution often comes down to this: Be willing to question yourself and to subject yourself to questioning—and even skepticism—from people who know more.  

It’s been said that the first step to solving any problem is acknowledging that a problem exists. But when you’re just getting started in your career, there are still so many mistakes and experiences you haven’t had the chance to learn from yet. That makes identifying—and solving—problems even more challenging. 

Recognize your own fallibility and, above all, get the upper hand on it by keeping your mind open and receptive to constructive criticism and feedback. When resubmitting a grant application, make sure to graciously address all the review committee’s feedback from your unsuccessful first attempt.  

Finally, don’t hesitate to ask people whose judgment you trust to review it for clarity and readability and to provide feedback about how you can make it clear and more compelling for your reviewers. By subjecting your application to healthy, robust skepticism before you ever submit it, you enhance your chance of securing the funding you need to pursue research breakthroughs.  

Grant writing is both an art and a skill—one that requires practice and experience to perfect. If you are working on something exciting, be persistent, and don’t let funding setbacks deter you from pursuing ideas that make an incredible difference for people around the world. 

Learn more about Conquer Cancer grants and awards, including how to apply for them and how to support them.