Five Ingredients for a Perfect Research Funding Bid

Five ingredients for a perfect recipe.
Photo by Calum Lewis on Unsplash

Is there a formula for a successful funding proposal? Not quite, but there are five elements that you should definitely keep in mind when drafting your application. 

Responding to Reviewers' Comments

Prof Sally Sheldon

Yesterday we re-ran a session for the Early Career Researcher Network on 'Getting Published: targeting top journals and writing book proposals.' It was led by Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS) and Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences). I've written up some notes from it before, but I wanted to add to these by highlighting an important aspect of the process: how to respond to reviewers' comments. 'We don’t take it seriously enough,’ suggested Sally, and yet it's crucial if you want to get published - or funded.

Grants Factory 2016/17: Essential Elements of a Successful Application

Prof Mick Tuite

We’ve almost finalised the programme of Grants Factory and Early Career Researcher Network events for 2016/17.  More details will be available soon, and a full listing will be in Research Active, which will go out in mid-October.

The first event will look at the ‘essential elements of a successful application’. Everyone’s research is different, but successful funding proposals share a number of common elements. Mastering these is essential if your application is going to get the consideration it deserves, no matter how good your underlying research idea is. This session will look at these, and will provide insights into how to get them right.

Early Career Researcher Network: 2015-16 Programme Announced

Making links, forming networks

The ECR Network exists to offer mutual support to academics at the beginning of their careers. The sessions below will run in the Spring Term, and complement the Grants Factory workshops and Graduate School research development training programme. There will also be an opportunity to meet others informally and share the highs and lows of getting started in academia; more details on this soon.

I’ll send more detail about these events closer to the time, but do make a note in your diary if you plan to come along. To whet your appetite I've included links below to notes I took when any of these sessions have been run previously. 

Essential Elements of a Good Application, 2014

Last week we revisited the 'essential elements of a good application' in the first Grants Factory workshop of the 2014/15 season. 

I wrote an extensive post on last year's event, and I don't want to rewrite all of the points I noted there. These still stand. If anything, they are more relevant as ever as the success rates for the Research Councils take a dip. Instead I wanted to pick out some of the points that I might have skimmed over, or note those that were raised additionally. 

2 Forthcoming Grants Factory & ECR Network Events

The following Grants Factory and ECR Network sessions are coming up at the end of the month. Both events are free and all Kent staff are welcome, but do let me know if you intend to come along. Tea/coffee will be available, and there’ll be lunch for the Essential Elements session.

Strategic Approaches to Getting Published

Prof Sally Sheldon opened last week's Early Career Researcher Network meeting by exhorting the audience to think strategically about publication. It was easy, she suggested, to be flattered by invitations to write chapters. But these can divert you and eat up your limited time. Try to keep in mind the direction in which you want your research to develop, and what publications will help to build your profile. 'Everyone should have a publication strategy, and should review it every year or two,' she said.

Balanced Publication Portfolio

ECRs should try and develop a balanced publication portfolio. You don't always need to be targeting top journals, and sometimes you need to balance several factors:

• Audience: who do you want to appeal to? Should you be thinking beyond your narrow disciplinary boundaries, or focussing more intensively on it?
• Impact: do you want the findings of your research to be felt outside of academia?
• Career Progression: will the publication help in the development of a strong CV?
• REF: will the publication be a strong, positive contribution to your discipline?
• Timing: do you need to get something out quickly, or work longer on a discipline-changing piece of research?
• Co-authorship: would co-authorship help or hinder your publication record?
• Open Access: will be increasingly important for the REF, but is it worth considering to help with your citations?

What Do Publishers Look for?

Richard Hart, Chief Executive of Hart Publishing, took over to talk about his experience as an academic publisher. In his 30 years in publishing he has seen a decline in traditional monographs. From a high in the 1980s when more than 2000 were published annually, the market has slumped so that now a tenth of that number are produced. Monographs are seen as esoteric and small scale, and in many disciplines journals are favoured.

Generally, publishers are interested in text books, or books used for professional or scholarly reference. A proposal now needs to offer a touch of brilliance, or something that might be of interest to either a broader readership, or a specific (and long term) niche. 

If you do want to write a monograph, it has to be for the right reasons: you need to have a passion for the subject, and this needs to be reflected in your proposal. Your first monograph can be career defining, and it pays to get it right. You shouldn't do it as a way of making money.

Revising your Thesis

Many ECRs assume that their theses will transfer easily into a commercially produced book. This is often based on their examiner's comments, but it is a rarity for theses to make the transition. If you are considering it, you need to:

• think about the methodology section. You don't need a long, detailed explanation here. This was for the examiners. The average reader won't be interested;
• similarly, strengthen your introduction and conclusion;
• cut out repetitious linkages;
• if your research is unorthodox, decide on your message, and emphasise it throughout;
• update it, and add new chapters;
• consider making the title 'Google-friendly', so that it is descriptive of the research and will be easily found on the internet;
• find an appropriate publisher, who has published in your area, produces good quality books, and that your colleagues would recommend;
• above all, the publisher is concerned about commercial viability. Is your research something that would appeal broadly or long term?

Thus, for a book proposal you should:

• describe your book in 300-400 words;
• explain your methodology;
• give a critical literature review, to show that you understand the field, and how your research differs from what has gone before;
• include a detailed table of contents, a brief CV, and a sample chapter;
• if it's a thesis, include the examiner's report, and explain any plans to revise it;
• and finally, an estimate of when you will finish writing it.

When the publishers receive the proposal, they will initially evaluate it. This is very brief - a matter of minutes - and what they're looking for is whether it is something that excites them. If it does, they will send it for peer review, and you will be given the opportunity to respond to any comments that come back from this. Approximately 20% of proposals get through to peer review. If they do go ahead and publish, you should expect roughly 3-5% of royalties.

Choosing the Right Journals

For the final part of the session, Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) outlined what defines a 'good' journal, and how you can increase your chances of being published in them.

The idea of 'high impact' journals goes back to the fifties. It's a somewhat controversial system, and is based on the average number of citations over a two-five year period. The system is open to abuse, and varies widely between disciplines. However, it is still seen as a rough and ready indicator of esteem. 

Mick began by showing a video made by Karin Dumstrei, Senior Editor at EMBO Journal.

In it, she highlights five tips to getting your paper published:

• Choose a project that excites you;
• Tell a good story;
• Select the right journal;
• Avoid the three 'don'ts', namely: dont' overstate your case, ignore others, or hold back data;
• Be responsible with your data - i.e. say what you see rather than what you want to see.

Mick added to this by saying that high impact journals tend to have a broader audience, so you need to:

• avoid jargon;
• concentrate on the message;
• write shorter articles (eg Science articles are generally 3-4 pages);
• avoid too much detail. Additional data can be provided in 'supplementary material'.

Whilst all articles need to overcome a number of significant hurdles, Mick highlighted the importance of a good covering letter. These have become key, as they summarise why your article is right for the journal you're targetting. Take time to get this right. Keep it succinct, but explain the novelty and importance of your research, and why you are approaching that journal in particular.

Mick finished by outlining six tips:

• Title: make it engaging but keep it short, and avoid technical terms;
• Story: structure your article round a good, cohesive, logical 'story';
• Step Change: emphasis what makes your research important. Talk about 'step changes' rather than 'incremental progresssions';
• Cover Letter: 'sell' your article;
• Feedback: get as much critical evaluation as possible;
• Rejection: never take no for an answer.

This final point was echoed by all the speakers. Rejection is an inevitable part of the process. Don't be discouraged, but take on board comments and criticism and keep trying.

All the slides from the session will be available on the Grants Factory SharePoint site shortly.

ECR Network: Strategic Approaches to Getting Published

12-2pm 27 November 2013

Venue TBC

Getting published is the cornerstone of a successful and sustainable academic career. A good publication record will have an impact on your promotion, but also on your chances of getting external research funding. In this workshop, Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) and Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS) will be joined by Richard Hart (Hart Publishing, Oxford) to discuss some of the key issues you need to consider when seeking publication, including:

•  Choosing the right journal;
•  How articles are selected, and what makes an article attractive to an editor;
•  Responding to reviewers’ comments;
• Writing a book proposal and securing a contract;
•  Dealing with co-authors;
•  Managing your portfolio, and knowing when to say ‘no’.

The session is free, open to all staff at the University of Kent, and lunch will be provided. However, do let me know if you are planning to come along so I can make sure the room and catering are sufficient. In addition, if you could let me know what your position is (permanent or fixed term, academic or researcher, and approximate time since doctorate), that will help Mick and Sally pitch the session appropriately.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Prof Mick Tuite began last week's Grants Factory session by outlining the essential elements of a good application. From his experience with the BBSRC, it was clear that getting a 'good' grade was not enough. Whilst in theory your proposal might be 'fundable', in reality you need to be graded either 'excellent' or 'exceptional' to be in with a chance. The same is true of all the Research Councils, and most other funders: only those in the top 10% have a realistic chance of success.

For Mick, in order to put yourself in this bracket your proposal needs to demonstrate five essential elements:

• it needs to ask an important question; 
• it needs to offer a potential solution; 
• it needs to be cost effective;
• it needs to bring together the right team;
• it needs to have a clear impact. 

Importance, success, value, competence, impact. These five essential elements are key, and Mick highlighted The Research Funding Toolkit, in which Prof Andrew Derrington and Jacqueline Aldridge had developed these concepts further. However, it is also important to structure your application so it brings these to the fore. The panellists and reviewers need to be excited by the proposal, and convinced that there is both the need for the research and a viable solution to it.

In order to do this, applicants need to understand the difference between four key terms, and use them appropriately, structuring the 'narrative' of the proposal around them.

• Aim: this is what you hope your project will achieve; 
• Objectives: these are what need to be achieved in order to achieve the aim; 
• Outputs: these are the 'deliverables' of the project; 
• Outcomes: these are the final achievements from the project. 

At the heart of the application is the Case for Support. (CfS). It is here that the applicant is given the space to set out the five essential elements.

• The opening lines (5%) - like the lay summary - are crucial to this. Within the first two sentences the reader should understand the question, why it's important and how it will deliver a 'step change' in the discipline. This is not the moment to be a shrinking violet; this should not be a 'slow build'. It's the time to offer an accessible, simple message that conveys both the excitement and the timeliness of the project. 
• The background (30%): this summarises what is known and what is not known about the subject. Just as important, it's the opportunity to set out what we must now, why we must know it now, and why you, as the principal investigator, are the person to discover it. However, whilst you should demonstrate an understanding of the literature, you should avoid self-citation. There is more and more expectation that preliminary data or pilot work has already been done, and this is your chance to make clear what has already been achieved. 
• Aims & objectives (5%): Realistically, you shouldn't have any more than one aim and five objectives. Any more and things become a little confused. There should be a logical flow between them, and you should avoid interdependency, which could act as a potential weakness. 
• Work plan or methodology (50%): this is the most crucial part of the CfS: what are you actually going to do? How are you going to achieve the objectives? The methodology should be 'appropriate' to the goals, and you should offer sufficient (but not overwhelming) technical detail. Your work plan should be clearly set out, and achieve that difficult balancing act of being both ambitious and realistic. 
• Management, dissemination etc (10%): important, but not crucial. These need to make sense, and be appropriate, matching the scale and ambition of the project. 

As well as this, you can help your case in two ways:

• firstly, presentation. Use a simple font, of at least 12pt, and don't overcrowd the margins or paragraph breaks. Break up the text, if possible, with images and diagrams. Proof read the application, and show it to others to do likewise. 
• secondly, make sure you're known. Get out there. Go to conferences. Give papers, lead seminars. Get involved. Whilst applications from unknowns are funded, there is an inherent nervousness amongst panel members if you're an unknown quantity. Reassure with familiarity. 

After a short break for lunch, Mick was joined by three other academics with extensive experience of reviewing and ranking proposals: Prof Simon Thompson has had experience with the EPSRC; Prof Gordon Lynch with the AHRC; and Prof Sarah Vickerstaff with the ESRC.

Simon began by stressing the importance of the opening sentence. The panel 'want to be convinced'. One way that he had found of doing this was beginning the process of drafting an application by putting together a one page summary. This offered the bare bones of the project, but gave peer reviewers an opportunity to give advice when there was still the chance to make substantive changes. When a full application has been drafted, this chance is lost.

He noted a significant difference between the BBSRC and the EPSRC: whereas the BBSRC panel reads the full applications and can have a view on what is proposed, EPSRC panellists should only be 'moderating the reviews'. In other words, they should be basing their decisions on the referees comments, and shouldn't be re-reviewing the application.

The rest of the session became more of a discussion between the panel and the audience, with the former responding to questions from the former, and chipping in with additional thoughts on the idiosyncrasies of different funders. Issues raised included:

• striking the right balance between being overambitious and incremental; 
• that a knowledgable reviewer who can convincingly show that the work has been done before is 'the kiss of death' at ESRC panels; 
• that, whilst Research Councils don't negotiate over elements of the project, they can set conditions which need to be met (such better ethical oversight); 
• the need for collaborators, if you don't have sufficient experience in certain areas that are crucial to the successful completion of the project; 
• the 'increasing importance' of management committees or advisory groups; 
• large projects: there is an inherent conservancy amongst reviewers, and you need to make a strong case if you are asking for more than one RA for three years; 
• the importance of methodology, and the right terminology, in the Case for Support.

This session was the first of the 'Writing Group' programme. This will offer applicants an opportunity to take time out from teaching and administrative duties to work on their applications with support from experienced mentors and Funding Officers, as well as feedback from other applicants. If you want to take part in these, drop me a line. Mick's slides from the session will be available on the Research Services website shortly; thanks to all four panellists for their time, their openness and their humour in sharing their thoughts.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Grants Factory

Essential Elements of a Good Application

30 October, 12-2pm

Keynes Seminar Room 23

Everyone’s research is different, but successful funding proposals share a number of common elements. Mastering these is essential if your application is going to get the consideration it deserves, no matter how good your underlying research idea is.

The next Grants Factory session will look at these, and will provide insights into how to get them right. The speakers come from very different disciplines, but it is their diverse backgrounds which is their strength: it shows that, whether you’re applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, the EPSRC or the ESRC, you need to understand the basics.

Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences, with experience of BBSRC, Wellcome and Levehulme) will start by providing an overview of these ‘essential elements’, before being joined by colleagues for a panel discussion to look at the specifics expectations of different funders. Those taking part include Prof Sarah Vickerstaff (SSPSSR, with experience of the ESRC), Prof Simon Thompson (Computing, with experience of EPSRC) and Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL, with experience of AHRC). They will be very open to questions; if you have something specific you want them to address it would be useful if you could let me know beforehand.

Following this session, these four (and other colleagues) will be offering Writing Group sessions, to help, support, mentor and motivate staff in preparing successful proposals. These will be split into four broad areas:

·         The Arts & Humanities

·         The Social Sciences

·         Life & Health Sciences

·         ICT, Maths & Physical Sciences.

More detail on the dates and format for these will be circulated by the Faculty Funding Officers in due course, but if you would like to come along to either the Essential Elements session, or the Writing Groups, do let me know.

All the sessions are free and open to all staff, and lunch will be provided on 30 October.

Peer Review: Roulette, Black Magic...or Fair & Transparent?

The next Grants Factory event will focus on ‘how the peer review panel works,’ and will take place on Wed 30 January at 12noon in Cornwallis NW SR6.

Prof Mick Tuite

Dr Simon Kirchin

To many the assessment of their well-crafted proposal by the funder is somewhere between a game of roulette and a black magic session. A sense of randomness, of unfairness, hangs over the system. But what really goes on? Are these concerns justified, or are the panellists doing the best they can with limited resources? This session will hear from two Kent academics who have had considerable experience of sitting on peer review panels. Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) has had experience of the BBSRC and the Wellcome Trust, amongst others, and Dr Simon Kirchin (SECL) has sat on panels for the AHRC. Both will talk about how these panels function, what they look for in proposals, and how decisions are made.

The event is free for staff at the University of Kent and lunch will be provided, but do let me know if you intend to come as places are limited.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Kent's Essential Elements. If only we could bottle it.
And put a Clown Fish on the label.

Everyone’s research is different, but successful funding proposals share a number of common elements. Mastering these is essential if your application is going to get the consideration it deserves, no matter how good your underlying research idea is.

The speakers for last week’s Grants Factory session came from very different disciplines, but it was their diverse backgrounds which was their strength: it showed that, whether you’re applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, you need to understand these key elements. Paul Allain is Professor of Theatre and Performance in the School of Arts, and Mick Tuite is Professor of Molecular Biology in the School of Biosciences.

For Mick, there are three elements that make a project fundable:

·         Firstly, it must ask an important question;

·         Secondly, it must offer a realistic chance of a solution within the time;

·         Finally, it must be run by someone who knows what they’re doing.

Demonstrating these three elements should be the main aim of your proposal.  The application itself is a complex patchwork of sections, but all of these must tie together to achieve this aim.

·         Lay Summary: this is the key to the proposal. It gets the reviewer and panel interested enough to read on. It should make the case, in a few paragraphs, as to why your project is exciting, timely and crucial, what you’re going to do, and why you’re the person to do it.

·         Background: don’t spend too long on this, but make it clear that you understand the context, and show – once again – why you’re well placed to undertake the research. However, avoid too much self-citation, but do disclose preliminary data or analyses.

·         Aims & Objectives: ideally, there shouldn’t be more than five, and that there’s a logical flow between them. Give a sense of timelines, of what you’re going to do when.

·         Work Plan: the idea of ‘work packages’ is becoming more common. Each of these should have its own aim and outcome, and there should be sufficient detail in each for the reviewer to be able to judge the work. Don’t be shy about highlighting what is innovative or ground breaking. Be ambitious but realistic.

Paul took over to look at the essential language of the application. He made the analogy of seeing a bank manager. You don’t need to justify why you need a house, but you do need to show that you can handle it, that you’re the one, and you’ve got a good ‘investment’. ‘It’s the language of money’, but your proposal should also ‘tell a story’ with a clear and compelling narrative.

  

The nuts and bolts that hold this narrative together should include:

·         A clear layout, with bullet points, short sentences, paragraph breaks, spell check.

·         Questions, sub-questions, priorities. Use numbering. Show that you’ve thought it through.

·         Diagrams, visual representations for timelines. If they’ve looked at hundreds of applications, they will be drawn to it.

·         Frames and signposts – create flow and interlink phrases. Show that you have control over the process.

·         Repetition and emphasis.

·         Value for money. Applications can fall down on this, but it’s not necessarily a ‘dealbreaker’. If things cost, they cost. Think through everything you will need.

·         Milestones. Clear demarcations, progress markers.

A compelling narrative needs to be assertive.

·         Don’t hypothesise too much – research needs ‘steps towards the unimaginable’.

·         Use active verbs, not aspirational ones. Not ‘I would like to...’, or ‘perhaps I will...’ Be assertive.

·         Depict a momentum that can’t be stopped now (pilot/investigatory/preparatory project). It’s their chance to give this idea some legs.

It also needs to be certain.

·         The project team is the right balance of expertise. If you’ve got a shortcoming in any area, bring in external help.

·         The structures and timescales are sensible and achievable.

·         For your outputs, play to your strengths; make them achievable, and don’t overstretch yourself. However, there is a need for a ‘mixed economy’: academic, impact, public engagement.

Grants Factory: The Essential Elements of a Good Application

Prof Mick Tuite

Everyone’s research is different, but successful funding proposals share a number of common elements. Mastering these is essential if your application is going to get the consideration it deserves, no matter how good your underlying research idea is. The next Grants Factory session will look at these, and will provide insights into how to get them right.

Prof Paul Allain

The speakers come from very different disciplines, but it is their diverse backgrounds which is their strength: it shows that, whether you’re applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, you need to understand these key elements. 

Paul Allain is Professor of Theatre and Performance in the School of Arts, and Mick Tuite is Professor of Molecular Biology in the School of Biosciences. Using real life examples, they will share their experience and knowledge, and you should come away from the session with the basic tools for constructing a successful proposal.

The event will take place at 2pm on  12 December  2012 in Woolf Seminar Room 6. It is free, and refreshments will be provided, but do let me know if you intend to come along.

The full Grants Factory programme is available on the SharePoint website, together with slides and notes from all recent events. Notes from the ECR Network meeting last week have now been posted on the blog.

Upcoming Grants Factory Events

Two upcoming events that any right-thinking applicant would be foolish to miss.

• Big Questions, Big Projects (1 Dec, 12pm-2pm). With small grant funding fast disappearing, academics need to look to larger funding and start think ambitiously. Prof Jon Williamson, a philosopher in SECL, and Prof Liz Mansfield, a mathematician in SMSAS, have both had experience of developing larger projects in areas where these aren’t the norm. They will be running this workshop on developing interesting research ideas into more substantial research projects.
• Inside the Grants Committee (7 Dec, 12pm-2pm). Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR) and Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) will give an honest insight into how peer review panels work, the characters, the processes – and the politics. Peter has sat on ESRC panels, Mick on BBSRC and Wellcome panels: between them they have a wealth of knowledge on how different funders work. This will be a chance to learn from their experience and frame your application in a way that ‘works’ for the panel.

To take part, just complete the simple on-line form with your name, School and the workshops you'd like to attend.

2011-12 Grants Factory Programme Announced

A new programme of Grants Factory events is now available for 2011/12. Each of the themed workshops addresses a different aspect of the research funding process and is led by a senior Kent academic with a track record in winning (and awarding) research grants.

Autumn Term

• Thurs 1 December 12-2pm Big Questions, Big Projects (Prof Elizabeth Mansfield, Prof Jon Williamson)
• Weds 7 December 2-2pm Inside the Grants’ Committee (Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby, Prof Mick Tuite)

Spring Term

• Weds 15 February TBC Playing the Game: how to understand the rules (Dr Jenny Billings, Prof Sarah Spurgeon)
• Thurs 1 March 10am-12 Writing Better Bids (Prof David Shemmings)

Summer Term

• Weds 9 May TBC Eurovision: the pros & and cons of European funding (Dr Jenny Billings, Prof Simon Thompson)
• Weds 30 May 10am -12 Writing Better Bids (Prof David Shemmings)
• Mon 11 June TBC Winning Fellowship Funds (Prof Paul Allain, Prof Darren Griffin)

All events are suitable for researchers of any discipline and at any career stage and you can find more information here

Please get in touch if you would like more information or want to reserve a place.

In the Belly of the Beast: the Peer Review Panel

Another day, another great talk. This time it was part of the Grants Factory series that has been running since last year. Prof Mick Tuite gave some insights into how peer review panels work in practice. Mick's had over 25 years experience of sitting on review panels for both research councils and charities, and has seen many changes. These include:

• The process has become slower and more involved;
  
• The number of non-academics and admin staff on the panels has increased;
• Funders are finding it increasingly hard to get reviewers to look at applications. He suggested that funders were having to ask 3 academics for every 1 review they got back.
• The overall quality of applications had gone up. When he'd started roughly 50% of them were poorly written and/or unfundable. These days almost all were well formatted, well thought out, and over 90% were 'internationally competitive'.

This made the panel's job extremely difficult. They were having to be tougher, and on average each application had only 2 minutes worth of discussion before its fate was decided. This was partly because the 'introducing members' (IMs) were expected to have read the application in full beforehand, and be able to recommend whether to prioritise it to the rest of the panel.

With this in mind, some key messages follow on from this:

• Try and find out who's on the panel, and particularly who is likely to be your IMs;
• Get to know them, and, if possible, make them aware of you and your work;
  
• Take time to really work on your Lay Summary. This is crucial, as it is the first part (and sometimes the only part) of the application that the non-IMs will read. Make your project clear, important and achievable;
• Use clear formatting, a readable font, and make sure you avoid sloppy and avoidable typos and grammar;
• When responding to referees' statements, keep it succinct, courteous, and include new information if necessary.

Mick finished but summarising some of the different 'types' of panel members. I'm sure many of these will ring true for those of you who have sat on panels, and I'd recommend you coming along next time Mick delivers the talk to see what you're up against.

If you're in the process of drafting an application, get in touch with us and well help you polish and prepare your proposal so that it has the best chance of succeeding with the panel.

Inside the Belly of the Beast: How the Peer Review Panel Works in Practice

A Grants Factory Event

Thursday 3 February 2.00-3.00
Cornwallis Seminar Room 5

The next Grants Factory Masterclass will take place on Thursday 3 February. Prof. Mick Tuite (Biosciences) will talk about the role of the Funding Panel. Mick is an experienced panellist with both research councils (BBSRC) and charities (Wellcome). He is also a highly successful applicant and grant holder. In recent years he has been involved in large scale funded projects from the BBSRC, MRC, Wellcome and European Commission.

Whilst he’s a bioscientist, the way funding panels work is common across all disciplines, and you get the same types of people sitting on them, such as:

• Dr ‘Know it all’: has opinions on all the grants, but actually knows very little;
• Dr ‘Methodical’: knows all the fine detail, but unable to make an informed decision;
• Dr ‘Disorganised’: still reading the applications during the meeting;
  

as well as a host of others. Mick will talk about these, and about how panels work in practice. Understanding how panels work, and what makes the panellists tick, is crucial for getting your project funded, so Mick’s talk will be invaluable to those planning or drafting a proposal.

All are welcome, but do let me know if you intend to come along.