Research Grant Proposal Template (NIH/NSF Style)
Research grant: specific aims, significance, innovation, approach per aim, preliminary data, timeline, team, budget, data sharing
Cara menggunakan: Use for a research grant to a public or private funder. Write and test the one-page Specific Aims first, then the Approach with pitfalls and alternatives for each aim. Main pitfall: ignoring the funder's own instructions and review criteria, which always take precedence.
Pratinjau
Grant Proposal: [Project title]
Research grant proposal template using the structure commonly published by large public research funders such as the US NIH and NSF: a one-page Specific Aims, a research strategy (significance, innovation, approach), preliminary data, timeline, team and environment, budget justification, data management and sharing, and broader impacts. The funder's own instructions, page limits and forms always take precedence. Replace every
[bracketed]value and every row marked Example.
Document control
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Funder | [Funder name] |
| Programme / opportunity | [Programme name and number] |
| Mechanism | [Research project grant / Early-career award / Pilot grant] |
| Principal investigator | [@pi] |
| Co-investigators | [@name], [@name] |
| Lead institution | [Institution] |
| Requested amount | [Total direct and indirect costs] |
| Project period | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD ([3] years) |
| Page limits | [Specific Aims 1 page; Research Strategy 12 pages] |
| Internal deadline | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Funder deadline | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Drafting / Internal review / Submitted / Funded / Not funded] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
Approvals
| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal investigator | [@name] | [Final version approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Department head | [@name] | [Endorsed] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Research office / sponsored programs | [@name] | [Budget and compliance approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
Revision history
| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@pi] | Specific Aims draft |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@pi] | Example: Merged aims 2 and 3 after mock review |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@pi] | Example: Submitted |
Contents
1. Project summary
[Example: "Chronic kidney disease affects one in seven adults but is diagnosed late, when treatment options are limited. This project will develop and validate a low-cost urine test that detects early kidney damage in primary care. We will (1) identify a panel of urinary proteins that predict decline, (2) build a paper-based test for the panel, and (3) evaluate its accuracy in 1,200 patients in community clinics. The project will give clinicians a practical tool for earlier treatment."]
Project narrative (public health relevance): [Two or three sentences on why the work matters to the public.]
2. Specific aims
The problem. [State the problem, its size and the critical gap in knowledge or capability that blocks progress.]
Long-term goal and objective. [Example: "Our long-term goal is to reduce late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. The objective of this application is to develop and validate a point-of-care urine test for early kidney damage."]
Central hypothesis. [Example: "A panel of three urinary proteins detects early kidney damage with accuracy comparable to laboratory tests."] [State the basis for the hypothesis, usually your preliminary data.]
| Aim | Title | Hypothesis / objective | Approach in brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aim 1 | Example: Identify urinary biomarkers that predict early kidney decline | Proteins A, B and C predict a 30% decline in eGFR over 3 years | Analyse stored samples from an existing cohort of 2,400 adults |
| Aim 2 | Example: Develop a paper-based test for the panel | A lateral-flow format can measure the panel within 15 minutes | Engineer and optimise the assay against laboratory reference methods |
| Aim 3 | Example: Validate the test in primary care | Sensitivity >= 0.85 and specificity >= 0.80 versus reference | Prospective diagnostic accuracy study in 6 clinics, n = 1,200 |
Expected outcomes and impact. [What will exist at the end of the project and how it will change research or practice.]
3. Significance
3.1 Importance of the problem
[Burden, cost or scientific importance, with evidence and citations.]
3.2 Current knowledge and critical barrier
[What is known, what the barrier is, and why existing approaches fall short.]
3.3 How the project will change the field
[The concepts, methods, technologies, services or policies that the results will improve.]
4. Innovation
| Innovation | What is new | Advantage over current practice |
|---|---|---|
| Example: Biomarker panel | First panel validated for early, pre-albuminuria damage | Detects damage 2-3 years earlier than current screening |
| Example: Test format | Multiplexed paper-based assay requiring no laboratory | Usable in clinics without laboratory access |
| [Innovation] | [What is new] | [Advantage] |
5. Approach
5.1 Overview
[A short introduction to the overall strategy, how the aims connect, and the key design decisions.]
5.2 Aim 1: [Title]
Rationale. [Why this aim is needed and why this approach is the right one, supported by preliminary data.]
Research design and methods. [Population or materials, procedures, measures and analysis. Give sample sizes and their justification.]
Example power calculation: to detect an area under the ROC curve of 0.80 versus 0.70 with and 90% power, approximately 180 cases and 540 controls are needed. Expected events: cases, so the cohort is sufficient.
Expected outcomes. [What results you expect and how they lead into the next aim.]
Potential pitfalls and alternative strategies. [Example: "If none of the candidate proteins reaches an AUC of 0.75, we will test the five next-ranked candidates from our discovery screen, for which samples are already available."]
5.3 Aim 2: [Title]
Rationale. [Why this aim follows from Aim 1 and why the chosen approach is the most direct route. Example: "Laboratory assays for the panel take two days and cost $40 per sample, which rules out routine use in primary care; a paper-based format removes both barriers."]
Research design and methods. [Design steps, materials, reference methods, acceptance criteria and the number of replicates. Example: "We will optimise capture antibody concentration and membrane type in a factorial design, then test 3 production lots against ELISA on 300 banked samples. Acceptance: coefficient of variation below 10% and Bland-Altman limits of agreement within 15%."]
Expected outcomes. [What will exist at the end of the aim. Example: a locked assay protocol and 2,000 test strips for Aim 3.]
Potential pitfalls and alternative strategies. [Example: "If multiplexing causes cross-reactivity, we will run three single-analyte strips in one cassette, which our preliminary work shows is feasible."]
5.4 Aim 3: [Title]
Rationale. [Why a prospective study in the intended setting is needed to show the test works where it will be used.]
Research design and methods. [Methods, including the statistical analysis. Example: sensitivity with 95% CI, .]
Expected outcomes. [Example: Estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs, reported following the STARD guideline for diagnostic accuracy studies.]
Potential pitfalls and alternative strategies. [Example: "If prevalence is lower than expected, we will extend recruitment by six months, which the timeline buffer allows."]
5.5 Rigour and reproducibility
[How you will ensure robust, unbiased results: randomisation, blinding, pre-registration, replication, authentication of key resources, and consideration of relevant biological variables such as sex.]
5.6 Risk register
| ID | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GR-01 | Example: Clinic recruitment slower than planned | Medium | High | Two reserve clinics with signed letters of support |
| GR-02 | Example: Assay unstable at high temperature | Low | Medium | Alternative stabiliser tested in Year 1 |
| GR-03 | [Risk] | [L/M/H] | [L/M/H] | [Mitigation] |
6. Preliminary data
[Summarise key preliminary findings and what each one supports.]
| Finding | Evidence | Supports |
|---|---|---|
| Example: Proteins A and B elevated before eGFR decline | Case-control pilot, n = 120, AUC 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86) | Aim 1 hypothesis |
| Example: Prototype strip detects protein A at clinical range | Bench tests, CV 8% across 3 lots | Aim 2 feasibility |
| [Finding] | [Evidence] | [Aim] |
7. Timeline and milestones
The chart below shows a sample three-year schedule.
| Milestone | Aim | Target | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | 1 | Example: Final biomarker panel selected, Month 13 | Model report |
| M2 | 2 | Example: Assay meets precision target (CV < 10%), Month 20 | Validation report |
| M3 | 3 | Example: 1,200 participants enrolled, Month 32 | Recruitment log |
| M4 | All | Results submitted for publication, Month 36 | Manuscript |
8. Team and environment
| Name | Role | Effort | Expertise and responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example: [Dr A. Name] | PI | 30% (3.6 person-months) | Nephrology epidemiology; overall direction, Aim 1 and 3 |
| Example: [Dr B. Name] | Co-investigator | 20% | Bioengineering; Aim 2 assay development |
| Example: [C. Name] | Biostatistician | 15% | Diagnostic accuracy statistics |
| [Name] | [Role] | [Effort] | [Expertise] |
Environment. [Laboratories, equipment, clinical sites, cohorts, core facilities and institutional support available to the project.]
Collaborations. [External partners and what each contributes; letters of support go in the appendices.]
9. Budget and justification
| Category | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel (salary and fringe) | [$210,000] | [$216,300] | [$222,800] | [$649,100] | Example: PI 30%, co-I 20%, postdoc 100%, research nurse 50% |
| Equipment | [$45,000] | [$0] | [$0] | [$45,000] | Example: Plate reader for assay validation |
| Materials and supplies | [$38,000] | [$52,000] | [$30,000] | [$120,000] | Example: Antibodies, membranes, sample processing |
| Participant costs | [$0] | [$12,000] | [$24,000] | [$36,000] | Example: $30 compensation for 1,200 participants |
| Travel | [$4,000] | [$6,000] | [$8,000] | [$18,000] | Example: Clinic site visits; one conference per year |
| Other direct costs | [$6,000] | [$6,000] | [$9,000] | [$21,000] | Example: Open-access publication fees; data storage |
| Total direct costs | [$303,000] | [$292,300] | [$293,800] | [$889,100] | |
| Indirect costs | [Rate x base] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [Negotiated rate and base] |
Check that each year's column sums to its total and that the row totals sum to the grand total before submission.
10. Data management and sharing plan
| Element | Plan |
|---|---|
| Data types | Example: De-identified participant data, assay measurements, analysis code |
| Standards and formats | Example: CSV with data dictionary; CDISC-aligned variable names |
| Repository | [Repository name and persistent identifier type, for example a DOI] |
| Timing | Example: At publication or end of award, whichever is first |
| Access and reuse | Example: Controlled access via data use agreement for participant data; open licence for code |
| Privacy protections | [De-identification method, consent language supporting sharing] |
| Oversight | [Who monitors compliance with the plan] |
11. Broader impacts
| Activity | Audience | Outcome measure |
|---|---|---|
| Example: Train 2 doctoral students and 4 undergraduate researchers | Early-career researchers | Theses completed; papers co-authored |
| Example: Clinic workshops on early kidney screening | Primary care staff in partner clinics | Number of staff trained; screening rate change |
| [Activity] | [Audience] | [Measure] |
12. Human subjects, animals and other compliance
[Describe protections for human participants, inclusion across sex, gender, age and ethnicity, vertebrate animal use if any, biosafety, export controls and conflict-of-interest management, or state "not applicable" for each.]
13. References
- Example: [Author AA, Author BB]. [Title]. [Journal]. [2024];[15]:[100-110]. doi:[10.xxxx/xxxxx]
- [Reference]
14. Appendices
A. Review criteria map
| Review criterion | Where addressed |
|---|---|
| Example: Significance | Sections 2, 3 |
| Example: Investigators | Section 8; biosketches |
| Example: Innovation | Section 4 |
| Example: Approach | Sections 5, 6 |
| Example: Environment | Section 8 |
| [Criterion] | [Section] |
B. Supporting documents
[Biosketches, letters of support, facilities and resources statement, equipment list, and the resubmission introduction if applicable.]
Standard and licence note
Based on the proposal structure commonly published by public research funders such as the US National Institutes of Health (Specific Aims and Research Strategy) and the National Science Foundation (intellectual merit and broader impacts), described here in original words. Funders' own instructions, page limits and forms take precedence and should be read in full. This template reproduces no funder text; example figures are illustrative. Template licence: MIT.
Templat terkait
Dissertation Proposal Template
Proposal: rationale, research questions, literature summary, conceptual framework diagram, methods, analysis, ethics, timeline, budget
AkademikAnnotated Bibliography Template
Sources + evaluation + use per entry
AkademikConference Abstract Template
Structured conference abstract: title, authors and affiliations, background, methods, results, conclusions, word-limit guide