# 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*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Read the funding opportunity announcement first and copy the page limits,
  required sections, review criteria and deadlines into Document control.
- Write the Specific Aims page first and get feedback on it before writing
  anything else; reviewers often decide their view on that page.
- For each aim, write the approach as rationale, design, expected outcomes,
  then pitfalls and alternatives. Reviewers look for all four.
- Map every review criterion to the place in the proposal that answers it
  (Appendix A) before submission.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Keep the funder requirements visible while writing. Remove this section from the submitted proposal. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Track drafts and reviewer feedback; for a resubmission, track changes made in response to the previous review. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Mirror the funder's required order if it differs. -->

1. [Project summary](#1-project-summary)
2. [Specific aims](#2-specific-aims)
3. [Significance](#3-significance)
4. [Innovation](#4-innovation)
5. [Approach](#5-approach)
6. [Preliminary data](#6-preliminary-data)
7. [Timeline and milestones](#7-timeline-and-milestones)
8. [Team and environment](#8-team-and-environment)
9. [Budget and justification](#9-budget-and-justification)
10. [Data management and sharing plan](#10-data-management-and-sharing-plan)
11. [Broader impacts](#11-broader-impacts)
12. [Human subjects, animals and other compliance](#12-human-subjects-animals-and-other-compliance)
13. [References](#13-references)
14. [Appendices](#14-appendices)

## 1. Project summary

<!-- Guidance: A self-contained summary, often public, of 200-300 words. Plain language: problem, objective, approach, expected outcomes and benefit. No jargon, no references. -->

[*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

<!-- Guidance: One page. Paragraph 1: the problem and gap. Paragraph 2: long-term goal, objective of this proposal, central hypothesis and rationale. Then 2-3 aims, each with a one-line title, a hypothesis or objective and the approach in brief. Close with expected outcomes and impact. Aims should be related but not dependent on each other's success. -->

**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

<!-- Guidance: Explain the importance of the problem, the current state of knowledge and the barrier this project removes. Show what will change in the field if the aims are achieved. -->

### 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

<!-- Guidance: State clearly what is new: concepts, approaches, methods, instruments or interventions. Distinguish genuine novelty from incremental refinement and explain why the novelty matters. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: The longest section and usually the most heavily weighted. For each aim: rationale, research design and methods, expected outcomes, potential pitfalls and alternative strategies. Include sample sizes with power calculations, statistical analysis, rigour and reproducibility, and relevant biological variables. -->

### 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 $\alpha = 0.05$ and 90% power, approximately 180 cases and
540 controls are needed. Expected events: $2{,}400 \times 0.09 \approx 216$
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, $\hat{p} \pm 1.96\sqrt{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})/n}$.]

**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

<!-- Guidance: Show that the hypothesis is plausible and the team can do the work. Present data clearly with figures and statistics; note limitations honestly. Some mechanisms place this inside the Approach section. -->

[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

<!-- Guidance: Show when each aim's activities run and the milestones reviewers can check progress against. Keep it consistent with the budget years. -->

The chart below shows a *sample* three-year schedule.

```mermaid
gantt
  title Project timeline
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
  section Aim 1
  Sample analysis        :a1, 2027-01-01, 270d
  Biomarker model        :a2, after a1, 120d
  section Aim 2
  Assay development      :b1, 2027-04-01, 365d
  Assay optimisation     :b2, after b1, 120d
  section Aim 3
  Ethics and clinic setup :c1, 2027-10-01, 180d
  Recruitment and testing :c2, after b2, 300d
  Analysis and reporting  :c3, after c2, 90d
```

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Show that the team has the expertise, track record and time to deliver, and that the institution provides the facilities. Match each aim to the person responsible. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Every cost must be needed for the aims, reasonable and justified. Follow the funder's categories and rules on indirect costs. Totals must match the budget forms exactly. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Many funders now require a plan. Cover data types, standards, repository, timing, access conditions and oversight. Budget the cost of sharing. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Some funders review this as a separate criterion. Describe benefits beyond the research itself: training, participation of under-represented groups, public engagement, economic or societal benefit. Make it concrete and resourced. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: List approvals required and their status. Many funders allow approval after review but before award. -->

[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

<!-- Guidance: Use the funder's preferred format; some count references towards the page limit, most do not. -->

1. *Example:* [Author AA, Author BB]. [Title]. [Journal]. [2024];[15]:[100-110].
   doi:[10.xxxx/xxxxx]
2. [Reference]

## 14. Appendices

<!-- Guidance: Include only what the funder allows. Some funders prohibit appendices that extend the page limit. -->

### 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.