Chemical Education Today edited by
Book & Media Reviews
Getting Science Grants: Effective Strategies for Funding Success by Thomas R. Blackburn John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2003. 140 pp. ISBN 0787967467 (paperback). $30 reviewed by Joseph E. Earley, Sr.
Insightful college and university deans will provide a copy of this book to all recently hired science faculty. The author, who has long experience as college science professor, granting agency program officer, and proposal-writing coach, has laid out the main items that every grant applicant (novice or not) needs to bear in mind. A companion Web site (available to purchasers of the book) provides a variety of illustrative sample proposals. Although many of the topics considered seem elementary—even generally obvious—every granting agency program officer knows of many proposals that have been declined because of mistakes that this book warns against. Among the many important aspects of proposal preparation that are covered, a few seem to deserve special mention. Talking with program officers in several funding sources can help match the interests of the investigator and those of particular granting agencies. Explaining the proposed research requires high technical competence—but also enough rhetorical skill to persuade reviewers and program officers. Titles, abstracts, and summary sections of proposals are critically important. (Final decisions are often made by people who have not read the body of the proposals being judged.) Connections of planned work with the rest of the world must be described convincingly. Preliminary results are important signs of competence of aspiring PIs and are indications of promise of research. Seemingly clever strategies to circumvent agency requirements (such as limits on length of the proposal) generally backfire. Would-be principal investigators should recruit colleagues (some with experience in the area of the proposed research and at least one from another specialization) as pre-reviewers—and then should actually modify the proposal in the light of their comments. Agencies generally will not reconsider a decision to decline a proposal, but usually will accept a subsequent similar proposal that deals with referees’ comments on the earlier version and includes more recent scientific developments. Many other topics, including suggestions regarding budgets, are covered with great good sense and in highly readable style. Anyone contemplating preparing a new or renewal proposal should read this book—and follow the good advice it contains. Since every practicing academic scientist should read the book, there seems to be little need for this reviewer to dis-
1268
Journal of Chemical Education
•
Jeffrey Kovac University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996-1600
cuss its content further, but perhaps a few personal comments might be appropriate. Some parts of this book should be provided (perhaps even force-fed) to the many high-school counselors (and even a few college assistant deans) who advise science students to skip study of literature. Effectiveness in rhetoric, skill in presentation and publication, and effectiveness in proposal preparation are all major factors in the competitive success of individual scientists. Few can attain the high-level literary excellence displayed by the late C. A. Coulson or by chemist and poet Roald Hoffmann—but every one can increase skill in effective use of written English by close reading of excellent writers, as well as by targeted coaching such as this book provides. Whenever a new scientific field or area develops, the relative quantity of funds available for support of long established fields necessarily declines. For many years, budgets for support of research explicitly labeled “chemistry” have not increased as rapidly as has the total support of science. This seems to have been true in every funding agency. A great deal (perhaps most) of chemistry research is now supported in programs that carry titles—such as nanoscience or materials science—that do not explicitly mention chemistry. Sometimes, authors of declined proposals express surprise (even indignation) that reviewers outside their particular sub-sub-field have evaluated their proposals. In most cases, persons with backgrounds quite different from that of the proposed PI will be called on to contribute to the funding decision on a proposal. Ultimate decisions about the quantity of funds available are made by people who—horrors!—are not scientists at all. Every proposal-preparer must clearly and convincingly point out how the proposed research connects with the concerns of others. (This requirement has been made quite plain by the National Science Foundation through the “second criterion” used in evaluation of every NSF proposal.) This does not mean that every proposal must contribute to cure of cancer or development of better mousetraps—although real and apparent technological relevance is no handicap. Connection to major or persistent intellectual problems is an even better motivation for scientific research than possible technological application. What is always required, however, is that the argument given to establish the connection of the proposed research with other human concerns must be understandable and convincing, even (perhaps especially) to a non-specialist. Investigators raised in other funding climates may not easily understand this requirement—but (as Blackburn points out) it is now quite real. Joseph E. Earley, Sr. is Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. 20057; Earleyj@ georgetown.edu. He also has experience as a program officer with AFOSR and NSF.
Vol. 81 No. 9 September 2004
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
