1. General

1. It is up to the applicant who wishes funds to convince the granting agency that he is ready and able to do research, that he understands the subject, has a clear scientific objective and a logical plan of attack, the resources to make the measurements and the knowledge and skill to analyze the results, and the project is relevant to the goals of the granting agency. Do not expect the reviewers to take anything on faith. Provide them with all that is necessary to convince them.
2. Write clearly, organize the application logically, do not waste time on irrelevant points. Make the applications easy to read.
3. Never use generalities where it is possible to be precise and detailed.

2. Organization

A research plan should contain the following:

1. Background - briefly stating the current state of knowledge that leads up to the project proposed.
2. Rationale, or the specific research question being asked.
3. Methods and Protocols
4. How the results will be analyzed. Note: It is strongly recommended that a power analysis be provided where applicable.
5. What sort of conclusions might be drawn.
6. Auto-critique - or discussion of pitfalls the applicant can foresee in this approach.
7. An explanation of why this project is important, or what applications it might have.

3. Specific Sections

A. Background

1. Should focus narrowly on the area to be studied.
2. Should demonstrate a solid grasp of the pertinent literature.
3. Should delineate what is not known that could be discovered by the project.
4. Should emphasize any previous work done by the applicant or special skills he will bring to bear.

B. Specific Questions

The research questions must be posed as precisely as possible in a way that makes clear exactly what is hoped to find out. Details and specifics are crucial. Of course, the proposal must be designed to answer the questions.

C. Methods and Protocols

1. This is crucial. The methods must be described in detail so that the reader could see exactly how the study will be done.
2. The reviewer must be convinced that the applicant can do it, so document:
   1. That the material resources are available.
   2. That persons with the necessary technical skills are available.
   3. If collaborators are helping, proof of their credentials and readiness to help; their CV, and a letter from them, and a paragraph defining their role in the project.
3. The most convincing evidence of feasibility is always: productivity (published papers) using the same setup of preliminary data from a pilot experiment.
4. In a patient study indicate how you will secure the requisite number of subjects.
5. In any study indicate how many experimental subjects will be needed and explain how you arrive at that figure, and what statistical approach will be used.

D. Results

Indicate how you will analyze the results and how the results will answer the research question. The more precise you are, the more convincing.

E. Pitfalls

Discuss:

1. The chance of the experiment failing.
2. The difficulties with the methods.
3. The limitations on the conclusions you may draw.
4. Any hazards.
5. Other possible short comings.

F. Importance

Explain why this work is relevant, original, or applicable.

G. Progress

Reviewers are most easily persuaded of the industry and finishing ability of the applicant by proof that he has been and is carrying out other projects to completion. Provide all the evidence you can of this (previous publications and if this is not your first year of research, enough information so it is clear that you have spent the recent years actively and profitably).

H. Budget

Justify everything as well as possible; especially:

1. If you have other funds - exactly how will they mesh with the funds you are now applying for in your overall budget.
   If you have applied to two agencies for the same project, indicate what you will do if both applications succeed.
2. If you request a technician, explain how his time will be used for the time he works on this project.
3. Items that are incompletely justified are usually excluded.
4. An inappropriate and unreasonable budget often adversely affects the outcome of the proposal. A sound and well justified budget is an important part of the preparation of any grant, and is a reflection of the efforts and thought processes that have gone into the application.
5. The Lung Association has rather limited funds for research. Clearly defined projects that should be completed in one or two years are likely to be preferred to projects that hope for long term support from the Lung Association for their completion.

I. Length

MAXIMUM 10 SINGLE SPACE TYPEWRITTEN PAGES. Longer leads to reviewer fatigue, loss of the main thread.

Please review the general conditions for awards of research grants.