NSF vs NIH: Don’t make these mistakes!
NSF vs NIH? Do you direct research on basic science that you hope one day improves human health outcomes? If so, your research is—in principle—appropriate for either the NSF or NIH. Yet your work might be a better fit for one of the agencies. If you’re used to submitting NIH grants, this guide will help you avoid the two most common mistakes researchers make when preparing a grant for the NSF instead.
New ideas vs. ongoing work
In practice, NIH funding is commonly based on past accomplishments. For anything but designated exploratory grants, you usually need to have completed a substantial portion of the proposed work to receive funding. However, in my experience responding to peer review feedback, the NSF doesn’t operate in the same way; new research is welcome. Furthermore, both hypothesis- and technology-driven grant proposals can fair well.
Yet many researchers don’t properly apply this new-ideas mindset to their NSF grants; they unintentionally present their proposal from a “hammer in search of a nail” perspective—i.e., I have a tool and want to solve problems with this tool. Basically, by doing so, you’re simply conveying that your work is new and accordingly warrants funding. Equating novelty with intellectual merit is one of the most common grant writing mistakes and will end your chances of funding, even for a proposal that’s otherwise quite compelling. What should you do instead?
- Present the main competing techniques. State the specific conditions in which and needs for which your technique is superior. If it’s an unmet need, all the better.
- State how you will quantitatively evaluate your technique against competing techniques. You need more than one—yet complimentary—evaluation method.
Don’t waste time stating that your technique or technology is new. One, grant reviewers understand that your work is new. Two, novelty in itself doesn’t add to intellectual merit.
A caveat is that to sound deeply knowledgeable about a topic as well as the corresponding current challenges and controversies, you’ve probably thought about the topic for years and published on it already. Nevertheless, although NSF grant reviewers expect you to be a published authority in your broad line of work, your preliminary data can be honestly preliminary.
Clinical trials
The NSF does not fund clinical trials or anything remotely resembling a clinical trial. Simply stating that your work isn’t a clinical trial won’t overcome this prohibition. Having the following proposed research elements in your NSF grant might net you an auto-reject:
- Measurable human health outcomes; for example, a study of how brain wave patterns correspond to human behavior
- Data that might inform medical decision-making; for example, a proposal to develop machine learning algorithms for predicting kidney function, even if the physician is blinded to the outcome
The NSF points to NIH guidance on the definition of a clinical trial. Nevertheless, there’s nothing inherently improper with an NSF grant that seeks to advance human health research. If you’re uncertain on whether your research resembles a clinical trial, consider contacting a pertinent NSF program officer.
Summary on NSF vs NIH
Researchers understand that NSF grants differ from NIH grants, but sometimes aren’t familiar with how to apply these differences, resulting in an avoidable rejection. Understanding how the NSF defines intellectually meritorious novelty and how to avoid presenting your work as a clinical trial are essential to receiving funding. You’d benefit from reading additional guidance; such as common mistakes in NSF CAREER proposals, and advice from ScienceDocs on selecting the NSF vs. NIH for SBIR/STTR awards. We recommend that you collaborate with an experienced team to assist with the essentials and maximize your chances of a successful application.
It’s difficult to manage all of your partners’ efforts and timelines; administrative help may be a game-changer. We at ScienceDocs handle many NSF and NIH projects, so feel free to reach out if you would like our grant writing and/or administrative support!
Keywords: NIH grant, NSF grant, intellectual merit, clinical trial, NSF vs. NIH, grant writing support and grant editor
Grant Proposals – The Process