03 / GRANT STRATEGY & PREPARATION
Give a strong idea
a stronger
application.
Develop a clear, coherent research proposal with scientific guidance grounded in funded research, collaborative grant development, and grant-review experience.
THE ENGAGEMENT
Connect the question, the approach, and the case for support.
A proposal asks reviewers to understand both the importance of a question and the strength of the plan to answer it. We help develop that connection: from the central hypothesis and specific aims to analytical methods, interpretation, and the work your team will deliver.
Scientific strategy & specific aims
Refine the central question, articulate the rationale, and examine whether the proposed aims form a coherent research program.
Application development
Help prepare and revise scientific sections, analysis plans, preliminary-data presentations, and descriptions of research work packages.
Critical review & resubmission
Review the logic, feasibility, and clarity of the application. For resubmissions, map reviewer concerns to substantive changes and a clear response.
WHEN TO BRING US IN
Does this sound
like your project?
- A promising research idea needs a more focused set of aims.
- Your application needs a stronger connection between methods and scientific objectives.
- Preliminary data need clearer analysis, figures, or interpretation.
- You need experienced scientific review or help responding to critiques.
A CONCRETE HANDOFF
Know what
you will receive.
Deliverables are agreed before the work begins. Depending on scope, they may include:
- 01A refined aims framework and proposal development plan
- 02Drafted or revised scientific sections within the agreed scope
- 03An analytical plan and preliminary-data presentation
- 04A written critique or structured resubmission response
EXPERIENCE ON BOTH SIDES OF REVIEW
Grounded in the
work of funded science.
David’s record includes principal-investigator and co-investigator roles, NIH-funded subaward leadership, collaborative proposal development, and grant review.
His academic CV documents contributions across R01, program-project, center, and research-contract work. It also records service on an NIH metabolomics review panel and an American Heart Association national review committee.
That experience informs the questions we ask about a proposal: what is compelling, what needs evidence, what is feasible, and what a reviewer needs to understand.
Roles vary across awards. Support is scoped to improve the application; funding decisions remain with the sponsor.
Explore David’s experienceWHERE WE START
A conversation, then a defined scope.
Share the funding opportunity, deadline, draft stage, team, and the sections where support would be most useful. We agree on responsibilities and review milestones; the applicant institution retains submission authority.
Tell us about the projectLET’S FIND A WAY FORWARD
A difficult question is a good place to start.
Tell us what you are trying to understand, what you have, and what is getting in the way.