ECR Network Event Summary: Effective Grant Writing for Early Career Researchers

On July 30, 2026, the Working Group on New TB Vaccines Early Career Researchers Network hosted an online discussion on Effective Grant Writing for Early Career Researchers.

This session included Katrin Eichelberg (Program Officer, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – NIAID/NIH) and Alison Kraigsley (Program Officer, Gates Foundation), as speakers, and was moderated by Rebecca Clark (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine).

The session began with a welcome from Rebecca, who briefly presented the objectives of the WGNV Early Career Researchers Network. Next, she conducted a poll posing the following question: “What best describes your experience with grant writing?”. The majority of the audience reported having little experience with grant writing.

Strategies and Considerations for Developing a Grant Proposal

Throughout the session, Katrin and Alison presented practical advice on developing competitive grant proposals. Key points included:

• Understand the funders’ mission, strategy, eligibility criteria, and plan your application

The first step is to carefully read the funding opportunity announcement and understand the funder’s priorities, strategy, and goals to determine whether your proposal is a good fit. Another important aspect is to check whether the funder has an annual schedule for calls for proposals or to understand the funder’s approach to providing funding. With this information, you can plan your application well in advance, taking into account every stage of the submission process.

• Develop a clear, succinct, and coherent overview of your study, and clear outcomes

Create a clear roadmap for the project by defining the research objectives, hypothesis and expected outcomes. Tip: Answering the question, “What do you expect your research will tell us?”, can help you define your aims and develop a Specific Aims page or Project Summary. Try to describe how, even if your hypothesis or expected outcomes are incorrect, the project will generate valuable information will help move the field forward.

• Define the experimental design and determine whether a team of collaborators is needed

Ensure that the study design is rational, feasible, and appropriately addresses the research questions; describe the statistical analysis to be applied to the study; identify limitations and alternative approaches. If you don’t have all the experience needed for the proposal, assemble a team of collaborators or outline what upskilling you will undertake to address this.

• Understand what reviewers look for and reasons a grant may not be accepted

Considering the application from the reviewers’ perspective can greatly improve the quality of a proposal. Key aspects include demonstrating significant impact, presenting exciting and innovative ideas without making unsupported assumptions, defining realistic aims, and providing preliminary data. Some common weaknesses in applications are lack of originality and focus, as well as methodological gaps. Furthermore, reviewers’ feedback can help you refine your proposal for future submissions.

• Include realistic timelines and budget estimates — get help if you need it

Assess whether your project’s objectives and experimental design align with the timeline and budget specified in the funding opportunity. This is essential because, even if the project is based on a solid hypothesis, failing to consider these factors may lead to the conclusion that it is not feasible within the proposed timeframe. The same applies to the budget: be sure to check for any budgetary limits, including within your own institution, to ensure your proposal is feasible.

• Contact a Program Officer to discuss your proposal before submitting

Typically, the funders’ programs or specific funding calls have program staff and/or a Program Officer (PO). You can contact them to clarify questions while you plan your submission. Contact them in advance so they have enough time to contribute.

• Make sure your application is complete

Different funders have distinct application processes and templates (discussed briefly for NIH and Gates Foundation below). The submission system often includes several sections to be filled out and frequently requires supplementary documentation—such as letters from institutions and/or statements of ethical approval—in addition to the project proposal itself. Revise and check that everything that is required is included and complete before submitting.

Funders May Have Different Approaches to Providing Funding

Additionally, Katrin  and Alison  presented an overview of the NIH and Gates Foundation funding application processes, respectively. It was noted that these two funding organizations operate in distinct ways and, consequently, require different approaches to applying for funding.

NIH

             NIH Grant Life Cycle

The NIH has open calls with deadlines and a specific post-submission review process. It offers various funding categories, enabling researchers to find programs that meet their needs. Common types of NIH research grant are the “Parent Funding Programs”— broad, investigator-initiated funding opportunities without targeted scientific areas. These include grants to support a specified research project (R01) and grants to encourage exploratory and developmental research (R21).

Another valuable insight is understanding the NIH Grant Life Cycle, which helps researchers prepare a successful grant application. The stages include application planning (identifying the opportunity that fits your proposal), proposal writing, submission, reviewers’ feedback, funding award, and post-award follow-up activities. If an application is not funded, there may be an opportunity to respond to the reviewers’ comments and resubmit the application. Applications need to be submitted through your institution’s business office therefore it is important to plan for a sufficient amount of time for the internal budget review and submission timelines at your institution.

Gates Foundation

The foundation rarely issues open calls for proposals. The tuberculosis vaccine team aims to fund projects with high-translation potential with the goal of accelerating the development of new tuberculosis vaccines. Proposed research needs to be targeted to the program strategy. To determine if your work is on-strategy, it is best to contact a Program Officer (PO). The most common first step is for researchers to share a concept note outlining the proposed work with the appropriate PO.

To present a concept, contact a PO (you might meet a PO at a scientific meeting, for example, and get that person’s contact information; or inquire if anyone in your network has a connection at the foundation), confirm that your proposal is on-strategy, prepare a 1-2 page concept note, and request a review. A strong concept note includes a clear, testable hypothesis, sufficient evidence to justify the proposed work, evidence of the needed expertise to complete the study (e.g., reference previous publications), the anticipated outcome of the work, the duration of the study, and an estimated single-number budget. Rolling submissions are possible, but earlier in the calendar year may be better than later.

It is important to note that, in general, after a promising concept is presented, the foundation may invite the applicant to submit a full proposal. The proposal is then reviewed internally. The program and study teams will refine the proposal collaboratively, with the goal of producing a final version that is aligned with both the study team and the foundation’s priorities.

Importance of preliminary results

There was a discussion at the end of the session centered on the following question raised by a participant: “Are preliminary data essential for a funding application?”

This is a common challenge for early career researchers, who often have promising research ideas but lack the preliminary data needed to support an initial proposal. Considering the highly competitive grant application process today, having preliminary data can make a significant difference in the success of an application. Therefore, seeking funding opportunities specifically designed to generate preliminary data—such as pilot grants or fellowship programs that support early-stage research—can be an effective strategy. Another strategy to address this challenge is to collaborate with senior researchers who can support the development of the initial research idea and provide opportunities to generate the preliminary data needed for future grant applications. If taking this route, it is important to develop a collaboration agreement that will clearly articulate roles and responsibilities for the work as well as the ability to continue future development for the more junior investigator.

Overall, the session provided valuable insights into effective grant writing strategies and funding application processes for early-career researchers.

The video and presentation slides are available on the WGNV Online Community, and we encourage people to continue the discussion through comments and posts there.

• If you are a member, you will have access when you login (look for “ECR Network Online Events” under “Early Career Researchers” in the left side menu).
• If you are not a member and want to view the video, you can create an account here to allow access to the page with information from ECR Network Events.
• Once you are on the page, click on “Past” and select this event.

To join WGNV and the ECR Network, including access to the WGNV Community, click here.

NIAID, NIH does not endorse nor should endorsement be implied of the Working Group on New TB Vaccines, its products or services.