NIH Expertise

1:1 for Large Grants

Benefit from our years of success on multiproject NIH submissions to gain an edge over the competition.

Large-Format Submissions

We draw upon our extensive experience and success on large-format submissions to offer you an edge over the competition.

We provide comprehensive feedback on large-format P and U submissions, which are “written by committee.” 

Here are some of the most common ways we support a submission:

Identify Red Flags

A skilled outside reader with experience reading Summary Statements can see key areas of the application that reviewers are likely to criticize, and can help you fix the problem.

1 1 For Large Grants

Make the Project a Synergistic Whole

We can help smooth the seams as you cobble together a document written by many and help make the submission stand out to reviewers and program staff.

Locate Gaps in Logic and Ensure You Are Addressing the NOFO

It can become easy to lose sight of the obvious when you are lost in the details of writing these behemoths, especially on tight deadlines (and when are we not on tight deadlines?).

Align Sections With One Another

For example, is the Overview section consistent with the write-ups for the Admin Core, Research Cores, and Training Core?

NIH Grant Mechanisms

These are mechanisms on which Dr. Bouvier has direct experience:

  • P01 Program Project Grants
  • P20 COBRE
  • P30 Center Core Grant
  • P42 Multiproject Center Grant
  • P50 Specialized Center
  • U01 Cooperative Agreement
  • U18 Research Demonstration Cooperative Agreement
  • U54 Point-Of-Care Technologies Research Network
  • U54 Clinical and Translational Science Awards
  • U58 CDC Sickle Cell Data Collection Program
  • UG1 NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP)
  • UG1 Clinical Research Cooperative Agreement
  • UH2/UH3 Exploratory/Development Cooperative Agreement
  • U2C Resource-Related Research Multi-Component Projects and Centers Cooperative Agreements
  • UM1 Cooperative Agreement
  • T32 Institutional Training Grants
  •  

What our clients have to say

“I think the work you did to help me frame the question was extremely effective — it is the first time that the [reviewers’] comments have felt entirely about the science and I haven’t read it and said to myself “but I did say that” or “but I am doing that”.
Dr. Kate WolinSurgery Faculty, Washington University School of Medicine
“Meg has provided expert editing/writing services assisting me with several NIH grant applications. She has an extraordinary ability to take my technical content and make it ‘sellable’ to grant reviewers. She has worked with me on 3 grant proposals. All three were funded!”
Dr. Patty FreedsonChair Department of Kinesiology, University of Massachusetts
“Meg – your edits are fabulous. I can’t thank you enough for fitting my faculty member into your busy, busy schedule. Thanks so much again.”
Dr. Barbara AinsworthAssociate Director Health Promotion Faculties, Arizona State University
“I get a kick out of how you phrase your written feedback on my NIH submission. I feel like we are actually having a conversation, which I really like.”
Dr. Cirleen DeBlaereCounseling and Psychology Program Faculty, Georgia State University
“Meg exemplifies talent, hard work and meticulousness through her grantsmanship and critical thinking skills as a successful bench scientist. Meg consistently goes above the proverbial “call of duty” to see a project through to the very end, no matter what. I have learned a lot from Meg and consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with her.”
JoAnne GoodnightFormer Program Coordinator of the entire NIH SBIR/STTR Program; Currently Director of Project Development and Analysis, The Jackson Laboratory
“I had a funny exchange with my colleague who looked at my grant and said you’re writing has gotten so much better! I asked her what she meant and she pointed to all the things you edited. I had to laugh. But thought I’d pass on the compliment. And thank you again for your edits.”
Anonymous PhDAttending
“The first grant we worked together on did really well! They actually specifically complimented the packaging and presentation. We went below the funding line on our first try (even without the ESI bonus), which means the R01 will be converted to an R37 award (2 extra years of funding). So it really could not have gone better.”
Anonymous MD, PhDR37 (MIRA) recipient, Cancer Biology & Genetics, Top-Tier Medical Center
“I wanted to give you an update on the R01 that you helped me write. I got the grant on the first submission. Thank you so much for making it a great grant! You are worth every penny. I hope to work with you again in the future.”
Marc K. Halushka MD, PhD Professor, Department of Pathology
“Thank you so much for your kind words about my application as well as the thoughtful and thorough review. I particularly appreciate the rationale provided that I can apply in applications moving forward.”
Kelsey S. Dickson PhDAssociate Professor
Child and Family Development
San Diego State University
I cannot express my gratitude for the help you provided. This was an incredible experience for me and I will recommend it to everyone I know!
Dr. Dario PalmieriNCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center
Dr. Bouvier's videos are essential to understanding how to best structure your Aims, Significance, Innovation, and Approach sections. She helps to make a set of overwhelming R01 instructions more transparent and feasible... She is an expert wordsmith as well as a great support to first time female grant writers.
Dr. Sharla Wells-Di GregorioNCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center
Previous
Next

How Can We Help?

Let’s have a conversation about how we can help your faculty improve their NIH grantsmanship skills.

Contact Us

Wait!

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter for the latest NIH news, grantwriting tips, and more.

NIH-October-2023-Newsletter
  • We value your privacy and will never sell your information.