There are reasons why we want as much objectivity as possible in decisions affecting research funding. Just a few are: (1) we want the best research to be funded – that which is most likely to advance the field or benefit society; (2) these decisions are high-stakes, and careers can ride on the outcomes; and (3) federal research is funded by taxpayers, and no one should have an edge when it comes to accessing those funds due to personal relationships, biases, or anything other than the quality of the ideas submitted.

When I was a program manager, impartiality was of paramount importance to me and my colleagues. Given that we were a group of scientists and engineers performing evaluations and managing evaluation processes of work submitted by other scientists and engineers, it’s safe to say that rationality and analytical approaches were valued. Everyone involved in the process was in their comfort zone using quantitative methods and holding as many parameters constant as possible. It’s how we were trained, and how our minds generally work – after all, we self-selected into STEM careers.

That’s why it can be uncomfortable to talk about anything that falls outside this framework. However, anyone who has studied how people make decisions will tell you they do so emotionally, and then back up their decision with logic. It’s easy to think of falling in love with a make and model of automobile because of its styling and then justifying the decision to buy it because of its fuel efficiency, towing capacity, or other practical features.

Even with the best intentions and safeguards against subjectivity, here are some places where emotions can come into play. Keep in mind, these are just a few:

• Reviewer fatigue can affect proposals when a number are read in one sitting, or even if the reviewer is evaluating a single proposal, if they are tired and are having a bad day.

• Personal bias. Some reviewers bring their own preferences for or against certain topics or approaches.

• Feelings about reputations of institutions and seniority. This can go either way: They see a big name from a top department and feel that brings credibility, or they may feel more enthusiastic about a proposal from a lesser-known, younger player. As a protected category, age should not play a role in decisions, but sometimes it does so indirectly when looked at as experience or when in search of ‘new’ ideas.

Here's why the non-rational side of things is so important: The vast majority of proposals outline plans for work that is worth funding. Especially if there has been any kind of preproposal process, you can assume all the proposals are strong, even with occasional shortcomings. Evaluators are rarely in the position of eliminating many proposals because they are technically unsound.

So, what are some things you can do to make your proposal resonate emotionally with reviewers? Please, this is not about deception. It’s about putting reviewers in the best possible mindset so they can understand, remember and articulate your technical vision.

• Maintain an up-to-date LinkedIn profile. When you are Googled, what they see there should be consistent with how you describe yourself in the proposal. It’s common for PIs not to update their geographic location. You may think, well, what does that have to do with my research? It doesn’t, but what it does do is make people wonder if they are looking at the correct person (many people have the same or similar names) introducing doubt, or it can make you appear somewhat careless.

• Have your proposal edited. You may be able to get help from your Research Office with light editing, for what they call ‘readability’. However, this is usually all they can provide because PIs don’t submit their documents with enough time for them to do more, and because of the workload in those offices. Even if the person is a highly skilled editor, if they have only an hour with your document, it’s going to be surface-level. Note that this is something I recommend for everyone, including PIs for whom English is their first language. Mistakes and awkward writing detract from the reading experience and can leave a negative impression on the reader without their fully realizing it. 

• Include photos of yourself engaged in outreach activities. You can take photos with minors that do not show their faces, for example, looking down a table with little hands working, or a photo from behind a group watching you perform a demonstration. These are heartwarming. Someone reading your proposal when their heart is ‘warmed up’ is an ideal scenario.

Don’t think about any of the above suggestions as manipulation. It’s about showing who you are. Everyone involved in the research process is human, and we all long to connect to other humans. You have a chance to start doing that in your pre-proposal interactions and to follow up in the proposal itself. All you want to do is let people see a full picture of who you are, the same person you will bring to the research.

Considering submitting for MURI?

DOD Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) supports team-based interdisciplinary research efforts, funded at $7.5M over 5 years. The FY26 topics were announced this week. If you are considering a submission, watch my video for important points to keep in mind.

When you are ready, here’s how we can help

Need to get your research funded, this year? Check out our 12-week program to get you there.

Ready to book a call to discuss how our program can support faculty at your institution? Let’s chat!