Research Grant Proposals (国自然 / 省自然 / institutional / international)
Use this skill to turn an imaging-research idea or finished study into a fundable proposal.
A grant is not a paper: reviewers fund a scientific question and a credible plan to answer
it, not a model. This skill rebuilds the logic and polishes each section to the structure
funders expect. NSFC/省自然 is the primary, most fully worked-out track; the same reframing
logic extends to international funders (NIH, ERC, Wellcome) when the team is also pursuing
cross-border funding — see references/international-grants.md.
Core stance
- Grant logic, not paper logic. Lead with the clinical need and the scientific question, then hypothesis → aims → technical route → innovation → feasibility → expected outcomes. "Construct a model / improve accuracy" is an engineering task, not a science question — reframe it into the mechanism or generalisable principle being tested.
- Eligibility before drafting, for any international target. Confirm the author/institution
can actually apply as lead PI before writing a word — NIH, ERC, and Wellcome each have real,
currently-changing eligibility constraints that are easy to miss (→
references/international-grants.md). Wasting effort on an inaccessible mechanism is worse than a hard "not this track." - The key scientific question (关键科学问题) is the spine. One sharp, answerable question that the aims serve. If the aims don't all serve it, the proposal is unfocused.
- Close the loop. The technical route (技术路线) must connect need → question → each aim → method → expected result → back to the question. Reviewers reject open-loop routes.
- Innovation must be specific and defensible. Name the increment (question / data / method / validation / mechanism). Avoid "first/领先" without grounding.
- Feasibility is shown, not asserted. Preliminary data, team capability, data access, and ethics make it credible — never fabricate preliminary results.
- Don't over-promise. Aims must be achievable in the period and budget; over-scoping reads as naïveté.
- Verify the current guidelines. Word limits, format, attachments, ethics, and 限项 rules change yearly — confirm against the current official 申报指南 (the author must check; this skill flags it, it does not have the current year's rules memorised).
When to use
- "把我的研究改写成国自然/省自然标书 / 帮我写立项依据、科学问题、技术路线、创新点。"
- "Turn this finished study into a grant proposal."
- "Is my innovation point / feasibility strong enough? polish my aims."
- "Reframe 'build a model' into a fundable scientific question."
- "我们也想申请 NIH / ERC / Wellcome，能不能用同一份研究改写？" / "Can this also become an NIH R01 / ERC / Wellcome proposal, and am I even eligible to apply?"
When to open extra files
| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| references/grant-architecture.md | The section-by-section structure and what each must accomplish (NSFC/provincial) |
| references/reframe-and-innovation.md | Converting paper/engineering framing into a scientific question + a defensible innovation point |
| references/feasibility-and-pitfalls.md | Showing feasibility (preliminary data, route closure, team/data/ethics) and the common rejection reasons |
| references/international-grants.md | Target is also/instead NIH, ERC, or Wellcome — eligibility reality for China-based applicants, section-mapping from NSFC structure, and more directly reachable cross-border routes |
Workflow
- Identify the target funder(s) — NSFC/省自然 (default), and/or NIH/ERC/Wellcome/other international. For any international target, check eligibility first (international-grants.md) before investing drafting effort.
- Extract the science. From the idea/study, find the clinical need and the one scientific question worth funding (reframe engineering goals into mechanism/generalisable principle). This is funder-independent — do it once, reuse for every target.
- Set the architecture (grant-architecture.md for NSFC/provincial; international-grants.md for the funder-specific section mapping) — title, abstract, 立项依据, 研究目标, 研究内容 (aims), 关键科学问题, 技术路线, 创新点, 可行性, 预期成果, plan.
- Build aims that serve the question — each aim a testable sub-question with a method and an expected result; aims are coherent, not a feature list.
- Forge the innovation point (reframe-and-innovation.md) — specific, defensible, tied to the gap; classify the kind of innovation.
- Close the technical route — a loop diagram in prose: need → question → aims → methods → expected results → question; mark validation and risk mitigations.
- Evidence feasibility (feasibility-and-pitfalls.md) — preliminary data (real only), team, data access, ethics; pre-empt the common rejection reasons.
- Polish & guideline-check — tighten each section; flag every place the author must verify the current official 申报指南 (limits, format, 限项, ethics).
Output contract
Target funder(s) & eligibility(only when international) — funder, whether the author/institution can be lead PI under current rules, and the realistic route if not (co-PI, alternate mechanism) — before any section drafting.Scientific question— the one fundable question + hypothesis.Section drafts— title, abstract, 立项依据, 研究目标/内容, 关键科学问题, 技术路线, 创新点, 可行性, 预期成果 — drafted or restructured.Innovation point— specific, classified, defensible.Technical-route check— is the loop closed? gaps marked.Feasibility & risk— what supports feasibility; risks + mitigations.Weaknesses & fixes— thin innovation, weak preliminary data, over-scoping, open loop.待核验（中文）— current-guideline items the author must confirm (字数/格式/附件/伦理/限项).
Quality bar
A good proposal makes a reviewer see one sharp scientific question, aims that all serve it, a closed technical route, a specific innovation, and credible feasibility — written to the funder's structure, with no fabricated preliminary data and an explicit reminder to verify the current year's guidelines.
Handoffs
- Study/validation design behind an aim →
radiology-design. - Frontier framing & evidence for the gap →
radiology-frontier(verify live →radiology-search). - Statistics/sample-size for an aim →
radiology-stats. - Ethics/feasibility of data →
radiology-ethics/radiology-data. - English polish of an English-language proposal →
radiology-polishing. - Verifying current call deadlines, page limits, and funder eligibility rules live →
radiology-search. - This skill drafts and critiques proposals; it does not guarantee funding, does not confirm eligibility on the author's behalf, and does not replace the current official 申报指南 or the target institution's sponsored-programs/grants office.
