Grant writing often feels mysterious: What do reviewers actually read? What makes them reject a proposal within minutes? We are going to bring some clarities to these frequently asked questions during this week (9th-12th February 2026) grant writing and evaluation workshop organized by the Career Development Office of Umeå Postdoc Society.
Day 3 shifted the focus from individual applications to something broader: how to think strategically about funding over time.
Linda Sandblad brought not only her experience as an applicant, but also extensive evaluation experience from bodies such as the Swedish Research Council (VR), ERC Starting Grants, interdisciplinary postdoctoral programs, and university‑level funding schemes. Linda shared a career trajectory shaped by persistence, networking, and strategic grant writing.
She began with a biology diploma in Germany, followed by postdoctoral work at EMBL and later at Karolinska Institutet. During her bridging and collaborative postdoc period at EMBL, she started writing grant applications — often sharing drafts with past and future supervisors and colleagues.
She secured an EMBO fellowship, returned to Sweden, and later received a VR startup grant. Smaller grants came first; larger funding followed after securing more stable positions. Eventually, she became a lecturer and associate professor in chemistry at Umeå University — her first permanent position.
She opened the session by referencing reflections from Swedish researcher Agnes Wolt on funding statistics and gender bias in academia— including whether women can succeed within current funding systems, setting the stage for a discussion that combined structural insight with highly practical advice.
A Career Built Through Grants and Networks
Referencing Agnes Volt’s public discussions on funding statistics and gender bias, Linda began by acknowledging the structural challenges within academia. Systems are imperfect. Rejection is common. Bias can exist.
But she emphasized something equally important: your own confidence and persistence matter enormously.
“The system will not give you security. You have to build your own.”
Her own career path — from early grant writing during postdoctoral collaborations to securing start‑up funding and building research activity in Umeå — illustrated how funding, networking, and infrastructure access all interconnect.
Before You Write: Think Strategically
One of the strongest messages of the day was this: don’t start writing immediately. Start by thinking.
Who is evaluating you?
You rarely know exactly who your reviewers are.
So:
- Use your “detective skills”
- Ask colleagues about panel composition if possible
- Understand the culture of the funding body
Knowing your likely audience helps you frame your proposal more effectively.
Think Bigger: Use Infrastructure Strategically
Agnes emphasized thinking beyond your immediate lab.
As part of SciLifeLab — Sweden’s national center for molecular biosciences — she highlighted the importance of leveraging infrastructure platforms.
If your lab does not have everything:
- Reach out to infrastructure staff
- Discuss feasibility and budgeting
- Clarify how to formulate access in your proposal
She showed examples from Umeå where SciLifeLab platforms strengthened grant applications.
Reviewers must see that:
- You have access to required instruments
- You understand how to use them
- You have support staff if needed
This significantly improves feasibility and credibility.
What Type of Grant Do You Actually Want?
Linda encouraged participants to reflect strategically. Grants serve different purposes:
- Travel grants (conference visits, lab exchanges)
- Postdoc fellowships (national/international)
- Early-career grants
- Project grants (funding yourself and building your group)
- Large collaborative grants, networks, and centers
- Instrumentation grants
Each comes with different expectations and effort levels.
”Small grants matter. Even a travel grant can smooth the path toward larger funding.”
Preparation: Strategy Before Writing
Before writing, ask yourself:
- Am I motivated enough?
- Am I confident I can deliver?
- What are my preliminary results?
- What is the likelihood of success?
Linda suggested a kind of informal likelihood and investment analysis:
- What is the probability of success?
- How much time must I invest?
- Do I have sufficient preliminary data?
- Is this the right moment?
If you are not fully committed, reconsider or refine the idea.
Sometimes ideas emerge while walking, biking, or reflecting quietly. Capture those thoughts. Write a synopsis. Develop them consciously.
Writing the Application
Read the Call — Repeatedly
Read the instructions multiple times.
If needed, translate them.
Do not start writing before fully understanding the call.
If something is unclear:
- Contact the research support office
- Or directly call the contact person for the call
A short phone conversation can open doors and clarify expectations.
Key Elements of a Strong Application
1. Be Unique
There must be something special about your project.
Do not mimic others.
Be authentic.
2. Make Your Aim Clear — Early
Within the first quarter of your application:
- Clearly state your aim
- Clarify your motivation
- Avoid unnecessary background
Help reviewers immediately understand what matters.
3. CV Matters
In scientific applications, your CV is critical.
You may not be able to change much at this stage, but ensure it is clearly presented and aligned with the proposal.
4. Feasibility
Demonstrate that you:
- Have access to required instruments
- Have collaborators in place
- Have done similar work before (if applicable)
If using infrastructure, show that you have contacted them and understand costs. In the budget, specify allocations clearly (e.g., infrastructure fees, consumables). Demonstrate that you have done your homework.
If the project is expensive, do not under-budget out of fear. If you have applied for additional funding elsewhere, mention it.
4. Figures: Use them strategically
If the format allows a PDF (e.g., 4 pages), do not fill it entirely with text.
Include:
- 1–2 clear figures
- Preliminary data (if available)
- A graphical abstract if not
Place figures where readers might get tired — break monotony and clarify concepts.
If the online system only allows text, you may provide links (if permitted).
Interdisciplinary Projects and Common Pitfalls
When bridging fields:
- Clearly describe your expertise
- Clearly describe what you are learning from collaborators
- Specify roles precisely
If you claim expertise in one area but propose methods from another without showing access or competence, reviewers may assume lack of feasibility.
Be explicit:
- Where will the experiments be done?
- Who will perform them?
- What infrastructure supports them?
There will always be unknown pitfalls. Clarity reduces risk.
Budgeting: Show that you did your homework
Budget sections are not just about numbers — they signal seriousness and preparation.
Instead of vaguely listing expenses, demonstrate:
- Infrastructure fees
- Platform access costs
- Consumables
- Personnel needs
If a project is expensive, do not be shy. Justify the cost. If you are applying to multiple funding bodies, mention that transparently.
When working with infrastructure platforms, timelines can be difficult to predict. Still, provide a realistic plan and, if possible, coordinate with the platform in advance.
Final Takeaways
Day 3 emphasized that grant writing is not only about a single proposal — it is about designing a long‑term funding strategy.
Key lessons included:
- Think before you write
- Align ideas with calls strategically
- Build confidence alongside competence
- Use infrastructure and networks wisely
- Communicate feasibility clearly
- Treat budgeting as part of the scientific argument
Perhaps most importantly, Linda reminded us that while the system may be competitive and imperfect, trusting your own ability to grow and adapt is essential.
”You cannot control every external factor. But you can prepare thoroughly, think critically, and position yourself strategically.”
For any queries, please contact the Career Development Office of Umeå Postdoc Society (Najat Dzaki, Keshi Chung and Madhusree Mitra).
This post is part of a four‑part webinar series on grant writing and evaluation, based on a workshop organized by the Umeå Postdoc Society.
Day 1: What Reviewers Really Look For — insights from experienced evaluators
Day 2: Grant Writing Through a Young PI’s Eyes — lessons from the applicant side
Day 3: Designing Your Funding Strategy — structure, preparation, and long‑term thinking
Day 4: From Messy Drafts to Research Independence
Want to hear the grant writing seminar straight from the speakers instead of reading about it here? Click this link: Day 3
