Stories of health researchers who do not give up after a grant rejection

In my work I often have to deal with the disappointment of health researchers faced with a negative evaluation of their grant applications.
Disappointment justified by the awareness of the work involved in preparing the project, but not only. Sometimes, behind the preliminary data that form the basis of a project, there are years of work.

It is therefore normal that obtaining funding represents for many not only the possibility of having the funds to continue their research, but also a recognition of their sweat and their value.
But we must not forget that competition in funding programmes for research and innovation (among which Horizon Europe) is very high and that evaluation, although an established and standardised process, is subject to the human variable.

Those who are in charge of reading our project are not always in a position to understand and appreciate it, and there can be many reasons for this.

A rejection does not necessarily indicate that your idea is not worthy. It may simply indicate that you fell into the wrong hands or at the wrong time (or both).

Success stories and common elements
To make it clear to the health researchers I work with that one should not be discouraged at the first rejection, I often tell the stories of those among my clients who have tried again and succeeded.

There are two examples I resort to most often: the first - the most sensational - is that of a researcher who succeeded in obtaining funding on his fourth attempt. The second researcher, more recently, needed 'only' three.

What do these two examples have in common?

From a strictly technical point of view, both applied to a call for proposals that in jargon would be defined as a bottom-up approach. That is, it is a call that does not define a specific theme for its project, but only outlines its objectives and characteristics. Think, for example, in Horizon Europe, of MSCA actions or ERC projects. Each researcher is free to propose the theme he or she prefers, as long as the project meets the characteristics that the call describes.
These calls generally have a once-a-year deadline and the characteristics usually do not change over the years (at least within the same funding programme).

In contrast, calls with a top-down approach have a well-defined theme and purpose. Therefore, resubmitting the project in another call in this case would be more complicated.

But technicalities aside, I think it is the attitude in these cases that makes the difference. Both researchers in fact:

• have not lost faith in their idea. The secret is to believe in it, even when a somewhat harsh evaluation leads you to think that perhaps the project is not worth financing. You have to convince the evaluators that your idea is worth the investment. If you don't believe it yourself, why should someone else?
• have conveyed their passion for the idea in their projects. I always like to have researchers 'tell' me about their projects before I read them on paper. From these more or less informal chats, I often pick up the vision behind the project, the motivation that drives them to pursue that research and the change they hope to bring to their field. These things do not always end up on paper, and it is my job to make sure that they do, in the ways and spaces allowed by the form.
• were able to get involved and took on board comments and criticism. Each year, they modified and chiselled the project according to the comments received the year before. They took a step back from their 'creature' and put in a good dose of self-criticism, to try to read the project more objectively. Have I enabled the evaluator to understand all aspects of my project? Have I provided clear data on the objectives and impacts the project will bring to my sector? These are just some of the questions that should be asked in this situation.

If you have in the past received a negative evaluation and tried to re-submit your project in another call for proposals, I would like to know how it went in your case. What strategies did you adopt? What worked and what did not?

And for the future, don't let setbacks or failures discourage you. With the right requirements and the right attitude, your project can get funding at the next attempt.