Abstract
Much has been written about the seemingly capricious manner by which grant proposals are ranked and awarded by the National Institutes of Health and similar agencies, yet some scientists are able to maintain stable funding over long periods of time. While raw luck may certainly play a role in this process, particularly when paylines are tight, it is also possible that skill-in the art of grant writing at least-could represent a decisive factor. Here, I submit that, even as we attempt to reform and one day perfect the grant review process, there are actions that applicants can take today to get better results from the system we have.