GUIDELINES FOR WRITING GRANT APPLICATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. General guidelines
A. Specific aims
B. Significance and Background
C. Preliminary and pertinent data/Progress report
D. Experimental design
2. Point by point guidelines for various sections of the grant application
3. Grant forms
4.

GENERAL GUIDELINES

  • Use 11-12 point "Arial" font throughout the grant. Use the largest size font that makes the grant easy to read and does not pose any strain to the eye.
  • Use 10 point "Arial" font for the figure and table legends.
  • Allow about one inch borders.
  • If the grant proposal is not in response to an RFA (request for application), before you start writing, talk to the program director to find out whether the ideas and the hypothesis that you are putting forward will be welcomed with enthusiasm.
  • Give yourself at least four months to write a grant proposal with the goal to have the grant ready about one month prior to submission. Use the last month to polish the writing and the style of presentation.
  • Read the instructions for writing the grant carefully and try to strictly adhere to them.
  • Write a succinct proposal that can be easily understood by those who are not necessarily experts in the field. It is best if you can get the grant reviewed by at least three individuals; one expert in the field, a non-expert scientist and a third individual who can assess the English grammar and the style of the proposal. Revise the manuscript according to the best suggestions of these individuals.
  • If the page limit to the grant proposal is 25, try to write a proposal that fits 20-23 pages. Use the additional space for stylistic alterations.
  • Separate different sections of the grant so that various pages do not look monotonous.
  • Try to make some sections bold, italicize other sections and use numbering to identify sections and subsections of the grant.
  • Add adequate spaces where required.
  • Left justify the text but avoid the right justification of the text.
  • Provide the figures and tables immediately after they are being cited.
  • Provide clear figures and table legends.
  • Try to reserve some space for the last pieces of data that you may wish to include in the preliminary data section of the grant.
  • Write a clear hypothesis. Clearly spell out the specific aims.
  • Avoid putting too much information in any specific section of the proposal. Putting too much detail in the method section may prevent you in putting adequate emphasis in the design section.
  • For each specific aim, provide a section in the experimental design that discusses alternative strategies and ideas to test the hypothesis. Try to spell out the shortcomings and pitfalls and how to solve them.
  • Provide preliminary data that show that the methodologies can be successfully accomplished.
  • If necessary, call the program director to find out how to insure that the reviewers will obtain the original copies of the manuscript which includes the glossy figures.
  • If the grant does not get funded, before attempting to revise the grant, contact the program director to find out additional information that may not be included in the "summary statement".
  • In the revised application, try to first summarize the shortcomings indicated in the "summary statement" and then respond to each one carefully. Try to be neutral and neither antagonistic nor conciliatory.
  • Spell check the document carefully before mailing.
  • Try to send the proposal by express mail, at least several days prior to the due date. Do not assume that the grant has been received. If possible, call express mail service to verify that the grant has been received by the granting agency. Do not mail the grant on the day before the grant is due.
  • This courteous style of writing will help reviewers and they certainly and perhaps unknowingly become your advocates for making their jobs easier. However, this should be done with care and sparingly and should not be used excessively since it may adversely affect the reviewer.
  • The items indicated above should be italicized to bring the attention of the reviewer to them so that they easily and quickly get the points that you would like to be grasped by the reviewers.
  • After the grant has been submitted, if a manuscript gets published or additional data becomes available that may play a part in the success of the grant proposal, call the program director to see whether you can send the manuscript or a summary of findings to the reviewers.
  • If the grant is funded, celebrate but immediately afterward prepare a plan and deadlines for accomplishing the proposed project and for writing the renewal grant.
  • Do not right jusify the text.
  • Do not use more than 6 lines per inch.
  • Do not exceed the 25 allowable page limit.
  • Do not include figures that can not be copied well. Include glossy prints in the body of the text.
  • Do not try to use the appendix to present data that are not included in the original application.
  • Do not sacrifice the look of the proposal by reducing these borders or using a font smaller than 11 point.
  • Do not offer more than two to three specific aims. More specific aims may be regarded unachievable and ambitious.
  • Do not try to impress the reviewers with too much preliminary data. Just present the relevant data. Show that the proposed ideas are sound and are achievable.
  • Do not use two columns. Many reviewers object to a style that is not recommended or is not in common practice.
  • Do not use jargon
  • Do not use excessive abbreviations. Define abbreviations upon the first time use.
  • Do not put information in the appendices that are not included in the body of the proposal. For example, do not present figures, tables, preliminary data or methods that are not part of the grant application. Use such appendices to present the information that already included in the application. For example, include color figures that do not copy well or papers published, in press or submitted.

A. SPECIFIC AIMS

Specific aims should have the essential information. 1. Opening statement 2. Current state of the knowledge 3. Gaps in knowledge 4. Importance of the gap in knowledge 5. Long range goal 6. Goals and objectives 7. Central hypothesis 8. Rationale 9. Investigator and environment 10. Specific aims 11. Innovation 12. Outcomes and expectations 13. Importance

Each statement should seamlessley lead to the next statement and they should logically be related. Each of the statements or paragraphs in specific aims should merge imperceptibly with the next statement or paragraph. Avoid the trap to leave a sentence in this section that does not relate to its preceding or subsequent sentences. At the end, the specific aim section should contain sentences that would flow well and, without any apparent void, seamlessly provide the reviewer with a logical flow of thoughts. These sentences should provide a coherent unit which will contain all the elements described above. Make sure that when you are formulating your ideas into specific aims, the work to be accomplished will extend the field vertically rather than horizontally. Proposals that are fundable are those that allow us to deepen the gap in our knowledge in very specific fields rather than broadening the knowledge laterally.

Once finalized, the specific aims should contain all the elements that would convey to a reviewer, who is not familiar with your work, the gap in knowledge that the work will fill. Your aims and approaches that you would follow to fill this gap and the importance of the work in filling this gap should become clearly apparent to the reviewer upon completion of reading of this section of the proposal. At such point, the significance of the work and the importance of the findings in vertical advancement of our knowledge should become glaringly evident to the reviewer. You do not have to cite references in this section of the proposal, however, throughout the rest of the application if available, try to use seminal, persuasive work that are preferably cited in journals such as "Science", "Nature", "Proceedings of National Academy of Science", "Cell" and similar publications to make your points. Provide details on the importance of the area that you are investigating in terms of its medical and clinical significance.

Remember that those who are not primary or secondary reviewers of the grant application may only get the chance to briefly look at this section prior to the meeting. Therefore, it is imperative that you would give your utmost diligence and patience in writing this section of the application. This section should stand on its own and should contain sufficient information that would give the reviewer the chance to get a good level of understanding of the entire project even without referring to the subsequent sections of the grant application. Writing this section would dictate how the rest of the proposal will be written. Therefore, invest as much time as is needed to first write a specific aims section that when read by a person who is unfamiliar with the work, it can be fully understood and the importance of the work can not come into question. Spending time to develop this section is "time well spent".

Allow 1-1/12 pages for specific aims.

B. SIGNIFICANCE AND BACKGROUND

It is best to start writing this section with statements of significance. The reason for doing so, is four fold. First, remember that you finished the specific aims section with stating the significance of the work. Thus, starting with significance in this section would provide a seamless flow to the background section. Second, each reviewer has to write a critique that includes their thoughts on significance of the work. By presenting the signifiance first, you will make the job of the reviewers much easier and this undoubtedly will positively affect their decision. Third, by stating the importance of the work first, you will make the reviewers interested in the subsequent sections of the application. Fourth, the committee members who are reading your proposal while listening to the critiques of the primary and secondary reviewers may get a chance to read this section and may become convinced that the work is important to be studied. This undoubtedly provides a positive atmosphere during the process of evaluation of your proposal. You need all the alliance that you can get during the discussion of your proposal.

Attempt to write this section so that it seamlessly flows with the statements made in the last part of the specific aims. Although, citing references are not recommended for the statements made in the specific aims section, provide required references after each statement to substantiate your claims of significance. Use current rather than older references. Cite references by the name of the author followed by the year such as (Jones et al, 1997) and alphabetize the reference list. Cite references in this fashion serves a dual purpose. First, if you are the first author, your name will be cited in the text rather than merely in the reference section. Second, reviewers more easily can find the pertinent references in the reference section. Each reference in the reference section should include full citations including authors names, the title of the manuscript and the volume, page number and year of publication. Do not cite old, non-essential, debatable, controversial or review articles as references. If available, try to use seminal, persuasive work that are preferably cited in high impact factor journals. Provide details on the importance of the area that you are investigating in terms of its medical and clinical significance. If possible, provide statistics on the number of individuals affected by the disease process, debilitation, morbidity or mortality that the disease causes, cost of care or, if relevant, lack of diagnostic, prognostic or treatment for the diseased condition. Provide details on how the outcome of research will impact fields other than your area of interest. This may include other diseases or processes affecting humans or other species and even the significance of findings in fields of science other than medicine such as improvement of a crop.

Dedicate 1/2 to 1/3 of a page to the significance section. Make the title in bold and italics to clearly mark it for the reviewers.

C. PRELIMINARY AND PERTINENT FINDINGS/ PROGRESS REPORT

If the application that you are providing is new, then include preliminary and pertinent findings. If the application is being submitted for competing renewal, then, include progress report and include the advancement that you made during prior granting period and preliminary data that are not yet published but support your current proposal. Dedicate about 6-8 pages to this section. This section should highlight data that persuade the reviewers to believe your hypothesis. Also use this section to provide the reviewers with information that convinces them that you are able to carry out technical details in your proposal and that you have made the necessary reagents required for successful accomplishment of your goals. Whether you are an established investigator or a new investigator, you should present compelling data that shows that you are uniquely qualified to carry out the work. The work presented may include some of your previously published work if it seamlessly integrates to the preliminary data that together make your case. If you do not yet have any preliminary data, then, first apply for RO3 grant to generate such data. Do not place raw, non-pertinent or remotely related data or a summary of all your papers. Do not cite the work that is not generated in your laboratory or laboratory of your collaborators. Do not randomly present data. Do not present methods in this section unless it is essential that you would convince the reviewers of your ability to successfuly execute such method(s). Attempt to place the data in a logical order. Give each series of data bold italicised titles that best reflect the idea accomplished. Number each section such as C1, C2 etc. Present the most important data first and conclude with other ancillary findings such as creation of a reagent or techniques essential to your proposal. Present the findings as tables, figures, diagrams. Such diversity in presentation adds appeal to the section. Each finding should be close to the tables, diagrams and figures so that there is no need to flip back and forth between pages to understand the presented information. Provide a table title and a legend that describes how the data were generated. Unless aboslutely necessary do not use color figures or diagrams that do not photocopy well. NIH makes copies of your application for distribution to the reviewers. So, make sure that your document does not lose information when copied. If you have to include color figures, then, include copies of these figures in the appendix section and instruct NIH in your cover letter to distribute these appendices to the reviewers. For each figure, provide a legend that describes the finding and then, include sufficient methodology and detail as how the data were generated. The figure or table legend may be presented by a smaller font as long as they are easily legible. For example, you can use an arial font that is 9 or 10 point. Using a smaller font give further interest to the look of the page. At the end of each section, present the conclusions that you have drawn from these experiments. Italicize these statements.

D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This section contains the research design and the methods that you will utilize to reach the goals that you have specified in your specific aims. Each of the specific aims should contain the following elements:

D1. Title of the first specific aim as it appears in section A
D1. Introduction
D1.1. Objective
D1.2. Working hypothesis
D1.3. Strategy
D1.4. Rationale
D1.5.
D1.5.1. First series of experiments
D1.5.2. Second series of experiments
D1.5.3. Anticipated results
D1.5.4. Anticipated pitfalls and their solutions
D2. Title of the second specific aim as it appears in section A
D2. Experimental design
D2.1. First series of experiments
D2.2. Second series of experiments
D2.3. Anticipated results
D2.4. Anticipated pitfalls and their solutions
D3. Title of the third specific aim as it appears in section A
D3. Experimental design
D3.1. First series of experiments
D3.2. Second series of experiments
D3.3. Anticipated results
D3.4. Anticipated pitfalls and their solutions
D4. Future directions
D5. Timetable

For each specific aim, start by writing a conceptual framework that will enable you to successfully accomplish the goals of the specific aim. This is followed by details of the experimental design. Next, present the findings that result from the series of experiments that you proposed. Finally, state all the forseeable pitfalls that you anticipate may emerge when you are conduting the experiments and the solutions and alternative strategies for addressing these problems. Repeat the same four sections for each of the subsequent specific aims. At the end of this section provide the future directions that would allow you to crystallize your long range goals. Then, in a timetable, provide the estimated times and durations of experimentation for each of the specific aims.

POINT BY POINT GUIDELINES FOR VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE GRANT APPLICATION

A. SPECIFIC AIMS (1-1 1/2 pages)

1st paragraph. This pargraph should convey to the reviewer the importance of the gap in knowledge and why it is important to fill this gap

  • Opening statement.
  • Current state of the knowledge
  • Gaps in knowledge.

  • Importance of the gap in knowledge

Opening statement. This statement should elaborate on the of work under investigation in respect to its medical importance in relation to human health (prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human diseases). Elaborate on the incidence, cost of care, debilitation and suffering that the disease causes or the incidence or death rate from the disease.

Current state of the knowledge. Begin with the fundamental work that was done and bring it in one or two short sentences to the curent state of knowledge.

Gaps in knowledge. State the gaps in knowledge that the application is addressing. You have to provide a convincing sentence that persuades the reviewer that the gap in our knowledge has to be filled and it is critical to be addressed. Filling such gap should enable us to reach at least one step closer to providing diagnosis of a disease, development of a drug, or cutting cost.

Importance of the gap in knowledge. Final statement should contain why the gap in knowledge is an important problem to address.

2nd pargraph

  • Long range goal
  • Goals and objectives
  • Central hypothesis
  • Rationale
  • Investigator and environment

Long range goal. This statement should define the problem that is being addressed by the research you are conducting and the gaps that you have defined in prior paragraph. This is a goal that you would like to accomplish but can not be reached by a single grant. The goal is to reach a final goal that is medically relevant during your research career. Do not set goals that seem to be out of your reach.

Goals and objectives of the current proposal. Provide statements that address specific end point(s) to be achieved by current proposal. These statements a) should be part of the long range goal defined in the prior statement and b) should fill the gap in knowledge stated in the 2nd paragraph. Do not set goals that may or may not provide meaningful data.

Central hypothesis. Provide a central hypothesis that regardless of outcome provides data that attain your objectives and fills the gap in knowledge that you identified. The hypothesis should be written assertively and with confidence. Then, state how you have formulated the hypothesis and what led you to choose this hypothesis over other possible working hypothesis. Do not use sentences that show your weakness or doubts about the hypothesis.

Rationale. This section should state why you are so enthusiastically proposing the research and why the work should be done. The rationale should clearly transmit the message to the reviewer that what would become possible after your work has been successfuly accomplished that is not currently possible. Make statement(s) that defines why the research is being carried out and for what purpose. The rationale would be strong if it empowers scientists to do something that otherwise is not possible to achieve with the current knowledge base. Do not state the the disease, a model system or technique as rationale.

Investigator and environment. State why you, your research (reagent, preliminary data, technique) and/or your environment (collaborators, consultants, core facility, equipments) is unique and supportive for the conduct of the investigation. Although you should clearly indicate the strength of your team and your institution, the words that you choose should not, in any way, convey to the reviewers the feeling that you are boasting about your credentials, qualifications or accomplishments.

3rd paragraph

  • Specific aims

Specific aims (2-5 aims). State precisely, briefly and informatively how the central hypothesis is to be addressed. Each specific aim should be subordinate to the central hypothesis that you have put forward. The aims should be in a headline form and should be a) consistent with the hypothesis b) should fully test the hypothesis and c) regardless of outcome should provide the objective and fill the gap in knowledge you specified. Write aims that are related to each other and taken together fill the gap in knowledge that you specified. All the aims should be equally important in terms of required work, importance and outcome. These headlines should be numbered, indented and italicized. Follow these titles with specific subordinate statements that formulate your working hypothesis. Do not italicize these statements. Do not write specific aims that are not equally important and from the standpoint of time or required work significantly differ from each other. Do not write aims that depend on each other and the success of one aim prevents you from accomplishing the other aims. Do not use descriptive aims and terms that imply a descriptive research (describe, correlate, compare, validate, whether, whether or not, define, how to, relate, investigate, search, search for) or titles that seem like fishing expedition or look and see aims or aims that may or may not yield a positive outcome. Do not pose specific aims as questions. Do not propose several different mechanisms for identifying the correct mechanism.

4th paragraph

  • Innovation

  • Outcomes and expectations

  • Importance

Innovation. Make a statement why the proposal is innovative. This should be a credible claim. Do not make claims that are generalities, are not supported by the presented data or the data to be generated. Skip this part if the work is not innovative.

Outcomes and expectations. Make at least one precise statement of outcome(s) for each of the specific aims. Make statements about outcomes that directly stem from your proposed research as well as contributions to related or distantly related fields. Do not use general statements or empty promises that do not relate to your specific aims.

Importance and high impact. Make a general statement as what the importance and impact of the data from current proposal is if all the specific aims are achieved. Such information is expected to fill the gap in knowledge that you specified and should lead to a solution of the current problems. You need not be specific. Attempt to list outcomes as they relate to their impact on human health and disease.

 

 

B. SIGNIFICANCE AND BACKGROUND (2-3 pages, six to eight focused paragraphs)

B1. Significance

First section

  • Opening statement
  • Gaps in knowledge
  • Impact and importance
  • Signifiance

Opening statement. Make a case of the importance of the health problem that you are investigating in terms of incidence of the disease, morbidity, mortality, lack of diagnostic, prognostic or therapeutic modalities and health care costs. Provide reference(s) after each statement.

Gaps in knowledge. Provide details of gaps in our knowledge that your proposal will fill. Do not state gaps in knowledge that your proposal does not address. For this reason, avoid making general statements.

Impact and importance. Make statements that, by the end of the investigation, the goals set by your objectives will be crystallized and the problems that you have identified have been solved.

Signifiance. Make statements about the importance of the knowledge gained by your proposal. These statements should include collective rather than singular contribution of each of the specific aims. State how such collective contribution will extend our knowledge vertically and fill the gap in our knowledge that you have identified. Make the statements as how the application of the knowledge gained by this proposal will impact human health, health care costs, in preventing or decreasing risk of disease, decreasing hospital stay, morbidity, mortality or by facilitating diagnosis.

  • Opening statement
  • Current state of the knowledge
  • Gaps in knowledge
  • Development of central hypothesis
  • Importance of filling the gap in knowledge

Opening statement. Start your opening statement referring to seminal and historical work done in the areas of research related to the field.

Current state of the knowledge.. Provide details on the current state of knowledge and cite references at the end of each statement. Refer to work published in high impact factor journals and cite your own work and the work of well known experts in the field including those in the study section where your grant will be reviewed. Do a literature search on the members of the study section to find their work that is related to the proposed work.

Gaps in knowledge. State the gaps in knowledge that the application is addressing. You have to provide a convincing sentence that persuades the reviewer that the gap in our knowledge has to be filled and it is critical to be addressed. Filling such gap should enable us to reach at least one step closer to providing diagnosis of a disease, development of a drug, or cutting cost.

Development of central hypothesis. Make statements as how the current state of knowledge and the information that you provide as published work or as preliminary data has led to the formulation of your hypothesis.

Importance of filling the gap in knowledge. Make statement as how you are able to fill the gap in knowledge by accomplishing the goals of your proposal.

C. PRELIMINARY AND PERTINENT FINDINGS/PROGRESS REPORT

  • Opening statement

  • Presented data

  • Concluding remarks

Opening statement. Start this section by providing a background on what the section contains.

Presented data. Present your data along with figures, tables and diagrams. Present the most important data first. End each section with conclusions that are drawn from the experiments.

Concluding remarks. Make concluding remarks about the importance of the presented findings and how such findings enforce your hypothesis and make you uniquely capable of accomplishing your goals. Use this section to provide a transition to the subsequent Design and Methods section.

 

D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
  • Title of first specific aim
  • Opening statement
  • Objectives
  • Working hypothesis
  • Primary Experimental approach
  • Alternative approach
  • Rationale
  • Anticipated results and outcome
  • Experimental design
  • Design (Number of subjects, number of animals, dose and time responses, controls, number of replicate studies, statistics, etc)
  • Methods, reagents and critical equipments
  • Overral expected results
  • Future directions
  • Timetable

Title of first specific aim
 

Opening statement. Make a statement about the gap in knowledge that this specific aim addresses.

Objectives. Introduce the objective that the specific aim will address. This should be the gap in knowledge that you specified above.

Working hypothesis. Introduce the working hypothesis for this specific aim. Working hypothesis should clearly be hypothesis driven, should be free of bias, should yield results irrespective of outcome and should be consistent with the overral objectives of the application.

Primary experimental approach. Indicate the experimental approach and strategies that you will follow to fill the gap in the knowledge and the reason for selection of this approach over others.

Alternative approach. Indicate the problem that you forsee and approaches you follow to test the working hypothesis to attain your objectives.

Rationale. Indicate why you are carrying out the experiments that you suggested above.

Anticipated results and outcome. Indicate the results that you expect the experiments proposed in this specific aim will provide and the importance of such findings. For each experiment, state the problem that may occur, state why you believe that such problem is unlikely to occur and in the event that it occurs what you will do to remedy the problem.

Experimental design. Present the design of the experiments to achieve the objectives of this specific aim. This can be done in one or series of experiments. If more than one experiments to be carried out, give each of them a title and present it in bold and italics form. The overral data from the proposed experiments should fill the gap in knowledge that the specific aim intends to fill. Do not propose experiments that their success depends on successful accomplishment of a separate series of experiments. Do not list details that detract from the main point that you are conveying. Do not give minor details. Give sufficient details to make the methodology clear particularly if your are a new investigator. Use your own references to cite methods that you have used in your own laboratory. Give more details on methodologies that you have not used in your laboratory and have not published on. You can cite methods in each specific aim section or put all the methods together at the end of the experimental design section. Do not present the methods in an appendix to circumvent the 25 page limit. Do not use words that show your weakness or doubts such as "Whether, to examine, attempt, etc". Use words that ar neutral or relay your confidence such as "assess, expect, ect".

 

Overral expected results. Indicate the overral results that you expect from all the proposed specific aims.

 

Repeat the above sections for each of other specific aims
 

Future directions. Make the statement as what data and accomplishments the present application provides and then, project the goals that you would envision you pursue upon completion of the present application. Such goals should be extension of your present proposal and part of your long range goal that you specified in section A. The importance of this section is that it assures the reviewers that you are genuinely interested in the project and in crystallizing your vision. Make a statement of where these directions will take you and why it is important for your to pursue it.

D5. Timetable

Avoid the trap to write this section in a hurry since this section will give the reviewers the chance to see how structured your application is and how you have projected the timeline needed to accomplish the goals of the proposal. Give enough details about the timetable for each of specific aim and any of its subordinate components.Then, provide a timetable as in example below.

TIMETABLE FOR THE RESEARCH PROGRAM

SPECIFIC AIMS

YEAR 01

YEAR 02

YEAR 03

YEAR 04

YEAR 05
AIM 1. Write specific aim 1

AIM 2.

 Write specific aim 2.
AIM 3. Write specific aim 3

Criteria for Review of NIH Grant Applications

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has adopted the following criteria for reviewing grant applications. These criteria should be addressed explicitly when preparing an application.

Significance. Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?

Approach. Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?

Innovation. Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?

Investigator. Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers (if any)?

Environment. Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?

In addition to the above criteria, and in accordance with NIH policy, all applications will be reviewed with respect to the following:

For clinical research, the adequacy of plans to include both genders, minorities and their subgroups, and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated.

The reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the proposed research.

The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project proposed in the application.