Why Good Science Gets Lost

Most grants don't fail because the science is weak. They fail because somewhere between what the scientist understands and what the reviewer reads, the message gets lost.

In this live session, I'll walk through the Five Translation Gaps — the specific places where grant applications lose reviewers — with real examples of what each gap looks like in practice and how to close it.

This is the framework behind the Lost in Translation curriculum. Whether you've already tried Module 1 or you're hearing about it for the first time, this session will give you a diagnostic lens you can apply to any grant you're writing right now.

What We'll Cover

• Gap 1 Between your thinking and your writing — why starting with templates gets it backwards
• Gap 2 Between your words and their meaning — the phrases that create distance instead of connection
• Gap 3 Between your logic and their understanding — why reviewers get lost even when your science is sound
• Gap 4 Between your confidence and their trust — the difference between earned and performed credibility
• Gap 5 Between your vision and their advocacy — equipping a reviewer to fight for you in a room you're not in

This Session Is For You If

• You've submitted a grant and received feedback that your significance wasn't clear — even though you know it is
• You're writing your first R01, R21, or K-mechanism application and want to get it right
• You've been through other grantsmanship workshops but still feel like something isn't clicking
• You review grants and want language for what you see going wrong in applications
• You tried the Coffee Conversation exercise in Module 1 and want to understand what comes next