From Grant Writing to Grant: Els Kuiper’s Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship

Lessons on effective grant writing for early-career researchers

Els Kuiper shares how her successful Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship application underscores the critical role of effective grant writing for early-career researchers. Drawing on her own experience, she discusses the challenges of the application process, the importance of collaboration, and the need for clear, compelling communication in research proposals. 

Interview: Shau Chung Shin

Hello Els,
Congratulations on receiving the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral Fellowship! You’re one of 1,696 postdocs selected from 10,360 applicants for one of Europe’s most prestigious funding programs—an incredible achievement! Tell us a little about yourself and your research! 

Thank you so much! My name is Els Kuiper, I am from the Netherlands and I am a postdoctoral fellow at Florian Wilfling’s group. In our group we study the process of autophagy, which is part of the cellular protein quality control network that ensures the degradation of damaged, defective, or excess proteins and organelles. 

We are interested in how these cargos are recognised as needing to be degraded by autophagy. I am particularly interested in how nuclear pore complexes are degraded. The nuclear pore complex is a very important protein complex in our cells because it controls all the traffic in and out of the nucleus and is a hub for many crucial cellular processes. The quality and integrity of these complexes is a major determinant of cellular health. 

During my PhD, in the beautiful city of Groningen in the Netherlands, I also worked on protein quality control, but on molecular chaperones. They can recognise misfolded proteins and prevent protein aggregation. I found that a specific chaperone is involved in the quality control of nuclear pore complexes. This finding sparked my interest in studying nuclear pore complexes and their quality control in more detail. 

The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) program supports postdocs who want to conduct research abroad and collaborate across disciplines. What draws you to working internationally and in an interdisciplinary environment? 

During my scientific career, I have lived and worked in five countries: the Netherlands, the UK, Japan, the USA, and now Germany. In each of these places, I have been part of diverse, international groups, working with people from all over the world. 

I love how everyone brings their unique perspectives, cultural insights, and scientific expertise to create a collaborative environment. When people with different backgrounds and expertise come together in such an international and interdisciplinary setting, exciting ideas come to life. You start connecting dots you might not have connected on your own. For me, this makes the work very dynamic and challenges me to think beyond my usual ways of problem-solving. I also believe that this kind of collaboration is one of the most powerful aspects of international science, and how progress happens. 

My experiences so far haven’t just influenced my work, they’ve had a big impact on me personally as well. Living in different countries and working with so many amazing people has made me more open-minded, adaptable, and curious. I believe these qualities are essential for being both a good scientist and a good human being.

Your MSCA Fellowship starts on May 1 and provides a full-time salary for two years at a renowned research institution plus funding for research, training and networking activities. Applying for funding can be a long and demanding process.

What was it like to apply for a MSCA Fellowship? How long has it been since you first began the application process? What does the application process involve, and how much time and effort did you put into it?

The deadline for the Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship 2024 call was the 11th of September 2024 and I started writing the application in early July, about two months before the deadline. That said, I had already been thinking about the application before then. I attended an in-house information session, as well as a few online training events to get up to date with the requirements, and to hear from people who had successfully applied in previous years. A few former applicants from my institute were also kind enough to share their proposals with me, which was incredibly helpful. 

Applying for the MSCA was definitely demanding. Once I got started, I put almost all my lab work on hold to focus entirely on writing the application. I was lucky to have great support during the process—my PI gave extensive feedback on the scientific sections, and we went through several rounds of revision together. Our in-house Office for Research Support, especially Ulrike Trojahn, also played a big role in reviewing the rest of the application. Without their help, the proposal wouldn’t have reached the level it did. 

It took a lot of time and effort, but the process also taught me about how to write a larger grant, about how to clearly communicate my ideas, and about how to structure a strong proposal.

If you’ve applied for other grants before, how does this one compare? Was there anything particularly different or surprising about it?

Over the course of my career, I have applied for several competitive grants. I actually started writing smaller grant applications during my masters and was awarded four travel grants to do research at the University of Cambridge. After that, I received a PhD fellowship at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, which funded three years of research. During my PhD, I also helped my supervisor write grant proposals related to my work, which gave me valuable insight into how grant writing works. 

We did not get all of the grants we applied for, but I would really recommend starting early in your career with writing grant proposals, it doesn’t matter whether they are big or small. It is a skill that improves significantly with practice, and the experience becomes incredibly useful later on.

During my first postdoc at Yale University, I applied for three postdoctoral fellowships and was awarded two: one from the Dutch Research Council (NWO Rubicon) and another from the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO). Compared to these last two, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship felt quite similar in terms of the scientific section, which is a compact but detailed research proposal. The main difference was the emphasis on why I am the right person for the project, why this institute is the right place for it, and how both sides would benefit from the collaboration. I really liked that part because it gave me a chance to highlight not just the science, but also the environment, and how my skills and experience could contribute to the team and support the bigger project goals. 

What surprised me the most was the page limit! When I first saw it was ten pages, I thought, “Great, that’s plenty of space.” But once I started writing, I ended up trimming sentences and fine-tuning every paragraph just to make everything fit!

One of the goals of the MSCA Fellowship is gender balance, with women currently making up 43.8 % of recipients. What advice would you give to other women considering applying for this grant? 

I would say: “Just go for it!”. If you’re considering applying for a MSCA Fellowship, find a lab that truly aligns with your scientific goals, with a supportive supervisor who is open to discussing your ideas and plans, and start writing. The process might feel overwhelming at first, but it’s absolutely worth it. 

Speaking from personal experience, I often have moments of self-doubt, wondering if I am good enough to keep going in science, or if I can write a compelling proposal. I think this is something many women in the early stages of their scientific careers can relate to, especially because there are still relatively few visible female role models at the top levels of science. It can make it harder to picture yourself succeeding. That’s why it is so important—and very valuable—to have people around you who believe in your work and genuinely want to see you succeed.

I also really believe that diversity makes science better. It’s not just about fairness or percentages; it’s about how research thrives. More women in science means broader perspectives, and collaborations, and different ideas. It strengthens the entire system, making it more resilient, more creative, and ultimately more impactful.

How do you plan to use the funding? What’s your research project about, and what goal do you hope to achieve? 

The funding will be used to further investigate how the quality control of nuclear pore complexes works, and in particular how the complexes are degraded by autophagy. Loss of nuclear pore complex integrity and impaired nucleocytoplasmic transport are known to be associated with ageing and several diseases, including neurodegenerative disorders. However, we still don’t fully understand how cells recognize and remove old or damaged nuclear pore complexes. In my project, I want to find out how the degradation process is initiated and regulated. If we can understand how cells identify and remove dysfunctional nuclear pore complexes, we might be able to find ways to promote this process. 

For my research, I use baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as a model system, which is very well-suited for genetic manipulation and offers great experimental flexibility. Using genetic tools in yeast allows me to decipher which proteins and pathways influence nuclear pore complex degradation. Combined with high-resolution imaging techniques, including cryo-electron tomography, I will be able to visualize both the dynamics of nuclear pore complex turnover and the structural features of the pores themselves. My host lab has extensive expertise in yeast genetics, autophagy, and advanced imaging, and provides the ideal environment to investigate my research questions.

Studying the degradation of nuclear pore complexes is exciting from a fundamental biological perspective, because it will give us insight into the mechanisms of cellular maintenance and ageing. In the longer term, this knowledge could also help to discover therapeutic strategies that strengthen the cell’s quality control systems, with the goal of keeping cells healthier for longer, especially in the context of ageing-related diseases.

Many researchers see grant applications as a necessary challenge. Do you think there’s a positive side to the process? Do you think the potential benefits outweigh the effort required? 

Absolutely, I think there are real positives to the grant application process. Taking the time to step back from the bench and day-to-day experiments and reflect on the bigger picture of your research is always valuable. I sometimes can get stuck in the details of doing experiments, but writing this grant application forced me to organize my thoughts, clarify my research objectives, and think of new ways to pushing my project forward. Writing often sparks new ideas or directions for a project as well. 

Even if a proposal isn’t funded, I don’t see it as wasted effort. Creating a detailed plan provides a framework for your research, and sections of the application can often be adapted for other funding opportunities. In that sense, the effort invested pays off in multiple ways; by sharpening your scientific thinking, improving your communication skills, and building a foundation for future projects. So, while it is a significant challenge, I do believe the potential benefits outweigh the effort required.

What are your next steps? 

My immediate next steps are to dive into the research described in my application, make the most of this opportunity to advance my project, and enjoy the process of discovering new things! Science is challenging, but it is also really fun. 

Besides my lab work, I love being involved in outreach and science communication. I believe it is essential to communicate new scientific developments in a transparent and clear way to broader audiences. It helps to build trust in science and equips people to think critically, especially in an era where “fake news” spreads easily on social media. Last year, I was involved in several outreach activities. For example, I helped with the Girls’ Day to inspire young girls to consider a career in science. Making science fun and accessible for children is a great way to spark their curiosity and inspire future scientists. I also gave a talk at the Night of Science where the entire Frankfurt Riedberg Science campus—including our institute—opened their doors to the public, and I presented my research on a large stage during the Science Festival in the heart of Frankfurt am Main! 

Looking ahead, while a lot can happen in the next two years, my goals are: to build a strong foundation for my future research career, contribute new results to my field, and continue sharing my work with broader audiences—keeping my love for science alive, both in the lab and beyond. 

Thanks so much for your insights into the application process and your encouraging words! This information will be incredibly valuable for early-career researchers considering their next steps.

Further information

• Els Kuiper’s lab: Florian Wilfling – Mechanisms of Cellular Quality Control
• Our Institute’s Office for Research Support
• Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: Postdoctoral Fellowships