This week, ORDE hosted an NIH panel with faculty from our Denver campus who have been funded by the NIH through a variety of institutes and mechanisms. The NIH is a large organization made up of 27 institutes and centers and using a variety of different funding mechanisms. Because of the size and complexity of the NIH, it can be hard to nail down, especially for early career investigators, but our panelists offered the following universal NIH advice:
Speak with your Program Officer:
Because the NIH includes so many institutes with their own ways of doing things, it is essential that you get to know your Program Officer to understand the nuances of the institute, get advice on study sections, and to discuss your project fit. The panelists also suggested talking with your Scientific Review Officer (SRO) when working on a resubmission. The SRO manages the peer review process for a particular study section and can often give you clarification on your grant review and the comments you receive.
In an NIH grant, fill up the page:
Dr. Laura Argys, Professor of Economics, NIH funded researcher, and long-time NIH reviewer urged PIs to not leave large sections of their grant blank. This is because if reviewers wonder why you didn't discuss a particular piece of your project, they're less likely to let the PI off the hook since they had room to go into it. The next suggestion she offered was to allow for white space in your grant. Make sure that the final grant is easy to read and maneuver.
Reinforce what's important:
Often, only three reviewers read your grant and they have a lot to get through and will skim/read your grant quickly. This makes it important for you to clearly state what you're doing and why it's and important and to restate these important elements throughout your grant. That way if a reviewer misses something important the first time, they get it again at another point. Even if they catch it the first time (and remember, they may be jumping around and not starting at page one), they'll understand its importance when it is reiterated in the next section.
Give reviewers clear cues:
NIH grants are scored on their significance and their innovation, so when you are describing these elements of your project, use the phrase "The significance of this project is..." or "This project is innovative because..." The three reviewers that read and present your grant to the rest of the study group will appreciate this seemingly blunt description of these important pieces of your grant, because it gives them the tools they need to understand and hopefully advocate for your project.
Have a layperson review your grant:
Although your project may be very technical and complex (most NIH projects are), you still want a layperson to understand your abstract and specific aims - this means you have been quite clear and you can count on a diverse set of reviewers to get what you're doing quickly and easily. They'll likely be thankful!
Resources:
Friday, April 24, 2015
Friday, April 17, 2015
Grant Reviews: Making your project better?
This week we held our second seminar on Grant Resubmissions on the Denver campus. Dr. John Swallow spoke to our group about how he approaches resubmissions. And although, the thought of needing to write and re-write your grant is enough to make anyone melancholy, Dr. Swallow had a different perspective.
He told us that someone had once told him that on average a PI must submit a grant four times to be funded by the NSF. Dr. Swallow, Professor and Chair of Integrative Biology, embraced that statistic, whereas others might have decided it wasn't worth submitting in the first place with those chances. Dr. Swallow submitted his CAREER grant to the NSF all three times before it was funded on the third application. But because he expected the need to resubmit, Dr. Swallow worked to use the feedback he received from reviewers to improve not only his grant, but his CAREER project. This meant that when he was finally funded, the project that he carried out was much better than what he would have done had his first CAREER application been funded.
We've all heard the adage: feedback is a gift. Yet we oftentimes do not feel like we've received a gift when someone has constructive criticism for us. Although Dr. Swallow talked about the positive approach he takes to reviewer comments and resubmissions, he also talked about his frustration when he hears that he has not been funded.
A couple of weeks ago, our blog focused on deciding to resubmit, and we suggested talking to your Program Officer as you make that decision. Yet, you want to make sure that before you talk to your PO that you have let go of your frustration so that you don't inadvertently take it out on your PO - that would be a bad move. It doesn't do you any good for a PO or any colleague to have a bad taste in their mouths about you when they're reviewing your grant because you vented your frustration to them in a moment of weakness.
Similarly, when you respond to reviewer comments, you want to make sure that you keep a positive tone, reminding reviewers of what they liked about your grant (if they're the same reviewers) or telling your new reviewers what the first group liked about your grant. Although you can't be in the room when reviewers discuss your grant, you want to do everything you can to set a positive and excited tone around your project. If you're frustrated and defensive, even a great grant won't fair as well.
Social Psychologist, Amy Cuddy, studies how behavior can influence thinking and attitudes, and in her Ted Talk she discusses how you can not only "fake it till you make it" when you're not feeling confident, you can fake it till you become it. So, in acting confident (even when you don't feel it), you can trick yourself and everyone else into believing.
I think this principle can be translated into grant resubmissions. Even if you are feeling bad about your grant when it's not funded, by "faking" enthusiasm and excitement to improve your grant, you can not only convince your reviewers of this excitement in the next round, you can actually make your project even better, just like Dr. Swallow has done.
He told us that someone had once told him that on average a PI must submit a grant four times to be funded by the NSF. Dr. Swallow, Professor and Chair of Integrative Biology, embraced that statistic, whereas others might have decided it wasn't worth submitting in the first place with those chances. Dr. Swallow submitted his CAREER grant to the NSF all three times before it was funded on the third application. But because he expected the need to resubmit, Dr. Swallow worked to use the feedback he received from reviewers to improve not only his grant, but his CAREER project. This meant that when he was finally funded, the project that he carried out was much better than what he would have done had his first CAREER application been funded.
We've all heard the adage: feedback is a gift. Yet we oftentimes do not feel like we've received a gift when someone has constructive criticism for us. Although Dr. Swallow talked about the positive approach he takes to reviewer comments and resubmissions, he also talked about his frustration when he hears that he has not been funded.
A couple of weeks ago, our blog focused on deciding to resubmit, and we suggested talking to your Program Officer as you make that decision. Yet, you want to make sure that before you talk to your PO that you have let go of your frustration so that you don't inadvertently take it out on your PO - that would be a bad move. It doesn't do you any good for a PO or any colleague to have a bad taste in their mouths about you when they're reviewing your grant because you vented your frustration to them in a moment of weakness.
Similarly, when you respond to reviewer comments, you want to make sure that you keep a positive tone, reminding reviewers of what they liked about your grant (if they're the same reviewers) or telling your new reviewers what the first group liked about your grant. Although you can't be in the room when reviewers discuss your grant, you want to do everything you can to set a positive and excited tone around your project. If you're frustrated and defensive, even a great grant won't fair as well.
Social Psychologist, Amy Cuddy, studies how behavior can influence thinking and attitudes, and in her Ted Talk she discusses how you can not only "fake it till you make it" when you're not feeling confident, you can fake it till you become it. So, in acting confident (even when you don't feel it), you can trick yourself and everyone else into believing.
I think this principle can be translated into grant resubmissions. Even if you are feeling bad about your grant when it's not funded, by "faking" enthusiasm and excitement to improve your grant, you can not only convince your reviewers of this excitement in the next round, you can actually make your project even better, just like Dr. Swallow has done.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
NSF CAREER Grant - Q&A
Last week, ORDE held a seminar on the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Faculty Career Development Award (CAREER). Participants asked a host of good questions, and we've shared many of them below along with some responses and resources for further edification.
How do I reach out to/work with the Program Officer (PO)?
Identifying and working with a PO is important for understanding if your project is a good fit for an agency. The NSF and the CAREER program is no exception. As Robert Porter suggests in his article, Can We Talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers, begin by sending an email to the PO for the directorate in which you're interested. Briefly, describe your project and ask to schedule a follow-up call. Have a one-page description of your project ready in case the PO asks for it. You don't want to make them wait once you've sparked their interest.
How long can the letter of collaboration be?
The CAREER program announcement for 2015 and 2016 has few changes from the previous program announcement, but one of these changes is the requirements for the letter of collaboration. The NSF has limited the letter of collaboration to one sentence. They actually require applicants to use the following sentence and just to fill in the blanks:
"If the proposal submitted by Dr. [insert the full name of the Principal Investigator] entitled [insert the proposal title] is selected for funding by the NSF, it is my intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as detailed in the Project Description."
As the sentence suggests, you should include the details of your collaboration in your project description.
What other career-oriented grants are offered at other agencies?
Many agencies offer career grants that are intended for early career investigators, but they vary widely. Some of these are mentored grants meant to move the investigator to independence (e.g., some of the NIH's K grants). Others are for independent investigators launching their research career (e.g., the NSF CAREER award). You can get a sense of some of the different career grants from ORDE's New Investigator's funding e-book.
What are success rates by directorate?
It is difficult to find success rates for the CAREER grant by directorate, but Dr. Sonia Esperanca offered some data in her presentation for the NSF Denver conference in the Spring of 2014. According to her chart on slide 12, in 2013, Computer & Information Science and Engineering (CISE) had the highest success rate (near 25%) and the lowest was Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) (near 8%).
How important are preliminary data and publications when applying?
Certainly, this is hard to answer in a straight-forward way, but we asked Professor Michael Jacobson, who recently served as a Program Officer for the NSF. He suggests that competitive applicants should have some preliminary data when submitting their CAREER, because the PI should be able to show their expertise and would likely not be working on a brand new project. In terms of publications, Dr. Jacobson thinks that some are necessary, and those that show independence from one's mentor are looked at more favorably.
Resources:
ORDE NSF CAREER Award Toolkit
NSF CAREER and PECASE Page
How do I reach out to/work with the Program Officer (PO)?
Identifying and working with a PO is important for understanding if your project is a good fit for an agency. The NSF and the CAREER program is no exception. As Robert Porter suggests in his article, Can We Talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers, begin by sending an email to the PO for the directorate in which you're interested. Briefly, describe your project and ask to schedule a follow-up call. Have a one-page description of your project ready in case the PO asks for it. You don't want to make them wait once you've sparked their interest.
How long can the letter of collaboration be?
The CAREER program announcement for 2015 and 2016 has few changes from the previous program announcement, but one of these changes is the requirements for the letter of collaboration. The NSF has limited the letter of collaboration to one sentence. They actually require applicants to use the following sentence and just to fill in the blanks:
"If the proposal submitted by Dr. [insert the full name of the Principal Investigator] entitled [insert the proposal title] is selected for funding by the NSF, it is my intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as detailed in the Project Description."
As the sentence suggests, you should include the details of your collaboration in your project description.
What other career-oriented grants are offered at other agencies?
Many agencies offer career grants that are intended for early career investigators, but they vary widely. Some of these are mentored grants meant to move the investigator to independence (e.g., some of the NIH's K grants). Others are for independent investigators launching their research career (e.g., the NSF CAREER award). You can get a sense of some of the different career grants from ORDE's New Investigator's funding e-book.
What are success rates by directorate?
It is difficult to find success rates for the CAREER grant by directorate, but Dr. Sonia Esperanca offered some data in her presentation for the NSF Denver conference in the Spring of 2014. According to her chart on slide 12, in 2013, Computer & Information Science and Engineering (CISE) had the highest success rate (near 25%) and the lowest was Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) (near 8%).
How important are preliminary data and publications when applying?
Certainly, this is hard to answer in a straight-forward way, but we asked Professor Michael Jacobson, who recently served as a Program Officer for the NSF. He suggests that competitive applicants should have some preliminary data when submitting their CAREER, because the PI should be able to show their expertise and would likely not be working on a brand new project. In terms of publications, Dr. Jacobson thinks that some are necessary, and those that show independence from one's mentor are looked at more favorably.
Resources:
ORDE NSF CAREER Award Toolkit
NSF CAREER and PECASE Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)