From the horses mouth to the fly (on the wall)'s ear: phrases overheard at an NIH section meeting and what a beginning investigator can glean from them

This is a continuation of my blog post yesterday concerning a recent NIH section meeting.  I was there as an Early Career Reviewer -- a great opportunity to learn about the process and listen in on the discussions.  While most reviewers get assigned many more, I was assigned only 4 applications to review. This gave me plenty of time to listen to what folks were saying and really pay attention to the conversation going on about applications being discussed.  Each application gets between 30-10 minutes of discussion (depending on time of day, enthusiasm or discordance among reviewers, etc). Not much can be generalized across all applications we reviewed.  However, in the R01 category , I think several general pieces of advice can be gleaned - at least in the GVE context - with regards to what works an what doesn't (FYI, R01's are those large, major awards -- after you get one of these, you are no longer a "new investigator").  

Note: Although the names of panelists serving on an NIH section are made public, I am keeping confidential the identity of the folks who uttered these phrases and, in addition, I've paraphrased these comments if they would in any way reveal the application under consideration during the discussion.

"What exactly is this proposal aiming to do?"
Make sure this is crystal clear from your aims, as written.  Not so good at conveying this information in prose?  Use a graphic, if you have to!  It can be helpful to sit down and actually think about every step of the project, the kind of data it will produce, and what you will need to analyze the data.  Present that in your application (with appropriate citations or letters of support, if necessary).  

"Most of my enthusiasm for this proposal comes from the papers cited therein, not from the proposal itself" and  "I could not figure out how it could be important to do X"
If you are excited about your project, find ways to engage your reader as well. In your writing, convey your excitement about your work - this will be infectious (in a good way).  Even if you are working on what you think is an important system, remember that your reviewers are coming from a relatively broad audience and they may not agree! My PhD advisor Colleen Cavanaugh always said we should aim to sell our work to our extended family -- if you can convince your uncle that he should fund you, you can convince anyone.

"This is a system I really wanted to love...but"
It's not enough to rely on the "cool" factor of your system or how sexy the topic is in the literature.  Reviewers are intelligent folks with lots of background necessary to find -- and expose -- the gaping holes in your experimental design, background, and understanding.  It may help to have a colleague read the proposal ahead of time (yes, that means writing it ahead of time).

"This is a fishing expedition without any hypothesis"
While reviewers recognize that hypothesis-generating aims are important, without any framework of expectations, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not your strategy will work.  It is always useful to consider the kinds of data that your project would produce (even if exploratory) and how those would be analyzed.  This would allow you to present potential hypothesis based on expected results.  For example (and this is a purely fictional example), instead of "Describing the microbiome associated with subway seats" try "Do commuters carry their microflora to work?"  Although the study is still exploratory, this framing allows a reviewer to see where  you might take this project and potential, downstream hypothesis testing.

A couple of final tidbits to my fellow New Investigators -- those having never been awarded a major grant from NIH:

Be adventurous: "safe"projects and problems may not yield the highest scores
Be enthusiastic without appearing naive: don't over-interpret the literature 
Don't be afraid to involve collaborators or consultants: unlike your well-established colleagues you are as of yet, untested.  Like it or not, you have much to prove. You DO NOT KNOW ALL.  It is a good idea to ask for letters of collaboration or support from folks in areas where you haven't published or using techniques you plan on learning or using for the first time.  Even if you think you know what you are doing, if you don't have a proven track record (read: publication record) of doing it, you should consider a letter of support.  
Proofread...and then proofread again...and then have someone else proofread: Grantsmanship, although not scored, can make reviewers angry. If they are having a hard time understanding your aims due to writing issues, this can only detract from your overall impression.


So get to it! New R01's are due October 5th (Renewals July 5th)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Wolbachia "holy grail"

Image
The once-obscure alpha-proteobacterium Wolbachia pipientis, was catapulted into medical relevance by the discovery that it inhibits the replication of RNA viruses .  However, it was first discovered for its odd quirk of manipulating insect reproduction . That's right, Wolbachia were called "reproductive parasites" and for a long time, no fitness benefit was attributed to them.  These intracellular masters do things like kill male offspring, feminize male offspring, induce parthenogenesis, and the most common phenotype, sperm-egg incompatibility (also known by its more complicated name: cytoplasmic incompatibility or CI) (Figure 1).   Figure 1. Modified from Werren et al., 2008 .  Wolbachia cause four distinct reproductive phenotypes in a range of arthropod orders (top).  The mechanisms behind CI - meaning how does  Wolbachia  induce it -  have been a mystery for some time.   When you make a cross between infected males and uninfected...
Read more

What's in a name? Would a Wolbachia by any other name, block RNA viruses as sweetly?

Image
I've ranted about bacterial nomenclature in the past (see h ere ), but this post is specifically about Wolbachia pipientis, and how we should name strain-level variants within a particular host-associated clade (such as w Mel, for example).  Currently, there seem to be multiple ways to write these names and to present them in databases or the literature.  For example: For variants within w Mel, we find examples of the following types of strain names: w MelPop-<insert specific substrain here after the dash> The stuff that comes after the strain name ( w MelPop) sometimes refers to the host insect from which the strain was isolated, or where it currently resides (such as in w MelPop-PYGP) or sometimes refers to how the strain was altered, through sequential passage (such as in w MelPop-CLA).  This variability in the naming schemas used in Wolbachia could lead to confusion down the road. We are currently adding strain level information to some of the stocks th...
Read more

ASM's MRA Journal Supports Undergraduate Research

Image
Disclaimer: Dr. Irene Newton is EiC of ASM's Microbiology Resource Announcements and Catherine Putonti is a Senior Editor. Undergraduate research changed my life. Truly. Along with many thousands of other undergraduate students, I started my career really thinking I was going to be an MD. That career path appealed for many reasons - my immigrant family understood it and approved, it was prestigious, and it meant my life was planned out for the next decade. But one semester of research with my undergraduate mentor was enough to get me hooked. I was privileged to have the opportunity to do one-on-one research at a small liberal arts institution but not all of our students have that opportunity. I now teach at one of the "Big 10" - with over 45,000 undergrads on campus there is no way we can provide all of them the research experience I had. But we can and are trying to integrate true scientific research into our undergraduate classes. Some good examples of this are the FI...
Read more