A quick CSR video on basic grantsmithing tips

Jun 27 2010 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH

All they are missing is actually calling them StockCritiques™

9 responses so far

  • microfool says:

    By showing us SROs in wet labs, I think CSR is giving us a sneak peek of their future plans for enhancing peer review:: molecular assignment of grant applications, bioengineered reviewers that limit their discussion of grants to StockCritques, and fMRI-based scoring.

  • Dude, you're trolling me with this fucking arrant garbage, aren't you?

  • neurolover says:

    So why does anyone think providing this info in a video format is helpful? Wouldn't you rather just see the content (not all of which is useless -- reminding people that being clear matters, fundamentally, and that you must get others to look at your work is good, and can't be repeated more often than necessary)?
    I can only conclude that people have a bizarre desire to see themselves on video.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Dude, you're trolling me with this fucking arrant garbage, aren't you?
    What? This is good, if incomplete, advice. Like I said in the title, "basic" tips.

  • To the extent that the advice is "good", it is totally obvious: be clear, proofread, spell-check, target your audience, etc. To the extent that it is non-obvious, it is misleading at best, and totally wrong at worst.
    Beyond the obvious truisms, the fact is that there are *no* general rules for how to structure a grant application and argue for its worthiness. It is *all* highly case-dependent: career stage of investigator, nature of the science (hypothesis-based, tool-development, exploratory, etc), culture of the study section being targeted, etc. The only way to write a fundable application--other than relying on dumb luck--is to get expert advice on taking account of these specifics.
    The mere existence of platitudinous advice such as this video being promulgated by NIH lulls inexperienced investigators into thinking that it is sufficient. It is not.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    I think you are going just a leeeetle bit overboard in the other direction. Hypothesis testing is the default. If you want to go and generate tools or go off on -omics fishing expeditions those require extraordinary effort to avoid the stock critique.

  • Hypothesis testing is the default.

    You are grossly overgeneralizing in the same misleading way that this video does. There are *fucktons* of funded R01s that are not based on hypothesis testing. And to make that sound like the sine qua non is not only poor grantsmanship; it stifles important science.

  • zoubl says:

    what "'fucktons'" of funded R01s that are not based on hypothesis testing"?? Is there some way to look this up? Who gets these? Which study section is handing these out (ie, giving these high scores)? Certainly not the ones I've submitted to. Maybe the better question is, what's a fuckton. If it's a small number, then we're on the same page...

  • Eli Rabett says:

    From many years of NSF and NASA panels the best advice is -
    READ THE FUCKING CALL FOR PROPOSAL FUCKTARDS -
    Your grateful grant reviewer. . .
    Don't and you won't get funded but we still have to read your steaming pile of crap and write a review.

Leave a Reply