Archive for the 'NIH Careerism' category

McKnight: "Wait whut? There are data? Really? Maybe I'd better cool it..."

Dec 05 2014 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

The sidebar to McKight's column at ASBMB Today this month is hilarious.

Author's Note

I’ve decided it’s prudent to take a break from the debate about the quality of reviewers on National Institutes of Health study sections. The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology governing council met in mid-November with Richard Nakamura, director of the NIH’s Center for Scientific Review. The discussion was enlightening, and the data presented will inform my future columns on this topic.

HAHAHHAA. Clearly it is news to McKnight that his opinions might actually be on topics for which there are data in support or contradiction? And now he has to sit down and go through actual facts to try to come up with a better argument that study sections today are populated with riff-raff who are incompetent to review science.

Never fear though, he still leaves us with some fodder for additional snickering at his....simple-minded thinking. He would like his readers to answer some poll questions...

The first question is:
Should the quality of the proposed research and researcher be the most important criteria dictating whether an NIH-sponsored grant is funded?

The response item is Yes/No so of course some 99% of the responses are going to be Yes. Right? I mean jeepers what a stupid question. Particularly without any sense of what he imagines might be a possible alternative to these two considerations as "the most important criteria". Even more hilariously since he has totally conflated the two things that are actual current items of debate (i.e., project versus person) and tie directly into his two prior columns!

The next question:
The review process used to evaluate NIH grant applications is:

has three possible answers:
essentially perfect with no room for improvement
slightly sub-optimal but impossible to improve
suboptimal with significant room for improvement

Again, simple-minded. Nobody thinks the system is perfect, this is a straw-man argument. I predict that once again, he's going to get most people responding on one option, the "suboptimal, room for improvement" one. This is, again, trivial within the discussion space. The hard questions, as you my Readers know full well, relate to the areas of suboptimality and the proposed space in which improvements need to be made.

What is he about with this? Did Nakamura really tell him that the official CSR position is that everything is hunky-dory? That seems very unlikely given the number of initiatives, pilot studies, etc that they (CSR) have been working through ever since I started paying attention about 7-8 years ago.

Ah well, maybe this is the glimmer of recognition on the part of McKnight that he went off half-cocked without the slightest consideration that perhaps there are actual facts here to be understood first?

17 responses so far

More in "NIH responds to a non-problem by creating a problem"

Dec 05 2014 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH Careerism

I can't even imagine what they are thinking.

This Notice informs the applicant community of a modification for how NIH would like applicants to mark changes in their Resubmission applications. NIH has removed the requirement to identify 'substantial scientific changes' in the text of a Resubmission application by 'bracketing, indenting, or change of typography'.

Effective immediately, it is sufficient to outline the changes made to the Resubmission application in the Introduction attachment. The Introduction must include a summary of substantial additions, deletions, and changes to the application. It must also include a response to weaknesses raised in the Summary Statement. The page limit for the Introduction may not exceed one page unless indicated otherwise in the Table of Page Limits.

First of all "would like" and "removed the requirement" do not align with each other. If the NIH "would like" that means this is not just a "we don't care whether you do it or not". So why not make it a mandate?

Next up...WHY?

Finally: How in all that is holy do they really expect the applicant to ("must") summarize "substantial additions, deletions, and changes" and to "include a response to weaknesses" in just one page?

I am starting to suspect Rockey is planning on burning the OER down to the ground before leaving for greener pastures.

18 responses so far

Wait...the new Biosketch is supposed to be an antiGlamour measure? HAHAHHAHHA!!!!!

A tweet from @babs_mph sent me back to an older thread where Rockey introduced the new Biosketch concept. One "Senior investigator" commented:

For those who wonder where this idea came from, please see the commentary by Deputy Director Tabak and Director Collins (Nature 505, 612–613, January 2014) on the issue of the reproducibility of results. One part of the commentary suggests that scientists may be tempted to overstate conclusions in order to get papers published in high profile journals. The commentary adds “NIH is contemplating modifying the format of its ‘biographical sketch’ form, which grant applicants are required to complete, to emphasize the significance of advances resulting from work in which the applicant participated, and to delineate the part played by the applicant. Other organizations such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have used this format and found it more revealing of actual contributions to science than the traditional list of unannotated publications.”

Here's Collins and Tabak, 2014 in freely available PMC format. The lead in to the above referenced passage is:

Perhaps the most vexed issue is the academic incentive system. It currently overemphasizes publishing in high-profile journals. No doubt worsened by current budgetary woes, this encourages rapid submission of research findings to the detriment of careful replication. To address this, the NIH is contemplating...

Hmmm. So by changing this, the ability on grant applications to say something like:

"Yeah, we got totally scooped out of a Nature paper because we didn't rush some data out before it was ready but look, our much better paper that came out in our society journal 18 mo later was really the seminal discovery, we swear. So even though the entire world gives primary credit to our scoopers, you should give us this grant now."

is supposed to totally alter the dynamics of the "vexed issue" of the academic incentive system.

Right guys. Right.

13 responses so far

The new NIH Biosketch is here

Dec 02 2014 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

The NIH has notified us (NOT-OD-15-024) that as of Jan 25, 2015 all grant applications will have to use the new Biosketch format (sample Word docx).
[ UPDATE 12/05/14: The deadline has been delayed to apply to applications submitted after May 25, 2015 ]

The key change is Section C: Contribution to Science, which replaces the previous list of 15 publications.

C. Contribution to Science
Briefly describe up to five of your most significant contributions to science. For each contribution, indicate the historical background that frames the scientific problem; the central finding(s); the influence of the finding(s) on the progress of science or the application of those finding(s) to health or technology; and your specific role in the described work. For each of these contributions, reference up to four peer-reviewed publications or other non-publication research products (can include audio or video products; patents; data and research materials; databases; educational aids or curricula; instruments or equipment; models; protocols; and software or netware) that are relevant to the described contribution. The description of each contribution should be no longer than one half page including figures and citations. Also provide a URL to a full list of your published work as found in a publicly available digital database such as SciENcv or My Bibliography, which are maintained by the US National Library of Medicine.

The only clear win that I see here is for people who contribute to science in a way that is not captured in the publication record. This is captured by the above suggestions of non-publication products which previously had no place other than the Personal Statement. I see this as a good move for those who fall into this category.

For the regular old run-of-the-mill Biosketches, I am not certain this addresses any of the limitations of the prior system. And it clearly hurts in a key way.

One danger I see lying ahead is that the now-necessary bragging about significant contributions may trigger 1) arguments over the validity of the claim and 2) ill will about the almost inevitable overshadowing of the other people who also made related contributions. The example biosketch leads with a claim to having "changed the standards of care for addicted older adults". This is precisely the sort of claim that is going to be argumentative. There is no way that a broad sweeping change of clinical care rests on the work of one person. No way, no how.

If the Biosketch says "we're one of twenty groups who contributed...", well, this is going to look like you are a replaceable cog. Clearly you can't risk doing that. So you have risks ahead of you in trying to decide what to claim.

The bottom line here is that you are telling reviewers what they are supposed to think about your pubs, whereas previously they simply made their own assumptions. It has upside for the reviewer who is 1) positively disposed toward the application and 2) less familiar with your field but man......it really sets up a fight.

Another thing I notice is the swing of the pendulum. Some time ago, publications were limited to 15 which placed a high premium on customizing the Biosketch to the specific application at hand. This swings back in the opposite direction because it asks for Contribution to Science not Contribution to the Relevant Subfield. The above mentioned need to brag about unique awesomeness also shifts the emphasis to the persons entire body of work rather than that work that is most specific to the project at hand. On this factor, I am of less certain opinion about the influence on review.

Things that I will be curious to see develop.

GlamourMag- It will be interesting to see how many people say, in essence, that such and such was published in a high JIF journal so therefore it is important.

Citations and Alt-metrics- Will people feel it necessary to defend the claims to a critical contribution by pointing out how many citations their papers have received? I think this likely. Particularly since the "non-publication research products" have no conventional measures of impact, people will almost have to talk about downloads of their software, Internet traffic hits to their databases, etc. So why not do this for publications as well, eh?

Figures- all I can say is "huh"?

Sally Rockey reports on the pilot study they conducted with this new Biosketch format.

While reviewers and investigators had differing reactions to the biosketch, a majority of both groups agreed that the new biosketch was an improvement over the old version. In addition, both groups felt that the new format helped in the review process. Both applicants and reviewers expressed concerns, however, about the suitability of the new format for new investigators, but interestingly, investigators who were 40 years and older were more negative than those below age 40.

So us old folks are more concerned about the effects on the young than are the actual young. This is interesting to me since I'm one who feels some concern about this move being bad for less experienced applicants.

I'll note the first few comments posted to Rockey's blog are not enthusiastic about the pilot data.

69 responses so far

What do you know, the NIH has not solved the revision-queing, traffic holding pattern problem with grant review.

Nov 14 2014 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

Way back in 2008 I expressed my dissatisfaction with the revision-cycle holding pattern that delayed the funding of NIH grants.

Poking through my pile of assignments I find that I have three R01 applications at the A2 stage (the second and "final" amendment of a brand new proposal). Looking over the list of application numbers for the entire panel this round, I see that we have about 15% of our applications on the A2 revision.

Oi. What a waste of everyone's time. I anticipate many reviewers will be incorporating the usual smackdown-of-Program language. "This more than adequately revised application...."

I am not a fan of the NIH grant revision process, as readers will have noticed. Naturally my distaste is tied to the current era of tight budgets and expanding numbers of applications but I think the principles generalize. My main problem is that review panels use the revision process as a way of triaging the review process. This has nothing to do with selecting the most meritorious applications for award and everything to do with making a difficult process easier.

ReviewBiasGraph1The bias for revised applications is supported by funding data, round-after-round outcome in my section as well as supporting anecdotes from my colleagues who review. ... What you will quickly notice is that only about 10% of applications reviewed in normal CSR sections get funded without being revised. ... If you care to step back Fiscal Year by Fiscal Year in the CRISP [RePORTER replaced this- DM] search, you will notice the relative proportions of grants being funded at the unrevised (-01), A1 and A2 stages have trended for more revising in concert with the budget flattening. I provide an example for a single study section here ... you will notice if you review a series of closely related study sections is that the relative "preference" for giving high scores to -01, A1 and A2 applications varies somewhat between sections. This is analysis is perhaps unsurprising but we should be very clear that this does not reflect some change in the merit or value of revising applications; this is putting good applications in a holding pattern.

In the mean time, we've seen the NIH first limit revisions to 1 (the A1 version) for a few years to try to get grants funded sooner, counting from the date of first submission. In other words, to try to get more grants funded un-Amended, colloquially at the -A0 stage. After an initial trumpeting of their "success" the NIH went to silent running on this topic during a sustained drumbeat of complaints from applicants who, apparently, were math challenged and imagined that bringing back the A2 would somehow improve their chances. Then last year the NIH backed down and permitted applicants to keep submitting the same research proposal over and over, although after A1 the clock had to be reset to define the proposal as a "new" or A0 status proposal.

I have asserted all along that this is a shell game. When we were only permitted to submit one amended version, allegedly the same topic could not come back for review in "new" guise. But guess what? It took almost zero imagination to re-configure the Aims and the proposal such that the same approximate research project could be re-submitted for consideration. That's sure as hell what I did, and never ever got one turned back for similarity to a prior A1 application. The return to endless re-submission just allowed the unimaginative in on the game is all.

Type1-2000-2013 graph-2
This brings me around to a recent post over at Datahound. He's updated the NIH-wide stats for A0, A1 and (historically) A2 grants expressed as the proportion of all funded grants across recent years. As you can see, the single study section I collected the data for before both exaggerated and preceded the NIH-wide trends. It was as section that was (apparently) particularly bad about not funding proposals on the first submission. This may have given me a very severe bias..as you may recall, this particular study section was one that I submitted to most frequently in my formative years as a new PI.

It was clearly, however, the proverbial canary in the coalmine.

The new Datahound analysis shows another key thing which is that the traffic-holding, wait-your-turn behavior re-emerged in the wake of the A2 ban, as I had assumed it would. The triumphant data depictions from the NIH up through the 2010 Fiscal Year didn't last and of course those data were generated when substantial numbers of A2s were still in the system. The graph also shows taht there was a very peculiar worsening from 2012-2013 whereby the A0 apps were further disadvantaged, once again, relative to A1 apps which returns us right back to the trends of 2003-2007. Obviously the 2012-2013 interval was precisely when the final A2s had cleared the system. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues even in the face of the endless resubmission of A2asA0 era.

So it looks very much as though even major changes in permissible applicant behavior with respect to revising grants does very little. The tendency of study sections to put grants into a holding pattern and insist on revisions to what are very excellent original proposals has not been broken.

I return to my 2008 proposal for a way to address this problem:


So this brings me back to my usual proposal of which I am increasingly fond. The ICs should set a "desired" funding target consistent with their historical performance, say 24% of applications, for each Council round. When they do not have enough budget to cover this many applications in a given round, they should roll the applications that missed the cut into the next round. Then starting the next Council round they should apportion some fraction of their grant pickups to the applications from the prior rounds that were sufficiently meritorious from a historical perspective. Perhaps half roll-over and half from the current round of submissions. That way, there would still be some room for really outstanding -01 apps to shoulder their way into funding
The great part is that essentially nothing would change. The A2 app that is funded is not going to result in scientific conduct that differs in any substantial way from the science that would have resulted from the A1 / 15%ile app being funded. New apps will not be any more disadvantaged by sharing the funding pie with prior rounds than they currently are facing revision-status-bias at the point of study section review....a great deal of time and effort would be saved.

11 responses so far

Top down or bottom up? NIH RFAs are a two-way discussion between Program and Investigators

One of the erroneous claims made by Steven McKnight in his latest screed at the ASBMB President's space has to do with the generation of NIH funding priorities. Time will tell whether this is supposed to be a pivot away from his inflammatory comments about the "riff raff" that populate the current peer review study sections or whether this is an expansion of his "it's all rubbish" theme. Here he sets up a top-down / bottom-up scenario that is not entirely consistent with reality.

When science funding used to be driven in a bottom-up direction, one had tremendous confidence that a superior grant application would be funded. Regrettably, this is no longer the case. We instead find ourselves perversely led by our noses via top-down research directives coming from the NIH in the form of requests for proposals and all kinds of other programs that instruct us what to work on instead of asking us what is best.

I find it hard to believe that someone who has been involved with the NIH system as long as McKnight is so clueless about the generation of funding priorities within the NIH.

Or, I suppose, it is not impossible that my understanding is wrong and jumps to conclusions that are unwarranted.

Nevertheless.

Having watched the RFAs that get issued over the years in areas that are close to my own interests, having read the wording very carefully, thought hard about who does the most closely-related work and seeing afterwards who is awarded funding... it is my belief that in many, many cases there is a dialog between researchers and Program that goes into the issuance of a specific funding announcement.

Since I have been involved directly in beating a funding priority drum (actually several instruments have been played) with the Program staff of a particular IC in the past few years and they finally issued a specific Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) which has text that looks suspiciously similar to stuff that I have written, well, I am even further confident of my opinion.

The issuance of many NIH RFAs, PAs and likely RFPs is not merely "top-down". It is not only a bunch of faceless POs sitting in their offices in Bethesda making up funding priorities out of whole cloth.

They are generating these ideas in a dialog with extramural scientists.

That "dialog" has many facets to it. It consists of the published papers and review articles, conference presentations, grant applications submitted (including the ones that don't get funded), progress reports submitted, conversations on the phone or in the halls at scientific meetings. These are all channels by which we, the extramural scientists, are convincing the Program staff of what we think is most important in our respective scientific domains. If our arguments are good enough, or we are joined by enough of our peers and the Program Staff agree there is a need to stimulate applications (PAs) or secure a dedicated pool of funding (RFAs, PASs) then they issue one of their FOA.

Undoubtedly there are other inputs that stimulate FOAs from the NIH ICs. Congressional interest expressed in public or behind the scenes. Agenda from various players within the NIH ICs. Interest groups. Companies. Etc.

No doubt. And some of this may result in FOAs that are really much more consistent with McKnight's charge of "...programs that instruct us what to work".

But to suggest that all of the NIH FOAs are only "top-down" without recognizing the two-way dialog with extramural scientists is flat out wrong.

15 responses so far

Rockey looking to leave the NIH

Nov 03 2014 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

It looks like Sally Rockey, Deputy Director in charge of NIH's Office of Extramural Research since 2005, is looking to depart the NIH.

and

show that she is on the short-list to become the next President of the University (system) of Nebraska. Other shortlist candidates are a state level commissioner of higher education, a State University President and a State University (system) chancellor.

In the US some State University systems (i.e., multiple campuses which act as semi-autonomous Universities) call their campus heads President and the System-wide leader the Chancellor whereas other systems reverse these titles. This job appears to be the system-wide leadership position. This explains why there are two system-level leaders in the hunt.

It also may influence your opinion on the appropriateness of someone who has been a research administrator her whole career being in the running for such a position. Obviously she is being looked at as some sort of Federal grant rainmaker/expert to upgrade the amount of money that enters the University of Nebraska system from the Federal government and possibly other sources. I cannot imagine why else such a person, with no related experience heading a University or University system would be on the shortlist otherwise.

The main point of this news can be summed up in this handy figure from Jimmy Margulies, New Jersey Record, who was commenting on a different topic. The point remains, however.
The NIH is a sinking ship. I suspect that the folks at NIH realize this and the ones who have opportunity to cash in on their authoritah! by finding a nice top level administrative gig at one of the supplicant Universities will do so. The have-not Universities which find themselves in the most difficulty obtaining NIH funding will be desperate to land a rain-maker and even the "have" Universities may see this as a good investment. Especially if you have an IC Deputy Director or better, you can argue that they have significant administrative experience within an organization not entirely unrelated to academics. It should be an easy sell for a search committee to make the argument for NIH insiders to be considered for University President positions, Deans of Research and the like.

Is it a smart move? Well yes, if you think that their will be some benefit to their insider status. If you think that the replacement figures and holdovers will take the calls of these NIH emigres and listen to the concerns of their new University.

UPDATE: This news account explains that an attempt to close a Nebraska open-records law was made when the previous President of the UN system resigned.

As the law stands now, candidates may be kept private until the search for a president is narrowed to a pool of at least four applicants, all of whom must be disclosed. The bill would have allowed search committees to keep confidential presidential, vice presidential and chancellor candidates until they’ve narrowed the pool to one finalist.

Proponents of the bill say a closed search would allow for a better pool of applicants, including those who may otherwise be hesitant to apply and jeopardize their current position by publicly seeking another one. Opponents say the current law allows for students, faculty, the general public and the media to meet, investigate and learn about the candidates.

Hadley introduced the bill on behalf of the University of Nebraska’s Board of Regents after President James Milliken announced last month that he would be leaving Nebraska to become chancellor of the City University of New York.

51 responses so far

Tenure expectations and PI dropout from NIH funding

Oct 31 2014 Published by under Careerism, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

Rockey's post on PI survival also had a graph on the persistence of PIs in submitting applications.

IMG_1135.JPG

She noted that the 1989 first-R01-equivalent folks dropped off in their grant submitting persistence around years 3-5 more than the younger cohorts.

A comment by qaz on the prior post of mine triggered a thought.

What about people who otherwise didn't really want or need a NIH R01 grant but it was a requirement for (or strongly supportive of) a tenure case?

If department expectations/preferences (for tenure or in who they hired in the first place) have changed since the late 80s, this could explain the difference in early drop-out, one-and-done rates across cohort.

19 responses so far

One-and-done NIH Grants: A bug or a feature?

Oct 29 2014 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

There is an interesting new survival analysis for PIs that have been awarded at least one R01 posted at RockTalk.

Briefly, what you are looking at is as follows:


We chose three cohorts of first-time R01-equivalent awardees — those who received their first R01-equivalent award in 1989, 1997, or 2003....We used data on these three cohorts for a Kaplan-Meier analysis to look at rates of retention. ...So we used this to analyzing the number of years between the first year of R01-equivalent funding, and the last time an individual receives any additional research project grant (RPG) funding – whether it be from the non-competing continuation of their 1st R01 or another RPG award.

The bulk of Sally Rockey's analytical comments focus on the sharp dropout associated with the first (presumed) interval of support, i.e., 3-5 years after the very first R01-equivalent award. And her conclusion seems to be that this is a problem that needs fixing.

These data seem to support the concept that if there is an intervention needed in retaining scientists in research, it would need to come at the renewal stage of the first award, or as some call it the “second” award. Indeed, we are giving increased focus to this stage through some of our new award mechanisms, such as the National Cancer Institute’s Outstanding Investigator award, and will continue to seek ways of keeping our talent from leaking out of the pipeline.

I am not sure that I agree with this general conclusion from the data presented.

Remember, we are talking system-wide statistics here, not the fate of your five closest colleagues, your training mentor or yourself.

The extreme case would be that once anyone manages to land an R01-equivalent award as a PI, that the NIH should move heaven and earth to keep them funded for the duration of their career. That is an arguable position, but I think it is wrong.

It is wrong for two reasons, which are related to each other. The first reason is that if we re-adjust the system to keep everyone in once they have entered, this will sharply reduce the entrants. It will reduce the number of people who get a chance to prove themselves. This may seem fine and dandy once you have passed the first-R01 hurdle yourself, but this is mind bogglingly forgetful of the position one was in before this and mind bogglingly arrogant in assuming you would have been one of the lucky few.

From a system perspective, this cuts down on scientific diversity. It cuts down on the ability to try out a range of scientific ideas and approaches to see which ones stick. It substitutes the limitations of advance prediction for the virtues of empirical testing.

This would also increase stagnation and slow progress. It would. When you have sinecure funding, I'm sorry but the pressures are not as high to be creative, productive and to diversity your scientific thinking. Yes, from our current vantage point of the amount of time spent securing funds versus doing the science, this may look better than the usual. But take the longer view here. Our competitive system has its virtues in terms of clearing out the dead wood and encouraging better efforts from those who are actively participating.

I think the real question here is the appropriate balance. The desired survival rate.

And we should be very clear that we expect there to be some amount of PI dropout.

Personally, I think that having the major reduction in PIs after the first interval of funding makes a lot of sense. Better than at year 11 or 16, for example. A given PI has had a chance to try out her ideas. He has been given the opportunity to show what he can do. Again, on a system-wide basis, some of these individuals are going to fail so badly that they are never funded again. Do recognize that many will suffer intervals of no-R01 and then come back. Datahound addressed that in a post earlier this year. But many will disappear. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it happen before the NIH has wasted another 5 year interval on them?

Now before I get too far down the path, I will recognize that this is only the start of the data analysis. We want to know a few more things about who is shelled out of the system, never to return, who is able to fight back in after a gap and who is able to sail along with continual funding. This will allow us to see what may be undesired effects or categories of PI/applications that we wish to specifically protect. Is this part of the perfect storm that hits women particularly hard? Human subjects research? Physician-scientist PIs? Ecology or sociology?

Nevertheless, when I look at these initial survival curves, I just don't see the problem that seems so obvious to Dr. Rockey. I don't see how this is the next problem that requires special fixes from the highest offices at NIH.

74 responses so far

Your Grant in Review: Follow the Reviewers' Style Guide

Oct 27 2014 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

The NIH grant application has a tremendous amount of room for stylistic choice. No, I'm not talking about Georgia font again, nor your points-leaving choice to cite your references with numbers instead of author-date.

Within the dictated structure of Aims, Significance, Innovation, etc, there is a lot of freedom.

Where do I put the Preliminary Data now that there is no defined section? What comes first in the Approach- Aim 1? The Timeline? A bunch of additional rationale/background? Do you start every Aim with a brief Rationale and then list a bunch of Experiments? Which methods are "general" enough to put them at the end of Aim 3?

Do I include Future Directions?

What about discussion of Possible Pitfalls and Alternate Considerations and all that jazz?

Is the "Interpretation" for each Aim supposed to be an extensive tretise on results that you don't even have yet?

In all of this there is one certainty.

Ideally you are submitting multiple applications to a single study section over time. If not that, then you are likely submitting a revised version of an application that was not funded to the same study section that reviewed it in the first place. Study sections tend to have an evolved and transmissible culture that changes only slowly. There is a tendency for review to focus (overfocus, but there you have it) on certain structural expectations, in part as a way to be fair* to all the applications. There is a tendency for the study section to be the most comfortable with certain of these optional, stylistic features of a grant application included in juuuust the way that they expect.

So, and here is the certainty, if a summary statement suggests your application is deficient in one of these stylistic manners just suck it up and change your applications to that particular study section accordingly.

Is a Timeline silly when you've laid out a very simple and time-estimated set of experiments in a linear organization throughout the Aims? Perhaps. Is it idiotic to talk about alternatives when you conduct rapid, vertically ascending eleventy science and everything you propose right now is obsolete by the time Year 2 funds? Likely. Why do you need to lead the reviewers by the hand when your Rationale and experimental descriptions make it clear how the hypothesis will be tested and what it would mean? Because.

So when your summary statement suggests a stylistic variant that you wouldn't otherwise prefer...just do it.
__
Additional Your Grant in Review posts.

*If the section has beaten up several apps because they did not appropriately discuss the Possible Pitfalls, or include Future Directions, well, they have to do it for all the apps. So the tendency goes anyway.

59 responses so far

Older posts »