Grant Strategery

Sep 18 2012 Published by under Uncategorized

The second year is nothing like the first year. The first year you have this giant wad of cash and an empty lab, so what can you do but throw a lot of money around and fill that empty lab up with people, shiny equipment, and consumables? It must be done, and, let's be honest--it's really fun. Money is no object! Sometime over the spring and summer, though, the lab hits its stride a bit, and by Labor Day it's pretty clear what it actually costs to run your lab month-to-month. And HOLY SHIT STUFF IS EXPENSIVE. So you start freaking out that your startup's going to run out, and that you'll have to spend your summer salary to pay for antibodies and microscope slides, and queue up a number of grants in your to-do list.

I'm not yet at the point where I'm making my lab peeps recycle pipette tips, but I am thinking very seriously about my grant plan for the next couple of years. Getting the R21 right off the bat was nice, but it feels like those 2 years are flying by already, and I need to make sure there's a cushion waiting when we fly out the other end of it. Last week I submitted a proposal for a $300k foundation grant, and I had hoped to submit an R01 for October as well. However.

Do you remember back in the days of the long-form NIH grants, when the most exciting adjective you officially needed to be able to attach to your ideas was "Significant?" As in, Background and Significance? This work addresses a significant problem, ergo is worth funding. Then, when the format changed a few years back, we had to make our ideas "Innovative" as well. We were not only contributing to a significant problem, but we were doing it in the most clever and creative way. Now, it appears that Innovative is not enough. According to some conversations I've had with some official higher-ups about this RFA I was thinking about, the work can't simply be significant and innovative (as they agreed my idea was); it must be transformative.

Is it a failure of my training, my aptitude, my imagination, if I have no idea what a "transformative" project in my sub-sub field would look like? I hope not, because I'm pretty much at a loss, here. Now, there's nothing technically preventing me from submitting to this RFA anyway, but the question I've been grappling with today has been whether it's worth what it will take to get it out--putting it together to submit in 3-4 weeks, while at the same time teaching, preparing for SfN, and finalizing wedding stuff--when I've basically already been told there's no chance.

I know, I know. The only way to ensure you don't get a grant is not to apply. But with R01s, there's always next cycle. So the question is, can this one wait until February? And in fact, would it be better to wait until February anyway?

My (admittedly somewhat wishful) thinking is this: official word is that this RFA (which is exclusively for ESIs) has generated an unusually high amount of interest. Paylines are likely to be well under 10%. Between those odds and the suggestion that my project would fare better in a traditional R01 study section (not to mention my stress levels), I've pretty much talked myself out of submitting this round. My hope is that most other neuro ESIs will blow their wad on this RFA, and because study section meets in February, not submit another R01 until they get their summary statement from this so they can flip it back around to a standard A0, which would be June. I swoop in with my A0 in Feb, after having 4 months or so to lay the groundwork, get a few more feasibility figures, and  make it really, really tight. And perhaps there would be fewer ESI proposals in my group, giving me a particularly strong edge. Could it be advantageous to step out of sync with my peers? OK, I may be getting ahead of myself, here. But if it doesn't get funded, I should have my summary statement back in time to resubmit for July, and then I'm only a month behind where I'd realistically be if I'd submitted to the RFA.

To me, this seems like a potentially more successful and certainly less ulcer-inducing approach to my long-term grant plan. The funding climate is horrid, and I imagine there's a part of every scientist out there that sees each skipped deadline as a missed opportunity. But I'm not sure if applying to anything and everything is the best strategy for me. I'm not in a position where a 3-year bye on teaching and service was an option, so I have to budget my time a little more carefully, choose my funding opportunities based on more than just a shotgun approach.

Much of this job so far has been me following my instincts. Without question, I could put my nose to the grindstone and get this grant out for Oct 23, and it would probably be solid, if not transformative.  Or, I could wait four months, and use that time to write a better-than-solid grant, help my lab get some more techniques up and running, and get married without collapsing on the altar from exhaustion and stress. Though in an abstract sense I hate the idea of giving up on this RFA, in a real life sense I think my instincts are guiding me straight this time.

18 responses so far

  • Drugmonky says:

    A wedding is a good excuse to miss a grant deadline my friends

    • This! Because in 20 years from now you will remember your wedding, and whether your were exhausted from writing a grant and therefore not able to enjoy it to the fullest, but not whether you submitted grant A, B or no grant at all.

  • sciwo says:

    You have logic, emotion, and sheer limits of human endurance on the side of sitting this one out.

  • comrade physioprof says:

    You should submit for the RFA. It is ESI only, and you are in the same boat as your peers. Just use your imagination in explaining in the grant why what you are proposing is transformative.

  • miko says:

    Important to realize that no one at NIH speaks English and they just pick adjectives out of the SkyMall catalog when writing RFAs.

    Also, their imaginations have to be removed to make room for installing their PDF design skills module, which was designed by the Kenneth Branagh character in Wild Wild West and is powered by a mouse wheel. So, pretty cumbersome, leaving no room to put the imagination back in.

    The upshot: it can be transformative... sorry, "transformative"... for whatever reason you want.

  • Namnezia says:

    I agree with CPP here, definitely go for the RFA, your chances are always better especially since this is tailored for ESIs doing behavioral neuroscience. You're almost there, so don't give up!

    Alternatively, you could ask the PO if this RFA will have future rounds.

    • Dr Becca says:

      There is another round for this RFA, Oct 2013.

      Are my chances better? I kind of feel like my chances are only as good as however many other ESIs decide to submit to this, no? And since it's an RFA and they have a specific amount of $$ set aside, they're funding 5 grants whether they get 50 or 100.

      • Namnezia says:

        You're always better off when the pool of applicants is limited, in my opinion. Because all of these folks will also be submitting for regular R01s, where the funding rate is likely to be even lower and the playing field is not necessarily level.

        Plus, with an RFA you know the POs are already interested in that specific field and set of approaches.

        Then again, if your sanity is at stake, then you might as well wait for next year.

  • Bucke uppe and submit the motherfucker!

  • Chris says:

    Grant funding a bureaucratic process, Transformative is simply the latest in a string of ever-more-impressive-sounding buzzwords whose sole purpose in existence is:

    1) Originally; someone justified the use of this word in describing their research. This caused their grant proposal to stand out to the person who read it.

    2) More people realized that this verbiage makes your grant more likely to get approved. Meanwhile, if the buzzword sounds sufficiently impressive (such as transformative; which is suggestive of massive technological leaps and bounds); grant proposals thusly described get approved at a disproportionate rate.

    3) Eventually, only proposals with that descriptor will get approved because the decisions are made by people and people are psychologically fallible ("The last 7 grant proposals describe transformative technologies; how can I approve this one if it is only significant and innovative").

    Basically, this is a psychosocial obstacle, not a technological or scientific one.

  • CE says:

    Call me if you need a subcutaneous injection of coffee. ((DrB))

  • becca says:

    Explain how it is not MERELY transformative but will positively REVOLUTIONIZEZ THE FIELD!!!11!!!1!!!!! and get on with it. There are shittier PIs doing more ho-hum science who are more convinced they are the awesomest thing since CPP (ok, yeah, there are also good and decent people not getting funded. It's a weird world. But if you focus on the later, you'll never write anything).

    Seriously though, if the reasoning you've applied to this problem is post-hoc rationalization (not the same as "untrue"!) and you don't have it in you, there's no point in feeling guilty. But if if you really advice based on the logical thing for your career, you should always ignore who will be in the pool. It's not worth the headache, and the way you'll consider how you stack up is likely to be fraught with imposter syndrome and gendered thinking and other irrationalities. If you're gonna be stuck with irrationalities, go for the ones that suggest you have the Ideal Chance.

  • Dr. Cynicism says:

    Oh how NIH loves its buzz words. I remember "translational," "foundational," and how I had to use variations of the word "enthusiasm" like 659 times when I was on a grant review committee.

  • Brooksphd says:

    Advice I was given, finding myself in a somewhat similar situation right now with a U19 and an R21 due a week apart, was to postpone the R21 and submit a strong app next cycle.

    Someone mentioned, "Don't submit something sub-par because sub-sub fields are small and its easy to get a bad name by submitting shit."


  • Drugmonky says:

    Candid still exists???!

Leave a Reply