<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Advice: Do I listen to those geezers or these disgruntled &#8220;not-made-it-yets&#8221;?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/advice-do-i-listen-to-those-geezers-or-these-disgruntled-not-made-it-yets/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/advice-do-i-listen-to-those-geezers-or-these-disgruntled-not-made-it-yets/</link>
	<description>biomedical research, just another job...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:20:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: drugmonkey</title>
		<link>http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/advice-do-i-listen-to-those-geezers-or-these-disgruntled-not-made-it-yets/#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>drugmonkey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/advice-do-i-listen-to-those-geezers-or-these-disgruntled-not-made-it-yets/#comment-99</guid>
		<description>Two good points from whimple. First, the Aims page is indeed the key part of your proposal and a GoodThing to get right. Second, the current-ness and quality of someone&#039;s experience is key to how you rank their advice. How close are they to your field? What has been his/her grant history (CRISP is your friend)? How well does advice match to the actual experience of investigators more like yourself (sci meeting BSing with peers is good)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two good points from whimple. First, the Aims page is indeed the key part of your proposal and a GoodThing to get right. Second, the current-ness and quality of someone&#8217;s experience is key to how you rank their advice. How close are they to your field? What has been his/her grant history (CRISP is your friend)? How well does advice match to the actual experience of investigators more like yourself (sci meeting BSing with peers is good)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whimple</title>
		<link>http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/advice-do-i-listen-to-those-geezers-or-these-disgruntled-not-made-it-yets/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>whimple</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/advice-do-i-listen-to-those-geezers-or-these-disgruntled-not-made-it-yets/#comment-98</guid>
		<description>Disclosure:  I&#039;m starting my 5th year as an Asst. Prof.  No R01 yet, but sending a resubmission in today.
Useful advice:  Find a senior person working vaguely in your field (doesn&#039;t have to be an exact match) who *just came back from study section* (any study section, but they must have as-of-today experience) and have them critique your Specific Aims page.  Keep hammering back and forth with them until they think this page is *perfect*.  Then write the grant.  Modify the Specific Aims page at the end of the process if necessary.  If this page is a problem, your grant is sunk.  In my experience, you won&#039;t be able to find anyone who will help you with the entire 25 page grant (that&#039;s asking for a lot of mentoring), but people won&#039;t mind really helping you out with ONE critically important page.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disclosure:  I&#8217;m starting my 5th year as an Asst. Prof.  No R01 yet, but sending a resubmission in today.<br />
Useful advice:  Find a senior person working vaguely in your field (doesn&#8217;t have to be an exact match) who *just came back from study section* (any study section, but they must have as-of-today experience) and have them critique your Specific Aims page.  Keep hammering back and forth with them until they think this page is *perfect*.  Then write the grant.  Modify the Specific Aims page at the end of the process if necessary.  If this page is a problem, your grant is sunk.  In my experience, you won&#8217;t be able to find anyone who will help you with the entire 25 page grant (that&#8217;s asking for a lot of mentoring), but people won&#8217;t mind really helping you out with ONE critically important page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
