BINGO!!

It is not just new PIs who are frustrated with this random-mess. Some of us have come to the very considered opinion that the only logical response is the shotgun method in which one tries to get one’s applications in front of as many different reviewers and panels as possible. To revise and resubmit each one down to the A2. To create approaches of interest to as many of the ICs as one can. Etc.

This doesn’t mean shoot out a bunch of poorly written garbage apps, of course. You don’t EVER want to give a reviewer the idea that you are not taking his/her time seriously.

I don’t know that it has ever been any different but the inability of study sections to genuinely review R21s differently than they review R01s is a common criticism. Program is aware of this and partially offsets the problem by picking up R21s at scores that wouldn’t float an R01, of course.

“we pay all research costs, including about $50K worth of stipend and tuition per student per year, even though we are the ones teaching and mentoring them. So the university gets the prestige of an institution of advanced education and research, for pennies on the dollar.”

err, you do recall that the grant is awarded to your institution on behalf of you as PI, right? Technically, your grant is your university’s money.

I bet you wonder where your overhead $$ go too, don’t you?

On a related note, here at R1U, the university pays 50% or less of our salary and we pay all research costs, including about $50K worth of stipend and tuition per student per year, even though we are the ones teaching and mentoring them. So the university gets the prestige of an institution of advanced education and research, for pennies on the dollar. Hmmm, maybe I won’t apply for an R21 after all.

I propose a hypothetical grant experiment. In science we like to repeat things at least 3 times, right? If you submitted the exact same grant simultaneously (of course you cannot, but let’s imagine) say to 3 study sections essentially equally capable of reviewing it, how close would the scores be? What variables would determine how close the scores were to each other.

Variables (in no particular order)

–”friends” on the study section
–seniority of the applicant
–reviewer turnover
–current other funding (perceived need?)
–A0, A1, A2 (which would produce more variable score?)
–quality of the grant (does this even matter? No I’m not be facetious) Would a poor grant or outstanding grant result in more variable scores

What do you think? How would you arrange these variables and can you add others? Are any of these in our control?

I definitely agree with the sentiments. I would refine it a bit to suggest that if the R03 or R21 is being chosen as an alternative to the R01 then no, don’t do this. If, however, you have a full R01 app or two in process then it can be a good idea to spread out in terms of mechanism. Just make sure the ideas and plan really fit.

First, money is money after all. And if you happen to have a FTE position and cheapish research, even $50K for two years can be decent. Enough to get a pub, for instance and certainly enough to generate some really good prelim data. I’ve learned to work with R21 size efforts despite the fact that I’m soft money (so R21 cannot be a replacement for R01 in any real sense) and I have colleagues that at times have held something like 3 R21s simultaneously (which approximates small R01 money). So it can work and is not necessarily “cutting yourself off at the knees” depending on circumstance.

While for the most part PhysioProf has it right that panels have a pronounced tendency to review everything like an R01, there are exceptions. So you may get lucky and hit on that trio of reviewers that really gets what “Exploratory/Developmental” is supposed to mean. Or that hard acre SRO that pulls the panel into line. It can mean the difference.

You should have, in your mind, at any given point in time a series of R01, R21 and R03 type thoughts for research plans. If it is really an R21 type project, why try to tart it up as an R01? Reviewers will see through this. So that particular idea either has to wait for full development, prelim, etc or you can write an R21.

A consideration I’ve touched on before (see above link) is the fact that we still have people who think that new/young PIs should have “starter” grants. Should start with a dinky award to “prove” that they won’t “waste” it. Gak. Nevertheless, it is a reality. A PI I know just got some PO scuttlebutt from the review that emphasized this. It boiled down to “well geez, the applicant just got a first R01 funded, tell ‘em to settle down stop putting out so many apps and work on that project for awhile”. While this sort of crap makes the steam come out of my ears, it is a Fact o Life. People who think like this are more likely to look favorably on a smaller “second” grant than another big grant.

with respect to “derivative” submission, well the bottom line is that you can not have apps that are “substantially similar” (or some such verbage) under consideration at the same time. this should be no obstacle to anyone as far as I can see. The point is to simply take a sufficiently different tack that it is not obviously overlapping. So no, you can’t just transplant Aim 2! I just don’t see why it would be difficult to gin up a reasonably different approach to a similar project to fit R03, R21 and/or R01 type apps.

And keep in mind that this is a skill you may need to acquire for the “A3″ submission. “Hey wait, they don’t allow A3s”, you say. Well yes but what are you going to do when your A2 goes down in flames? Give up? Maybe. Or maybe you will retool it a bit and create a “new” application and take three more shots!

Not necessarily. Just like your application unpredictably got scored worse as an A1, even though you clearly improved it, it could get scored dramatically better as an A2, even if you don’t improve it that much.

“So, do I send the A2 to a study section that has never seen this application before, or do I rework the whole thing and have a do-over as a fresh 01 application?”

Neither. You might as well take one more shot with the current study section and take advantage of the “A2 bump”.

“If an A2 goes to a new study section, should I address explicitly in the introduction why I’ve sent it somewhere new?”

I wouldn’t try to get it sent to a new study section, as there it is not likely you will get the “A2 bump”, because the new study section will not consider itself to have an “investment” in the application.

“Should I break the R01 into pieces and submit a bunch of R03 and R21 applications instead?”

Absolutely not. Except under very special circumstances, R21 and R03 applications are a waste of time and effort. They take almost as much time and effort to write as an R01, are reviewed just as mercilessly, and in the end give you hardly any money and, thus, career advancement credit. And they can’t be renewed competitively. In order to advance your career, you need R01s, period.

“Is is allowable to both submit an R01 and derivative R03/R21 applications simultaneously?”

I’m not sure about this. Guaranteed Writedit knows.

“Since the application was unscored, there’s no discussion to summarize, so why doesn’t the SRA just release the comments directly? Didn’t the SRA get these comments in advance?”

The SRO (they’re now called Scientific Review Officers) needs to do at least a cursory review of the reviews to make sure that there is no inappropriate language or personally identifying information. From what I have been told, they are supposed to start with new investigators, and then go in priority score order. I’ll bet you’ll get the Summary Statement soon.

Here’s my situation: due to pressure from my chair to just get into the system, I submitted an 01 application while it was mostly ideas and not a lot of preliminary data. It scored badly (50+%) but it did get scored, with comments along the lines of: this is interesting, but you have to prove you can do it. For the A1 application, I got the experiments to work, had a pile of preliminary data, and got a high impact factor (10+) publication based on this new work. The A1 was triaged. Now what? I’m thinking it’s not going to be possible to go from a triaged A1 to a funded A2. The message I’m getting is that the study section is just not interested, or, at least the primary and secondary reviewers aren’t interested. The study section it went to however is very highly biochemical and mechanistic, and these experiments are more functional genetics than biochemical mechanisms. Based on roster lists, some input from other people, and a CRISP search of grants that individual study sections have funded in the recent past, I think I’ve identified a study section more likely to be receptive, but I still need to talk to the Program Officer about this.

So, do I send the A2 to a study section that has never seen this application before, or do I rework the whole thing and have a do-over as a fresh 01 application? For new investigators, revised applications can be rapidly resubmitted without missing a review cycle, whereas a new application would need to go in the review cycle after that, which is a consideration with startup funds running low.

If an A2 goes to a new study section, should I address explicitly in the introduction why I’ve sent it somewhere new? I think sending it back to the original study section is going to be a waste of everyone’s time and effort. Should I break the R01 into pieces and submit a bunch of R03 and R21 applications instead? Is is allowable to both submit an R01 and derivative R03/R21 applications simultaneously?

Frustratingly, it’s been a week since it was unscored, and still no critiques. Since the application was unscored, there’s no discussion to summarize, so why doesn’t the SRA just release the comments directly? Didn’t the SRA get these comments in advance? The delay is irksome and for a rapid turnaround grant every day is precious.