December 31, 2010
There are four real applications from real PIs posted for your education. Please note that
“The text of these applications is copyrighted. It may be used only for nonprofit educational purposes provided the document remains unchanged and the PI, the grantee organization, and NIAID are credited.”
I had the following response in a comment:
I am always uncertain of the value of posting sample grants that happened to score in the excellent range because it gives an inaccurate view of the process to newcomers. I would be highly interested in seeing you cherry pick some apps in the 18%ile range that had similar grantsmithing excellence (and I know for certain there are plenty) and show where they failed to make the cut and/or were so obviously worse than the examples you show here.
Not to run down these PIs, not at all. It is just that it is counterproductive to always insist that the only factor keeping excellent grants from a fundable score is grantsmithing.
And I do have this as a serious concern with this approach; this is not the first NIH IC to provide a sample application for newcomers. These NIAID ones all scored well, in the 2-7%ile range. This is the likely-fundable range of scores. My longer term readers will recall that it is my position that the grantsmithing that distinguishes a 4%ile from a 14%ile grant is…irrelevant. My bet is that they could have easily put up a few selected near-miss applications and similarly noted (the pdfs are annotated with comments) the excellent grantsmithing. Similarly, you can go through these awEsomeZ! applications and find sections that violate fairly basic grantwriting advice.
For example I just started glancing through Striepen’s Specific Aims (pdf).
Specific Aim1: Dissect the mechanism of apicoplast protein import.
Specific Aim2: Understand the function of the apicoplast ubiquitination pathway.
Specific Aim 3: Discover a comprehensive set of apicoplast proteins and characterize their function.
“Dissect“, I can almost live with. But “Understand the function” and “Discover a comprehensive set..”? Helllloooo. Fishing Expedition StockCritique off the starboard bow, Cap’n!
The “Innovation” section is a paragraph (full app pdf) and starts off:
We would like to argue that our project has been highly innovative and we expect it to continue to be innovative. Innovation in this project is evident in the topic of the research, the concepts and hypotheses to be tested, and the approaches to be used. The apicoplast as a research topic has produced a truly new way to think about Apicomplexa that now permeates our view of their metabolism, development and cell biology. Studying the apicoplast has brought together biologist focused on different organisms that previously had little contact. This cross-fertilization has let parasitologists to consider
“We would like to argue“? Are you kidding me with this passive voice nonsense? And five sentences in without a single specific, nonBSing bit of concrete innovation to latch on to?
The section ends with more passivity.
We feel that overall this investment has paid off (at times in unexpected ways) and that taking the risk to develop new approaches in the future will
keep our experiments fresh and will allow us to ask deeper and deeper mechanistic questions.
Keep in mind that this one is a Year 6 competing continuation application. Now, I’m not saying that it is bad to try to cover up a meandering research program type of application as best you can. Yes we have a tension between the formal project-based approach of the NIH funding system and what is in many cases a de facto program-based funding approach. In this case it is obvious that the productivity in the prior funding interval (or the lab generally) has the reviewers on board to the tune of a 6%ile score. They like the research program, in other words.
But this is by no means a good “Innovation” section. It, in a word, sucks. From a generalized, grantsmithing-advice perspective I mean.
You don’t have to take my word for it, the first reviewer essentially said this in his/her critique. This person found the research to be innovative but said, in essence, that you can’t tell this from the Innovation section of the application. That’s what this bullet point means.
The technological aspects and biological insights that are innovative could have been better highlighted by the investigator.
To be clear, I’m not picking on this application specifically. My bet is I could find similar violations of standard grantsmithing advice in the other ones. And similar things that were noted in the comments on these examples to laud about other applications which scored outside of the money.
There are good features here but Dear Reader I beg you, don’t take these as some sort of GospelTruth template to your glorious funded future.
December 25, 2010
Wishing a very merry day to all of my readers who celebrate Christmas!
Although it was narrow going at the wire, I’m pleased to report that all members of the DrugMonkey household appear to have made the Nice list. I’m sure you did as well, DearReader.
December 23, 2010
A recent funding opportunity announcement from the NIH Guide caught my eye. PAR-11-086 is for “NIAID Science Education Awards (R25)”, the purpose of which is described as follows:
This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) encourages applications from organizations that focus on the development of science education for K-12 students. It is expected that these education programs will provide outreach to a large audience of students at a national level, directly or through their teachers, using approaches where successes can be measured.
Emphasis added. Despite the fact that these R25 mechanism awards have been used by the NIH for a long time and did not even remotely imagine the use of currently available new media and internet technologies, there is an obvious fit. For my audience. For those of you who already use blogs or even YouTube or Facebook, to disseminate scientific information.
Upside in this particular announcement includes the use of standard receipt dates for the application (I’ve seen some NIH ICs that use a once-per-year, nonstandard receipt dates so check your IC’s announcements that use the R25 mechanism.) You may request up to $175,000 per year in direct costs and propose up to 5 years of support.
Are you listening yet, my friends?
There is one obvious trouble spot, since measuring the “success” (aka, any impact or influence on knowledge) of scientific blogging is not an easy task. Still, it isn’t as though this is a novel requirement or goal for websites and similar Internet based resources. There already exist ways to try to measure impact. And as you know, sometimes in the NIH grant writing game all that you need to do is provide nominal cover for favorably-disposed reviewers. You know those annoying polls that pop up on websites now and then? I seem to notice them at NIH websites with some frequency. Of course, I just close them but if this is the accepted way to monitor web impact, easy-peasy. Those who have prior experience doing brief post-seminar “evaluation” surveys can probably whip something up in SurveyMonkey or PollDaddy in a trice.
This particular FOA is directed at the K-12 primary and secondary school age groups. I’ll point out that not all FOAs that I’ve seen using the R25 mechanism are limited to this particular audience. So you may find something that fits better with an audience that is of most interest to you under another FOA.
December 17, 2010
The goodbye post is here, stop by and drop a note of thanks.
I’ve certainly enjoyed reading her perspectives over the past several years and I know many of you have as well. Whether you’ve agreed, disagreed or had other reactions it has been a quintessential life-in-academia type of blog….and a good one.
As my reader’s know, I’m all about the differing viewpoints. I feel quite strongly that none of us gets more than a tiny pinhole of a window on so-called objective reality. It is through listening to the experiences of others that we best broaden our view and especially when it comes to academic careers, this is a very good thing.
Personally, of course, I’m grateful that MsPhD getting all angry about this blog post of mine at my original WordPress home really accelerated my audience.
My post was published at the end of August, 2007 and hers appeared in early September so the data are relatively clean. Naturally her fellow disgruntledocs came over to beat me up and, well, …you know how much PP and I enjoy that sort of discussion. I think you can see the sustained effect, not atypical for new blogs.
Getting back to the question of perspectives and “truth”, MsPhD’s current post includes this comment:
Between being completely sidelined by other bloggers who act like I’m just too crazy to be right,
At least from my point of view this is not the issue. I am familiar with at least one PI out of whose lab a person could easily have the experiences as described by MsPhD in the course of her blogging. The question is rather whether these situations are common to all of science or are relatively rare. I certainly come down on the side of rarer-than-described-by-MsPhD and that has led to numerous of our disagreements. I also feel that there are always steps one can take to advantage oneself in a bad training environment and I clearly have a lot of company in this among the science-blogs and associated commentariat. Therein lay much opportunity for discussing common problems in academic careers and we should all be grateful to MsPhD for being the focal point for so many good discussions.
Although I’m a latecomer to YFS, I still regret that the commentary, particularly on her blog, was at times fairly personal and also that MsPhD appears to take every generalization of her scenarios as personal. Personally, I tried to make it clear where I was generalizing the situation but that doesn’t always work, particularly when one perceives that one is a target. Clearly she’d been having similar discussions long before I even found science blogs, so it isn’t like it is anyone’s fault in particular. Ultimately there is only so much generalizing one can do when launching from a personal anecdote. Still, it is important in all of this to recognize and extract the general career advice that emerges from the various discussions. I would advise all readers, old and new, of the various excellent discussions sparked by MsPhD to try to view debates as a contrast of experiences and viewpoint, rather than a contrast of personalities or individuals.
Happy trails, MsPhD. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.
December 16, 2010
I happened to be on a journal’s website trying to download a paper just recently when I noticed the following prominent icon.
C’mon now. Why bother? 2.8 is perfectly respectable, I’m not capping on that. But you’d think they’d have some logic in there to forgo the bragging icon if the change was less than, say, a full point.
December 16, 2010
If there is one thing that reliably pisses me off it is the reality that our Nation’s capital city has a NFL football team named the “Redskins”. I mean seriously. Our Nation’s. Damn. Capital.
Every time I get super pissed off, you know what I do? I go buy some logo wear from my favorite college intramural team.
Still time to get stuff shipped by Christmas! Buy a few items for your favorite ‘
ggers, whoops, ‘skins fan.
For background, see the Fighting Whites Facebook page.
December 15, 2010
This is a repost of something I originally put up at my blog. It is still relevant. It is always relevant.
it comes from the Wikipedia on the top marginal US tax rates from 1913-2009.
When did our fair country experience wonderful growth, prosperity, expansion of the middle class and overall good economic shit? When did we have recession, division into haves / have-nots and other bad things? hmmm?
dumb ass trailer park republican voters are to blame for this shit.