January 3, 2013

If I do not have any idea, within about three sentences into your Specific Aims page, what model systems, subjects and broad experimental approaches are going to be in your proposal you are seriously screwing up your grantsmithing.

…are holding steady, according to Sally Rockey.

18% for R01 and 14% for R21 applications. Center applications enjoy a nice 33% success rate*.

Application numbers are up….no surprise there. Too many mouths at the trough, not enough slop.

UPDATE: Going from her link, Rockey meant RPG success rates (at 18%), not just R01s.
2012R01success[click, then click again to embiggen]

It’s just amazing how Rockey fails to mention how this is down from the 2006-2009 plateau just above 20% and the 1998-2002 plateau above 30% isn’t it?

Looking back on these data, the first thought that comes to my mind is, “We made it.” Despite a flat budget and complex fiscal times, we maintained last year’s success rate and slightly increased the amount of award dollars that went to research project grants.

That ain’t the first thing that comes to my mind, o fearless leader of Extramural Research.

Why on earth the NIH wants to tell Congress “We’re doing okay”, when in fact the situation sucks, escapes me. They can’t “lobby” but this doesn’t mean they can’t provide the fullest picture at all possible times does it? I mean, how is saying “everything’s peachy” by only comparing to last year any less “lobbying” than saying “we’re way way down from the good years”?
*o rly? Interesting. Even accounting for a high continuation : new application ratio, this seems quite favorable.