My R01 grant is being re-reviewed in two days, and I'm having a very hard time working on the safety protocol that I came in on a Saturday to work on, so instead I made a list of some of my thoughts and advice on R01 grant writing.
1. Just how focused
should my grant be? I got the advice
that I should really drill down into one specific aspect of my specific
topic. However, to have three aims going
in exactly the same direction is really tough, and it’s unlikely that a new PI
will have enough preliminary data to write an R01 this way. My R01 that was scored reasonably well had
all three aims on different aspects of the same protein, i.e.,
post-translational modifications, interacting partners, and enzymatic
activity. I did it this way because we
had really strong preliminary data on all three of these things, but if I were
to have made the entire grant about post-translational modifications, for
example, I would not have had enough preliminary data, and it would have been
very hard to make the aims independent of one another.
2. Should I propose
to use a mouse model that I need to make?
Noooo! You need to have it already made, unless you are the world’s
expert on making mice.
3. Can I use extra
space left over on my biosketch to address various concerns? Yes, the personal statement can be used to
highlight your training and accomplishments and also alleviate any concerns
that you think the reviewers might have.
I also addressed a reviewer critique regarding potential overlap with
another grant in the Research Support section of the biosketch.
4. Spend a lot of
time writing the “Environment” section of your grant. If you are not at Harvard, then you probably
need to make this section of your grant really, really strong. What people are in your department and
university who are working on complimentary things? What seminar series do the
various departments have? Who has spoken
in the past and who is scheduled that will be beneficial for your work? Is there a journal club or seminar series
specific to your research topic? If not,
start one! One of my colleagues actually
started a group on his topic for this exact reason, i.e., to be able to say on
grant applications that this awesome group exists making the environment here
really great. He called it the
Fill-in-the-blank-State Basketweaving Assocation and gave it a nice acronym
(FBA) and invites speakers once a month to come and give a seminar that are
teleconferenced to a few locations around the state.
5. Learn to listen to
your own mind. I can’t tell you how many
times other people have pointed out things in my grants where I then said to
myself, “you know, I have a problem with that too.” So then why didn’t I change it or write it
differently to begin with? Because I was
blocking out my own critical thinking, and as soon as somebody else pointed out
the problem, I couldn’t do that any more.
Or maybe it’s more wishful thinking that others won’t catch our gaps in
logic, but they always do. So when I’m
reading or writing my own work, anything that leaves me feeling a little iffy,
always gets extra time later on.
6. Get senior people
to read over all of your documents, especially people who have been on study
sections. This should be self-explanatory,
but the simple fact is that us new PIs don’t know all the tricks, triggers, and
fatal flaws that only experience can teach you.
7. Study sections. The list of standing members is available for
you to look at. What I didn’t realize is
that the NIH can ask ANYONE, especially those who are NIH funded, to be an ad
hoc member of the study section to review your grant. The list of who is actually going to be in
attendance at your study section becomes available online a few weeks before
the review occurs. I had no idea what ad
hoc really meant, and was absolutely shocked to see that my most direct
competitor was brought in to serve on the study section. I mean, they truly picked the single best
person possible to review my grant. I
wouldn’t necessarily have wanted him to be excluded from reading my grant, but
it really was a shock to see his name when I wasn’t expecting it. The point I
want to make is that in your cover letter you can ask certain possible reviewers
to be excluded. Now I’ve learned that
this list can literally include anybody, not just the standing study section
members. So if there is someone who is
untrustworthy in your field, or somebody who never likes your hypotheses, or
somebody who hates one of your past mentors, you can ask in the letter that
they not be a reviewer for your proposal.
I’m told that you only want to do this in extreme cases, but if you
truly have a scientific nemesis in your field who will never give you a fair
shake, then you probably should list them.
8.
Resubmissions. You need to
address every single comment. This is
advice I got from my senior colleagues, not necessarily what I took away from
my discussion with the Program Officer.
The PO focused on the major concerns, so that’s how I approached my
revision and the one page introduction that you are allowed to have for a
revision. This first draft of my
revision was not adequate. My colleagues
who have served on study sections told me that it is almost certain that I
would not have the same set of three reviewers.
Some study sections mandate that you have a new reviewer and also that
the primary reviewer not be the same person.
The new reviewers do not get to see your past submission, but they do
get to see the previous reviews. So in
addition to judging your grant on their own terms, they also look to see how
you addressed the previous critiques – all of them. And for those who did previously review your
grant, they are going to want to see that you took their concerns seriously –
all of them. My point here is that you
can’t pick and choose which critiques you address.
No comments:
Post a Comment