3 Things to do While Waiting for Your Grant to Get Reviewed

You worked hard, followed all of this blog's advice, and submitted your best work for the proposal deadline.  Now it is time to...wait....and wait some more....for months.  Given the gap of 10 months or more that can occur between proposal submission and funded project, it is important that you resist the urge to rest on your laurels and coast through the next year of teaching, working on other projects, or staring out the window fantasizing about your plans for the grant.  Likewise, this is not the time to take an extended vacation, as tempting as this might be: 

Consider this: Your chances of receiving funding on any proposal, especially during the first submission, are extremely low.  Don't believe me?  Look at the NIH grant success rates.  Given these dim statistics, what's a scientist to do?  Here are some suggestions.

1. Get to work!  Instead of waiting around and potentially waiting a year to find out you have been rejected and will need to start the process all over again with an A1 submission, be proactive and start working on the next grant proposal. 
2. Analyze and Publish Data.  If you have previously completed studies or datasets waiting to be analyzed, make the time to complete your analysis and get some papers written and submitted.  If your grant is not funded, you will have more publications to use to enhance your biosketch, especially if the publications are relevant to your proposed project. 
3. Stay Current.  Read new publications in your field and network with other scientists.  Keeping tabs on your particular niche will help you to find out what others are doing and planning.  If your grant proposal is not funded, you may be able to approach some of these people and ask them to serve as collaborators or consultants.  Or perhaps you may learn that some of the methods and techniques you have been using are outdated.  Any of this will be helpful knowledge if you must work on a resubmission. 

The Society of Research Administrators conference can help scientists too

September 29th through October 3rd, the Society of Research Administrators International (SRA) is holding their annual national conference in Orlando, Florida at the Gaylord Palms.  This conference offers a broad range of educational sessions related to the field of research administration (i.e. the people who edit, review, process, and submit your grant applications).  While sessions such as those related to cost principles or OMB circulars may have no relevance to you as a researcher, other sessions may be helpful.  For example, many sessions are designed for pre-award administrators and include topics such as Proposal Budget Development and Subcontracting on Federal Grants.  True, you may not need to understand all of the intricacies involved in, say, sending subcontract funds to researchers in Italy.  However, understanding the processes behind what you are doing and the rules and regulations that bind your research administration staff can help you to plan better proposals and budget more reasonably.  It will also help to prevent those pesky calls from your grants office letting you know that you have misread the instructions and need to cut your budget in half. 

If your department budget allows, consider making the trip to Orlando to participate in this conference.  If you are unable to budget for the trip using work funds, consider incorporating the conference into a trip to nearby amusement parks.  The conference is located in close proximity to Walt Disney World, Universal Studios, and Sea World, as well as many other area attractions.  The weather in Florida in October is typically beautiful.

How can I get a copy of my submitted proposal?

Are you looking for a copy of the proposal that you just submitted for the June deadlines?  If you would like one big, easily printable PDF that is easier to navigate than cumbersome SF424 application packages, try logging into the NIH era commons.  If you are the PI, you can view your submitted proposal in a large, indexed PDF that includes all pages of the budget and all ancillary documents.  Keeping tabs on your proposal in the era commons will also allow you to view the assignment information for your proposal.  This is your chance to find out if your proposal was assigned to the section that you requested, as well as the date when it will be reviewed.  From this point on, the commons will be the best source of information about your proposal and its progress through the review process.

The worst personal statement ever

The relatively new Section A: Personal Statement on NIH biosketches is still a mystery to many aspiring researchers.  Aside from questions regarding whether to write in first or third person or whether to restate degrees when they are already listed above, many people just have no idea what to write.  This is tough in general.  How can anyone easily sum up their life experience and career achievements in one or two paragraphs?  However, there are some basics that should be included in the personal statement.  First and foremost, don't forget to describe your experience related to the subject matter being proposed in the application.  If you are an expert in social sciences research and the proposed project is focused on the study of penguin births, how is your experience relevant?  What are you bringing to the project?  If you can't easily tie your expertise to the proposed project's subject matter, how can you expect a reviewer to do this?

So, what makes for a bad personal statement on an NIH biographical sketch?  Here are some things to avoid:

• Failure to adequately link your expertise to the proposed project
• Incorrectly explaining the project and its aims
• Listing information that is included elsewhere in the biosketch without providing any elaboration or supporting information
• Referring to yourself in a way that appears too egotistical (i.e. I am well-known for my work in...)
• Leaving out your important contributions to the field.  Reviewers may not all be in your exact subject area.  Don't assume that everyone has heard of you! 
• Allowing the PI to write your personal statement and not reviewing it.  Take some ownership of it and brand yourself in the way that you would like to come across to reviewers.  Don't leave it in someone else's hands where it may potentially be thrown together and/or look sloppy.
• Failure to be consistent about whether you are writing your biosketch personal statement in first or third person.  If the 1st vs. 3rd question still perplexes you, read this.  Ultimately, pick one or the other and stick with it.

Resubmitting your unfunded proposal? Here is some advice on writing A1s.

NIAID provides great advice to grant applicants that can be universally applied.  The best advice I can give those of you who are still frantically working on revising your previous submissions for the resubmission deadline is located here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/qa/pages/unfunded.aspx  It has some great information on what you need to include, how to identify problems with the previous submission, how to mark changes, and whether or not you should appeal. 

Are you complying with the NIH Public Access Policy?

If you are frantically working on your proposal for the June deadline and have no idea what I am referring to, it is time for you to take a crash course in the NIH Public Access Policy.  Essentially, this policy requires that publications the result from NIH-funded research projects be made available to the public in PubMed Central.  NOTE: PubMed and PubMed Central are 2 different databases.  Compliance with the policy includes listing PMCID numbers, when applicable, in your grant reference list and on your biosketch.  Some points to note when deadline with the Public Access Policy:

• DO review the NIH guidelines and determine which publications much comply with the policy. 
• DO check copyright agreements before submitting any manuscripts to PMC. 
• DO submit papers to PMC if publications result from NIH-funded research. 
• DO include PMCIDs in citations. 
• DON'T include PMIDs in citations in place of PMCIDs. 
• DON"T ignore this policy!  Failure to comply can result in failure to receive funding!

New study: Child CT scans can raise brain cancer risk

Though it may not seem surprising to some, a new study out of Cambridge has shown that Child CT scans can raise brain cancer risk.  According to the authors, children who undergo between 5 and 10 CT scans may be 3 times more likely than children who have not had the scans to develop leukemia.  Given the recent push in the U.S. toward more testing and evaluation of head injuries during sports activities, this may create some hesitation by parents to have their children scanned.  However, the neurological risks associated with head injuries and repeat concussions may far outweigh the risk of developing leukemia in some children.  This study, which has received considerable press, is going to create some interesting debates. 

Words most overused by scientists to annoy reviewers

I was reading this funny article today about the overuse and misuse of the word "literally".  It was funny not only because I see this happening so often in communication, but also because one person I know continues to use the word "figuratively" in place of the word "literally".  It drives me a little crazier each time I hear it, but he is someone that I would not dare to correct.  The article made me think about some of the overused words that come up often in science writing and grant proposals.  Obviously, there are some words that just can't be avoided.  Significant, innovative, hypothesis, conclusion, objectives, aims, goals, and several others are included out of necessity.  Other repeat offenders, however, come up so often that one wonders if the Thesaurus function even still exists in Microsoft Word.  Examples of words that should be banished from the vocabulary of all aspiring researchers include:

• aspire - as in "This project aspires to cure diabetes in elephants."  I aspire to be a millionaire someday.  Or one of Angelina Jolie's kids.  Either way, the word has no place in your grant proposal. 
• ground-breaking - as in "This ground-breaking project will cure cancer and make rainbows appear in the sky."  This is a serious claim to make and unless you are Allison Dubois and know for certain that you can back up the huge claims you are making in your application, you should avoid the use of this word.  It conveys a sense of ego that you do not want to put into the mind of a reviewer.
• utilize - as in "Research support staff will utilize the SAS program to perform data analysis."  They won't be utilizing it.  They will just be using it.  Don't try to make it sound fancy.
• examine - as in "Samples will be examined for color and clarity."  There are many other synonyms that can be used in place of this word.  Use a thesaurus to come up with some instead of peppering your text with examinations. 

What are some other examples of overused words that should be banished to a deserted island?

Research Strategy consists of 3 major sections ONLY

The Research Strategy section of the proposal consists of 3 major topics: Significance, Innovation, and Approach.  These can be done lumped together with aims underneath, or individually, grouped by aim.  For example:

Aims underneath:

Significance

• Aim 1
• Aim 2
• Aim 3

Innovation

• Aim 1
• Aim 2
• Aim 3

Approach

• Aim 1
• Aim 2
• Aim 3

By Aim:

Aim 1

• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach

Aim 2

• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach

These are the only 2 options requested by NIH.  And they make sense, since they correspond to the new review criteria.  So why, pray tell, is it so difficult to get investigators to break from old habits?  I have seen many people who still resort to the old A through E sections from years ago.  They balk at the suggestion that they need to eliminate their 2 page "Background/Preliminary Studies" section and incorporate preliminary study information into their Approach section.  I know that old habits die hard, but when we have seasoned scientists with bad habits teaching their incorrect methods to the new generation of young graduate students and junior faculty, it can cause some serious problems.  If you are being mentored in your proposal writing by someone who has been around NIH funding for a while, no matter how well-funded they may be, it is good practice to always read the directions and make sure that you are following them appropriately.  Just because someone has had grant funding since the Golden Girls were a primetime staple does not mean that they are up on the latest changes in application guidelines.