Grants administrator = heartbreaker

Research and grant administrators often get a bad rap.  They are considered by many to be inflexible, difficult to negotiate with, and completely obsessed with following rules and regulations.  Today provides one example of why this is necessary.  In reviewing a very large, multi-million dollar grant proposal with multiple subcontractors, I realized that some of the proposed work does not meet the requirements of the Request for Applications (RFA).  The Project Director has only day to fix this problem.  Now, my choices here were to 1) allow it to go in anyway, knowing that it will hurt the application's score and possibly cause it to be rejected or 2) break the hearts of the individuals and organizations involved in the project by letting them know that their really interesting proposed work can't be included in the application.  What did I do in this situation?  (Cue the Mariah Carey song.)  Yes, I decided it was best to be a heartbreaker.  It is my obligation to make sure that every proposal that is submitted by my institution has a chance of getting funded.  I had to tell the group that the sections not following the rules of the RFA had to be changed or removed.  The response was a lot of disappointment, and probably some tears, but having 1 day to try to correct it is better than having no chance of getting funded. 

So again let me reiterate -  READ THE DIRECTIONS!!!  It will save you time, energy, and - yes - even some heartache.

A little academic humor - Suffering from college major remorse?

The headline of this article made me laugh out loud.  It discusses the benefits and pitfalls of several different college majors.  As parents prepare their children for the start of college in a little over a month, the article can provide some important discussion points.  Too often, students major in something that interests them without connecting it to an actual career and paycheck.  Perhaps some are destined to become perpetual graduate students, and some will head to college simply to get an MRS. degree.  However, it is important that, whether as parents or faculty advisors, we provide appropriate advice and guidance to all students that will prepare them to meet their goals. 

As a young college undergrad, I changed my major several times due to sort of an identity crisis during my freshman year.  Ultimately, I ended up majoring in psychology.  As I realized during my senior year of college, a bachelor's degree in psychology qualifies you to do pretty much...nothing.  Sure, there are some direct service positions that are appropriate for someone with this degree, but to get a higher-paying job that will enable you to buy a home and live comfortably, a graduate degree is pretty much a necessity.  I was thankful for my secondary major in biology, which helped to qualify me for different positions in the research and science world until I obtained graduate degrees and ultimately moved on to the grants administration field.  My point here is that, had someone spoken to me early on about what my degree would translate into in the real world, I may have made some different choices, such as pursuing a minor in business or undertaking a few more internships.  College is an expensive undertaking, and the last thing any aspiring student wants to do is spend thousands of dollars and be left with buyer's remorse.

Some things I will never understand...

Despite all of the hard work that goes into planning a grant proposal, hours of discussion, and review of a lengthy request for proposals, why do some people fail to actually manage to put together a coherent proposal?  When you start months in advance to put together a great proposal, why is it that at the last minute some people struggle to complete the proposal?  And why am I left repeating myself, and the same instructions and warnings, over and over again?  It is amazing that you can provide someone with all of the tools that they need to be successful, and they still act at the last minute as if a train is coming at them out of nowhere?  Lesson learned: perhaps some people are not capable of writing grant proposals.

Can't say it in 6 pages? Don't load up the Appendix!

The new NIH page limits that took effect in 2010 significant cut the length allowance for R01, R03, and R21 applications. This modification has proved difficult for some researchers to adapt to. For parent R01 proposals, what was previously a 25 page research plan is now cut down to 12 pages plus a 1 page aims section. There is much less space to get your point across and convince reviewers that your idea is the best, most innovative, and most worthy of their praise and ultimately NIH funding. This new page limit was created mainly to decrease the burden on reviewers, who devote hours of their time to reading and critiquing applications. The result, unfortunately, is that some researchers have decided to look for a way around the shorter page limits. Instead of following the rules, they prefer to try to sneak one past NIH and put extra information into other sections of the proposal. This is a terrible idea, and one that is sure to backfire and annoy reviewers. Perhaps the first place investigators seek to add extra information is in the Appendix section. Many years ago, placing materials in the Appendix was routinely done to avoid page limit requirements. NIH grew wise to this, however, and over the years began to more tightly regulate what can be included in the Appendix section. Now the instructions are very clear. Ignoring the instructions and trying to pull a fast one may be viewed as being unresponsive to the directions. In an agency that may refuse to score your application because you haven't followed proper font or margin requirements, do you really want to take a chance on including erroneous information in the Appendix?

Here are some excerpts from the SF424 instructions on the Appendix section:

• Only one copy of appendix material is necessary. Use the Add Attachments button to the right of this field to complete this entry.
• A maximum of 10 PDF attachments is allowed in the Appendix. If more than 10 appendix attachments are needed, combine the remaining information into attachment #10. Note that this is the total number of appendix items, not the total number of publications. When allowed there is a limit of 3 publications that are not publicly available (see below for further details and check the FOA for any specific instructions), though not all grant activity codes allow publications to be included in the appendix.
• Do not use the appendix to circumvent the page limits of the Research Strategy. For additional information regarding Appendix material and page limits, please refer to the NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-10-077.

Items that must not be included in the appendix:

• Photographs or color images of gels, micrographs, etc., are no longer accepted as Appendix material. These images must be included in the Research Strategy PDF. However, images embedded in publications are allowed.
• Publications that are publicly accessible. For such publications, the URL or PMC submission identification numbers along with the full reference should be included as appropriate in the Bibliography and References cited section, the Progress Report Publication List section, and/or the Biographical Sketch section.

I have seen researchers actually add entire sections to the Appendix to conform to the old sections A-D requirements.  If you write an extra section and include it in the Appendix, at best it will be ignored and not reviewed.  At worst, your application will be labeled nonresponsive to the requirements, and the entire application will be rejected.  This is not worth the risk.  Shorten your research plan and follow the rules like everyone else.