During my rant the other day about not being funded (again) for a new investigator grant, I mentioned that the fucknut reviewers who had failed to see the brilliance in my recent proposal noted that I had not received any independent funding and that I had only shown preliminary data to demonstrate that 75% of my specific aims would be proven.
After reading the comments and then talking to a friend/colleague who is also struggling to get funded, I started to wonder exactly what is required for a new PI to get funded and if there is any inherent bias in reviewers’/study sections’ recommendations based on what’s in the applicant’s biosketch.
So here are the questions:
1. Evidence of prior funding
If you are reviewing a proposal from a new PI, how much weight do you give prior or existing sources of support? Does a pre-doctoral fellowship matter at all? How about a post-doctoral fellowship? Small institutional grants? Sub-R01 NIH grants (eg R15, R21)? If any/all of these do influence your decision, is it in a negative or positive way?
My obvious bias in this instance is that, unless the funding is for an independent mechanism (ie not a fellowship), it shouldn’t be taken into consideration at all. After all, most PIs have already commented that it is appropriate for students and postdocs to use existing preliminary data and research ideas from their respective labs when writing fellowship applications which means that these sources of funding aren’t of the independent variety.
But if it is independent, should reviewers look more favourably on a previously-funded PI when deciding on new investigator grants or when there is an increased payline for such individuals? Doesn’t this help perpetuate the “lets give Prof Greybeard another R01 because he’s already proven he can deliver the goods” situation?
2. Quantity of preliminary data
I know I’ve broached this subject before but it continues to rear it’s ugly fucking head in my grant reviews even though I have a ton of data to support my proposed experiments. How much is enough? How much is too little?
In their “Statement of Commitment to New and Early Stage Investigators”, the NIH states that “peer reviewers will be instructed to focus more on the proposed approach than on the track record, and to expect less preliminary data than would be provided by an established investigator.” But is this really the case? Is this just bullshit lip service given by the NIH to make it seem as though they are "doing the right thing" by new PIs? Do study sections really give new PIs a break when it comes to preliminary data? And if so, how much “less preliminary data” is acceptable? Or is this too difficult to judge objectively and is this only done subjectively on a case-by-case basis?
Starting your own lab takes time and the pressure is on to start submitting Big Ass Grants as soon as possible but there is a need for data to be able to at least show that some of what you propose to do is feasible and/or substantiated. Some of us were fortunate enough to have postdoc mentors that allowed us to collect preliminary data before starting on the TT but this is often in the same/similar field/direction as the mentor’s work. The data I collected during this time is what has formed the basis for the two proposals I’ve been plugging to the funding agencies but I have another idea that I want to try that will involve substantial work in my lab in order to generate the data – if the idea pans out, it will be groundbreaking and extremely novel but will take time to develop. If I were to send in an R01 application outlining my awesome ideas backed up by existing literature but with no preliminary data, wouldn’t I would be laughed out of the study section and have my name included in the “no fucking clue” list?
3. Pedigree of grad school/postdoc lab/TT school
Does any of this really make a difference when applying for independent funding? If a new PI from Butt Fuck U writes a grant that blows everyone away with the science will that be considered any differently from a mediocre grant from a new PI at Famous Ivy School who did her postdoc with Prof Nobel Prize Winner? I’m just wondering. There were no comments in my recent reviews to suggest this was the case although one of the reviewers was clearly confused as to which school I was actually working at (couldn’t even get that right could you, you fucking moron?).
Anyway, I’m just interested in the how’s and why’s of these points and, as always, welcome any comments, particularly from those who actively review grants and sit on study sections …
Music Monday: Bear-y good tunes for the science.
40 minutes ago
7 comments:
(1) Evidence of successfully competing for previous funding is a positive, assuming that you made productive use of that funding (i.e., published well).
(2) "If I were to send in an R01 application outlining my awesome ideas backed up by existing literature but with no preliminary data, wouldn’t I would be laughed out of the study section and have my name included in the “no fucking clue” list?"
You would almost certainly be triaged, but there is no "no fucking clue" list.
(3) Yes, your pedigree makes a difference.
1) As CPP said, yes this can help. I advise, when first starting out, applying for every small grant out there that fits your work (as well as the R01's). Yes, it's the R01's that will get you tenure, but a couple of small grants early on can get you the R01. It's a funding track record. Small grants also help keep the lab going until you land the R01. And yes, I realize your recent rant was probably aimed at a smallish grant program...
2) I have a "no fucking clue" list, but it doesn't come from, nor is it applied to, reviewing proposals.
3) It shouldn't matter, but it can. This one is very, very reviewer-dependent (I have a slight bias against Ivy-leaguers :-) ). A good publication record can overcome what might look like an ordinary pedigree.
In the end you only have control over 1) and 2), so it's really not worth worrying about 3).
As is rarely the case, in this instance I agree with CPP.
But in theory you should be okay- since you had enough pedigree to get a faculty position in the first place, right?
See also the article (I think it was in Nature?) detailing the statistics on how women have lower rates of success getting funding.
Might be worth it to submit using only your initials if your Real First Name is recognizably girly.
And p.s. don't tell me you've never experienced any sexism.
1) Of course it helps...having fellowships/small grants/etc. makes it easier to get grants.
2) My grad school PI would send in a grant with everything basically done. My post-doc mentor would send in grants with basically nothing done...but showing that it was all feasible. So, there is a range that works. I think, actually I hope, that reviewers of new investigators focus on feasibility rather than doing everything in the grant before funding it.
3) Of course it matters. Anybody who says otherwise is full of shit. But, this isn't all about being from a CELL NATURE SCIENCE lab. There are lots of well respected people in different fields, that are respected because they do GOOD SOLID SCIENCE.
OK, it may not amount to anything in the end, but if I were you I would write a letter to the program director, expressing your displeasure with the process, explaining in detail your misgivings with what the reviewers said, pointing out how the reviews are inconsistent with the stated guidelines. At the end I would also state unambiguously that you understand that the process is competitive and the chance of getting funded are slim even in the best scenario -- still, given the amount of time that it takes to write a proposal, you are going to think twice before doing it the next time, if (s)he cannot guarantee a fair and unbiased review.
Massimo: it would fall on deaf ears as this agency states on all their application material (in capital letters, no less) that there are no grounds for appeal and in my communications with them regarding their own errors, they've been nothing but rude and condescending. One of my friends (also a lowly PhD) has had the same experience with them so at least I know that it's not just me. (This isn't a dinky little agency, btw.)
Sorry for the late reply... I've heard from others that it can be tricky for review committees to review non-R01 grants without applying the same set of standards. Think of it in terms of getting stuck in a rut. I've noticed I do the same if I switch from reviewing manuscripts to reading undergrad papers.
When I submitted my first grant (F32; a NRSA postdoc application), my grad advisor warned me of this possibility, and strongly recommended referencing the grant mechanism in the major sections of the application. I thought it was obnoxious, but she stressed that this was a subtle way to remind the committee that R01 standards were inappropriate. I can't say that it was an amazingly successful strategy for that submission, but I suspect that these little reminders can't hurt.
Post a Comment
Go ahead and say whatever you like. Comments will only be removed if they are spam or are of a vicious/derogatory nature.